Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00247)

Hello Dallas,

You wrote:

> When I see their nature and character attacked I am forced to respond, and
> attempt to bring back the subject of the proofs available, and,
> consequently, of the respect due to Those who embody that Wisdom. That is
> why I wrote as I did - now, as I have in the past. If slurs are cast on
> their work and teachings and Their actuality, I respond in as strong terms
> as I can. I point to the evidence.
But what was your response to Paul Johnson aside from saying that Indian 
Theosophists would disagree with his points and assert that he hasn't 
responded to Daniel Caldwell's "House of Cards" essay? Actually Paul 
responded to Daniel's essay. He also responded to my objections, which 
are probably archived somewhere. If you have specific errors of fact, 
errors of misreading, errors of interpretation etc., or endeavor to 
point out, or make further comments upon Daniel's or my criticisms, then 
I think you would be doing a service to inquirers into Theosophy to make 
these alternative views known. 
Concerning my comments about the dangers of fundamentalism, you wrote:

> "Fundamentalism," I agree has no place in THEOSOPHY - but then how is
> "fundamentalism" to be defined? Is it words, ideas, or is it some useful
> ideas that give a basis for every individual to exercise their freedom to
> think, to use the Intuition, and to probe the secret meaning of Nature and
> her supportive self all around us ? 
> We don't argue over the fundamentals of mathematics, chemistry, physics,
> engineering, astronautics, biology, etc... we use them and they always
> remain as a background to intelligent and constructive advances in those
> departments of life and science. 
While "fundamentalism" and "fundamentals" are etymologically related 
words, their denotations are quite different. Fundamental is an 
adjective which denotes something that is essential or primary. 
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is a noun, which denotes a world view 
rooted in a religious tradition which has been corrupted so as to 
mistake the words for the actuality and condemns those who do not accept 
the same symbols. The teachings become a base of rigid exclusivity, 
literalism, ignorance and bigotry resulting in tragedies like the 
destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/01; the Christian Crusades to 
reclaim the Holy Land; the book burning and persecution of the Jews with 
the beginning of the protestant reformation; the torture of suspected 
heretics during the inquisition; the endless killings between 
Palestinians and Jews; between Muslims and Hindus; need I go on? You 
might be interested in Charles Kimball's book, "When Religion Becomes 
Evil" published by Harper Collins in 2002 which goes into this question 
into some depth. In his book, Kimball gives five warning signs for the 
potential evil which comes out of a closely held belief system: 
1. Those who put forth absolute claims to truth. "My view is the only 
way to God." This becomes particularly dangerous when the 
fundamentalist begins to believe himself as God's agent. Recent 
comments made by President Bush suggests that he sees himself in such a 
role. 
2. Blind Obedience. Followers loyally complying to a spiritual 
authority. This become dangerous when that authority encourages the 
faithful to lay down their lives to that truth. We find this dynamic 
with those Al Qaida workers who sacrificed their lives in order to 
destroy the Twin Towers, as well as with Jim Jones' followers in Guyana.

3. Establishing an Ideal Time. The idea that a utopian ideal will be 
established in the future. We have for example the rigid Talaban rule 
in Afghanistan that tried to create such a utopia. Here, we have the 
rigid stances of the "religious right" to legally regulate such issues 
as marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research for others.

4. The ends justify the means. Justification for violence based upon 
the protection of ideals, beliefs or sacred space. For instance, the 
centuries of warfare over control of Jerusalem and over Abraham's 
(alleged) tomb. In this country we have the cover-ups concerning the 
sexual mis-conduct of priests. 
5. Declaring holy war. An examples in history is the wanton slaughter 
of Muslims and Jews during the crusades. Today, and we again make war 
on Muslim countries, we have to face the growing Jihad movement against 
the west. Violence engenders violence. 
We are in agreement that fundamentalism has no place in Theosophy. 
However, I submit that so-called Theosophists are just as vulnerable to 
fundamentalist behavior as anyone else. It has been my observation that 
this fundamentalism begins when Theosophists begin to confuse the 
fundamentals of the Theosophical teachings with the truths they point 
to. Perhaps you can think of some instances of fundamentalist behavior 
among Theosophists. If not, I will be happy to help you to recall a few.

So to return to Paul Johnson's TMR: I think it would be missing an 
important point if we ignore the fact that his book is a rather 
self-evident attempt to separate Theosophical history from its own 
self-created myths. I agree with you that his attempt is wanting, but 
it was a bold attempt, nevertheless. 
Best,
Jerry