Theos-Talk Archives (August 1999 Message tt00042)

Art Gregory writes:

"I think some
utopianism wouldn't hurt either. Some of our Athroposophic friends have
been working at social service experiments for a long time and deserve
credit!"

As a new member of this list, I beg to disagree somewhat, whilst sharing
Art's dislike of 'sectarian' Theosophy based around personalities and
obscure disagreements.  However I have come to be suspicious of socially
engaged religion, whether it be the censorious, crusading populism of the
fundamentalists (including the 'creationist' School Boards cited by Dallas)
or the equally censorious and in many ways more insidious 'liberal'
theology - I say more insidious because it uses the language of
'inclusiveness' and sickly sentimentality to impose the tyranny of 'correct'
opinions.

In the Anglican (Episcopal) tradition, certainly, 'liberalism' has destroyed
beautiful language in the name of 'equal opportuinities'. The more 'liberal'
the Churches become the more empty they are.   Jewish friends tell me that
liberalism has done the same to their literature.  Socially engaged Buddhism
is the spiritual equaivalent of mushy peas, as is New Age greenery, with
which it is allied.  Recently His Excellency the Dalai Lama told 'The Daily
Telegraph' that westerners should strive ton understand their Christian
roots before studying Buddhism.  He also said that two men could love each
other spiritually, and that this was a very high form of love, but that to
express it sexually was against the Tibetan Buddhist ethos.  'Socially
concerned' people in the West tend to project their liberlaism and cultural
reliativism onto Eastern traditions, which means they learn nothing of
value.  They do the same with American Indian traditions, to the fury of
some tribal elders.

I fear that, given the current intellectual climate in the English-speaking
world especially, the bias of such 'utopian' consciousness would be towards
liberal-left sentimentalism and the culture of 'rights'.  Theosophy is not
compatible with egalitarianism, because throughout history it has assumed
that there are men (and women, occasionally, like HPB) who have special
powers of spiritual insight unavailable to the mass.  I therefore conclude
that Theosophy itself cannot be utopian. Indeed it points in the other
direction, for utopianism assumes the perfectability of man and places
worldly considerations before things of the spirit.

At a personal level, I am very interested in politics and scour the
newspapers voraiciously every dday for obscure pieces of information about
obscure states or peoples.  I can see that some Theosophists can be called
to political action, but I cannot see that Theosophy can itself be
political, because it must transcend privately held political beliefs.  If
anything, it is conservative in a cultural (rather than political) sense,
because it is about the study of ancient cultures, and because it empahsises
tradition and continuity, and because it appeals to explicitly to the few
and not the many.  It is explicitly anti-utopian, because it realises that
there is no such thing as 'equality' and that attempts to create it always
lead to levelling-down.  It recognises too that ancient wisdom is a
privilege not a right.
Best Wishes.
Aidan



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.