Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00264)

Oct 13 2004

Dear Jerry:

I am well aware of the difference in the use of "fundamentalism." It
frightens me not at all. I also know what stupid, mind limited "bigotry" is.
I also realize quite well that we may confuse, as you say, our ideas with
the Truth. Now, how is this to be avoided? How to avoid bigotry and the
skewing of "history?" 

I would say: Fortunately: THEOSOPHY and its vehicle the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY establish universality as a basis, and declare that the individual
is always responsible (under Karma) for his decisions and choices. Nowhere
is there established the vestige of a "belief system." In fact it is
discouraged in view of the way sects and religions have historically emerged
from reforms of older creeds. 

Anyone of us can make errors of judgement, and when recognized, they need
not form the basis for a defence. That is where creedalism and bigotry
begin. I mean the defence of a false concept. I find it better for my self
to adopt the view-point that I may be in error in anything I have so far
concluded, and am anxious to be corrected in such cases.  

I think we all seek truth and are dissatisfied with our own ideas if they
are inexact. There is always, for me, a glad welcoming of improvements.
That is why I think consultation (like ours) is so valuable. 

The first tenet of extremely great importance (to me) is the concept that
within the form I call "myself," there is ever resident a "ray" of the
Universal Pure SELF -- the eternal Monad -- the true Ego -- It has been
called an "immortal Pilgrim." It is said to be linked to the indefinable
but always present ABSOLUTENESS . If this is reasonable, logical and true,
then there is no justification for violence, war, terrorism, or any kind of
retaliation. We cannot kill another Monad even if we destroy its present
residence (and take the Karma for that).

The second tent is universal justice: Karma in all things. It is Spirit
acting in matter -- universally and impersonally. Yet it allows for the
latitude of the individual mind since all "evolution" (3rd tenet) is
directed towards the eventual development of full Universal
Self-Consciousness in every Monad. [The Monad in evolution is
Atma-Buddhi-Manas.]

In no way is its (the Monad's) thinking to be individually compromised by
another, or others, or any set of opinions or beliefs. If anyone adopts
such, then to that extent they cease being impersonally "universal," and
limit themselves to their present times, concepts, beliefs, and conditions.


Then, as you observe, "bigotry" arises, and excommunication becomes
possible. Then "brotherhood" disappears and the 3rd Object of the
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is violated: "To Establish The Nucleus Of A Universal
Brotherhood Of Humanity." 

Fortunately THEOSOPHY (to me) enfranchises the mind and gives it the limits
of the Universe in both space and time. It is but natural that each of us
defines (with the Lower Mind) for themselves what his or her particular
limits may be, for the time being. One does not need to "belong to a group
or society" to be judged "theosophical." No such group has the sole key to
the "Kingdom Of Heaven." 

I try, (in considering THEOSOPHY and the SECRET DOCTRINE ) to use only the
ideas of The VOICE OF THE SILENCE in regard to the two Paths: The "Doctrine
of the Heart" (Wisdom), and the "Doctrine of the Eye" (head learning). You
may of course say that is my opinion. Very true. But then what else can a
plurality of individuals who study THEOSOPHY use as a commonly accepted
reasonable basis? What is the reality that THEOSOPHY advocates?

Are we able to (1) select; (2) set down, and record our views thereon; (3)
disprove -- the "fundamentals" of THEOSOPHY ? Do we know what they are- I
mean, make a table of them -- one that several of us may consider? -- So
that we may all be working together on a common understanding -- a "level
field?" 

In using the word "fundamentals" you may see that I use the word in the
sense I gave it: a knowledge of the basis of events, science, facts, etc.
In other words I try to discount any personal views (especially my own) or
opinions.

I would add that to me the more universal and impersonal the ideas, the
safer we may be individually in our comparisons. I found yours most
helpful, thanks. 

In other words, I apply it to my concept of "Truth" (the area of
Buddhi-Manas) rather than all the twists that the lower mind (Kama-Manas)
may give to it. Those are arguments, and if traced back, or extended, they
end in futility because they have no prime impersonal basis.

Theosophical history is (in my opinion) now only to be found in the
documents available, since we (I at least) cannot use the records in the
astral light. Opinions about them are of course many. In my opinion, if we
stick to the documents there is no need for wandering and speculation. 

That is the basis of my position and protest on behalf of HPB and the
Masters, her Teachers, and ours. I was quite specific in my first letter of
protest. I has not been answered, that I know of. If you read the MAHATMA
LETTERS you will see exactly what I protested -- the inequity is plainly
there.

Best wishes,

Dallas

==============================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:01 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy


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