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

Re: Theos-World re Theosophical Fundamentalism

Nov 12, 2002 03:48 PM
by leonmaurer

In a message dated 11/11/02 11:38:25 AM, writes:

>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> Have you any idea why the SD was subtitled, "A Synthesis of 
>Science, Religion 
>> and Philosophy?"
>Dear Leon-Gerald:
>Be careful. HPB said on the title page that the SD was a synthesis 
>and reiterated that statement in the body of the book and made it 
>clear in the way the book was written that it as a synthesis and 
>Theosopists violently contend that it is NOT a synthesis. One fellow 
>told me he has a hard time with non-Theosophists who point straight 
>at the word on the title page and ask him how he can steadfastly 
>contend that the book is not a synthesis. A Theosophistr in England 
>went so far as to deny that any of the quotes in the book are really 
>quotes. That does not fit into his belief system somehow. That 
>naughty word on the title page is a hot button issue for 
>Theosophiucal Fundamentalists and none of the rest of us have a clue 
>as to why. It is interesting how people can aggressively filter out 
>plain facts of which they wish to be unawate.

What's to be careful of? (Besides comments laced with innuendoes based on 
statements or questions taken out of context.:-) Curious to know... Also, 
with reference to these comments, what is a "theosophical Fundamentalist", 
and, who and what is "the rest of us"? Is the former the same thing as being 
a "Christian Fundamentalist"? Can it be attributed to one who -- (before 
studying the "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy" as presented in 
the Secret Doctrine) -- entirely understands the "Three Fundamental 
Principles" and accepts them (even tentatively) as being the absolutely 
unconditionally valid basis of all that follows? Under those conditions, 
mightn't one consider such a person as a "Fundamentalist"? If so, why do 
some people use such a designation in a pejorative sense? Do they, if they 
consider themselves non fundamentalists, interpret the SD based on some other 
principles? If so, what are they? Did HPB present the Three Fundamental 
Principles as being theoretical (as she claimed the rest of the book should 
be considered) -- or as a factual basis (which one could accept or not) upon 
which all the concepts in the SD rested upon? Can we assume, then, that if 
one could not find another set of fundamental principles that contradicted 
the "Synthesis" (expressed consistently and without contradiction from every 
imaginable angle in the SD) -- that this "fundamentalism" would be a solid 
ground to stand upon in all further considerations as to the true nature of 
reality? If so, wouldn't it also be a reasonable basis to assume that the 
metaphysics of rounds and races, as explained in the SD, was also consistent 
with the true nature of reality? If not, what's the alternative origin and 
history of the human species, along with the involution and evolution of the 
consciousness and matter that, together, serve as the basis of its being? 
Since, apparently, HPB left very little room for interpretation in all her 
teachings, why shouldn't all theosophists who accept the SD (supplemented by 
her other writings) as being a synthetically true and consistent scientific, 
philosophical and religious basis of universal as well as human genesis and 
history, be proud of being considered as "fundamentalists"? Wouldn't it also 
be wise to check the meanings of the word "Synthesis" before we begin to 
comment on it with reference to its usage in the subtitle of the SD?

[Back to Top]

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