Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00453)

Oops, sent this first but it bounced. Comments re Theosophy inserted:
--- In whitherare@y..., "Paul Johnson" <pauljo@c...> wrote:
Dear group,

Here is an excerpt from a Baha'i academic about the difficulties of 
rapprochement between the fundamentalists in control of the religion 
and the liberals who have been expelled or put in internal exile. 
The fundie/liberal divide reaches across all religions, and it
appears to divide the ARE too.

[and boy, does it divide the Theosophical movement]

I invite comments on this description of the phenomenon, to which I 
have added my remarks in brackets:

[accusing the leaders of fundamentalism] is not just a polemical 
rhetorical ploy. I urge you to look at the 5-volume work on 
comparative fundamentalisms in world religions edited by Martin Marty 
and Scott Appleby, covering everything from the Hasidim to Sikhism, 
rather far afield from early 20th century Princeton. X has
summarized the Marty/Appleby typology of fundamentalism in the study 
of religion 
thusly:

"1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
secularizing societies

[In Theosophy the reference is to the marginalization of 
spirituality, but that's because Theosophists deny that their belief 
system is a religion]

2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may 
represent itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but 
in fact it picks and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some 
aspects of modernity while rejecting others

[While claiming to honor HPB, Theosophical fundamentalism totally 
ignores large chunks of her writings, including whole works like The 
Durbar in Lahore and Caves and Jungles of Hindustan, plus important 
elements in her so-called major works.]

3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil
[If you don't see HPB and the Masters as we do, you're inspired by 
greed or destructiveness or the dugpas; there's no such thing as 
honest disagreement in a friendly atmosphere]

4) it emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures (and 
thus rejects academic scholarship on that corpus)

[Since the Masters know everything and HPB was their chosen 
Messenger, how dare any so-called scholar take them other than at 
face value]

5) It has a millennialist emphasis

[This one only applies to some offshoots like the Bailey and Steiner 
and Ballard movements]

6) it has an elect, chosen membership

[Fundamentalist Theosophists regard all other Theosophists as enemies 
within the gates]

7) it draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful

[ditto]

8) it maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure
[which in the case of ULT is completely denied despite the obvious 
state of affairs]
9) it has strict behavioral requirements for its people."
[only in the ES and DES to the best of my knowledge]

The bottom line with fundamentalism is the position that you can't or 
shouldn't evaluate the claims of the scriptures by the tools and 
standards of academic scholarship. It all starred with people who 
freaked out over higher criticism of the Bible. When the scriptures 
for which this special status are claimed emanate from HPB and her 
teachers, the fundamentalism in question is Theosophical in nature. 
But the bottom line is the same-- "keep your filthy secular hands off 
our sacred mysteries."

PJ