Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions?

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Neemai —

I was thinking about this myself. I see a contradiction in a principle which states:
To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color

and then goes on to specify a creed which is, presumably, binding on the Universal brotherhood of which it speaks, and which serves as a means of distinction right from the word go: ....

These were also my thoughts when I read the article. Universal religious acceptance (or similar) becomes a meaningless statement once you start having solid beliefs of your own and accepting them as ultimate truths. I don't neccessarily see this as a bad thing, but it is a mixed-message nonetheless. Maybe the article I quoted from wasn't all that well written also and is trying to promote something incorrectly? I respect the outlook, but in a number of Universally aimed religions this crops up as an issue...


... Neemai

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Neemai,

I find it fascinating that many of us consider "religion" to be the most important thing in our lives, but some of us have never actually sat down and hashed out a workable definition. As you can see, it is not easy. It is something we all need to think about deeply.

Lol. Nick do you know how condescending that sounds?
(Please note that I am saying this in good humour)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Certainly the idea of "God as religion" does not work, IF you think of millions of Buddhists as belonging to a religion. (Do you?)

What I said was: to know God, and to Love God - that is religion (from my personal context). This works perfectly well within the Gaudiya-Vaishnava perspective and world understanding/philosphy which I follow (based on Bhagavad-Gita, the Puranas and Vedas) but obviously wouldn't work as a generic terms across all cultures (thus the dictionary defintion). I dare say it would also apply in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other devotional traditions.

Within the Vaishnava context Buddhism is also a religion because Buddha is viewed as an avatar of Vishnu, and anyone who follows His teachings is thus going to obtain eternal benefit (even if externally Buddha's philosophy directly contradicts the idea of God).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

If you use the "God as religion" definition, then Theosophy is definitely not a religion.

Does Theosophy not involve any worship of God? or do you mean that it's just the definition that doesn't fit? I thought some concept of a Supreme being was included?

Best wishes,


... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"Nirvana has no transferable meaning in a Christian context..."

--> Therefore, it is fortunate to have this Forum to spread the idea of Nirvana, that Nirvana is completely different than Heaven, and that there is no conflict between the two concepts.

"...the one is a-theist, the other theist...."

--> It is fascinating to consider Nirvana an inherently atheistic idea. I see no need to believe such an idea. (Theosophists are not atheists.)

"...if there is no doctrine of Theosophy, what is required to get to heaven?"

(1) I never said there are no doctrines. There are no dogmas. And, although doctrines abound in Theosophy, no one is required to believe any of them. You have the power to excommunicate me for just disagreeing with you. On the other hand, I have no such power (and I would not have it any other way.)

(2) Anyone who spends time thinking pure, pious, devotional, etc., thoughts will spend time in Heaven. It is that simple. Theosophists also see such thoughts as accumulative: The more we think such thoughts, the more time we will spend in a temporary Heaven. (Theosophy sees Heaven as temporary, not eternal.) Also, whether these thoughts are also connected to simutaneous recitation of dogma makes no difference.


There is one caveat — it is possible for people to do things so horrible they forfit a trip to Heaven after this lifetime. (Heaven can still await them after a subsequent lifetime, which is a very fair arrangement.)

"But that depends upon how you read Jesus ... if I said Jesus is Truth, Reality, Good personified, the Logos ... then rejection of Him involves the rejection of what is real, what is true, what is good, etc..."

--> Fortunately, not everyone shares your definition of Jesus. For those of us who do not see Jesus as such a personification, we can still pursue truth while believing Jesus was only human.

"Track record of what?"

--> Service! Nirvana will be (almost) nothing but going around and doing nice things for people non-stop for millions of years. A person has to prove they are willing to agree to such an arrangement. As I said in a previous post, we are not even asked if we believe in Jesus when we apply for entry into Nirvana. We are asked for proof that we want to do nothing but give service for millions of years.

To Theosophists, it is about as easy to get into Heaven as it is difficult to get into Nirvana.

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai, you asked,

"Within the Vaishnava context Buddhism is also a religion because Buddha is viewed as an avatar of Vishnu..."

--> I disagree, because Buddhism is what it is today. Millions of Buddhists do not believe in God, and the Buddhism they belong to does not teach of a God. Any theistic leanings Buddha himself may have brought (as an avatar) have long since been eliminated from the modern version of Buddhism. Just because an organization was theistic before, is no proof it is still theistic today.

"...and anyone who follows His teachings is thus going to obtain eternal benefit (even if externally Buddha's philosophy directly contradicts the idea of God)."

--> As a matter of fact, I agree with you. I would say the oppositie is also true — anyone who follow "God's teachings" is moving closer to Nirvana, even though belief in God is not necessary to make progress towards Nirvana.

"Does Theosophy not involve any worship of God?"

--> It does not. Theosophy strives for the understanding of divinity (as shown by the name "Theosophy") not the worshipping of it. I do not mean to be rude, but, quite frankly, I do not see how a Universal Principle is affected by worship. (You do?) Therefore, the need to worship the Absolute strikes me as unnecessary. (Does God "need" worship?)

"I thought some concept of a Supreme being was included?"

--> Theosophy teaches of something called the Absolute, but it is quite different than that which is taught by theistic religions. Theosphy also teaches of a God that is different than the Absolute, and teaches against the idea of an Almighty God. (Sounds confusing, huh?)

"Universal religious acceptance (or similar) becomes a meaningless statement once you start having solid beliefs of your own and accepting them as ultimate truths."

--> I am not sure what you mean by "universal religious acceptance." I do not think Theosophy teaches such a thing. Theosophy walks a fine line, by respecting and encouraging religious differences, yet stressing the idea that all religions came from one single source.

[AndrewX]

Fancy the idea of a Wisdom-Religion, wherein the Wisdom of God - nothing more, nothing less, constitutes our very Philosophy of Life ... including an Ethics, a Metaphysics, and the greatest raison d'etre that any human being could possibly ask for! PURPOSE

It becomes clear, to some, why any system which insists upon exclusivity and narrowness of interpretation, while yet condemning or brow-beating those who dare to question ... will never - or no longer - suffice.

Bitterness and pride can so easily blind us to Revelation which might be immediately helpful to us, and keep us from realizing that although the original inspiration still exists in every major religion, it is much diluted, diminished and fast-disappearing - especially where rigidity and authoritarianism are enforced, and where the Spirit of Free Inquiry is essentially unwelcome.

You see, it is a New Era, and this is true for all of Humanity, and for the followers of every Religion - and of none. With the Scientific Revolution came the initial wave of a great, Liberating Energy ... and this is one which is opening the very Gates of Heaven Itself, for a free interchange of ideas, Inspiration, and of the Divine Life both Great and small - flowing to and within us all.

Some will continue to oppose the overall progress, which cannot be prevented - but can, sadly, be delayed. Doing so in the name of `my religion,' becomes a crappy copout and a thin excuse when the very Founder of one's religion taught us to Love our Neighbors as ourselves, and when the Spirit of Ecumenism is so readily available for those who are of the Heart to Invoke It.

The future World Religion, in which an overall Unification of Rites and Rituals will exist, as well as the establishment of commonly accepted Principles and Values, even some degree of integration & synthesis of today's noblest Prayers, Mantrams and Invocations ... this World Religion may be centuries in the making.

Just as today's world religions have taken even dozens upon dozens of centuries, we must be patient, and not look for the emergence of Perfect Religious Unity overnight. It just won't happen. And the disciples and aspirants of the world all recognize this quite well, whatever exoteric religion (or none) might be their choosing. Yet those who have glimpsed something of the future, and who know the need of the times (as well as the Spirit which underlies all outer events), do work, even now, for that distant day.

Theosophy, in the truest sense - Theos Sophia, the Wisdom of God - is not a religion. It is religion - the very Heart and Soul of this binding [effort] between God and Man. Theosophy is the root of the tree of Spirituality, even as it is the TRUNK of commonality (amongst religions), without which individual religionsupon the planet could never exist.

Yes, it is that SIMPLE. Theosophy is the WISDOM in the Mind of God. It is Love-Wisdom, and it is also Creative Understanding, as well as Divine Vision. If we are aware of the fact that all three of these only begin to convey what is meant by the word `Theosophy,' THEN we have started to see just how wonderful, and how grand, Theosophy actually is. To deny it, is to DENY that God is Wise, to DENY that God Loves and Understands us, and to DENY that Humanity is even remotely capable of coming into Harmony with Divine Purpose. For this is the FOUNDATION of the Theosophical Society, as ONE among many, many, many modern expressions of Theos-Sophia, the WISDOM RELIGION.

The man who can see only syncretism, is wrongly imagining that Theosophy's aim is to gather the Tree's many branches, twigs and leaves, and forceably bind them into a broken, smashed up mass. That is an uninformed vision, a poor understanding, and a sad sight indeed! Theosophy, in terms of its philosophy, has always sought to reveal what is already here, as well as to indicate the Road of Progress toward the future.

A future in which the many warring members of One Body have ceased to wound and compete with each other, and where the Spirit of Cooperation, and Harmony is starting to prevail, having emerged out of conflict ... THIS is the Vision, in general outline, toward which the aspirants and disicples of our world are working.

Christ was crucified because He dared to bring the TRUTH to a world that was unwelcoming of it, and which was too invested in preserving the status quo ... in upholding the OLD ORDER. It is almost ironic that instead of Rome, it was the failings of those closest to Christ, and the SANHEDRIN - the elitists among the PRIESTHOOD of His own people - which cut short Christ's Teaching.

History repeats itself. And thus, those in fear of losing what little they have, lash out at those who ever, continuously SEEK - knowing that even what little they have learned, is as nothing, next to the Wisdom of the Lord.

We will be accused of cobbliing together our Truths by stealing them from those who - got them WHERE?

We will be accused of inventing history, because we dare to tell it without bias, without browbeating the listener into an acceptance of our CREEDS and DOGMAS ... and threatening him with HELL if he dares to question the Gospel teachings which we have fed him.

We are loathed, because we say, QUESTION what you have been taught, look for connections with your own observations in life, and try to see where the Divine Order is working Itself out into the outer world.

We are persecuted, because we declare the INTELLECT, even our tiny, human minds, to be the CREATION, and the INSTRUMENT, for the working of the Divine Consciousness, every bit as much as emotion, as passion, as feelings. We encourage the WISE, REASONED EXERCISE of the Intellectual faculty, and we say - try to imagine things from all possible angles.

In this way, our limitations are gradually overcome, and the Light of the Higher Reason can make its way into our understanding ... revealing a WHOLE that is already existent - GREATER than the sum of its individual, human parts. This Soul Principle, the Christ of Ephesians 4:13, cannot be understood by one who is unwilling to relinquish, in order to gain.

And therefore, the WISDOM OF GOD is no religion in such a person's eyes. It is anathema, for it is the very antidote to the ills of enslavement to a dead-letter ritualism, a blind allegiance to and unquestioning obedience of dogma, and a lockstep following of the embodied spirit of authoritarianism itself. These, in his zeal (less reasoned than he dares to imagine), he cannot recognize for what they are.

The Saul of Tarsus, until he meets his conversion, will continue to persecute us, and he will do everything in his power to affix the Kick Me sign securely to our posterior, and to rally all the unquestioning sheep who can only hear familiar, rabble-rousing rattlings ...

... while to his confessor, the only shortcoming, is the inability to sway those few, brave souls who dared to question - and who saw through our dear Saul's persecutions.

Will it ever occur, to confess his greatest sins of all?

Or will the Spirit of Unification, forever be confused in his mind and heart, with that of conformity, and will his greatest GIFT of all - only remain a DEVIL.

He can either LIFT the Light, that others may Know the Way, sharing and shining this Light from on high, or he can curse it, tell them it is evil, spit on them for daring to shine it bright ... ever forgetting that without that Light, he would not THINK at all.

Let us DO get on with the GROWING UP ...

... some of us are getting sick of watching Saul spit on the Torch-Bearers.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Does God "need" worship?

No, (at least according to Vaishnava scripture) God is completely self-satisfied. It is us that need the relationship with God, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosphy also teaches of a God that is different than the Absolute, and teaches against the idea of an Almighty God. (Sounds confusing, huh?).

So what are the teachings exactly? I'm gathering from what you've said that God is viewed more in an impersonal than personal way? Or would you say that God included elements of both?

all the best ....

... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai, I am sorry to have taken so long in getting back to you, but I have been busy flying airplanes. (I am an airline pilot.) We discussed,

"Does God "need" worship? --> No, (at least according to Vaishnava scripture) God is completely self-satisfied. It is us that need the relationship with God, not the other way around."

--> As a matter of fact, this agrees somewhat with Theosophical teaching. There are different kinds of people, so we need different kinds of religion. One type of person is the devotional type, so a devotional type of religion suits them best. (It is a key Theosophical teaching that no one religion is best suited for everyone.)

"I'm gathering from what you've said that God is viewed more in an impersonal than personal way? Or would you say that God included elements of both?"

--> There are three concepts:

The Absolute
God (the universal Deity)
Almighty God

Let's take a look at each one.

The Absolute

I believe Hinudism has a concept called Parabrahm (Parabrahman). This is the same as the Absolute. Here is a quote:

[The Absolute is] “ ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE.” (The Secret Doctrine, vol 1 p 2)

The Absolute cannot be understood or comprehended by the human mind.

[The Absolute is] “... is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is ‘Be-ness’ rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation.” (The Secret Doctrine, vol 1 p 14)

The Absolute is usually referred to as Darkness. The Bible uses the term Darkness in Genesis 1:2, which Theosophy sees as a direct reference to the Absolute. I believe Hinduism also uses the term Darkness, although I do not have a quote handy. Darkness is the best way to describe the Absolute — it cannot be described in any other way.

Is the Hindu concept of Parabrahm part of your belief system?

God (the universal Deity)

Divinity (Avalokiteshvara, The Son) is a periodically appearing Deity. The term "universal" is key, because the Deity is seen as only appearing at the beginning of a universe, and He (yes, we see the Deity as male) disappears when the universe finally disappears.

Almighty God

It may seem confusing that Theosophy distinguishes God from Almighty God, but it is an important distinction. (Theosophy teaches the concept of God, and opposes the concept of Almighty God.)

The term Almighty God (used often by Christians) is a concept that does not fit into Theosophy. This leads into a long discussion, so I will keep it short. For one example, an Almighty God is seen as being able to set aside Natural law and perfoms miracles — an idea which goes against the Theosophical idea that the Absolute is immutable Law.

~~~

To answer your last question, some Theosophists may see the Deity in a personal way, but the Absolute is by definition impersonal. This means having a personal relationship with the Absolute is out of the question.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Therefore, it is fortunate to have this Forum to spread the idea of Nirvana, that Nirvana is completely different than Heaven,

Indeed so.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

and that there is no conflict between the two concepts.

Perhaps not in a Eastern context, but in a Christian context there is a very great difference in understanding.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

(Theosophy sees Heaven as temporary, not eternal.)

That shows how utterly different we in fact are in our respective visions. The Christian sees heaven as encompassing a number of degrees and determinations (such as Genesis 1:1), but all according to 'heaven' which, in its principial state, transcends all cosmological determination, and thus is therefore eternal.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Fortunately, not everyone shares your definition of Jesus.

I speak only for orthodox Christianity. If that offends you, then so be it, although a pity, as this just represents another obstruction to any meaningful dialogue. Whether you find what I believe fortunate or not is a matter of your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

As I said in a previous post, we are not even asked if we believe in Jesus when we apply for entry into Nirvana.

To which we would reply that such a vsion of nirvana seems to fall short of a knowledge of the Logos of God. Another example of the fundamental difference.

We believe:
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." John 14:6.
If one believes that is true, then it would be somewhat illogical not to believe in He who said it.

+++

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

"...such a vsion of nirvana seems to fall short of a knowledge of the Logos of God...."

--> Correct! Entry into Nirvana does not even come close to taking a person to "a knowledge of the Logos of God." After Nirvana comes Parinirvana. After Parinirvana comes Mahaparinirvana. On and on it goes. Nirvana has been described as cosmic consciousness (which it is), but there are levels of existence above even Nirvana that we can scarcely imagine.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

but there are levels of existence above even Nirvana that we can scarcely imagine.

And once more you highlight a telling point of difference. I would agree with you that knowledge of the Divine lies beyond the capacity of the human imagination ... but we have no need of imaginings, we have Revelation, and thereby we know:
"For passing by and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the Unknown God. What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you"
Actys 17:23

Interesting when you consider that St Paul was addresssing the theosophists of his day.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The man who can see only syncretism, is wrongly imagining that Theosophy's aim is to gather the Tree's many branches, twigs and leaves, and forceably bind them into a broken, smashed up mass. That is an uninformed vision, a poor understanding, and a sad sight indeed! Theosophy, in terms of its philosophy, has always sought to reveal what is already here, as well as to indicate the Road of Progress toward the future.

Spot on Br.Andrew!
Syncretism might be viewed cynically as an attempt to appeal to all by mixing concepts from various sources. But in our studies of comparative religion we find real connections which stem from the greater Reality.

The connections found in scholarly research can be confirmed by spiritual research. There is after all, one spiritual reality- not a series of spiritual worlds just to suit the various religious prejudices.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Christ was crucified because He dared to bring the TRUTH to a world that was unwelcoming of it, and which was too invested in preserving the status quo ... in upholding the OLD ORDER. It is almost ironic that instead of Rome, it was the failings of those closest to Christ, and the SANHEDRIN - the elitists among the PRIESTHOOD of His own people - which cut short Christ's Teaching.

Here is the contradiction ... we hold that Christ did not come into a man, but rather that Christ became man — a distinction professed by the whole Church since its foundation — and one which utterly broke with the 'Old Order' and the 'status quo' as you call it:
"For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness"
1 Corinthians 1:22-23

The Theosophic vision of Christ as a comic principle that entered into a man, Christ as Avatar, as someone 'Christed', is precisely what we regard as the 'old order' and 'status quo' — it was common currency to the Jews (this is the spirit of prophecy), the Greeks (the spirit of the oracle) and evident in all the traditions of Antiquity.

It was the 'Good News', the 'New Song' of Clement of Alexandria, that the world simply could not accept, and which was affirmed by the great Christological councils, by the Fathers and by Rome, when the some 600 bishops of the Eastern Church cried with one voice: "St Peter has spoken through Leo".

To understand the theology of this requires a precise understanding of the Greek term 'Kurios' — Lord — as used in the New Testament and by the Church, being the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'Adonai', which refers unquestionably to God. As the Apostle Thomas said: "mou kurios kai mou theos" (John 20:28) — "My Lord and my God!"

Human understanding alone cannot penetrate the Mystery of the Deity, that belongs to the Charism of Faith: "And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:16).

Sorry to quote Scripture at you, but you must understand that we regard it as infallibly and inarguably Divine Revelation.

The argument that you have put forward often, that Christ is a principle that came into a man is one that Peter, the Apostles, the Fathers and Christian Tradition, thoroughly refutes ...

As John says:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (1:14)

Originally Posted by AndrewX

History repeats itself.

Indeed it does. St Irenaeus, St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Maximus ... all the Fathers who championed the truth of the Incarnate Son of God, would be staggered to see the old errors beig fielded once again.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... some of us are getting sick of watching Saul spit on the Torch-Bearers.

I have ceased long since making any critical comment regarding those whom you follow and hold most dear, and I would be obliged if you would do the same — I find this comment beyond 'criticism' and utterly contemptible, and is nothing but a cheap shot...

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Neemai

but then when I read the following about Theosophical beliefs it changed my mind somewhat:

- There exists a Consciousness (Logos), Universal and Individual
- Immortality of Man
- Belief in Reincarnation
- Belief in theory of Karma
- Universal Brotherhood
- Evolution is God's plan and every individual ascends to Divinity

although I personally agree with the majority of these general beliefs, wouldn't the very fact that a certain set of beliefs are being promoted mean that Theosophy has to be viewed as a religion? Or are these conclusions not set in stone and instead seen as the current "best guesses" from all available research? In which case it would be more of an organisational conclusion, and thus less of a religious one? Or maybe it would fit somewhere in-between the two. The ol' English language isn't always perfect in defining reality, so maybe Theosophy just doesn't fit under either definition?


... Neemai

Hi Neemai,
There are a lot of different theosophical organisations in the world- I'm not sure how many. There is one in Australia - the Theosophical Fellowship- that has registered as a religious organisation. I know of another non-theosophical org that states it is not a religion, yet is registered as a religious organisation.

The stated aim of the TS is to avoid dogma. It was a truly open forum with members making up their own minds on whether they wanted follow Eastern or Western paths.

In London during the time when H.P. Blavatsky was alive, Dr. Kingsford was the leader of the Lodge and she taught her own brand of Christian teachings. HPB greatly admired Anna Kingsford and I can't see that she would attempt to remove her because she had different teachings. Later, in Germany, Rudolf Steiner was the leader of the TS- for a good 10 or 11 years. Rudolf Steiner said the Theosophical Society was not an occult movement but a place where occultism was discussed. It was, as he saw it, a place for discussion, where each and every member was as important as another.

Some theosophists do in fact treat theosophy like a de facto religion- so they may as well register and gain all the monetary benefits.

But really, the force behind the theosophical movement is the Masters. As a member you are required to believe in the Masters- even if you are a member of the Esoteric Section.

The Masters themselves do not found outer organisations or religions.

Are you a follower of the Hari Krishna movement? I did hear A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada speak in the Melbourne Town Hall once. He was rather grumpy looking. Maybe he was uncomfortable- he had two followers waving fans about to keep him cool. One of the followers on stage later became famous for a series of vegetarian cooking shows on TV.

Theosophists do get together to read from the Bhagavad Gita on White Lotus day.

There was a very learned Hindu who was member of the TS. His name was T. Subba Row and he was a personal adviser to Helena Blavatsky.

Read what he has to say about the Gita:
Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

He starts the lecture in a true theosophical spirit:

All of you know that our Society is established upon a cosmopolitan basis. We are not wedded to any particular creed or to any particular system of religious philosophy. We consider ourselves as mere enquirers. Every great system of philosophy is brought before us for the purpose of investigation. At the present time we are not at all agreed upon any particular philosophy which could be preached as the philosophy of our Society. This is no doubt a very safe position to take at the commencement. But from all this it does not follow that we are to be enquirers and enquirers only. We shall, no doubt, be able to find out the fundamental principles of all philosophy and base upon them a system which is likely to satisfy our wants and aspirations. You will kindly bear this in mind, and not take my views as the views of the Society, or as the views of any other authority higher than myself. I shall simply put them forward for what they are worth. They are the results of my own investigations into various systems of philosophy and no higher authority is alleged for them. It is only with this view that I mean to put forward the few remarks I have to make.

If only modern theosophists followed the above.

"Consciousness: A Cosmic Perspective" by T. Subba Row
-Br.Bruce

"A theosophist has always before him the ideal of a universal single occultism, free of all religious prejudice."

-Here Rudolf Steiner explains the ideals of theosophy, not as Eastern or Western but as a universal movement.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, You said,

"The Theosophic vision of Christ as a comic principle that entered into a man, Christ as Avatar, as someone 'Christed'...."

--> Here the Blavatskian view of Jesus differs with what Andrew (a follower of the Bailey School) and Bruce (a follower of the Steiner School) believe. According to HPB's Theosophy, Jesus was only an Initiate — his deification was only proclaimed by later Christians. Andrew and Bruce, on the other hand, are more willing to see Jesus as a type of Deity. The Masters that Bruce were mentioned were Buddhists.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, You said,

"The Theosophic vision of Christ as a comic principle that entered into a man, Christ as Avatar, as someone 'Christed'...."

--> Here the Blavatskian view of Jesus differs with what Andrew (a follower of the Bailey School) and Bruce (a follower of the Steiner School) believe. According to HPB's Theosophy, Jesus was only an Initiate — his deification was only proclaimed by later Christians. Andrew and Bruce, on the other hand, are more willing to see Jesus as a type of Deity. The Masters that Bruce were mentioned were Buddhists.

Hi Nick,
Yes it is wrong to assert that there is just one "theosophic Vision" of Christ. Mine is quite different to Andrew's. Leadbeater is closer to Bailey- maybe Andrew can cite the differences.

Christ is not an Avatar in Steiner's teachings.

I like what I just posted from T. Subba Row:
"We are not wedded to any particular creed or to any particular system of religious philosophy. We consider ourselves as mere enquirers. Every great system of philosophy is brought before us for the purpose of investigation."

As for the Masters- they are not members of the Buddhist religion:
Theosophy and Buddhism by David Reigle

In order to counter this misconception, and to stress the universality of Theosophy, Blavatsky opened her greatest work, The Secret Doctrine, with a refutation of the idea that Theosophy is esoteric Buddhism. She said that Sinnett's book should have been titled, Esoteric Budhism, spelled with one "d," to distinguish the Wisdom-Religion, or Budhism, from the exoteric religion known as Buddhism.

The Masters follow Budhism- Wisdom. Of course all the Mahatmas respect Lord Buddha.

The original inspirer of the theosophical movement was Master C. R. HPB did move away from this influence.

According to Steiner the two main Eastern Masters are Kut Hoomi and Morya. The Western Masters are Christian Rosencreutz/Saint Germaine and Master Jesus/Zarathustra.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce