Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00124)

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> Whether our Nazi members are right or not in insisting Theosophy is 
> Nazism, you are rght that the Theosophy of Blavatsky is profound. 
> The neo-Theosophy of Leadbeater, though, would have to be 
> characterized by a less flattering set of adjectives, IMO.
Not to mention Alice Bailey's, which was probably a far more direct 
influence on Naziism than Blavatsky's, Leadbeater's, or even Steiner's. 
As I have pointed out before, much of what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas 
write about the races makes MUCH more sense if one looks at the monadic 
and physical evolution of humanity as separate paths (instead of adding 
on their existing houses, the monads build brand new and better houses, 
so to speak). Therefore, when they speak of groups being in the 4th or 
even 3rd root race, they are not referring to bodies; they are referring 
to the population not living up to its potential, not using the 
faculties they have. But all human beings can use faculties up to the 
5th root race simply by choosing to do so, and all have the potential of 
developing even further (though not all have the ability to choose to do 
THAT, at least not yet). When a culture does not encourage the use (or 
transcendence) of the rational mind, then the usefulness of incarnating 
into that culture is lessened, and fewer people will incarnate into that 
culture. The physical descendants of those of that culture may survive, 
and the culture may survive as a memory, but as a museum piece, 
something dead, not something alive.

Bart Lidofsky