[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Criticism

Feb 07, 2002 02:23 PM
by Larry F Kolts

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:10:35 +0800 "Gerald Schueler"
<> writes:

> Adelasie, sometimes criticism can be meant to help. One reason for 
> my using "fundamentalism" on these lists (I believe that I was the 
> first to use that term) is to try and get my fellow Theosophists to 
> take an honest look at themselves. My motive was, and still is, 
> compassion. Paul and others have carefully defined fundamentalism, 
> and if the shoe fits ...

I've been thinking a lot more about fundamentalism as applied to
theosophy. I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself find the term
doesn't fit.

To me, fundamentalism includes one or more of the following (usually
several at least)

1-A belief that the scriptures in use are infallible, the divine word
unaltered over the years

2-A belief that those scriptures are literal, not to be interpreted in
any fashion

3-A belief that the canon is closed, that they have the final say, the
fulness of the gospel, and that nothing new will ever be revealed

4-A belief that their sect has a corner on things, a exclusivity of we're
right and the rest of you are wrong, or a least not AS right as we are


1-I do not believe that any theosophical book is infallible. Mistakes are
made. All are human. But I do believe there is more that is right with
Isis and SD than otherwise. In spite of inperfections, I believe that the
corpus of theosophical literature offers a surer path that is found
elsewhere. I also believe that there is much good and usefel to be found
in most of the sacred writings of the world.

2-While SD offers a good outline, it is far from always literal. It's
more like crib notes to a much fuller understanding of things.

3-the "canon" is hardly closed. How many times has the subject of SD vol
3 & 4 been raised. And while there is most likely more there than I'll
ever digest in this incarnation, I hope that at somepoint I'll be ready
for more.

4-Since I am affiliated with ULT. many would suppose that would make me
think exclusive. Not so. I believe that when Robert Crosbie formed ULT he
did so simply because the was unhappy with the programs and policies of
the then existing organizations. He wanted to study theosophy as taught
by the founders and felt the others weren't doing that. But much has
changed since those times. There has been a general return to HPB. So
being a ULT affiliate does not make one exclusive.

Concider this. Steve mentioned other sects. You wouldn't catch a devout
Mormon participating in a list that includes Mormon bashing as it's daily
fair. I also doubt a good S. Baptist would be happy in a group engaged in
higher Bibical criticism.Yet here are believing theosophists, trading
thoughts with people from a variety of persuations.

I still don't know exactly what to classify myself as. Maybe and moderate
conservative theosophist, but not a fundamentalist in my own mind.

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application