Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00473)

Hi Paul, and all of you,

I enjoyed the below.
I think you in a certain sense are right and that you have a point here.
But - I believe one shouldn't generalize like you have done in the below - and the previous (oops) message.

You see - REAL Theosophist are not fundamentalists. and there could be REALTheosophists in any branch of Theosophy, as well as the opposite.

But, I agree so far, that it is a core problem - to the beginners of Theosophy - to get past - any fundamentalistic or fanatical view upon Theosophy -and get hold on wisdom instead.
The wise ones are not a fundamentalists - but are from time to time being accused of being that.
(So again one could read the article "Is Thesophy a Religion?" by Blavatsky- 1888 - for instance at http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm)

But I think, there are only very few if any - of the aggressive kind of fundamentalists or fanatics ( of the militant 'crusader' kind) - in any theosophical organization or group of today. But I could be wrong - being so optimistic....


Hi-ho Hi-ho.....

from Sufilight




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:10 PM
Subject: Theos-World Fundamentalism in Theosophy


> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>