Happy Birthday Theosophical Society

[Nick the Pilot]

The Theosophical Society held its first meeting on November 17, 1875, in New York City.

Imagine, if you will, the religious scene in New York City in 1875. Reincarnation and karma were unheard of, religions like Buddhism and Hinduism were virtually unknown, and “New Age” bookstores had yet to appear. Into the middle of all this, Madame Blavatsky brought her new and revolutionary ideas. Two of the most important ideas she taught were karma and reincarnation.

Today, karma and reincarnation are familiar words to most Americans. Not so in 1875. Theosophy takes credit for popularizing the ideas of karma and reincarnation in the western world.

[Nick the Pilot]

Happy 133rd birthday in 2008, Theosophical Society!

[Dharmaatmaa]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Today, karma and reincarnation are familiar words to most Americans. Not so in 1875. Theosophy takes credit for popularizing the ideas of karma and reincarnation in the western world.

I could add to these truely words even more. You say "to most Americans", and I think - to most people in the whole world. Today, almost everyone heard about them (karma and reincarnations, or embodiment)!

In Russia, Helena Blavatsky's books were forbidden to print due to communistic ideology, but now I've heard there appeared a collective of theosophists in Moscow, printing their own magazine "Теософский Вестник" (News of Theosophy).

The most valuable in theosophy is its "interfaith" character, closely connected with sciences. Theosophy isn't a religion; it's a spirit of all the existing religions.

Happy Birthday, theosophy!

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You are right, the words karma and reincarnation are known all over the world — not just in America — thanks to Theosophy.

[Dharmaatmaa]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Dharmaatmaa,

You are right, the words karma and reincarnation are known all over the world — not just in America — thanks to Theosophy.

But I don't think theosophy itself did it. I'd say it is a merit of that heroical woman bombed the world.

Theosophical movement exists during 133 years already, but its today positions are far from perfection. They've got many problems. Now theosophy often equals with buddhism, and people don't want even hear of that. They just say: "It's not ours. It's Oriental. Let Buddhists do their work!" They usually don't understand that theosophy's international and interfaith. Why theosophy is in crisis?

I think here's a factor of person. Who's in theosophy now? Good, kind, but just ordinary people. They wanna do something good, but they too ordinary, casual. Not so behaved Madame Blavatsky. Theosophical boat were swimming only due to her own help! Being just a woman without any money, she could have made a revolution in all thinking world. But for her own efforts theosophy would never appear. And what now? Even a man can't do things she had done alone. And it's unanswerable.
Thanks to Blavatsky, a great Russian lady!

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"...theosophy often equals with buddhism...."

--> It has been said that Theosophy is not a religion, but the religion most similar to Theosophy is Buddhism.

"They just say: 'It's not ours. It's Oriental. Let Buddhists do their work!' "

--> I'm not sure what you are talking about. What are you referring to?

"They usually don't understand that theosophy's international and interfaith."

--> Are you talking about Theosophists, or people who have only heard of Theosophy? Theosophy's strongest point is its committment to international and interfaith ideas.

"Why theosophy is in crisis?"

--> What crisis are you referring to?

"Thanks to Blavatsky, a great Russian lady!"

--> I agree. She sacrificed her entire life that we all could have the teachings called Theosophy.

[Dharmaatmaa]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...theosophy often equals with buddhism...."

--> It has been said that Theosophy is not a religion, but the religion most similar to Theosophy is Buddhism.

If only that! It's completely correct that you said, Nick. Buddhism is a part of Gupta-Vidya (Occultism), its ethical part. And theosophy is a exoterical part of an Occultism. Buddhism and Theosophy both are parts of Occultism. They are brothers. But I meant that in people's consciousness Theosophy looks like a "Buddhism in mask", "Oriental Buddhism for Western people". It's not so in fact, as you know. But usually people don't want even to hear of Theosophy when have understood it reminds them Buddhism. I don't know why but people in Europe usually dn't like and even afraid Buddhism."They just say: 'It's not ours. It's Oriental. Let Buddhists do their work!" and "They usually don't understand that theosophy's international and interfaith."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Are you talking about Theosophists, or people who have only heard of Theosophy? Theosophy's strongest point is its committment to international and interfaith ideas.

Of cause, about "people who have only heard of Theosophy"! Theosophists became theosophists because they caught its "international and interfaith ideas".

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Why theosophy is in crisis?"

--> What crisis are you referring to?

To that one which happens when people don't even want to hear of theosophy. It's as if dead for people.

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"Buddhism is a part of Gupta-Vidya (Occultism), its ethical part."

--> There are many traditions within Buddhism which I would not characterize as occultism. For example, when I think of Pureland Buddhism, I do not think of occultism at all. To me, Pureland Buddhism is the very picture of exoteric Buddhism.

"Theosophy looks like ... 'Oriental Buddhism for Western people.' "

--> That is an interesting way of looking at it. It is said that Theosophy is the only philosophy that appeals to a large number of western 'philosophers' as well as eastern 'philosophers.'

"But usually people don't want even to hear of Theosophy when have understood it reminds them Buddhism."

--> Unfortunately, there is a great deal of animosity between Buddhists and Theosophists. The main sticking point is that Buddhism teaches there is no soul, while Theosophy teaches there is a soul. (Theosophy maintains Buddha was misquoted and misunderstood on this point, and that Buddha very much taught the idea of the 'existence' of a soul.)

"I don't know why but people in Europe usually don't like and even afraid Buddhism."

--> I believe this is due to the very strong hold that Christianity presently has on Europe.

"What crisis are you referring to? --> To that one which happens when people don't even want to hear of theosophy."

--> That is more of a 'crisis' for non-Theosophists than for Theosophists. To use Thomas' own words, Theosophy is "vibrant and alive" to its members. Thanks, Thomas!

[Dharmaatmaa]

I'm glad we perfectly understand one another. I want to say what I was reminded of when reading your message. If you see our thinking goes on and on - from a fact to a new one. We as if make pace to pace. I remember as Ernest Wood had once said - thinking is like a walking; when we think we walk from fact to fact, as if changing our feet. But what is usually found in forums?! People are arguing on and on, their topic forgotten. Socrates said about this in Plato's "State". He said people can't think usually, they just argue. Don't you find? I hope just talking and thinking will serve as an example for threads.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Buddhism is a part of Gupta-Vidya (Occultism), its ethical part."

--> There are many traditions within Buddhism which I would not characterize as occultism. For example, when I think of Pureland Buddhism, I do not think of occultism at all. To me, Pureland Buddhism is the very picture of exoteric Buddhism.

Okey. If we take a look at theosophy itself we'll see it has inner and exoteric parts. Right? If someone asks for theosophy you won't tell him about difficult teaching of principles of man. But you would tell about incarnations and karma and stuff.
Buddhism also has two parts; of cause, we can't say Pureland or so belongs to Occultism. I agree with you completely here. Although meanwhile, we can't deny it has its roots in occult. It's unanswerable for me. It doesn't make Pureland Buddhism not to be "the very picture of exoteric Buddhism".
If I'm not mistaken their Amitabha Buddha is ours (theosophical) Amita-Buddha, or Adi Buddha! The latter consists in itself so-called Bija - principle of avataras, does it not? Besides, Adi Buddha is collective name for numerous lower Buddhas (Dhyani Buddhas, Manushya Buddhas etc.). So who can deny Pureland has connection with Occultism?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy is the only philosophy that appeals to a large number of western 'philosophers' as well as eastern 'philosophers.'

Very much so, I'd say, Nick. I really think one of the most major purposes of theosophy is connection between Oriental and Western thought-style.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of animosity between Buddhists and Theosophists. The main sticking point is that Buddhism teaches there is no soul, while Theosophy teaches there is a soul. (Theosophy maintains Buddha was misquoted and misunderstood on this point, and that Buddha very much taught the idea of the 'existence' of a soul.)

It's a real problem certainly. Although I'm not sure all buddhist schools reject soul. I can exactly say they deny attavada, a personal soul. They assert soul is a mirage. Bene sit! They may say what they want, eventually. But how you think they explain existing of their trikaya, if they reject soul?
I know they say real is only three - Dharma, nirvana and space. But what about Amitabha? Isn't it a soul?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

That is more of a 'crisis' for non-Theosophists than for Theosophists. To use Thomas' own words, Theosophy is "vibrant and alive" to its members.

I don't know. Jesus once said a good phrase - A doctor is needed by sick, not by healthy. Why do people become theosophists? I believe because they feel something inside. Not "The Voice of Silence", of cause, but something similar. If one don't feel need in water he would never start drink. Theosophists were theosophists and even when they knew nothing of theosophy. Right?

[Hermano Luis]

The Theosophical Society is great not because anything that passes as Theosophical doctrines, but because it supports freedom of thought, it encourages each individual member to walk his/her own spiritual path, it promotes the study of philosophy, religion, art, and science, and above all because it promotes the dignity of all human beings.

HPB was an incredible woman. Her writings even today are somewhat revolutionary, but we must remember they are the writings of one Theosophist. Her literary works are not binding on other Theosophists, nor do they constitute a "Theosophical Bible" to be followed blindly by all.

The Theosophical Society does not depend on many members, for this is not a missionary society. Ours is a society that promotes the inidividual search for Truth and respect for the findings of others.

That is why I am a Theosophist.

Hermano Luis
Moriviví Hermitage

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"If someone asks for theosophy you won't tell him about difficult teaching of principles of man. But you would tell about incarnations and karma and stuff."

--> It is all a matter of what someone is ready for. For example, I enjoy discussing the seven principles of man, but most people are not ready for such a discussion. Hopefully, these kinds of discussions will help prepare people to disucss the more difficult and complicated ideas within Theosophy.

"...we can't deny it has its roots in occult."

--> This is one of the basic ideas in Theosophy, that all religions start out as deep and mysterious belief systems, but then become watered down and full of empty symbols as the centuries pass by. This is why Theosophy says new religions continually need to be created, to replace the old religions as the old religions become ossified.

"If I'm not mistaken their Amitabha Buddha is ours (theosophical) Amita-Buddha, or Adi Buddha!"

--> I find it fascinating that you consider Adi Buddha to be the same as Amida Buddha. I disagree. I see Adi Buddha as the Absolute, although there are people who say Adi Buddha is the Logos. I see Amida Buddha as one of our solar system's seven kosmic Dhyani-Chohan.

Of course, as you mention, the lower Buddhas are manifestations or avataras of the higher Buddhas. But I do not see lower Buddhas as being the same as higher Buddhas. One is a manifestation of the other.

"So who can deny Pureland has connection with Occultism?"

--> I have found that Pureland Buddhists do not wish to discuss topics such as avataras, Manushi Buddhas, etc. That is why I say that, even though a tradition such as Pureland Buddhism originally sprung from an esoteric source, I feel that people have gone out of their way to remove esoteric ideas from it.

"...one of the most major purposes of theosophy is connection between Oriental and Western thought-style."

Yes. This is the very reason Theosophy was started.

"...I'm not sure all buddhist schools reject soul."

--> Really? I have yet to find one.

"They assert soul is a mirage."

--> Well, they assert that everything is a mirage, not only souls. (This is an idea that Theosophy agrees with completely.) But they say that some things do not exist more than other things do not exist, which is where their mistake lies.

"...how you think they explain existing of their trikaya, if they reject soul?"

--> The idea that there is no soul has become a Buddhist dogma that Buddists will not even discuss. This is a perfect example of how all religions become ossified as the centuries go by.

"...what about Amitabha? Isn't it a soul?"

--> This really gets into the definition of soul. As we know, a human being consists of seven principles, but I say that only the three higher principles of a human's seven principles comprise a soul. But the definition of 'soul' is a fascinating topic of conversation, and not all Theosophists agree on the definition of the word soul.

"Why do people become theosophists?"

--> To help people understand ideas such as the three aspects of a human soul, as we have just discussed.

"I believe because they feel something inside."

--> Many people have expressed an unhappiness at all organized religion. Fortunately, Theosophy provides what all organized religions fail to provide.

"Theosophists were theosophists and even when they knew nothing of theosophy. Right?"

--> Exactly. Theosophy is nothing more than a collection of thousands of concepts. The more we discuss and understand each and every one of these thousands of concepts, the more informed we become.

[Nick the Pilot]

Hermano,

You said,

"...it supports freedom of thought, it encourages each individual member to walk his/her own spiritual path, it promotes the study of philosophy, religion, art, and science, and above all because it promotes the dignity of all human beings."

--> Yes. No Theosophist has the right to tell another Theosophist what to believe. For example, most Theosophists believe in reincarnation and karma. But if a person does not believe in reincarnation and karma, such a person is still welcome to join in Theosophical discussions. No other religion or philosophy is as open as Theosophy.

"Her literary works are not binding on other Theosophists, nor do they constitute a "Theosophical Bible" to be followed blindly by all."

--> That is the beauty of Theosophy. People cannot be forced into studying Theosophy, they can only study Theosophy of their own free will.

"...this is not a missionary society."

--> As a matter of fact, Theosophy prohibits prostelytizing. This is one of the things about Theosophy that appeals to me the most.

"Ours is a society that promotes the individual search for Truth and respect for the findings of others. That is why I am a Theosophist."

--> Welcome to the world of open-minded people.

[Dharmaatmaa]

I see your informed about Occultism a bit more than I thought before. So I think we could support a new level in conversation. I think I can feel free when speak.

"I enjoy discussing the seven principles of man, but most people are not ready for such a discussion." And we do belong to them, I'd add. I studyed principles for a long time. What have I seen? First, there exist a great number of principles' classification. When we read about this Seven, we can never say it is correct. Even Madame Blavatsky was saying that "classification depends on a level of spiritual progress". So this question's very much complicated. In Secret Doctrine (vol. 3) it is said the classification included atma and phisical body's incorrect. And there's so much "black holes" there. I think you know it without saying.
And Alice Bailey proposed completely another classification. Although I'm not sure she was right in her all books. Her books are far from traditional theosophy.

"I find it fascinating that you consider Adi Buddha to be the same as Amida Buddha. I disagree. I see Adi Buddha as the Absolute, although there are people who say Adi Buddha is the Logos. I see Amida Buddha as one of our solar system's seven kosmic Dhyani-Chohan."

Oh, Nick! It's just impossible that you'd said! I'll explain my position step by step. For the beginning, Amida Buddha is the same with Adi Buddha. I'm sure. And H.P.B. in the Secret Doctrine said Amida is a Senzar grammatical form of Adi. Yes, there "are people who say Adi Buddha is the Logos" and there will always be, since it's truth. Why? Because the Absolute is and is not. And what Amida Buddha does? He acts. He gives life to lower Buddhas. He is a worker at last. Parabrahman is an architector, not a builder. He just creates a thought - so-called Logos. And the Logos acts, then. Yes, Adi Buddha is Logos, but not from our Solar System. He's the first Logos - Brahma from Hindu books, who was born from Vishnu's midriff (if I correctly remember this word). So, due to this logic Amida (=Adi) Buddha just can't be "one of our solar system's seven kosmic Dhyani-Chohan".

"a human being consists of seven principles"

Let's call only three principles: Spiritual Soul (atma-buddhi-manas), Humane Soul (mental body (lower manas)) and Animal Soul (kama-manas, prana, kama-rupa, phisical body). It'd be more comfortable.

"If a person does not believe in reincarnation and karma" he doesn't understand theosophy I guess.

In another questions I do agree with you.

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

By the way, are you a follower of the Pureland tradition within Buddhism?

You said,

"When we read about this Seven, we can never say it is correct."

--> That is the beauty of Theosophy. No one alive today is the final authority on Theosophical ideas. As I said before, Theosophists disagree on this, as you and I are doing right now.

"...Amida Buddha is the same with Adi Buddha. I'm sure. And H.P.B. in the Secret Doctrine said Amida is a Senzar grammatical form of Adi."

I disagree. Take a look at this quote.

Blavatsky's odd remark that "'Amida' is the Senzar form of 'Adi'" (CW XIV, 425) is also explicable. Since Amida (or Amitabha) is one of the representations of the power of the primordial Adi Buddha, it is a symbol of that power. Adi Buddha is the absolute, which cannot be described or conceived, but can be symbolized, for example, by the figures of the Dhyani Buddhas, of whom Amida is one. If Senzar is a system of symbols for expressing the otherwise inexpressible, it makes perfect sense to say that "'Amida [the personification of boundless light] is the Senzar form [symbolic expression] of 'Adi' [the Absolute]." Far from being a mistake, H.P.B.'s comment is a simple truth, but symbolically expressed.
Theosophy World — February 1997

--> I will stick to the idea that Adi Buddha refers to our solar system Logos, then come the seven Dhyani-Buddhas, and then come the seven Dhyani-Bodhisattvas (of which Amida Buddha is the fourth).

"Parabrahman is an architector, not a builder. He just creates a thought - so-called Logos."

--> I think Blavatsky would disagree with your anthropomorphizing of the Absolute in that way.

"...Adi Buddha is Logos, but not from our Solar System."

--> I think the name Adi Buddha can be used to refer to both the Logos of our universe, and also to the Logos of our solar system.

"Let's call only three principles: Spiritual Soul (atma-buddhi-manas), Humane Soul (mental body (lower manas)) and Animal Soul (kama-manas, prana, kama-rupa, phisical body). It'd be more comfortable."

--> Once again, different Theosophists prefer different ways of organizing the names of the principles. I prefer saying Atman is the first principle, Buddhi is the second principle, etc.

[Dharmaatmaa]

No, not Pureland. I'd say I accept Buddhism only in part where it does agree with Occultism. That's all.

Thanks for this mentioning of the Theosophy World. I've never heard of it before. I'm about to look there soon when time allows. But I can't agree Senzar is just a "jargon", slang or even system of symbols. It's a language.
And Amida is form of Adi, of cause, but in another sense. It's about cases. I don't know if you've taught some language with cases (Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Hindi etc.), Nick. If you have, it's Okey. I'll explain, just in case.
I believe Amida is another case from Adi. Adi is Nominative, Amida is another case. For ex, in Russian declension is very much developed. And "gohd" (год = a year) in Nominative Singular turns to be "lyet" (лет = years) in Genetive Plural! You see?
I think Senzar is very much flexible in this sphere as most of Oriental languages. English hasn't ever had declensions.

"I think Blavatsky would disagree with your anthropomorphizing of the Absolute in that way."

I don't think so. She never criticized masons. I used masonic terms.

"I think the name Adi Buddha can be used to refer to both the Logos of our universe, and also to the Logos of our solar system."

Brahma from Puranas is Adi (the first) Buddha. I don't know anything but that. I think we should use that principle in theosophy that "no one can force no one to believe in his own ideas" (Instructions for Inner Group).

May I ask you, if in America Alice Bailey is named theosophist? Do people believe in her books? In Russia, many people aren't sure she wrote truth, or even knew it. She might have imagined her Masters. She might be a medium, eventually...