Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions?

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Companions,
What is in a word?...everything and nothing!

I read once that Dr. Steiner wouldn't have minded if the name of the society change every week or two. The name is not so important- it's the substance behind that name.

Now there has been quite a bit of argument over whether Anthroposophy is a religion, and in modern defintions of the word (legal definitions) it most definitely could be dubbed a religion. In older definitions that wasn't the case.

What did Dr. Steiner mean when he said he that Anthroposophy was not a religion? He was, I think, talking about about dogmatic religion. In anthroposophy and theosophy there are a series of doctrines but no one is forced to believe in them. Anthroposophy also set exercises, meditations prayers etc., but again one can take them or leave them. One could call the latter 'religious observances' and the former 'religious beliefs'.

Rudolf Steiner's cosmogony could be called a "religious world view". There will be the objection "Oh no, that is based on his spiritual investigation and should be reproducible by others." But what does that matter? I'm sure other religions could say the same- Buddhism for instance.

So if one is to say "Anthroposophy/Theosophy is not a religion" one has to go on and define "religion" (and what I'm saying is that that definition will then be out of date.)

He is the Australian definition of religion:
(based on the principles established in the Scientology case) namely:

- belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and
- acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.

The Anthroposophical Society or the Theosophical Society could be registered under that definition.

And what are the benefits of this:
No rates on land taxes on properties.
No General Services tax, or payroll tax.
No fringe benefit tax on employee mortgages or cars.
The AS could run businesses and would not have to show the books or pay tax.

It is assumed that religions channel funds back into charitable causes but they don't have to show proof. In Australia the Seventh Day Adventist Sanatarium Health Food Company is a 300 million dollar a year business. It does not pay tax, it does not show the books. Scientology collects millions and does not have to pay tax.

In the U.S., I have read that Scientologists also get tax deductions on money they spend on courses!



-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

The definitons of words can change over time- sometimes very quickly.

Take "gay" for instance; or today, "wicked" means something desirable.

Secondly, according the legal definition of religion current in Australia, Anthroposophy and Theosophy could be registered as religions.

A religion is a "belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle".

"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge which would lead the spiritual in man to the spiritual in the Universe."

Believing that there is something spiritual in the universe, is then, a religious belief- you don't even have to call it God.
"Observance of canons of conduct" could be meditation, study groups etc.

There is nothing about forms of ritual and worship in the current definition.

Nevertheless, the important ideal to strive for is a movement which is free from dogmatism, legal definitions aside.


-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Anthroposophy has no dogma or creed - the Statutes of the Anthroposophical Society specifically forbid dogma. There are definite doctrines though- and there are plenty of very dogmatic anthroposophists.

We may strive to "forbid dogma" but dogma will always be there until everybody has their own direct experiences- and then, don't expect everyone to agree! I think that we should be honest about dogma and not pretend it doesn't exist at all. A healthy attitude to dogma is to view it as a "resting post" along the way.

The attitude that there is only one way, one view, is very dogmatic. The attitude that Rudolf Steiner never made a mistake and is right about everything, is very dogmatic. The forbidding of teachings by other initiates is dogmatic- Tomberg etc.

The Adyar Theosophical Society is much less dogmatic than the AS.

I suppose that if there are going to be some set forms then there are going to be some dogmas. Study groups, meditations and exercises constitute "religious practices".

The Anthroposophical Society prescribes no religious practices, but it still accepts "canons of conduct". There are practices prescribed - such as the Calendar of the Soul - people don't have to take them up but they are definitely accepted.

Anthroposophy is concerned with understanding relationship of the human being to the spiritual world. Is it not a path that leads to "salvation" away from "damnation". It is not just concerned with "an understanding"- anthroposophists must be actively developing one way or another.

Anthroposophy may not be a system of beliefs, but before one knows "all about everything" there will be beliefs.



-Br.Bruce

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

the Australian definition of religion:
(based on the principles established in the Scientology case) namely:

- belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and
- acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.

This seems a rather limiting and limited notion of "religion." Professor Ninian Smart is known for his identification of seven aspects of relgious belief; namely:

• Experience - "Religious experience", very non-ordinary
• Social - More than one person claiming Experience
• Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants
• Doctrinal - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
• Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
• Ritual - Repeated access to Experience
• Material - Material manifestation for participants

- Ninian Smart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

This seems a rather limiting and limited notion of "religion." Professor Ninian Smart is known for his identification of seven aspects of relgious belief; namely:

• Experience - "Religious experience", very non-ordinary
• Social - More than one person claiming Experience
• Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants
• Doctrinal - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
• Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
• Ritual - Repeated access to Experience
• Material - Material manifestation for participants

- Ninian Smart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

Dear Snoopy,
I would have thought the definition I posted was a very wide one- wide enough for all, even the most vaguely "spiritual".

As I intimated, the Scientology case altered the definition. The Scientologists were keen to to registered, for obvious reasons.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Yes, Anthroposophy is not a dogmatic religion. These days any old thing can be registered as a religion. It doesn't even have to do with any God or gods. It may be the work of a Black Magician.

Rudolf Steiner said once that if he returned and found that the Anthroposophical Society had become a dogmatic religion he would be its "bitterest enemy". I think the word "dogmatic" is the properly pejorative one, not religion.

So if others characterize anthroposophy as a religion it can hardly be argued against, because these days anything even vaguely spiritual (or not) can be registered as such. But it should never become a dogmatic religion. There must always be a freedom of thought- this is what can be emphasized to any critics. There is no "official line" from the Anthroposophical Society which speaks for all members or non-members. There is no thought police and thought control.

Of course, our brothers and sisters will hold to their various dogmas; and this is not much of a problem as long as we uphold a spirit of brotherhood and tolerance- that and the knowledge that our individual dogmas are only "place holders" on our journey towards ever more clarity.


-Br.Bruce

[Neemai]

Hi there Bruce,

I was reading a few Theosophy related articles from around the web recently and when coming across this I thought no it's not a religion, it more a universal organisation:

This organization's objectives are

1. To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.
2. To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science.
3. To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.

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?

Best wishes,


... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai,

Although Theosophy officially says it is not a religion, it can be argued that Theosophy both is, and is not, a religion. It all depends on your definition.

What is your definition of "religion"?

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

What is your definition of "religion"?

Hi Nick, I think that in the dictionary it is described as a form of faith, or set of philosophical beliefs, which is good as a universal meaning that we can all use, but personally I believe that to know God, and to love God - that is religion.

I wouldn't expect this to be a widely accepted definition in todays culture as some religions don't believe in a God. But personally it's one I'd follow.

Is there a popular definition of religion within Theosophy?


... Neemai

[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:

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

If one's own religious confession does not accord with the above under every condition (and patently Catholicism and Buddhism do not, to name but two), then surely one is required to abandon one's own creed and adopt the Theosophist creed in its place?

With regard to Universal brotherhood, does no Baha'i make precisely the same claim — in which case we have another significant contradiction?

Can we posit, for sake of argument, that a definition of religion is an adherence to a given creed ... if we take creed in its etymological Latin context of 'I believe... "?

Thomas

[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.

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

I have never actually come across a definition of religion in Theosophy, which, again, is amazing, since it is such an important word. If you use the "God as religion" definition, then Theosophy is definitely not a religion.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Theosophy welcomes all people of all creeds. It also has a specific set of doctrines. The purpose of Theosophy is to show a commonality, and shared origin of all the creeds of the world.


You said,

"...and then goes on to specify a creed which is, presumably, binding on the Universal brotherhood of which it speaks...."

--> The key word here is binding. Theosophy does not bind anyone to believing in any specific doctrine. No one Theosophist has the right to tell another what to believe. For example, reincarnation is a key theosophical concept, but someone who does not believe in reincarnation is free to join Theosophical discussions without believing in reincarnation, and no one has the right to them they are "wrong".

Let me give you a stronger example that came up at a Theosophical class I attended recently. Theosophy does not teach that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet there were several Christian Theosophists who attended this very class. Clearly, there is a "rub" between Christian Theosophists and Buddhist Theosophists on this point.

But this is the beauty of inter-religious studies, of which Theosophy is very much a part. All of us are learning to get along, and be part of a community — the very purpose of Theosophy.

You may ask yourself, if Christians believe in Jesus, yet Theosophy does not teach of his divinity, why do Christians even come to a Theosophical class? Because Theosophy explains Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis in a way that no other philosophy does. They get answers on specifc topics that they can get nowhere else. (What I am hinting at here is, the topic of Jesus pretty much gets ignored, and we just talk about something else in class. What happens in private discussions is a different matter. Christian Theosophists are always trying to sneak the Christian concept into private discussions — at least this is my biased opinion on the subject. Anyway, we Buddhist-minded Theosophists just look the other way whenever the subject comes up.) This is the very nature of religious pluralism, and Theosophy continues to pioneer in the area of such religious pluralism.

Theosophy does not shun any topic. And Theosophy does not prohibit any topic, such as the divinity/non-divinity of Jesus. This is the true nature of "official uncreedness" which is at the core of Theosophy.


On a similar topic, I see the Bailey and Steiner Schools as forms of Theosophy that have fully adopted the Christian concept. (Perhaps both Christianity and Theosophy fufill basic human needs?)

"If one's own religious confession does not accord with the above under every condition (and patently Catholicism and Buddhism do not, to name but two), then surely one is required to abandon one's own creed and adopt the Theosophist creed in its place?"

--> This is exactly what Theosophy does not do.

"With regard to Universal brotherhood, does no Baha'i make precisely the same claim — in which case we have another significant contradiction?"

--> I see no contradiction.

"Can we posit, for sake of argument, that a definition of religion is an adherence to a given creed ... if we take creed in its etymological Latin context of 'I believe... "?"

--> This is similar to a definition I used for years. It is based on the idea a person can have a religion all by themselves. No connection with other similar-believing people is required. (I have come to disagree with such a one-person definition.)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy welcomes all people of all creeds. It also has a specific set of doctrines. The purpose of Theosophy is to show a commonality, and shared origin of all the creeds of the world.

That's my point. Christian doctrine does not correspond with your doctrines. This 'shared commonality' is your doctrine, no-one else's, so you seek to impose it upon us.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,


Nirvana (and instructions on how to enter Nirvana) are not imposed on anyone. In fact, people are actually discouraged from applying for entry into Nirvana until they are ready. When a person applies for admission into Nirvana, and they fail the test, it is an ugly sight indeed. (Unfortunately, such cases exist. Fortunately, Theosophy is here to share these stories.)

"Christian doctrine does not correspond with your doctrines."

--> (1) Theosophy takes your statement as a compliment. Thanks!

(2) I think it would be good to compare Christianity with Theosophy regarding what is required to "get into Heaven". Christianity says a person who rejects Jesus will never get into Heaven. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. Theosophy, on the other hand, take the opposite view. No rejection of any Theosopical ideas earns a person more or less time in Heaven or Hell. According to Theosophy, entry into Heaven and Nirvana is more about building a good track-record than voicing any particular doctrine. (Rejecting Theosophical concepts can slow down a person's progress towards Nirvana, but that is an entirely different subject.)

One more thing: You are saying Christianity rejects the commonality of all religions, while Theosophy teaches such an idea. I completely agree with you!

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Nirvana (and instructions on how to enter Nirvana) are not imposed on anyone.

I'd rather not confues the issue by mixing paradigms. Nirvana has no transferable meaning in a Christian context — the one is a-theist, the other theist, the one holds the person as ephemeral, the other it is fundamental, and so forth...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I think it would be good to compare Christianity with Theosophy regarding what is required to "get into Heaven".

So do I. My first question would be, if there is no doctrine of Theosophy, what is required to get to heaven?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Christianity says a person who rejects Jesus will never get into Heaven. Period. No if's, and's, or but's.

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... your view just exemplifies just how little Theosophy understands of that which it assumes to bring under its banner.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

According to Theosophy, entry into Heaven and Nirvana is more about building a good track-record than voicing any particular doctrine. (Rejecting Theosophical concepts can slow down a person's progress towards Nirvana, but that is an entirely different subject.)

Track record of what?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

One more thing: You are saying Christianity rejects the commonality of all religions, while Theosophy teaches such an idea. I completely agree with you!

I know you do ... but for completely the wrong reasons!

Thomas