Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00271)

Jerry Schueler wrote:
> >accept or reject as they see fit), and, more importantly, why.

> Bart, I suspect that most everyone will agree with your statement
> as presented.

	Which is "why" is more important.

> I do. The question then becomes, how much or
> how far can one "reject" or "disagree" and still be a "good"
> Theosophist?  And what does a good Theosophist do when
> s/he discovers that HPB says something about a topic which
> is not supported by proponents of that subject?

	My particular problem spot is the topic of races. It is my opinion,
based on my readings of the primary literature, that members of
different "root races" cannot breed and produce children of any kind.
There's a lot more to it, but a number of other things which are
demonstrably false make sense when looked at in that light, and there is
quite a bit of supporting evidence. Unfortunately, the Nazi's took the
doctrine of the Aryan's being a subset of the current human race,
supported by Leadbeater and Alice Bailey, who both place the sub-Saharan
Africans and the Australian Aborigines as members of previous races (the
Mahatma letters hint at the Aborigines being of the 4th root race, but
all they actually say is that they have the remnants of the CIVILIZATION
of the 4th root race). Yet, many Theosophists firmly believe that there
are members of the 4th and even 3rd root races alive today, and it is
our duty to bring them up to the Aryan level (ignoring that we are LESS
evolved than the 3rd and 4th root race...).

	Bart Lidofsky