Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00598)

May 23 2005

Dear Reed:

Re: “FUNDAMENTAL (ISM), (IST), etc...

When I wrote on this I desired to present the meaning as a dictionary
meaning and not as an improper and hazy definition used to indicate people
and sects with closed minds of various kinds.

I use the word, and interiorly, I hold to the true meaning of the inclusive
idea which points to truths that all will subscribe to if they think about
them and verify them for themselves.

What are the BASICS ? 

In the past 130 years we have still got “originals” of the TEXTS as well as
photographic copies of those “originals,” and, in addition, we have had
these “originals” placed on Internet and CDs, so anyone can have and use
them.  

Laws, facts truths which anyone can verify – which demand no credulity and
seek no “faith.” 

What does anything rest upon? A FOUNDATION.

Lets look at THEOSOPHY 

If we were (all who are interested) to meet together at one of the ancient
circular theatres where the “stage” is in the center we might expect tofind


1	In the center of the stage a Golden glow indicating the Ancient
Lodge. We are not able to discern anyone clearly therein.

2	at its rim (for us to see) are HPB, Olcott and Judge. They hold the
“original writings and teachings of THEOSOPHY” in their hands. 

3	The rest of us – their students sit in circular rows around that
“Stage”

4	We all have got the same books available to us as they were
originally written. Those who have and use them sit near the front facing
the stage.  

5	As we move around the seats and go towards the back we may note in
this imaginary forum that not all have the “foundation” books, or do not
study them very often.

6	Some we note have substituted for the basic books, interpretations
and manuals that “explain.” And consider the authors of those as
“authorities” valuable and sound, but, but they have not verified this for
themselves. 

7.	The whole theatre cannot hold the rest of those interested in
THEOSOPHY who have come to it through the agency of the Internet and
recordings on CDs. But this number has expanded the penetration of
theosophical ideas and doctrines enormously. 

And so on.

As we continue our round we find that there are groups forming among those
who attend where particular books are and have been chosen for that
community of members or students, for their selected study and attention.

We also notice that the original organization the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
founded Nov. 17, 1875 in New York has become sub-divided.  

There is a THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY that uses “Adyar” as a HQ There is another
that refers to “Pasadena” as their HQ. There is a dispersed group thatcall
themselves “associates of U L T,” and while they have no “center”as such,
they employ the “Basic Teachings of THEOSOPHY” as a basis for their common
work and study.

While this “situation report“ is obviously brief, shortened and inaccurate
in detail, it can give us something to think about.

The main idea to dwell on I think is: “Am I studying “original” THEOSOPHY
or am I studying something filtered by another’s thoughts and ideas? 

Best wishes,

Dallas
 
=======================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:reed3@blavatsky.net] 
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:54 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] RE: what is a fundamentalist?

Dallas,

I do not see all your email on the subject. I may have seen the one 
below. I save many of them in my private "dallas" folder. I only catch a 
whiff of the conversations of this type on the internet. Besides not 
having time for too much, I am genuinely much more interested in the 
philosophy itself than in the history of the movement. And we certainly do 
not find the study of that history to be very uniting.

In that "whiff" that I have caught, it does seem to me you have been 
repeatedly and improperly painted with a casual broad brush loaded with 
associations that are undeserved and unfair. So I finally put in my two 
cents to clarify the issues.

The basic idea that I would draw attention to is that words have not only 
denotations, but also connotations, and those connotations may be 
various. The use of terms that does not fairly take all this into account 
can turn into the tool of the demagogue - it assists the demagogue in 
manipulating by words.

As for the details of your thoughts below I see you mention that there are 
positive meanings to the word "fundamentals". Certainly so. I think that 
is related but quite exactly the issue. The label here is 
"fundamentalist". That is something related but different. It has extra 
associations in addition to those of "fundamental" that are not 
good. Those extra associations need to be placed on the table and clearly 
and calmly noticed.

I think, in fairness to you and others, the term should not be used in 
debate the way it is.

Best,

Reed

At 05:49 AM 5/20/2005, you wrote:
>May 20 2005
>
>Reed:
>
>I tried to emphasize what you' write earlier -- did you see it?
>
>
>
> THREE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS.
>
>There are more than one definition of FUNDAMENTALISM.
>
>The rules of arithmetic are FUNDAMENTAL to all mathematics. No one
objects.  

>So are the discoveries of the laws of many PRIMARY sciences that are not
>speculative or secondary.
>
>With Science we have to take changes and individualism into account.
>
>Chemical equations are now shown with two reverse arrows for the reason
that
>NOT ALL atoms or molecules react to form compounds. Has anyone investigated
this resistance? {Is it all "Impurities " Or do some atoms refuse to
>interact ? }
>
>But when we engage in discussion, the human emotions and personal thought
>gets mixed up there with selfishness and all the vices that selfishness
>creates -- immediate DEFENSIVE attempts to protect and repel, emerge.
>
>Equals: confusion of meaning.
>
>I try to be careful and make it clear that in FUNDAMENTALISM there are at
>least two viewpoints.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Modern Theosophy (ists?) has demonstrated likewise, in its short history,
>it's own distasteful brand of zealotry. In my opinion fundamentalism with
>all its sorry work needs no re-defining for Theosophists sake.
>
>HPB and the Mahatmas can not be happy supporters of the Christian and
>Islamic brands of "fundamentalism" any more than we can.
>
>----------------------------------
>
>“Verily, the fiendish spirits of fanaticism, of early and mediæval
>Christianity and of Islam, have from the first loved to dwell in darkness
>and ignorance; and both have made
>
>" the sun like blood, the earth a tomb,
>The tomb a hell, and hell itself a murkier gloom!
>
>Both creeds have won their proselytes at the point of the sword; both have
>built their churches on heaven-kissing hecatombs of human victims.” -[S
>D I, xli]
>
>
>
>"...only the unshackled Spirit shall see the things of the Spirit
>without a veil. No untaught amateur could ever rival the proficient in
>this branch of research; yet the world's real Revelators have been
>few, and its pseudo-Saviours legion; and fortunate it is if their
>half-glimpses of the light are not, like Islam, enforced at the
>sword's point, or like Christian Theology, amid blazing faggots and in
>torture chambers." [K.H., - Letter 111]
>
>
>
>"I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds
>of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a
>power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It
>is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in
>those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search
>out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of
>humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods
>and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look
>at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism.
>
>"It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man;
>it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that
>hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better
>or more moral for it. It is belief in God and Gods that makes
>two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive
>them under the false pretence of saving them. It is not man ever ready
>to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the
>crime — voluntary victim of an illusionary God, the abject slave of
>his crafty ministers?
>
>"The Irish, Italian and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see
>his family starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope.
>For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste,
>Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and to-day the
>followers of Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other's
>throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective
>myths. Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto
>that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of
>Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false
>gods." [K.H., Letter 88]
>
>--------------
>
> RE: Fundamentalism as a point of discussion?
> What can we use as a basis ?
>
> "Fundamentalism" to me implies the use of basic ideas from which the
small
> details of present operations, and a future continuity are always
derived.
>
> The mindset of a true fundamentalist is to assist everyone around him.
>
> It is also educative since it demands that the basic ideas of life and of
> progress be known and discussed. In this way it is generous, kind and
also
> tolerant.
>
> It makes no demands on anyone else than ones' lower self. It is not
> judgmental.
>
> In effect, it means we operate from the same shared planes and ideas of
> knowledge -- some call it truth, others may call it virtue.
>
> It then serves to abridge lengthy explanations.
>
> But in no way ought it to imply that free-thought is to be limited. Nor
> does it imply we ought to be continually judging others and their
motives.
> It should never encourage any kind of prejudice.
>
>
> What are we humans? : Thinkers ! At least at 3 levels:
>
>
> 1 we have memories of what has happened, [ Past ]
>
> 2 we observe now, and [ Present ]
>
> 3 we think of alternatives on which we will base our decisions.
> [ Future
]
>
>
> If we seek to put everyone into the same straight-jacket it results in
> failure. That is (I believe) because THINKING has not been taught
> systematically.
>
> THEOSOPHY as I see it, points always to the ever-acting law of Karma.
>Karma
> provides freedom for everyone and everything. We are always dealing with
> immortal Monads whose independence cannot be limited. How do we make
> adjustments is the real question to ask.
>
> What then is "black and white" -- Motive. The reason why anyone does
> anything. It is either selfish and isolating, or it is impersonally
>generous
>and universally kind. I think this definition is the great
stumbling-block.
> We have not been trained to think in that direction. But there are good
> reasons for it.
>
> In the survey of evolution given by THEOSOPHY it is shown that the
Universe
> is made up of innumerable "life-atoms." ( Monads -- consisting of
> permanently united SPIRIT / MATTER / MIND minute elements) . These
>elements are immortals -- they do not die but continually progress, ever
>moving all together forward, as they learn through experience.
>Eventually, over
> millions of years, each such "life-atom"/ monad becomes independent as a
> "feeler," as a "thinker" and finally as a Human.
>
> There, as in all of us, emotion and thought co-exist closely. Our present
> task is apparently to discover how to separate these two and make good
use
> of them. They are our tools and not our masters. On this one point most
> psychologists have trouble.
>
> It is because of this that THEOSOPHY teaches the difference between the
> Lower and Higher Self. In an ancient illustration the Higher Self was
> compared to a bird sitting at the top of the Tree of Life. Below it, it
> brother, a second bird lives and eats the fruits of living. The lower
bird
> lives and works and as it meets problems, it asks for the advice of the
> Superior bird who has acquired the wisdom of experience and Perfection.
>
> But for us, looking at our present -- all as humans, the journey to
> Perfection is now only half done. The more difficult aspect begins.
The
> "feeling nature" has realise that the "thinking nature" is its friend and
> not its enemy. Both depend on each other.
>
> The rest of the effort as the Lower Mind is led upward, will have to be
> actively guided by the intelligent thought and control of the Human-Monad
> for itself in the company of all the rest. We are at the beginning stage
of
> this effort. We live in emotional, sensitive and "feeling" forms. In
> effect we have created them by drawing together compatible assistants in
>the
> form of the many "life-atoms" of lesser experience. We have become their
> guides and teachers. They depend on us, and as we make choices, they
alter
> and adopt them.
>
> It is for this reason that "bad choices" have to be first identified by
us,
> and then avoided. We mold those "lesser experienced monads," and they,
> attached to us, become the carriers of the "bad Karma" we have imposed on
> them by those molds. [ And similarly, it works in the reverse way for
> "good" Karma.]
>
> This is the reason for drawing attention to virtue as motive vs. vice as
> selfishness. Every great religious reformer of whatever age has said
this.
>
> What effect should this information have on us ?
>
> This means the smallest atom and the wisest Mahatma are actually
>differences
> in degree of knowledge, function and WISDOM. The will to improve is made
> active and paramount. It works only through open cooperation and selfless
> interaction. We have to decide to live impersonally for all. Thus we help
> and are helped in return.
>
> The atoms work with each other according to general laws of attraction
and
> repulsion that are innate to their quality. The function of all atoms
and
> forms is to aggregate (as skandhas) and provide vehicles for higher
> intelligences to reside therein. There is compatibility between these
> aggregations and the single Monad which serves as a central point for
them
> -- It is that which we call: "I" in us.
>
> It has among other duties one that is automatic -- to help and arouse in
> them a higher degree of intelligence and consciousness while they are
doing
> their duties each in its own way. Thus improvement is cooperative and a
> constant effort.
>
> For such an enormous Universe as ours the nature of cooperative
assistance
> is a vita one -- as the amalgamation and the assimilation of every Monad
> with the rest is continuous.
>
> The lines of force and of benevolence or of opposition run all through
> Nature. Which will we choose to assist?
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Best wishes
>
>Dallas
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Reed Carson [mailto:reed3@blavatsky.net]
>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:18 PM
>To: study@blavatsky.net
>Subject: [bn-study] what is a fundamentalist?
>
>Friends,
>
>For some years now - as far as my knowledge goes - there is a label that
>some Theosophists have used to impugn and assail other Theosophists. Those
>first Theosophists call the others "fundamentalists". They use the term
>disparagingly. The so-called "fundamentalists" seem to me to struggle with
>the term but do not, in my opinion, exactly analyze it for the misleading
>rhetorical trick that it is. Shining a light on this term takes some
>effort and care. I will try to expose this trick of language for what it
>is - explain why it is deceptive, even erroneous - and touch upon some
>values in the process.
>
>Since there are many newcomers on this list, some background is necessary.
>
>Not long after HPB died, some students twisted, distorted - indeed even
>changed - some of her teachings. Happily some students arose and quite
>rightly emphasized a focus on the original teachings of HPB. Unfortunately
>that division still remains today.
>
>But now - how the name-calling works. Those in the lineage that modified
>the teachings now refer to those who focus on the original as
>"fundamentalists". Of course there is - in a certain sense - a correctness
>to this label. That is why the name calling has some effectiveness. The
>fundamentalists focus on the original teachings of HPB. They are quite
>right to do so. This list does also. Indeed this list is here today
>because of efforts of nameless decades of students all attempting to keep
>the original message of HPB alive.
>
>But very importantly there is something wrong with the label. In the world
>around us those who are labeled as "fundamentalists" also tend to have what
>seems to others as "closed minds" and sometimes in the eyes of others they
>do not "think things out". Inevitably these undesirable and almost
>unavoidable connotations of the term "fundamentalist" rub off by
>association onto those who seek the truth by going to original sources.
>
>Because the undesirable associations with the term almost unavoidably are
>linked with the good aspects of the term - the term is confusing. My own
>observation is that those who do the name calling are the most guilty of
>the indirect implied faults that they would hurl at others. This makes the
>use of the term "fundamentalist" even more unfair, ironic, and
>inappropriate.
>
>In sum - the use of the term "fundamentalist" is a rhetorical trick. It is
>a device. It muddies the water rather than clarifies the issues. It hurls
>implicit insults that are not directly stated. In yet shorter terms - to
>use such a term is demogogic. That is wrong.
>
>Therefore, if we seek for truth, then we should avoid the use of this
>label. It improperly denigrates - by trick of language - those who seek
>for truth.
>
>________
>
>On this list we normally focus on the teachings themselves of HPB. We
>leave to others the absorption into the distracting details of Theosophical
>history. However such an approach of "purity" may sometimes do an
>inadequate job of defending HPB.
>
>So the next letters on this list violate our usual standard in order that
>the newcomers can see some of the issues. We like to see HPB defended.
>
>Reed Carson
>