Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00374)

>It astounds me how frowned upon the words
>"superior" and "inferior" are.  As K. Paul Johnson pointed out, these words
>have emotional content all out of proportion to their literal meanings.

The memory of pain and oppression and the "crack of the brutal whip"
aren't easily forgotten by those who've suffered them.


>It is as if the word "inherent" was generally understood to be attached to
>them, unless strenuously denied, so that, if one rather meant to attach the
>word "acquired" before them, one has a difficult uphill climb.  To believe
>in inherent differences between people, as Nazism does, would contradict the
>Theosophical idea of the common root and the identical potential of all
>human beings, but the only alternative to believing in acquired, actual
>differences between people is to regard them all as being identical in their
>actual development.  Prejudice is wrong only if the idea of inherent
>differences between people is wrong, which raises the question of to what
>extent and about what should Theosophy be dogmatic.  Should Theosophists
>have an open mind, for example, to the possibility that there are inherent
>differences between people or should we take a dogmatic stand against such
>an idea?

I think the solution lies in accepting that in our inward parts we are
one, while our personal existence is a varihued diversity. I opt for
appreciation. There is voluminous theosophical material already
available that offers insight and support.

Mark