Locking the Theosophy Thread

I was a little surprised that the thread was closed, too. It is a luxury to have a Theosophist around to answer questions, especially coming out of the WWII era. It helps to validate history to create a record of ideas as they change over time. If theosophy were to competely disappear suddenly right after WWII (our time) the understanding of that war and of the genocide there would be partially lost. I may have known a Jewish Theosophist in the past, but I am not sure exactly what he believed. Some of this theosophical discussion is filling in some of his DNA for me, so I'm finding it useful for more than just conversation. It is part of my personal history, like weird.

On second thought he never mentioned Theosophy, just reincarnation. Never talked about Blavatsky.
 
dream,

i don't understand your last post at all. not one little bit.

it's probably because i'm a spiritually inferior semite, as if there was such a thing as a semite outside of sociolinguistic theory.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Bananabrain,

Thanks for your post,

I think Blavatsky was a charlatan, too; but I have lots of experience under charlatans. They always exist everywhere. Whenever there is an opening, there is no shortage of applicants to fill their position. It is usually futile to say to someone 'You are in a cult' or 'You have been deceived'. That is my experience, but I am not a persuasive person. A persuasive person might think otherwise.

What I'm thinking is that positive change has to come slowly, like the jacking up of a house. All the mess that charlatans make of people's lives has to be cleaned up slowly or the house comes down. Its like termite damage. Also, like the human body that is learning immunity, for humanity to learn to identify charlatans better, they have to linger in the system. Otherwise somebody new steps into the old charlatan's place.

Thanks,
Dream
 
Path of one,

You said,

"There is a difference between disagreeing with (or not believing in) another religion and saying it is inferior."

--> You are right. There are three issues here.

1. thinking that one's religion is superior
2. saying that one's religion is superior
3. having those opinons cause others to be discriminated against.

I think that many of us think our religion is superior. But, as you say, most of us don't go around saying it. I believe that Blavatsky was caustic in what she said, even though she believed what she said. (Blavatsky was said to be very assertive, even agressive in writing her ideas, and many people have been offended by what she wrote.) It is clear that Blavatsky is angry for what the early Semites did, and I have to wonder if part of her claiming them to be spiritually inferior also comes from that. I do not think that their following re-written scripture justifies us calling it being spiritually inferior.

There is also the issue that Blavasky wrote in the late 1800's. It may be possible that such statements were "politically correct" at that time, and are considered unacceptable today. Another issue is that Blavatsky did not get everything right -- she herself said she made many mistakes while writing her information down. She also had difficulty in writing all of this in English, because her native language was not English, and she was also receiving all of this from people who barely spoke English. I am sure that she would avoid using the phrase spiritual superiority, if she were do her writings today.

Also, Blavatsky had been attacked many times in newpapers and books before she wrote The Secret Doctrine, and she probably had a "bunker mentality" by then. I wonder if the fact that she had been attacked in the press so many times allowed to think that she was justified in using the phrase spiritually superior.

It is hard to explain the feeling that the original scriptures were intentionally changed, giving the people a relgion that she felt contained false teachings. I can see how she would have chosen the phrase spiritually inferior. I can now see how that phrase is a mistake, especially in today's religious climate in our society. What phrase should be used today? Falsified? It is difficult to say.

Theosophy's first rule is the rule of brotherhood, and the allowing of people to believe in whatever religion they choose, even if we disagree with that religion. The second rule is for all of us to be open to discuss each other's relgions, compare them, and see that they all came from a common original source. Blavatsky truly believed in these ideas, but I am afraid that her fervor in pursuing the last point caused to mistakenly say things that go against the first point.

It is unfortunate that people take Theosophical ideas and use them to discriminate against other people. There is the idea that the Nazis took Theosophical ideas and used them to justify their killing of Jews. I do not think that is a fair charge to make against Theosophy. Of course, people disagree with me. I can only hope that these discussions will help to open up communication between Theosophists and such people.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
I think that many of us think our religion is superior. But, as you say, most of us don't go around saying it.
then they are hypocrites and have no business pretending to engage in interfaith dialogue.

my religion is not "falsified", either. you are entitled to believe it is, of course, but don't expect to be able to have a polite discussion about it if that is your baseline.

b'shalom
 
I think that many of us think our religion is superior. But, as you say, most of us don't go around saying it.

I prefer that people do say it, if that's what they think. At least then I know what I'm dealing with. I may be the odd one, but I honestly don't think my religion is superior to another person's. I think it's the right path for me given where I am at spiritually. And that's how I view other people's, as well, so long as it isn't harming another person or trampling someone else's rights (which gets into civil issues).

It is clear that Blavatsky is angry for what the early Semites did, and I have to wonder if part of her claiming them to be spiritually inferior also comes from that. I do not think that their following re-written scripture justifies us calling it being spiritually inferior.

If she was so enlightened, why was she so angry? Because no one else I've read that has been an enlightened being is angry like this. And typically, they are humble about their own views. Furthermore, what exactly did she propose that the early Semites did? And is this substantiated by history or is it just stuff she claimed that has no grounding in anything apparent in the world? Because, no offense, if she's angry about an event for which there is no evidence... that would be delusional by any standard of psychological science.

I mean, we can pretend that it really happened, but it doesn't make it so. I've had many dreams about the ends of worlds that make me sad, but when I wake up and there is no evidence for it, I learn to see it as a message that, whether "real" in some spiritual sense or not, would not justify me being angry or depressed all the time. I'm not extremely enlightened and even I can tell the difference between what's in my head and what is currently happening.

Finally, all sorts of groups of people have screwed over other people. So I fail to see why the "semites" should get some extra dose of anger from anyone, even if they did something "bad" in the past. Join the club of all human beings- every group has its flaws and its past transgressions. I hardly see how bringing anger into the contemporary world about it helps. If it is some far-distant purported history, we should move onward and learn some equanimity.

There is also the issue that Blavasky wrote in the late 1800's. It may be possible that such statements were "politically correct" at that time, and are considered unacceptable today.

No doubt. But I believe that any truly enlightened being would measure their words more carefully, and hold them to a timeless standard, rather than falling into the trap of prejudice of the day. Despite many prejudices in his day, you don't see the Gospels demonstrating Jesus recoiling from the Gentiles. Despite saying he came for the Jews, he still healed and helped and praised the faith of non-Jews. He criticized individuals' behavior rather than demonstrating prejudice against entire groups. And he extended forgiveness to all people, even his own persecutors.

I am sure that she would avoid using the phrase spiritual superiority, if she were do her writings today.

I'm sure anyone that wanted a big following would. It'd at least make it more palatable.

I wonder if the fact that she had been attacked in the press so many times allowed to think that she was justified in using the phrase spiritually superior.

It is unclear to me why being attacked in the press justifies anti-Semitic comments. Surely the entire press were not Jews. I am not seeing a connection. Furthermore, it seems to me that any person who is enlightened and/or is a prophet with some divine message should have more self-control and be more impervious to the opinion of others than your average Joe.

It is hard to explain the feeling that the original scriptures were intentionally changed, giving the people a relgion that she felt contained false teachings. I can see how she would have chosen the phrase spiritually inferior. I can now see how that phrase is a mistake, especially in today's religious climate in our society. What phrase should be used today? Falsified? It is difficult to say.

I dunno. I feel like all religions aren't quite carrying the divine message in a perfect form, and I somehow manage not to be prejudiced against any particular religion. So I fail to see how any person that has become enlightened and truly loves all beings (which to me is the essence of spiritual work) is angry, as you say, at others and feels justified in holding prejudiced beliefs. I see anger at and frustration with others as a flaw in myself- that I am not yet to the point of being able to look at all beings and all events with love and equanimity. As for what phrase should be used, any phrase will be offensive when you tell some group of people that their scriptures were falsified and yet have no evidence that this is so. It then comes across as purely prejudiced opinion.

Theosophy's first rule is the rule of brotherhood, and the allowing of people to believe in whatever religion they choose, even if we disagree with that religion. The second rule is for all of us to be open to discuss each other's relgions, compare them, and see that they all came from a common original source. Blavatsky truly believed in these ideas, but I am afraid that her fervor in pursuing the last point caused to mistakenly say things that go against the first point.

That would certainly seem to be the case. But then, it doesn't really take some sort of prophet or channeler to see that religions come from a common source. I wouldn't necessarily say all religions come from the same historical source (that goes against all I know about religious history and pre-historical evolution of religious thought in human beings) but there is a clear trajectory that ties social change to religious change across time and space. I can say that, with evidence, as a social scientist. I fail to see how getting uber worked up about it and basing such ideas off of a message for which there is no archaeological or historical evidence will promote understanding and love among all peoples, or make people feel safe enough to explore cross-religious similarity and difference. But then, I'm not some seer with a following. I'm just a person who has taught comparative religion in colleges. And I'd like it to stay that way.

It is unfortunate that people take Theosophical ideas and use them to discriminate against other people. There is the idea that the Nazis took Theosophical ideas and used them to justify their killing of Jews. I do not think that is a fair charge to make against Theosophy. Of course, people disagree with me. I can only hope that these discussions will help to open up communication between Theosophists and such people.

I don't blame Theosophy for Nazism. I blame Theosophy for its own prejudiced statements made by its own founder. I can see how such statements became used by Nazis, but blaming Theosophy for it would be like blaming Christianity for the Crusades. All that said, I don't excuse people in my own religion (Christianity and Druidry) for poorly thought-out, offensive, and unenlightened statements. I prefer to face such head-on and say that so-and-so's point about X may be a good one, but wow, so-and-so sure was off-kilter about Y and Z. To me, nothing is so sacred that it escapes criticism when criticism is deserved.
 
I don't blame Theosophy for Nazism.
Poo, I usually agree with most of what you say, but I am sorry, I think you are being way too easy on Theosophy here, you are giving them an unjustifiable pass.

Theosophy is not a religious philosophy free of racial beliefs and perspective. From what I have read from their scripture (if that is what one would call the "Secret Doctrine", and I think I may have already read more of it than Nick has), racial issues and superiority are central tenets.

So isn't it more reasonable to say that they share the responsibility for the development of Ariosophy, which was the early systematic belief in racial superiority. And later Hitler adopted Ariosophy as a central concept of Nazism. He shares the responsibility too, but there is enough to go around.

I blame Theosophy for its own prejudiced statements made by its own founder.
Agreed.

I can see how such statements became used by Nazis, but blaming Theosophy for it would be like blaming Christianity for the Crusades.
Very interesting analogy. I don't want to side track this discussion with another interesting one at this time though :).

All that said, I don't excuse people in my own religion (Christianity and Druidry) for poorly thought-out, offensive, and unenlightened statements.

Right, there are racists of all religions and races.


I prefer to face such head-on and say that so-and-so's point about X may be a good one, but wow, so-and-so sure was off-kilter about Y and Z. To me, nothing is so sacred that it escapes criticism when criticism is deserved.
Good for you !!! And that is what I am trying to do here as well :).
 
And I just realized something which is almost funny, if Nick had speculated that engineers and pilots are spiritually inferior, I would have tended to agree with him :rolleyes:.

However, those groups are self-selected and not racially defined !!!
 
I was a little surprised that the thread was closed, too. It is a luxury to have a Theosophist around to answer questions, especially coming out of the WWII era. It helps to validate history to create a record of ideas as they change over time. If theosophy were to competely disappear suddenly right after WWII (our time) the understanding of that war and of the genocide there would be partially lost. I may have known a Jewish Theosophist in the past, but I am not sure exactly what he believed. Some of this theosophical discussion is filling in some of his DNA for me, so I'm finding it useful for more than just conversation. It is part of my personal history, like weird.

On second thought he never mentioned Theosophy, just reincarnation. Never talked about Blavatsky.

Actually, Dream, I understand your point, and fully agree !!

I believe in an interfaith environment, all ideas should be allowed and respected. Diversity is essential. So even if part of that diversity deals with racist attitudes, it is important to examine it, to understand it, to understand what is wrong with it ! Many of our most important examples are negative ones.

So I agree, Nick, please continue to present your honest views.
 
then they are hypocrites and have no business pretending to engage in interfaith dialogue.

Maybe so, but isn't the world filled with those who divide it into the righteous and damned according to their own religion?

I'm still not sure how Theosophy relates to discrimination against the Jews - but if it was such a major driver behind the Nazi's actions, then surely Theosophy would have been universally condemned by now as racist?

This isn't meant to be a support for Blavatsky, but I am surprised by the general aggression towards Theosophy, even though so far it does not seem to be particularly self-damning - certainly not by comparison to other religious groups.

Is any religion really free of its dirty laundry, and does Theosophy really have more of the latter than anyone else? I've not had a clear answer yet on the latter point, hence I feel that this thread has developed in a very unbalanced manner.

(Perhaps I should add Secret Doctine and Isis Unveiled to my reading list and get a better understanding of the context.)
 
I will throw my two pence worth into the mix, yet again...

Theosophy did not exist before 1896 and Blavatsky... anyone who thinks it does is a fool...

Pre-Theosophy, Blavatsky was a fat Russian bird who conducted sceances for the rich and reputedly had great psychic powers... the sitters were always amazed she knew so much- yet it is documented Blavatsky employed investigators to read "the society pages" and surreptitiously interview friends and associates of her sitters... it is also reported that Madame Blavatsky used to pull chiffon ectoplasm from her mouth and pay people to bang on walls while her clients sat, amazed, before her, convinced these signs were ghostly...

Eventually she invented a religion that she said came from "astral travels" to "secret masters", but, in truth, Blavatsky has made a good income as a fraudulent medium, and had travelled around India and the far east and picked up religions she liked...

She came home, and started Theosophy...

According to Theosophy, mankind, the race, has developed in stages, various epochs, influenced by various planetary rays, each being associated with a new understanding/ incremental advancement of mankind, the race... they borrowed this Epoch concept, like so many others, from HINDUISM...

much like they borrowed... swastikas, and the concept of Aryans... blah blah...

while they borrow whole swathes of tenets from Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, none of these religions are considered perfect in themselves...

there is only one religion, and that is truth...

yet that is not the full story... these rays do not exist and then die... instead... mankind passes on, through the rays...

different cultures and subgroups and countries are associated with certain rays, and each "newer" ray is considered more advanced than the last...

ergo, each religion or cultural group that preceeds theosophy, is flawed, by their reckoning... the people from the next ray... the best... will be a mix of Aryan and Latin and come from... Brazil, and South America...

interesting, no? what was that, did someone say Fourth Reich..? mmm...

acording to theosophy, there is no religion except universal brotherhood, yet, rather than be seven races and seven rays, there are only three races:

they are:
1)Semites: Jews, Arabs, Afghans, Moors, and Egyptians (jews and blacks)
2)Latins/Celts: non germanic europeans and Scots, Welsh and Irish
3)Teutons/Scandinavians/Anglo-Saxons: (the "germanics")

the third is considered the most advanced...

it is said that neo-nazi's find theosophy such fertile territory because theosophy's roots exploit the same themes as does Nazism- aryan superiority, anti-semitism, and heirarchical, dictatorial socialism dressed up as universal brotherhood...

Any adult who believes in the sanctity and truth of Theosophy should be viewed with suspicion. It is evident to all but the most idiotic that their "teachings" are "borrowed light"; ripped off from other faiths, and not even particularly good rip-offs at that.

Anyone who feels Theosophy has merit after its serious investigation should be mocked, as any sane, rational individual who truely does study religion can see what Blavatsky is and what she did, and what Theosophy continues to do for the world- absolutely nothing...
 
Hi Francis, my intuition tells me that the things you are saying are absolutely correct.

Everything that I have read about Thesophy indicates that it is a race based religious philosophy and it provided the foundation for Ariosophy and later Nazism.

Also, from the limited searching that I have done of the "Secret Doctrine" it demonstrates that this "fat Russian bird", as you have referred to Mrs. Blatavsky, had a weak understanding of Biblical concepts and chronology. As an example of this I would point to the chronology of the supposed presence of Shem with Melchizedek at the time of Avraham. This chronology is impossible by simple mathematics.

It seems like Mrs B's main focus was her irrational theories of racial superiority.

Why anyone would want to advocate for this religious philosophy is a mystery to me and I wonder whether they are thinking different things than they are saying in public. :eek: For example, although someone might admit to "spiritual superiority" I wonder if that person also believes in racial superiority but just won't admit in public ? Especially when that person says that they do not say things in public that they believe in the first place :(.

Nick - I would like to get your thoughts on these issues ? And please do not hold back, tell us what you really think :rolleyes:.
 
After all this discussion of Theosophy-of which its racial notions and other mythic elements I agree is a bunch of hooey-I got curious about what its core beliefs really are and found this good description basically presented. Some of it actually makes sense to me.;)
Netscape Search earl
 
Since 'christ consciousness' is the main paradigm of the theosophies perhaps this is why the antipathy, the charge of antisemitism was placed and gurgled amidst it?

a chilling prophecy by the Bulgarian Peter Deunov

"We need to learn the great law that God is our Father, that we have to live like brothers, that no one has the right to kill and there can be no violence. This is what God wrote and we all have to live according to His law. If the contemporary European people do not accept Christ’s Teaching, in ten years there will be a war worse than any other war in human history… And I say, ‘Christ is coming! If people accept Love, war will be cancelled; if they do not accept it, there will be a war and then people will experience even greater suffering.’" (24 June 1923)

Netscape Search

[look up ascended master]
 
Last edited:
Native Astral,

There have been many attempts to bring the ideas of Christ and Christ consciousness into Theosophy. Of course, people who believe in Christ, Christ consciousness, etc., are welcome into Theosophy. But many Theosophists are not Christians and do not use such terminology, and they are just as welcome into Theosophy.

There have been battles between the two groups in Theosophy down through the years, and this in unfortunate. But this is the very nature of Theosophy, to try to bring such disharmonious groups together.
 
What I find strange is that a number of people feel particularly justified in attacking a particular faith here (Theosophy), when surely all forms of faith can be subjected to unnecessary criticism?

It would be unfortunate if this were to continue, especially as Nick the Pilot has done nothing personally to invite the level of ridicule now being posted.

Frankly, it bothers me not what people believe, only how they act - I will respect anyone's right to believe what they will, so long as they can carry themselves with civility and respect.

I should hope more people on the site will agree to some degree, no matter how much they disagree with any particular faith of any other individual here. :)
 
Brian and Path,

I have been doing more research into this entire question. Fortunately, a fellow theosophist has explained the story to me, and I thought I would share it. But first, I need to cover a little bit of basic Theosophical theory.

According to Theosophy, humans on this planet will be born into a total of seven successive races. (Theosophy technically calls them root-races.) There is a bit of overlap in the existence of each race, but not a lot. All of present humanity is part of the fifth race. The Atlanteans were the fourth race, and they disappeared about 11,000 years ago. Our present-day fifth race is called the Aryan race.

We now come to the important part for our particular discussion, which is the beginning of the Aryan race. This occurred about three-quarters of the way through the total time period of the Atlantean race. In the beginning, the Aryans began as one small tribe in one small valley. According to Theosophy, this single tribe eventually expanded until it became all of the humanity of today.

The crux of the issue is the relationship of the original Semites to this first tribe. Theosophy says this first Aryan tribe was the Semites. This brings us to the issue of being chosen. I previously and mistakenly said that Yahweh was/is the patron saint of the Jews. My Theosophical friend has corrected me, and told me this: From the many tribes that were available at the time, the Semites were chosen to be the prototype from which the fifth race was to be created. My mistake was I said their Semitic “guardian angel” chose them and I was wrong. The entire fifth race also has its own “guardian angel,” who is the semi-divine being who did the choosing, and he chose the Semites. The Semites were then put on a special track, developed, and from them sprang the entire fifth-race humanity of today.

Now for the problem. The fifth-race’s “guardian angel” commanded them to “separate” (from the Atlanteans), and they did. But according to Theosophy, they took a dogmatic approach to such “separating,” and orthodox believers in Judaism began maintaining a self-imposed exclusiveness of their Religion. Their belief is that that they are special and must separate themselves from the rest of humanity, This was the major source of friction between the Semites and the other Aryans. “... The Creation is ONE” and organized teaching of separateness is erroneous, thus inferior. According to Theosophy, the early Jews needed to blend into the just-starting Aryan race, and they did not. This has continued down through the centuries into the terrible situation as it is today.

This discussion has been valuable to me, because I now see that Yahweh is the "patron saint" of the entire fifthe race, not just the Jews, which makes sense from both a Jewish and Theosophical viewpoint. I also now see that the Jews literally were chosen from various tribes to create the fifth race, which also fits both a Jewish and Theosophical viewpoint. I am glad to have learned this, and thank everyone for helping me to understand this point.

As a side note, everyone is familiar with casts in the modern-day country of India. It has been said that casts were commanded by the fifth-race “guardian angel” because intermarriage of the fifth-race people with the fourth-race people was threatening to wipe out the newly started fifth-race, so casts were instituted to preserve the integrity of the burgeoning fifth-race. Sadly, the need for casts in India disappeared many thousands of years ago, but casts are still a large part of Indian society. (This also points to the idea that the Jewish and Hindu religions sprang from the same source, a key Theosophical teaching.)

The purpose of Theosophy is to bring people together, not to separate them, and certainly not to give one ethnic group excuses to discriminate against another. Theosophy merely relates the story of why and how the Jews came to have a sense of separateness that persisted after it was necessary, and to explain the hatred the Jews have experienced ever since, at the hands of fellow Aryans. (As you can see, Theosophy claims that Jews are very much Aryans, a very non-Nazi idea.) Theosophy hopes to show the commonality of all humanity, the need for the removal of separateness, which will eventually take us back to the ONE together, arm in arm. This is all a case of mistaken separateness, which can be called the single most important concept within Theosophy.

On a different topic, yes, it is true that Blavatsky spoke very disparagingly about Jews. I feel that she was wrong in using such contemptuous words. But I feel that her anger was directed at the earliest Jewish leaders, not at the Jews people, ancient or modern. Theosophy is devoted to bringing Jews together with all other humans, not discriminating against them. I also feel that if Blavatsky had done a better job of explaining all of this, no one would have accused Theosophy of being a racist philosophy. I can now see clearly why Theosophy is seen as a racist philosophy, I can see how this developed along a clear line of thought, and how it is all a misunderstanding

I have personally seen the hatred that exists towards Jews. One of my best friends is a flaming Jew-hater. I personally see no reason for this, and I see the Jewish people as a nice people. I certainly have no reason to hate them. Yes, I did watch Fiddle on the Roof a few days ago, and the Jews in the movie came across as very nice people. One of the strange things about the rampant hatred of Jewish people in today’s world is the fact that it is unexplained. Theosophy offers an explanation, and a way to solve the problem.

The issue has been raised again and again ad nauseum that Theosophy provided the Nazis the philosophy it needed to claim that Jews are inferior. I put much of the blame on Blavatsky for her very poor choice of words. I would like to apologize to all Jews on behalf of Blavatsky for her poor choice of words. But I do not think we can blame Theosophy for the things the Nazis did to the Jews. A poor choice of words does not justify murder.

Brian, should you ever really feel like reading The Secret Doctrine, let me know, as I have written a study guide for it.
 
Brian,

One more point needs to be made. You have mentioned the disrespect people here are showing to one another's belief systems. I think that the key point here is that people try to understand what the other person believes and is saying. I call it Reaching Out. I can only hope that this thread will help people try to reach out and understand me, as I have reached out and tried to understand them.

You are correct that the first rule of inter-faith dialogue is respect. Without it, inter-faith dialogue is impossible, and merely descends into name-calling, which is exactly what people have been doing here. If nothing else, it is hoped that this thread shows us the mistake of name-calling.

You said,

"...it bothers me not what people believe, only how they act...."

--> That is a good way of looking at it. I believe in reincarnation, yet I allow other people not to believe in reincarnation. I think we all have to take this approach, especially in inter-faith discussions.
 
nick
thanks for that explication, it certainly helped me in my understanding of the separatedness which l have been accused of banging on about; and sorry for the assumption of 'christ consciousness', as l am more familiar with alice bailey and rudolph steiner, what is the analogy with your theosophy? l read a biography of Blavatsky ages ago and came to the same 'charlatan' conclusion but only insofar as 'miracles' are almost universally necessary for gurus and prophets etc to perform so nothing new there. Do you know what her ancestory is? There was a lot going on in Russia at that time and it was quite normal practice to talk of racial stuff then in Victorian times that is not pc nowadays.
 
Brian and Path,

I have been doing more research into this entire question. Fortunately, a fellow theosophist has explained the story to me, and I thought I would share it. But first, I need to cover a little bit of basic Theosophical theory.

According to Theosophy, humans on this planet will be born into a total of seven successive races. (Theosophy technically calls them root-races.) There is a bit of overlap in the existence of each race, but not a lot. All of present humanity is part of the fifth race. The Atlanteans were the fourth race, and they disappeared about 11,000 years ago. Our present-day fifth race is called the Aryan race.

We now come to the important part for our particular discussion, which is the beginning of the Aryan race. This occurred about three-quarters of the way through the total time period of the Atlantean race. In the beginning, the Aryans began as one small tribe in one small valley. According to Theosophy, this single tribe eventually expanded until it became all of the humanity of today.

The crux of the issue is the relationship of the original Semites to this first tribe. Theosophy says this first Aryan tribe was the Semites. This brings us to the issue of being chosen. I previously and mistakenly said that Yahweh was/is the patron saint of the Jews. My Theosophical friend has corrected me, and told me this: From the many tribes that were available at the time, the Semites were chosen to be the prototype from which the fifth race was to be created. My mistake was I said their Semitic “guardian angel” chose them and I was wrong. The entire fifth race also has its own “guardian angel,” who is the semi-divine being who did the choosing, and he chose the Semites. The Semites were then put on a special track, developed, and from them sprang the entire fifth-race humanity of today.

Now for the problem. The fifth-race’s “guardian angel” commanded them to “separate” (from the Atlanteans), and they did. But according to Theosophy, they took a dogmatic approach to such “separating,” and orthodox believers in Judaism began maintaining a self-imposed exclusiveness of their Religion. Their belief is that that they are special and must separate themselves from the rest of humanity, This was the major source of friction between the Semites and the other Aryans. “... The Creation is ONE” and organized teaching of separateness is erroneous, thus inferior. According to Theosophy, the early Jews needed to blend into the just-starting Aryan race, and they did not. This has continued down through the centuries into the terrible situation as it is today.

This discussion has been valuable to me, because I now see that Yahweh is the "patron saint" of the entire fifthe race, not just the Jews, which makes sense from both a Jewish and Theosophical viewpoint. I also now see that the Jews literally were chosen from various tribes to create the fifth race, which also fits both a Jewish and Theosophical viewpoint. I am glad to have learned this, and thank everyone for helping me to understand this point.

As a side note, everyone is familiar with casts in the modern-day country of India. It has been said that casts were commanded by the fifth-race “guardian angel” because intermarriage of the fifth-race people with the fourth-race people was threatening to wipe out the newly started fifth-race, so casts were instituted to preserve the integrity of the burgeoning fifth-race. Sadly, the need for casts in India disappeared many thousands of years ago, but casts are still a large part of Indian society. (This also points to the idea that the Jewish and Hindu religions sprang from the same source, a key Theosophical teaching.)

The purpose of Theosophy is to bring people together, not to separate them, and certainly not to give one ethnic group excuses to discriminate against another. Theosophy merely relates the story of why and how the Jews came to have a sense of separateness that persisted after it was necessary, and to explain the hatred the Jews have experienced ever since, at the hands of fellow Aryans. (As you can see, Theosophy claims that Jews are very much Aryans, a very non-Nazi idea.) Theosophy hopes to show the commonality of all humanity, the need for the removal of separateness, which will eventually take us back to the ONE together, arm in arm. This is all a case of mistaken separateness, which can be called the single most important concept within Theosophy.

On a different topic, yes, it is true that Blavatsky spoke very disparagingly about Jews. I feel that she was wrong in using such contemptuous words. But I feel that her anger was directed at the earliest Jewish leaders, not at the Jews people, ancient or modern. Theosophy is devoted to bringing Jews together with all other humans, not discriminating against them. I also feel that if Blavatsky had done a better job of explaining all of this, no one would have accused Theosophy of being a racist philosophy. I can now see clearly why Theosophy is seen as a racist philosophy, I can see how this developed along a clear line of thought, and how it is all a misunderstanding

I have personally seen the hatred that exists towards Jews. One of my best friends is a flaming Jew-hater. I personally see no reason for this, and I see the Jewish people as a nice people. I certainly have no reason to hate them. Yes, I did watch Fiddle on the Roof a few days ago, and the Jews in the movie came across as very nice people. One of the strange things about the rampant hatred of Jewish people in today’s world is the fact that it is unexplained. Theosophy offers an explanation, and a way to solve the problem.

The issue has been raised again and again ad nauseum that Theosophy provided the Nazis the philosophy it needed to claim that Jews are inferior. I put much of the blame on Blavatsky for her very poor choice of words. I would like to apologize to all Jews on behalf of Blavatsky for her poor choice of words. But I do not think we can blame Theosophy for the things the Nazis did to the Jews. A poor choice of words does not justify murder.

Brian, should you ever really feel like reading The Secret Doctrine, let me know, as I have written a study guide for it.
Nick, I agree with Brian that some here have been too aggressive and one-sided in a blanket dismissal of Theosophy. While from what I've read of Blavatsky, there is certainly room for skepticism of her and her modus operandi and while, as I noted I do not agree with some of its notions, as I also noted, there is much about its view with which I agree.:) I would add that Poo of course has spoken of creation myths here and how they are not perhaps to be taken literally but instead express a deeper Mystery and Truth and the process a particular people have worked out to relate to it. I actually see Theosophy's "myths" in a similar light. take care. earl
 
Back
Top