Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00451)

Dear Leon and all,

This post is paradoxical, in that it rejects the term fundamentalist 
as a label to describe the attitudes of ULT members, at the same 
time that it vehemently affirms a set of beliefs that are precisely 
fundamentalist by most definitions. To wit:
> 
> First, let me say, there can only be ONE "Theosophy" or "Divine 
Wisdom" -- which can never be reinterpreted. And, therefore, 
Theosophy is the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH. 
Thus, since "There is no Religion Higher than TRUTH" -- not all 
writings by supposed "theosophists" or religious "gurus" 
or "priests," yogis, lamas, metaphysicians, Sufis, spiritualists, 
psychical researchers, kabbalists, etc., contains, necessarily, that 
complete TRUTH... 
> 
The implication of saying that "not all writings...contains, 
necessarily, that complete TRUTH" is that *some* writings DO contain 
that complete truth. Otherwise, why object to those that don't? 
However, the very Theosophical core texts that are regarded by 
Theosophical fundamentalists as containing that complete truth 
*reject the notion* that *any* text could do so. You yourself have 
written words that seemed to admit that abstract theosophia/gnosis 
cannot be contained in books or any text. That attitude, if held 
consistently, could make for modesty and compassion in communication 
with others. But it is not held consistently. Certain texts are 
treated as infallible holy writ to be used as weapons to beat 
heretics into submission (or humiliation.)

> Thus, it follows, one must question every such writing against the 
> fundamental basis of theosophical absolutes -- which their writers 
either have respected or they have not... 

That of course PRESUMES (and it is pretty damn presumptuous IMO) 
that "one" HAS the "fundamental basis of theosophical absolutes." 
If one does, where did one get it? From books? 

snip
> 
that all students of 
> theosophy should start their study at the beginning -- as it was 
given out by the Chohan Masters directly through H. P. Blavatsky and 
her Adept teachers -- since it is entirely consistent with the 
writings and esoteric teachings of all the ancient Masters and 
Adepts from Thoth-Hermes to Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, Paracelsus, 
Lao Tse, Buddha, etc., as well as the Kabballah in its original 
Egyptian, Sanskrit or Hebrew languages -- which are either 
graphically and/or tonally descriptive in themselves. 

That cuts the Gordian knot, to use one of HPB's frequent 
expressions. To assert the absolute consistency of a late 19th 
century body of writings with such a wide variety of earlier sources 
is to avoid the very questions that fundamentalists hate in every 
context. What is the source of these teachings? How were they 
influenced by the life experience of the authors? How did they 
evolve over time? By declaring these questions out of bounds, 
Theosophical fundamentalism treats HPB's writings the same way 
fundamentalist Christians treat the Bible. By erupting into 
bullying obfuscation when these questions are raised, fundamentalist 
Theosophists obstruct scholarly discourse about their literary 
sources in precisely the manner fundamentalist Christians do.

snip

> 
> I hope this will end once and for all the misanthropic comments 

Unless ULT is regarded as equivalent to humanity in general, 
criticisms of its attitudes cannot be construed as misanthropic.

>heard on this list that falsely labels those students who follow 
that advice, as well as ULT in general -- by pejoratively calling 
them "fundamentalists." 

Evidently, Anand uses the term without much reflection about what 
fundamentalism is and is not. I OTOH have devoted much reading and 
reflection to this subject and used the term not as a pejorative but 
as a serious description. Moreover I have repeatedly explained in 
detail what the term means according to modern scholars who have 
broadened its use.

However, it 
> should be noted, that all those students who base their knowledge 
on the "Three Fundamental Principles of Theosophy," as partially 
described in the Proem of the Secret Doctrine, and test all 
teachings against those principles, should be proud to call 
themselves "Theosophical Fundamentalists." :-) 
> 
Here's something I really don't get about fundamentalist attitudes. 
Your rhetorical maneovre above is one I've seen many times from 
Theosophical and Baha'i fundamentalists. It amounts to "WE ARE 
NOT! WE ARE NOT!!! But even if we are, there is nothing wrong with 
being a fundamentalist and we should be proud!" Which reminds me of 
library patrons who insist "I NEVER CHECKED OUT THAT BOOK! And even 
if I did, I returned it on time!"

It would be a lot more honest to reflect seriously on what 
fundamentalism is and is not, and apply it to yourselves to the 
extent that the shoe fits. I have only known a handful of ULT 
associates, and those I knew best were anything but 
fundamentalists. However, the discourse on theos-talk by ULTers and 
the recent assault on me in the Aquarian Theosophist make it clear 
that the basic stance of *some* ULTers is precisely fundamentalist 
according to prevailing definitions. 

Cheers,

Paul
> 
> In a message dated 05/10/05 10:42:50 AM, danielhcaldwell@y... 
writes:
> 
> >Should an "ideal", non-dogmatic, all-inclusive
> >
> >Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
> >
> >these books?
> >
> >
> >
> >Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant,
> >
> >Leadbeater, Tingley, G. de Purucker, Olcott,
> >
> >Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich,
> >
> >Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson, King, Crosbie,
> >
> >Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and
> >
> >other "Theosophical" writers.
> >
> >
> >
> >As well as books by various yogis, lamas,
> >
> >metaphysicans, sufis, spirtualists, psychical reseachers,
> >
> >kabalists, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >I believe that almost all the above named individuals
> >
> >have claimed contact with the "Masters" and all
> >
> >their books could broadly be called "theosophical".
> >
> >
> >
> >Who is to say what and what is not Theosophy or
> >
> >Theosophical?
> >
> >
> >
> >And who is to say what or what is not to be studied
> >
> >and promoted in a Theosophical Society or group?
> >
> >
> >
> >The three major Theosophical organizations (TS Adyar,
> >
> >TS Pasadena and ULT) all feature, study and promote only
> >
> >certain authors.
> >
> >
> >
> >Therefore are these three groups being "dogmatic" or in fact
> >
> >promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy by in
> >
> >fact "limiting" which authors are promoted/studied???
> >
> >
> >
> >Hopefully some food for thought...
> >
> >
> >
> >Daniel
> >
> >http://hpb.cc