Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00528)

Thank you, Wes, for not only defending the personal attacks against those of 
us who defied the false and phony iconoclasts on this list, but also 
answering them in such a direct, clear, and matter of fact manner. 

LHM


In a message dated 11/15/02 5:24:47 AM, amerman@theosophy.net writes:

>Brian/Brigitte,
>
><As for "credentials," I know they say yours are close to zero.>
>
>I've really had enough. First of all, you refused to discuss any idea
>seriously with me, and completely ignored my questions and comments, weeks
>and months ago, about the shortcomings of modern science and the gaps in
>its approach to evolution and consciousness. All you seem to want to do is
>bash Theosophy and any attempt to defend it, all the while quoting from
>secondary sources who share your derogatory views. Seldom, if ever, do
>you cite the source Theosophy which you claim is faulty. And, when someone
>(Daniel, Dallas or Leon, for example) quotes Blavatsky or someone who
>supports her to show another side to the matter, you put them down and
>attack them personally, as you most recently did by saying Daniel has "no
>credentials!"
>
>Why not just take an IDEA to task? I don't mean a secondary, latter day
>student's interpretation, well-known or not, but a bona fide idea from
>Blavatsky or her Teachers? If you disagree with Theosophy, why not have 
>the courage to discuss the central ideas: spiritual evolution, karma,
>reincarnation, etc. and their relationships to human lives, needs and
>aspirations today? Instead, you criticize the more abstruse and difficult
>concepts (such as rounds and races, of which you have absolutely NO clue),
>and then garble and misinterpret them to make it seem that they support
>the most heinous of UN-brotherly sentiments and actions!
>
><Bhakti Anada Goswhami , I only know him from his letters, made an
>intelligent impression on me. As for his credentials, I looked them up
>,
>see below.>
><Brian : I posted clearly WHY the letters where typed in
><all caps, I decided to do the most fair I could think of , give this
>< obviously expert person, a voice.
>
>As far as Mr. Goswhami [sic] goes, I don't know nor could care less what his
>credentials might be -- as if he were some sort of authority on Blavatsky!
>Daniel provided the following timely quote from Mr. Goswami, which should
>make it abundantly clear that the latter has absolutely no idea what
>Theosophy is about:
>
>"H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophists and early Aryanists made Sri
>Lanka one of their world headquarters for exporting their militant
>atheism. Aryosophist esotericism in Britain and Germany became
>pervaded with Theravadin Buddhist thought. This 'Aryanism' doctrine
>of voidism and related moral relativism eventually became central to
>the conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich. Theravadin
>Buddhist voidism has not been a benevolent force in history ! . ."
>
>There is so much mere assertion, misinformation and innuendo contained
>just in this first paragraph that I hardly know where to start -- What, for
>example, is Theosophy's "militant atheism?" Blavatsky fought, to be sure,
>against dogmatic religion and religious hypocrisy, but to accuse her of
>"atheism" is the height of ignorance. What is the value of such contrived
>phrases as "Aryosophist esotericism," "voidism" and "related moral
>relativism?" On the surface or to the uneducated, they might sound
>learned, but they reek of academic bullshit. This conclusion is supported
>by the next sentence, that these ideas "eventually became central to the
>conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich."!!!!!!!! What crap, Brian.
>And you have the temerity to bring this man forward on this list and promote
>him as an "authority" on Theosophy and Blavatsky???? I'm sure anyone who
>has ever read Blavatsky with half an eye open could find ample references
>in her writings to refute this garbage. One line from Blavatsky should 
suffice
>as a start: "Theosophy is altruism, and we cannot repeat it too often."
>And have you ever read the first object of the Theosophical Society: "To
>form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction
>of race, color or creed?" [Key to Theosophy, p 39]
>
>Just what is your purpose in "contributing" to this list? To prove that
>there are "experts" in academia who share your views? To dissuade inquirers
>from looking into Theosophy? To attack your least favorite historical
>personages and hope that others will come to share your biases?
>
>Best Regards,
>Wes Amerman

In a message dated 11/15/02 6:57:28 AM, amerman@theosophy.net writes:

>Dear Mr. Goswami,
>
>As I understand from Brian/Brigitte's recent post that you are not well,
>please be sure the following is not directed personally toward you, nor was
>my last note sent to this list. However, as you make many bold assertions
>as facts about Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy, I think it only fair that
>you allow me to respond.
>
>In your letter to Brian/Brigitte, posted yesterday to this list, you first
>make five points of which I will let the first four pass. Then you write,
>5, SHE CONSIDERED THE CRUEL, OPPRESSIVE SO-CALLED 'CHRISTIAN' 
>ENGLISH LESS NOBLE OF CHARACTER THAN THE HARD WORKING LESS-
>EVOLVED OTHER RACES. Stop.
>Where in this article does Blavatsky use the phrase "less-evolved" when
>referring to less "civilized" cultures? Her reference in the article to
>"inferior races" is in direct reference to a contemporary source, Lumholtz,
>whom she then quotes.
>
>You then follow with this astounding statement: NO WHERE IS THERE ANY
>EVIDENCE IN THIS LETTER THAT SHE WASN'T A RACIST. Then you go on 
>about your Caribbean ancestors and the issues surrounding the terrible 
plight 
>of slaves in that region. I don't dispute your facts, but I ask you: What 
does
>this have to do with Blavatsky and Theosophy? Aside from the logically
>thankless task of proving a negative, your statement is backwards. YOU
>are making the assertion that Blavatsky was a racist. I say, "PROVE IT." 
>Set any standard you like, Modern or Nineteenth Century, and show by 
>Blavatsky'swords or deeds that she was anything but a selfless altruist 
>with a love for humanity.
>
>Then you write: SHE CLEARLY CONSIDERED OTHER RACES INFERIOR TO HER 
>IMAGINED 'ARYANS', WITH THE NEGROES AND VEDDA OR AUSTRALOIDS ON 
>THE LOWEST RUNG OF HER IMAGINED EVOLUTIONARY LADDER.
>
> And further,
>
>SHE WAS THE AUTHOR OF A PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS, RACIST THOUGHT 
>SYSTEM, WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY RACISTS WORLD-WIDE, AND HAS 
>CAUSED AND IS CAUSING UNTOLD HUMAN SUFFERING.
>
>Mr. Goswami, just how do you come to these conclusions, either from this
>article or elsewhere? To what statements in "The Secret Doctrine" do you
>refer?
>
>Have you not realized that something besides the ordinary usage of the
>term "race" is meant by the time one gets to the latter part of Volume Two?
>It might be helpful to consider that Blavatsky seems to use the word in at
>least three ways: 1. To refer to the concept of the stream of Monads, as
>they pass through various states of substance called Globes, or Rounds,
>which are analogous to the "principles" of the planet earth. This
>establishes the concept of humanity as a "wave," or "river" of
>consciousness, not the form. 2. To refer to the Continents which the
>Monads inhabit, identified either by time period or location. Thus, the
>First root race was the Imperishable Sacred Land, the Second was Hyperborea,
>the Third Lemuria, the Fourth Atlantis and the Fifth the (current) Aryan.
>You can regard this as "mythical," if you like, but it affirms the common
>humanity of all of us as we share the human form throughout vast ages of
>the history of the earth. 3. To refer to the condition of the Monads as 
they
>awaken to Self-Consciousness toward the latter part of the Third Root Race,
>when the general term "human race" begins to have meaning in a sense we
>can comprehend. And, for all intents and purposes, the entire human family
>today IS the "Fifth Root Race" because the fifth principle, Manas, or mind,
>the thinking principle, is foremost.
>
>However, the problem with most of us humans is that we confuse the substance
>with the form. We think the "Man" is the "Human Form," when it is the
>indwelling "Thinker." There are better and more refined human forms, as
>well as poorly developed ones, to be sure, but we are all spiritual beings 
within
>that use them; more than that, Blavatsky taught that we are all brothers
>and sisters, regardless of outer distinctions (minor variances of form). 
There
>are groups of humans that use one or another of the human faculties better
>than others -- spiritual perception, astral sensitivities and abilities, 
>mental faculties, etc. Those with acute rational minds have sometimes
>erroneously been called "advanced;" those with lesser brain-minds
>"less-evolved." These are misleading conventions, perhaps, and the 21st
>Century will hopefully do a better job than the 19th and 20th in using
>them. But to argue, as you do, that Blavatsky, either intentionally or
>unintentionally promoted "a profoundly dangerous, racist thought system"
>is to promote the most vicious untruth. If people have taken her ideas and
>twisted them to their own evil ends, you might as well lay the same charge
>against Jesus, Krishna or the Buddha! Any partial truth can be turned,
>and when misused, has more power than a blatant lie.
>
>Blavatsky herself put to rest any Westerner's delusions about the
>superiority of his/her "race:"
>
>"If to-morrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to
>re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter
>on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years
>hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations. And it is the
>descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived
>on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would
>fall back into a state of relative savagery. Thus the reason given for
>dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and
>becomes a fallacy." "The Secret Doctrine" Volume 2, page 425 FN
>
>Your last comments are gratuitous baloney at best, backhanded compliments
>if I ever heard them. There are several, but one will suffice:
>IN FAIRNESS HOWEVER, WE MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO ASCRIBE ATTITUDES 
>AND CRIMES TO HER, FOR WHICH SHE WAS NOT GUILTY.
>
>Why bother to try to be "fair?" You apparently know nothing about either
>Blavatsky or her writings, and choose first to deprecate, then damn them
>with the faint and false praise of her alleged ignorance of what she said.
>Again, I challenge you to prove your thus-far unsubstantiated allegations.
>They are untrue and unfair.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Wes Amerman
>