Aryans

[Scott Sands]

When I first discovered that Nazi's modeled much of their ideas from a mix of HPB works and German Mythology I was very surprised. Most of the information I found was outside or TS literature. I started the thread "Theosophys Shame" to bring this up. Admittedly, I use sharp words, such as the topic, to get peoples attention, to rile emotions and get more feedback. I came to find there is a lot of TS literature on the subject and received a great amount of information from forum members. Since then it has (re)ignited my interest in Nazi Occultism.

In this thread I request input about HPBs thoughts on Aryans and the races. I've heard most that she was not being specific to what we would term races today, but encompassed them all and the races she spoke of tended to be races of the 'rounds'. Even so, context seems to state that she was a little more specific and did refer to races of today.

I would like input from all sides what you think her main ideas were on the topic, both comforting and controversial.

[Jeff Zolkes]

I guess the interesting part of the question, to me, is can we question evolution of species, in a racial context, without being offensive? I believe we should be able to, if we believe that these doctrines are based on spiritual laws, and that mankind is essentially of the same origin. But its not quite so simple, is it? Its definitely a topic that has a lot of potential to do harm, and I'm not sure these are doctrines that are important enough for Theosophists to focus on too terribly, considering the potential to marginalize and divide... just my initial thinking here...

[Scott Sands]

I agree such discussion has more than a possibility to be offensive. And we have all seen flames rise on occasion in this and other forums. To that end, do we just avoid these topics then? This forum is, at least, out of the 'main stream' of typical public view. Those of us here, while being human, still have a bit more tolerance for each others views. I think it is impossible to entierly avoid friction of such topics. Hopefully, though, those truly interested in discussing this can take all into account and be as polite as possible. If things get to hot, I will reluctantly, but quickly, delete this thread.

[Jeff Zolkes]

You're right, Scott. It is certainly not something we should ignore, as much as I wish we could. As far as our community here, I think this is more fertile ground for these discussions.

I also was thinking about Katinka's recent post about the lack of PR from the TS... she makes a good point, especially considering that the whole race thing has been such a smear campaign... most folks, I think, only know what they've seen on the History Channel, which only sensationalizes the perceived connection between Blavatsky and the Nazi's (some 'history' channel, eh? I think they used to have more integrity on that channel than they do nowadays)... Maybe one day folks will come to know Theosophy for everything else it represents, and like Dan mentioned, there are plans to post more about us for the public. Hopefully that will help...

I guess I just wish that whole part of HPB's doctrine didn't exist, for although I believe I understand her, it is not something most folks do, or even want to...
The whole race issue makes me sad. Its just hard for most people to delve into such things from anywhere but a personal perspective, and it seems like that is what keeps it an ever-present problem...

[Jeff Zolkes]

also, for a pretty good outline, check the Wikipedia, what a great source for things...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race

[Jeff Zolkes]

sad, too, that most folks (other than us) don't realize that the swastika was a good symbol before the Nazi's stole it. That doesn't help that people see it in the TS's seal. But even during World War I, the swastika could be found on the shoulder patches of the American 45th Division. I also found this interesting image of a token from Chicago's World Fair in 1933. That was my home for almost 20 years, and there are, in fact, lots of swastika motifs to be found in so much of the city's wonderful architecture. I don't think a lot of people really notice it though.

[Arthur E Gregory]

To me it's a complex issue to think about at this time..but I would say you will find the concepts of racial supremacy were pretty widespread and practically generic in the early twentieth century and up until fairly recently... and they were to an extent expressed in laws related to eugenics and racial segregation in the United States as well as other countries...

You had colonialism, "the white man's burden" and manifest destiny. So to separate the concepts of say the root races from the cultural milieu of the time and analyse them as if you could extract them from the general society would be difficult.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

Occultists could run a gamut from those opposed to war and trying to say work for reform of prison systems to those who really believed in an Aryan supremacy so there were cultural influences involved for some related to race prejudice which was pandemic.

In the view of some people Annie Besant was basically a radical as she had been a socialist and she worked for the independence of India from British rule. She became a theosophist probably around 1890 and held office till her passing around 1933.. So how would one be able to link her say with Nazis? I don't think that would work at all..

See:

www.ts-adyar.org/history.html+annie+besant+president+of+the+TS&...">http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:bPfgNWKFSwAJ:www.ts-adyar.org/history.html+annie+besant+president+of+the+TS&...

Now look at the origins of say Ariosophy..

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy

while some of it's founders may have been "influenced" by theosophy.. They were also mainly interested in restoring what to them was a new rebirth of earlier paganism and legend and that's why many were interested in the works of Wagner and their own interpretation of the "super man" of Frederick Nietzsche.

I would say there are still some groups around today that you can find on the Internet.. but basically they have little to do with Theosophy.

The early principle of the Theosophical society was:

"to form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, colour, or creed"

That was composed in the Key to Theosophy by Helena Blavatsky published in 1889. I would suggest that for it's time that was a radical statement and it has very little to do with racial supremacy.

[Arthur E Gregory]

Also here's a definition of "root race" and an explanation of the term "Aryan":

In one general sense, the fifth root-race actually comprises the many and extremely varied stocks which exist on the earth today, simply because they all live in the time period of the fifth root-race, although many of the stocks are lineal descendants of the last subrace of the fourth root-race more or less intermixed with what can be described as more characteristic fifth root-race stock. The Chinese, for example, although descended from the latest subrace of the fourth root-race, yet because of living in fifth root-race times are to be reckoned among fifth root-race peoples, of which indeed they are among the very oldest. The Semites in all their divisions are to be considered as an early offshoot of the fifth root-race, and not as a race essentially or radically distinct.

The fifth root-race is sometimes spoken of as the Aryan race, merely because the Aryans of India are an existing example of the earliest branches of the fifth, though the term Aryan is not in accordance with the various ethnological and linguistic distinction to which that name is commonly applied. The characteristic language of this root-race is inflectional, such as Sanskrit or Greek. The symbol of the fifth or Aryan race is "that which is its most sacred symbol to this day, the bull (and the cow)" (SD 2:533).

[Dan Noga]

I think the "race issue" as it pertains to Theosophy is just as important to recognize and acknowledge as the issue of race in the wider world. Attention should be paid to it--the issue, to me, isn't how much attention should be paid, but what kind of attention should be paid.

Jeff mentions that sources such as the History Channel often play up the connection between Blavatsky and Nazism, and this has given many in the public a negative impression of Theosophy. This issue actually recently touched me personally, when my cousin looked up Theosophy in Wikipedia since she was curious about my work and the public talks I give. She noticed the mention of a connection to Nazism and confronted me with that, seeming somewhat uneasy about the potential. It is almost mindboggling how these things happen, especially when one considers that the Society's First Object is:

"To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color."


Yes, it is a very sensitive issue--and yes, Blavatsky herself has made some dicey statements that, when read by someone who isn't very familiar with the underlying currents of Theosophy, can easily be taken out of context. That being said, it is precisely because of the subject's surface-level "iffiness" that it should be discussed openly and frankly, otherwise people's negative first impressions never get the chance to be challenged.

Another pertinent point having to do with Jungian psychology: Anytime we avoid confronting something, we run the risk of setting it in the domain of The Shadow, where it is bound to rise up even more powerfully, unconsciously and in ways we cannot control (because we cannot see them). This is far worse than the potential harm that can come from frank, but compassionate discussion. It could actually be argued that Nazi ideology's transformation of Theosophical ideas into instruments of hate was the result of the activity of The Shadow (on individual and collective levels alike).

It's interesting, there are other sides to this. The concept of the races, applied to humans, finds a parallel in the Theosophical view of animals. Generally, animals hold a place "below" humans in the evolutionary scheme--it is held that they will one day become human, but that they aren't there yet. How true or relevant is this? Is this less offensive than the idea of one human "race" being more "advanced" than another? Why or why not?

Some animal lovers I know, such as my wife, actually take some offense to the Theosophical viewpoint on animals. Interesting--is this relevant to the discussion as well?

[Konstantin Zaitzev]

> looked up Theosophy in Wikipedia since she was curious about my work and the public talks I give. She noticed the mention of a connection to Nazism

Unfortunately Wikipedia became very popular though it is a source of very biased information. It often contains very correct and comprehensive information about the things which don't matter much in society, like the tram systems of different cities or history of some railroad, but we surely cannot rely on its information when it comes to any socially important or politically significant subject.

[Mark Newbold]

HPB was a creature of her times and in my reading of the SD, the term race/s is actually describing stages in the evolution of consciousness not actual ethnicity. To confuse the two is to pervert her aim. People seem to forget that Victorian science did not have the terminology or insights available to us today.