Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00279)

May 12th 1998

Dallas asks:

Dear Bart:

On this subject of race, I sense some confusions.  Can you please
give there references on which you base your statements ?  Then
there is a chance of an accurate answer.

If you wish some sorting out to be done, then we ought to refer
carefully to the 2nd volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, where HPB
carefully explained these matters.  Using the INDEX one can go
through the references to "races," "globes," Rounds," and sense
can be made of the matter.

The physiological heredity has apparently nothing to do with the
heredity of the Kamic (emotional) nature or that of the Manasic
(mind) nature.

In the S D  HPB distinguishes between these three, and states
that the remnants of the Lemuro-Atlanteans are dying out as
"bodies."  The souls that used the early bodies of that race, are
ourselves.

She also speaks of "descending savagery," and of the gradual
dying out of the bodily forms of those ancient strands of early
mankind which are scattered here  and there in isolated areas.
She speaks of two races that died out during her time:  the
Veddhas of Ceylon, and the native Tasmanians.

Greater precision can only be had from the S D which I think is
your best source.  There are no valid "short-cuts."  At least I
have found no reliable ones, although there have been many
articles and books written that are purely speculative.
Dallas.

==============================================

Genially on the subject of "Doctrines."

As I understand it:

>From the very outset the T S was never saddled with any
"doctrines," or "dogmas."  It was to be a free forum where
tolerantly and in a brotherly environment, the 3 Objects of the
T, Movement were to be pursued and students were to help each
other.  I was not to be contentious or doctrinaire.

Theosophy, on the other hand, as the WISDOM RELIGION taught
"history."  That was not "doctrine."  But as the world of thought
in the West had forgotten far more than the East, the statements
made in ISIS, S D, and the articles by HPB appeared very
"authoritarian."  As"doctrine."

HPB went to great pains to again and again elaborate the lattice
of argument and fact, so as to show the coherence and consistency
of theosophical presentations.

She called them "Propositions," so that her readers and students
would feel free to tear them apart if they could.

Her magazines are full of the many questions that arose
concerning them.  Any one who goes systematically through
COLLECTED WORKS of H.P.Blavatsky -- I mean all the volumes can
only but gain an immense respect for her knowledge (and that of
the Masters who wrote through and with her).
Refer for instance, in MAHATMA LETTERS to pp. 203, 263, 31-17,
465-6.)

>From first to last it is consistent. Those who desire to find
fault are welcome to spend their time and effort, but I
personally would rather try and use mine to see how Theosophy can
be applied in daily life.  Refuting specious arguments is quite a
waste of time and proves fruitless in the end.  I like to think:
What will people who read what we write today think of this 100
or 500 years from now ?  What are we trying to do ?  Go forward,
Stay 'put."  Or retrograde ?

> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:50 PM
> From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: Does the Theosophical Society have a Doctrine?


>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
>