Locking the Theosophy Thread

[earl]

I've read a lot re Blavatsky on the web the past few days. Some say 100% charlatan, some 100% psychic, some say bit of both. Her bio indicates that even as a kid she had ernomous curiosity and a very vivid imagination and story-telling ability and claimed to "see" things others could not. As an adult, she studied voraciously a multitude of arcane subjects. As to the mahatmas, I see that a book came out in the 90's claiming to have tracked various real-life personages whose spiritual teachings made up the amalgamated messages of the mahatmas. Sure, some of her ideas may have come to her "chanelled" from "beyond." My guess, though, was that her grand conceptualization came about through intuition and a remarkable intellect, (with perhaps a smidgeon of psychic insight thrown in). and, perhaps, in order for it to be seriously considered she had to peddle it as "from beyond." All in all, I think she was at least the Victorian version of Ken Wilber in her attempt to synthesize a grand schema attempting to unify Western esoterica with Eastern notions and that is itself, true or untrue, a rather remarkable undertaking. I'd imagine, though, that some of her notions, such as re to the Jews, probably were a function of her prejudices. earl

 

[earl]

Interesting short interview with Michael Gomes, historian of "fringe" religious movements reminding us of the positives Blavatsky contributed:
Netscape Search earl
Heck, in the interview he mentions Frank Baum, author of the Wizard of Oz was a fan. As A Kansan, have to notice that.

 

[Avi]

Earl has brought forward some interesting new information which I look forward to studying and responding to.

I am travelling for the next week, but will try to keep up on reading and respond as soon as possible.

But I would like to make one comment related to Nick's point about disrepect. As I learn more about Theosopy, my understanding of its foundation on racial theories has increased. The link to Ariosophy and later Nazism continues to increase. Why would I possibly respect a religious philosophy which led to the greatest mass genocide in the history of mankind ? This is not a question of my respect for Nick as a poster on an interfaith website, it is an issue of history and religious philosopy. If Nick can voice his opinions about racial and spiritual superiority with such openness, why can't I give my honest opinion about Thesophy ?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

nativeastral,

What do you mean, you have been accused of banging on about separatedness? Did you have a bad experience discussing this with someone?

Both Rudolph Steiner and Alice Bailey started out as Theosophists, but later branched out and started their own philosophies and series of books. In my humble opinion, both Steiner's and Bailey's approach was to bring Jesus into Theosophy. I call their philosophies Theosophy + Jesus. As I have said before, many people have tried to bring Jesus into "mainstream Theosophy," but without luck.

You said,

"...'miracles' are almost universally necessary for gurus and prophets etc to perform so nothing new there."

--> Blavatsky was definitely psychic. The funny thing is, when she really got rolling on Theosophy, she was told to stop demonstrating all psychic phenomena.

"Do you know what her ancestory is?"

--> She was from a rich Russian family.

"...it was quite normal practice to talk of racial stuff then in Victorian times that is not pc nowadays."

--> That is quite possible. But, more importantly, she had a very explosive personality, so I think that had a lot to do with it also.

 

[Avi]

On a different topic, yes, it is true that Blavatsky spoke very disparagingly about Jews.

Now there's a big surprise !!

I feel that she was wrong in using such contemptuous words.

So why exactly are you a supporter of this religious philosophy ?

But I feel that her anger was directed at the earliest Jewish leaders, not at the Jews people, ancient or modern.

Please explain the basis for this anger at the earliest Jews ?

Theosophy is devoted to bringing Jews together with all other humans, not discriminating against them.

Nick, somehow I am not getting that warm and loving feeling.

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 am afraid she explained her ideas all too well.

I can now see clearly why Theosophy is seen as a racist philosophy,

FINALLY PROGRESS !!! Nick, where have you have been this whole thread !!!!

I can see how this developed along a clear line of thought, and how it is all a misunderstanding

And I believe it is not a misunderstanding at all !!!

I have personally seen the hatred that exists towards Jews. One of my best friends is a flaming Jew-hater.

Now there is a big shocker . Tell us more about this "best friend" ?

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,

Just the kind of explanation that didn't work out too well for the Jews.

and a way to solve the problem.

Err, Nick, I am afraid I see where this is heading again !!!

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.

NIck, have you ever heard the expression "Never Again" ?

I put much of the blame on Blavatsky for her very poor choice of words.

I agree !! So that is why you would like me to join you and become her follower ????

I would like to apologize to all Jews on behalf of Blavatsky for her poor choice of words.

You have no more or less right to apologize for Blatavsky for her poor choice of words than Hitler. Would you like to apologize for him too ?? Further, I do not know whom you are apologizing to, but I do not believe any Jew would accept your apology.

But I do not think we can blame Theosophy for the things the Nazis did to the Jews.

From what I have read about it they are up there in blame. Pretty high.

A poor choice of words does not justify murder.

I don't think you have read much history.

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

I hope Brian will consider posting your study guide on this website, so we can all have a look !!

 

[iBrian]

If Nick can voice his opinions about racial and spiritual superiority with such openness, why can't I give my honest opinion about Thesophy ?

I think it's because no religion has a clean sheet when it comes to genocide, so it becomes a case of throwing stones in glass houses.

Also, Theosophy does not appear to have been directly responsible for the Nazi's Final Solution any more than Darwin or Galton, even though their ideas were also used.

There are some fundamentalist Muslims who repeatedly try to argue that Darwin's theory of Evolution was directly behind the Holocaust, and therefore this invalidates Evolution as a theory. I don't give that any more credence as an argument either.

If there are elements in Theosophy that seem prejudiced, how different does that really make it to other religions?

Christianity has long condemned Jews as "spiritually inferior" because they rejected "the Messiah", and Christianity furthermore routinely segregates the world into Believers and the Damned Who Will Burn in Eternal Hellfire. Yet because we are more used to these paradigms, does this make them any less or more acceptable than Theosophy's own?

Genocide by the Jews is also well-documented in the Torah, as is the notion of choseness, both of which are elements picked up by neo-fascists to support their own hate ideals. Should we therefore ridicule Judaism, or simply ridicule the neo-fascists?

As I said before, I'm trying to restore a sense of balance to this thread, because so far it does not appear proven that Theosophy is institutionally racist, or that it supports to extermination of the Jews.

 

[Avi]

I think it's because no religion has a clean sheet when it comes to genocide, so it becomes a case of throwing stones in glass houses.

You are comparing religions and religous philosophies which committed genocide between 1,000 - 2,500 years ago to one that did so 60 years ago. That is not a reasonable basis for comparison.

Also, Theosophy does not appear to have been directly responsible for the Nazi's Final Solution any more than Darwin or Galton, even though their ideas were also used.

Comparing Nazi genocide to Darwin's theory of evolution would show a complete lack of understanding of both concepts. Darwin's principles are based on natural selection, a scientifically validated approach. Are you seriously comparing these ?

There are some fundamentalist Muslims who repeatedly try to argue that Darwin's theory of Evolution was directly behind the Holocaust, and therefore this invalidates Evolution as a theory. I don't give that any more credence as an argument either.

I do not believe that is the Muslim position. I would like to hear a Muslim's view on this.

Christianity has long condemned Jews as "spiritually inferior" because they rejected "the Messiah", and Christianity furthermore routinely segregates the world into Believers and the Damned Who Will Burn in Eternal Hellfire. Yet because we are more used to these paradigms, does this make them any less or more acceptable than Theosophy's own?

Poo aluded to this earlier with her comment about the Crusades. Wasn't the purpose of Vatican 2 to deal with this issue ? My understanding is this is over.

Genocide by the Jews is also well-documented in the Torah, as is the notion of choseness, both of which are elements picked up by neo-fascists to support their own hate ideals. Should we therefore ridicule Judaism, or simply ridicule the neo-fascists?

Please remember this topic started with a discussion of Chosenness. Dauer explained very clearly that chosenness relates to increased responsibilities. I also discussed the Reconstructionist approach to Choseness which is significantly different than the traditional one. I think if you read the threads you will see Nick arguing for the concept of Chosenness and myself arguing against it.

As I said before, I'm trying to restore a sense of balance to this thread, because so far it does not appear proven that Theosophy is institutionally racist, or that it supports to extermination of the Jews.

And finally, after two weeks of debate about this very point, yesterday, Nick came up with this gem:

I can now see clearly why Theosophy is seen as a racist philosophy,

Perhaps we should accept this modest progress and move on to deeper analysis of Theosophy.

 

[iBrian]

You are comparing religions and religous philosophies which committed genocide between 1,000 - 2,500 years ago to one that did so 60 years ago. That is not a reasonable basis for comparison.

It is if the ancient history is justified for the modern belief. Timing ceases to be an issue, because the arguments become dangerously close to "your genocides are bad, ours are celebrated". This is what the neo-fascists warp to their own interests.

Comparing Nazi genocide to Darwin's theory of evolution would show a complete lack of understanding of both concepts. Darwin's principles are based on natural selection, a scientifically validated approach. Are you seriously comparing these ?

...

I do not believe that is the Muslim position. I would like to hear a Muslim's view on this.

Quite true and I'm not comparing them - but we really have had Muslims join up and paste in material condemning Evolution on the grounds that Darwin's theory and Galton's application for Eugenics was taken up by the Nazi's, and therefore arguing this invalidates Evolution and even modern science.

Of course, we're talking about a certain type of fundamentalist in Islam who seem to regard the Qur'an as a science book, and anything not in agreement with modern science (ie, creation) therefore invalidates modern science.

Poo aluded to this earlier with her comment about the Crusades. Wasn't the purpose of Vatican 2 to deal with this issue ? My understanding is this is over.

Well, I'm not sure how much influence the Pope has over the Protestants...but even still, it remains a central tenet of Christianity that the Jews were wrong (regardless of any issue of blame), and that all humanity is either saved or damned according to denominational lines.

Please remember this topic started with a discussion of Chosenness. Dauer explained very clearly that chosenness relates to increased responsibilities. I also discussed the Reconstructionist approach to Choseness which is significantly different than the traditional one. I think if you read the threads you will see Nick arguing for the concept of Chosenness and myself arguing against it.

Indeed, it was a good thread - Nick accepted that he had understood the matter wrong, and changed his view accordingly. How often in an internet forum do people have their minds changed?

And finally, after two weeks of debate about this very point, yesterday, Nick came up with this gem:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot
I can now see clearly why Theosophy is seen as a racist philosophy,


Perhaps we should accept this modest progress and move on to deeper analysis of Theosophy.

I quite agree - it looked like the thread was developing into a group attack ridiculing Theosophy as a belief system, regardless of any racial concerns. Which just doesn't seem right on an interfaith site, especially without clear justification. Hence why I thought I'd better step in and ask for some balance.

 

[Francis king]

if a man reads books that state X is inferior, and willfully accepts and supports a philosophy that states X is inferior, is it then foolish of us to think that our man must also see X as inferior?

... if that is not the case... why can't I buy Mein Kampf or wear swatikas in germany?...

that said, I do not think Theosophy was responsible for the Holocaust- I believe that Blavatsky was just as culture-bound as any of us- she was a racist because racism was in those days, more acceptable, within her culture, and within the wider society...

I openly here state that I do ridicule theosophy as a belief system, because I have investigated it... it has no historical basis, like other religions do, and its theories and concepts are all borrowed from other religions and faiths...

I also mock most NRM's, for exactly the same reason... they are often personality cults and their teachings have no real merit outside of the organisation...

 

[iBrian]

it has no historical basis, like other religions do, and its theories and concepts are all borrowed from other religions and faiths...

Indeed, it's syncretic, but to claim an historical basis for faith tends to be extremely precarious ground in most instances.

 

[earl]

Indeed, it's syncretic, but to claim an historical basis for faith tends to be extremely precarious ground in most instances.

I'm far from endorsing all of Theosophy's beliefs, but the thing about syncretic spiritual approaches is that it seems to me that part of their allure is that they attempt to address aspects of human experience that do not fit neatly into any 1 particular religious system. There may be as many motivations for folks being attracted to so called New Age beliefs as there are folks, but do think that the aforementioned is 1 motivation and a fairly legitimate one in my opinion. earl

 

[nativeastral]

if a man reads books that state X is inferior, and willfully accepts and supports a philosophy that states X is inferior, is it then foolish of us to think that our man must also see X as inferior?

... if that is not the case... why can't I buy Mein Kampf or wear swatikas in germany?...

that said, I do not think Theosophy was responsible for the Holocaust- I believe that Blavatsky was just as culture-bound as any of us- she was a racist because racism was in those days, more acceptable, within her culture, and within the wider society...

I openly here state that I do ridicule theosophy as a belief system, because I have investigated it... it has no historical basis, like other religions do, and its theories and concepts are all borrowed from other religions and faiths...

I also mock most NRM's, for exactly the same reason... they are often personality cults and their teachings have no real merit outside of the organisation...

All religions are syncretic and 'are borrowed from other religions and faiths..'; a very old bottle of wine may taste crap despite its vintage and known provenance, yet a young whippersnapper from the 'new world' on uncultivated earth may be just what the doctor ordered for *some*. All the religious books [apart from the guru granth and bahai maybe, are they not historically Meritorious?] support the ideas of spiritally and or racially inferiority...nothing new here, thats what religions claim as opposed to other *ways*. And thats why all have evolved and split off into various sects or denominations as *some* cannot accept all of its 'theories and concepts'.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

nativeastral,

You said,

"...a very old bottle of wine may taste crap despite its vintage and known provenance, yet a young whippersnapper from the 'new world' on uncultivated earth may be just what the doctor ordered for *some*."

--> Theosophy teaches that all religions become changed and lose some of their original teachings as the centuries go by. Theosophy tries to help each religion get in touch with its original teachings. Of course it is an uphill battle, because (according to Theosophy) religions become entrenched in their new ideas, and refuse to consider the idea that their teachings have changed over the centuries. This is why Theosophy says new religions must appear every so often, re-introduce the original teachings, and get a new start that takes us away from "ossification" that eventually happens to all relgions.

"All religions are syncretic and 'are borrowed from other religions and faiths..'"

--> I disagree. Theosophy teaches that even Buddha and Jesus taught from the same original teachings, but those teachings have been altered down through the centuries. By the way, Theosophy claims to take its teachings from the same original source that Buddha and Jesus originally took their teachings from, and that Buddha's and Jesus' teachings were originally identical (because they came from the same source). According to Theosophy, the differences in modern-day Buddhism and Christianity are directly attributable to how the two religions have been changed down through the centuries.

This also gets into how the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and Hinduism are a lot more similar than most people realize (especially since Theosophy says they all originally came from the same source), but that is an entirely different topic.

 

[nativeastral]

Nick
l agree that religions from their 'inception' change through time, despite the 'eternal' paradigm they encapsulate, due to doctrinal permutations and context/culture, which ultimately engenders 'ossification' thence split offs.

when l said all religions are syncretic l meant the ones that are historically known; Jesus fulfilling the law, Buddha building on what had gone before him; nothing exists in a vacuum on planet earth so far as explicating or interpreting
the main message to humankind.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

nativeastral,

It is a fascinating question, whether Buddha's teaching were "original," vs. how much of his teaching was built on what had been handed down before him. Interestingly, Hindus and Buddhists disagree greatly on this. Hindus say Buddhism is just one more part of Hinduism, while Buddhists see Buddha's teaching as being very unique and original. (Theosophy sees both Buddhism and Hinduism as having originated from the same set of original teachings.)

The same can be said of Christians' view of Jesus' teachings. The questions of ideas being handed down, originality, and the idea of one set of original teachings are key concepts in Theosophy.

 

[Avi]

if a man reads books that state X is inferior, and willfully accepts and supports a philosophy that states X is inferior, is it then foolish of us to think that our man must also see X as inferior?

You forgot to mention the point which makes it even worse, according to Theosophy, X is inferior because of their race.

Quote: Francis
that said, I do not think Theosophy was responsible for the Holocaust- I believe that Blavatsky was just as culture-bound as any of us-

Perhaps in modern parlance we should say Nazism was Theosophy "inspired" ?

Quote: Francis
she was a racist because racism was in those days, more acceptable, within her culture, and within the wider society...

In the 1930's there was a convergence of issues which made Nazism possible. The more I read about Theosophy, the more I realize it was the central philosophical foundation for later Nazism.

Quote: Francis
I openly here state that I do ridicule theosophy as a belief system, because I have investigated it... it has no historical basis, like other religions do, and its theories and concepts are all borrowed from other religions and faiths...

Quote: Source below:
At least one passage in Blavatsy's writings point at anti-semitism (the Jews are referred to as an unnatural bridge between the 4th and 5th races).

Ref: The Root Races

This website is an anthology of diverse materials by Alan Kazlev.

 

[Avi]

I quite agree - it looked like the thread was developing into a group attack ridiculing Theosophy as a belief system, regardless of any racial concerns. Which just doesn't seem right on an interfaith site, especially without clear justification. Hence why I thought I'd better step in and ask for some balance.

Brian, I understand the problem that you are concerned about. I do not think Nick should be attacked for believing in a religious philosophy which has unusual ideas.

But I am a bit confused here, Brian. Would you support giving equal access, on this website forum, to a religous philosophy which openly supports the principle of racial superiority ???

 

[Postmaster]

I find it hard to believe that a religion based on universality has a racist outlook. I don't know how to class Theosophy now. Can anyone clarify this? I suspect its more of a case of Nazism hyjacking Theosophy.

 

[nativeastral]

I find it hard to believe that a religion based on universality has a racist outlook. I don't know how to class Theosophy now. Can anyone clarify this? I suspect its more of a case of Nazism hyjacking Theosophy.

well perhaps it would be informative to ask if Judaism is based on universality since 'conversion' is genetically/racially affirmed; its paradoxical no?

 

[iBrian]

Brian, I understand the problem that you are concerned about. I do not think Nick should be attacked for believing in a religious philosophy which has unusual ideas.

But I am a bit confused here, Brian. Would you support giving equal access, on this website forum, to a religous philosophy which openly supports the principle of racial superiority ???

I quite agree with the concerns, and certainly one area I can't provide tolerance for on the forum is outright racism and similar prejudices - neo-fascists do not last long here, as I'm sure you're quite aware.

However, so far the impression I've been given is that Theosophy follows a typical syncretic pattern of claiming a superior understanding over proceeding belief systems, continuing a pattern with respect to Judaism that we see in Christianity, Islam, and modern syncretics such as the Baha'i movement - all of which denigrate Jewish belief as incomplete, corrupted, or not even properly understood by the Jews.

I am also not aware of any practical expression of racism within Theosophy - when it came to accepting a Messiah in the 20th century, rather than choosing some blue-eyed blondie, they instead choose and accepted an native Indian boy called Krishnamurti.

Whether Blavatsky really was racist or anti-Semitic is one charge, but so far I don't currently see this sticking on the Theosophy society.

The Nazi's may have used Theosophy as an influence in developing their own occult philosophy, but the Nazi Party was already easily fed by existing anti-Semiticism in Austria and Germany, and the Nazis borrowed from many spiritual ideologies to justify their existing prevelant ideals - probably no better underlined by their taking of a Hindu symbol of luck, and parading it on their flags, making the Swastika one of the most hated icons of modern times.

Of course, if it demonstrated that the Theosophy Society is in fact a front for neo-fascism, and its ideology simply a device for engineering a future genocide, you can be sure I would take steps - but so far, I think allowing Theosophy to be pilloried sets a bad precedent for a project that aims to promote tolerance of all faiths.

Heck, for comparison, Asatru is a modern faith based on Nordic paganism, but I tend to find the following institutionally racist. I can still respect Asatru as a belief system, and welcome its members where they can respect civil boundaries - but those who is it to support their neo-fascist ideals would not be welcome here, not because of being Asatru, but of trying to promote hate which falls outside of that belief system in the first place.