Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00531)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:
> 
> > > A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a 
> > > return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those 
> > > principles, and often by intolerance of other views and 
opposition 
> > to secularism. 
> > > 
> ULT, Point Loma should criticize Blavatsky's writing in their 
> publications. They should condemn her smoking, non-veg, short temper 
> and bad English.


Dear Anand,

Why should they? Have you read the following excerpts from letter 19 
to HSO of "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom" (first series)? If 
you have, can you tell me why was it that they chose her as their 
direct agent, notwithstanding her many idyosincrasies?


"One of the most valuable effects of Upasika's mission is that it 
drives men to self-study and destroys in them blind servility for 
persons. Observe your own case, for example." (LMW, I)

"Try to remove such misconceptions as you will find, by kind 
persuasion and an appeal to the feelings of loyalty to the Cause of 
truth if not to us. Make all these men feel that we have no 
favourites, nor affections for persons, but only for their good acts 
and humanity as a whole. But we employ agents—the best available. Of 
these for the past thirty years the chief has been the personality 
known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very 
troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no 
likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come—and your 
theosophists should be made to understand it." (same source as above)

"To help you in your present perplexity: H.P.B. has next to no concern 
with administrative details, and should be kept clear of them, so far 
as her strong nature can be controlled. But this you must tell to 
all: —With occult matters she has everything to do. We have not 
abandoned her; she is not `given over to chelas'. She is our direct 
agent." (same source as above)


There are fundamentalists of many denominations. For example, when I 
visited Sri Lanka last year I was told not to use the words "God" 
and "soul" in my talks as they were not accepted by the Buddhist 
majority in that country. Buddhism, as you know, is a state religion 
in Sri Lanka, with all the ensuing problems that such a state of 
things entails. I discovered that even Buddhists can become 
fundamentalists.

When I spoke at an university in Jakarta, in 2002, a similar 
cautionary advice was given to me: "Do not attack the Prophet and do 
not criticize the Quran." To my surprise, my talk (in English) was not 
simultaneously translated, the chairperson giving just a "gist" of it 
at the end. I could, however, have an idea of how many students were 
able to understand my talk by their (positive) reaction to one or two 
Nasrudin stories mentioned!

Where does fundamentalism arise? Is it from a sacred text or a 
hallowed book? Because fundamentalist Christians have made a mockery 
of the Christian tradition, does it mean that there is no more 
theosophia in the Bible?

I have written all this just to say that I beg to disagree with your 
above statement.

Namaskar,

pedro