theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy

Oct 13, 2004 02:01 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


Hello Dallas,

You wrote:

When I see their nature and character attacked I am forced to respond, and
attempt to bring back the subject of the proofs available, and,
consequently, of the respect due to Those who embody that Wisdom. That is
why I wrote as I did - now, as I have in the past. If slurs are cast on
their work and teachings and Their actuality, I respond in as strong terms
as I can. I point to the evidence.

But what was your response to Paul Johnson aside from saying that Indian Theosophists would disagree with his points and assert that he hasn't responded to Daniel Caldwell's "House of Cards" essay? Actually Paul responded to Daniel's essay. He also responded to my objections, which are probably archived somewhere. If you have specific errors of fact, errors of misreading, errors of interpretation etc., or endeavor to point out, or make further comments upon Daniel's or my criticisms, then I think you would be doing a service to inquirers into Theosophy to make these alternative views known.
Concerning my comments about the dangers of fundamentalism, you wrote:

"Fundamentalism," I agree has no place in THEOSOPHY - but then how is
"fundamentalism" to be defined? Is it words, ideas, or is it some useful
ideas that give a basis for every individual to exercise their freedom to
think, to use the Intuition, and to probe the secret meaning of Nature and
her supportive self all around us ?
We don't argue over the fundamentals of mathematics, chemistry, physics,
engineering, astronautics, biology, etc... we use them and they always
remain as a background to intelligent and constructive advances in those
departments of life and science.
While "fundamentalism" and "fundamentals" are etymologically related words, their denotations are quite different. Fundamental is an adjective which denotes something that is essential or primary. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is a noun, which denotes a world view rooted in a religious tradition which has been corrupted so as to mistake the words for the actuality and condemns those who do not accept the same symbols. The teachings become a base of rigid exclusivity, literalism, ignorance and bigotry resulting in tragedies like the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11/01; the Christian Crusades to reclaim the Holy Land; the book burning and persecution of the Jews with the beginning of the protestant reformation; the torture of suspected heretics during the inquisition; the endless killings between Palestinians and Jews; between Muslims and Hindus; need I go on? You might be interested in Charles Kimball's book, "When Religion Becomes Evil" published by Harper Collins in 2002 which goes into this question into some depth. In his book, Kimball gives five warning signs for the potential evil which comes out of a closely held belief system:
1. Those who put forth absolute claims to truth. "My view is the only way to God." This becomes particularly dangerous when the fundamentalist begins to believe himself as God's agent. Recent comments made by President Bush suggests that he sees himself in such a role.
2. Blind Obedience. Followers loyally complying to a spiritual authority. This become dangerous when that authority encourages the faithful to lay down their lives to that truth. We find this dynamic with those Al Qaida workers who sacrificed their lives in order to destroy the Twin Towers, as well as with Jim Jones' followers in Guyana.

3. Establishing an Ideal Time. The idea that a utopian ideal will be established in the future. We have for example the rigid Talaban rule in Afghanistan that tried to create such a utopia. Here, we have the rigid stances of the "religious right" to legally regulate such issues as marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research for others.

4. The ends justify the means. Justification for violence based upon the protection of ideals, beliefs or sacred space. For instance, the centuries of warfare over control of Jerusalem and over Abraham's (alleged) tomb. In this country we have the cover-ups concerning the sexual mis-conduct of priests.
5. Declaring holy war. An examples in history is the wanton slaughter of Muslims and Jews during the crusades. Today, and we again make war on Muslim countries, we have to face the growing Jihad movement against the west. Violence engenders violence.
We are in agreement that fundamentalism has no place in Theosophy. However, I submit that so-called Theosophists are just as vulnerable to fundamentalist behavior as anyone else. It has been my observation that this fundamentalism begins when Theosophists begin to confuse the fundamentals of the Theosophical teachings with the truths they point to. Perhaps you can think of some instances of fundamentalist behavior among Theosophists. If not, I will be happy to help you to recall a few.

So to return to Paul Johnson's TMR: I think it would be missing an important point if we ignore the fact that his book is a rather self-evident attempt to separate Theosophical history from its own self-created myths. I agree with you that his attempt is wanting, but it was a bold attempt, nevertheless.
Best,
Jerry






[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application