Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00375)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> So you've met fanatically liberal Theosophists, who ferociously 
> denounce anyone who doesn't look at HPB the same way they do?

Why, yes, on this very forum, for example. What I'm saying is that 
it's entirely possible for a liberal to be fanatical in his or her 
stance, especially when one is guilty of imposing one's will over 
another. So what becomes of a liberal who insists that their 
perspective is right? I see liberally-oriented people attacking 
others and insisting that their point of view is right but for whom?  
It is right for them, maybe not for others. Regardless of whether 
one can find a fanatic in a liberal or a fundamentalist, the 
difference that makes them non-fanatical is tolerance.

It is my impression that your definition of a fundamentalist is the 
same as a narrow-minded fanatic. Am I correct?

If so, I do not necessarily see it that way all the time. Suppose, a 
person is new to Theosophy but he or she wants to stick with the 
basics, the fundamentals, ie. The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled 
and then study Olcutt and Judge. Would you call this person a 
fundamentalist because he is beginning with Theosophy 101? That is 
an insult.

Suppose, a person is well-aquainted with Theosophy but he or she has 
made the free-will choice to stick with the fundamentals. Do you 
think this individual is automatically classified as a 
fundamentalist, a title worthy of scorn and harsh criticism?

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the fundamentalist stance if the 
objective is to keep the original teachings intact without 
distortion. I appreciate the liberal stance because it encourages us 
to think outside the box and realize that Theosophy is not a static 
teaching but a dynamic one. The liberal keeps the fundamental on his 
or her toes by making sure Theosophy does not turn into a dogma, a 
dead doctrine. This is a more enlightened approach that a liberal 
can bring to Theosophy. And tolerance is the key that unites both 
sides.

> But since fundamentalism insists on there being one right
> interpretation that must be recognized and enforced, no
> fundamentalist can attain such mental freedom. "We true believers"
> must always reach the same conclusions.

No argument there but that's when fundamentalism degenerates into 
fanaticism.

> But in religious context the liberals are always *struggling for
> the right to their own individual opinions and interpretations* and
> fundamentalists are always *struggling to invalidate the opinions
> and interpretations of everyone who doesn't share their dogmas.* A
> huge difference, and the latter kind of fanaticism is a far more
> dangerous thing.

This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. Ever heard of 
it? There's a good link at http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-
blindmen.html that says it all.

Independent thinkers aren't suppose to struggle, are they? Is the 
struggle based on ego validation as some have alleged? Or something 
higher? A spiritual dissatisfaction that there's more to Theosophy 
than meets the eye. Or something lower, a motive to discredit 
Blavatsky and all who follow in her footsteps?

> To bring it down to cases: yes, you could use the word "fanaticism"
> to describe either a Taliban fundamentalist or a liberal Unitarian
> activist. But what is the relative danger each poses to other
> people's rights and freedoms?

Taking away one's freedom of choice through imposition of one's will 
over another. And that, is no true Theosophist, in my book.  
Perhaps, a more accurate term would not be fanaticism but separatism 
which has been going on for over 100 years since HPB's passing.

My all-time favorite quote of HPB's is: "...All original thinkers and 
investigators of the hidden side of nature, were and are, properly, 
Theosophists ... Be what he may, once that a student abandons the old 
and trodden highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path of 
independent thought – Godward – he is a Theosophist; an original 
thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with 'an inspiration of his 
own' to solve the universal problems..."

For the liberal, independent thinker, this ought to be a piece of 
cake to think outside the box but for the fundamentalist, independent 
thinker, it's a challenge not to distort the teaching while being 
open to new ideas. Still, it's a challenge to think about Theosophy 
in higher and deeper layers for both the liberal and the 
fundamentalist.

What does it profit the liberal or the fundamentalist to be stuck on 
the lower mental planes? That's what I meant by mental 
crystallizations. They've hit the proverbial wall and neither type 
can go any higher. Fundamentalists aren't the only ones susceptible 
to this mental disease.

Cheers,
MNS