The Theosophists

[Bruce Michael]

Hello All,
Who or what are theosophists?

"Theosophy" is a book by Rudolf Steiner. The word means "Divine Wisdom" or the "wisdom of God". It is not specifically Eastern, Western, Northern or Southern. Some of the famous theosophists of history are Paracelsus, Oetinger and Jacob Boehme; all of whom were Western or Christian theosophists.

The original impulse behind the modern Theosophical Society was a Rosicrucian one, according to Dr. Steiner- who was himself a member of that said society (along with his wife Marie). During the long period in which he was a member, he was also the leader of the German section.

Now the question is, if the Theosophical society taught Eastern doctrines why was Dr. Steiner allowed to teach his Western Rosicrucian teachings and be a leader of the section? Why was this allowed to happen?

The reason is that the stated aim of the TS was 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.
Theosophy is not a religion. 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 moved away from the Rosicrucian to a more Eastern approach- first Indian Hindu and then Tibetan Buddhist. But her teachings were never meant to be dogma.

These are the aims of one of the Theosophical Societies:

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

There is nothing there about it being a path or having dogmas (Eastern or otherwise) and forcing people to believe one thing or another. You often find anthroposophists speaking at theosophical societies around the world.

As I said, theosophy is not a path. Blavatsky (who is not easy reading) never taught meditation or occult exercises. If someone wants to talk about anthroposophy at the Theosophical Society they can- this goes for the Adyar society.

If Annie Besant had accepted Steiner instead of Leadbeater as her guide, there may never have been an anthroposophical society. Dr. Steiner was in no hurry to leave but things became unbearable with the Krishnamurti issue.


-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

As 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.
See lecture, Occultism and Theosophy, in The Temple Legend.
Dr. Steiner was happy to call his book "Theosophy"- he didn't consider it an Eastern term.

He, or his followers to be precise, broke away from the TS when the original aims and objects of the Society were threatened with change by the Order of the Star of the East. No longer was the Society going to be a place for discussion, no, it was being turned into a religion.

As far as I've seen, the Adyar TS is still a place for discussion. The TS bookshops sell a wide variety of spiritual literature which includes Anthroposophy. There are many red hot students of Steiner who are members of the TS.

When lecturing at the TS, Dr. Steiner would start his lecture with "My dear Rosicrucian friends". He discusses in one of his lectures, that there were protests from some that he would say this. He replied that it was possible/allowable for one to be a Rosicrucian and a theosophist at the same time.

Rudolf Steiner was a Rosicrucian, according to his own statement.

-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

"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.

Lecture I: Man in the Light of Occultism

God is no respecter of personalities and neither is occultism.

"Occultism strips itself entirely of the personal element. Systems of philosophy arise directly out of the personal in man; occultism arises out of the impersonal and is on this account capable of general comprehension. And when it is a question of expressing occultism in terms of theosophy, the endeavour is always made to speak to every human heart and every human soul, and in large measure this can be done....

Occultism- the same for all mankind:

"Occultism is in its results one and the same for all mankind. In reality there is no such thing as a difference of standpoint in occultism — any more than there are different mathematics. It is only necessary in regard to any particular question to have the means actually at hand to acquire knowledge on that question, and the knowledge will be the same as is reached by everyone who has the right means at his disposal. Thus, speaking in the ideal sense, we can just as little admit the existence of different standpoints in occultism as we can imagine there might be different standpoints in mathematics. Consequently occultism, wherever it has made its appearance, has always been recognised as single and universal. It is true that in the various theosophies that have existed from time to time and have supplied the outer cloak, so to speak, of occult truths, differences show themselves; but that is because the truths have had to be clothed differently for one folk or one epoch, than for another folk or another epoch. In other words, the differences between the theosophies that exist on the Earth lie in the manner of thought used to clothe the occult truths. The foundations of occultism are always and everywhere one and the same...."

Occultism- the property of all Mankind, and the breaker down of religious differences:

"Occultism knows no such differentiations, it knows nothing that might stir up opposition between man and man. No cause for opposition exists, since occultism is the single undivided property of all mankind. And inasmuch as theosophy should in our time concern itself with the provision of a right and proper expression for occultism, it too must take care to absorb as little as possible of the differentiations that have manifested themselves in mankind. It must set itself the aim of being a faithful expression of occult truth and occult connections in so doing, it will inevitably also work for the overthrow of all specialised world-conceptions and help to break down religious differentiations."

-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

There is no Eastern, Western, Christian or Buddhist Theosophy:

"We must learn completely to overcome the inclination to a theosophy of a definite stamp and colouring. It has gradually come about in the history of evolution that theosophies have tended to receive a certain nuance and colouring in accordance — I will not say with religious prejudices, but with religious preconceived feelings and opinions. Theosophy needs to keep constantly in view its ideal, — to be a reflection of occultism. There can therefore be no such thing as a Buddhist theosophy or a Hindu theosophy, or a Zoroastrian or a Christian. Naturally, regard must be had to the characteristic ideas and thoughts with which particular people will approach theosophy."

Theosophy must be a reflection of occultism.

Nevertheless it must never let go its ideal of being a pure expression for occult truth. It was, for example, a repudiation of the fundamental principle of occultists all the world over, when a theosophy made its appearance among certain societies in Central Europe, calling itself a "Christian" theosophy. As a matter of fact, you can just as little have a Christian theosophy as a Buddhist theosophy or a Zoroastrian."

"The relation theosophy has to assume to religion is that of an expounder of its truths. For theosophy is in a position to understand the truths of religion....."

Theosophy can bring peace to all on Earth:

"A great work for peace on earth would be accomplished if unity and harmony could be established in regard to the higher realms of occult knowledge. Let that stand before us as an ideal. It is hard of attainment. When one reflects how intimately men are bound up with their religious prejudices and with the whole way in which they have been educated, one will readily perceive the difficulty of presenting them with something that is not coloured with any religious prejudice but is as faithful a picture as possible of occult knowledge.

"Within certain limits we must be prepared to recognise that as long as the Buddhist takes the standpoint of the Buddhist faith, he rejects the standpoint of the Christian. And if theosophy takes on a Buddhist colouring, then that Buddhist theosophy will quite naturally show itself inimical, or at any rate unsympathetic, to occultism. We shall also understand how difficult it is, in a realm where Christian forms prevail, to come to an objective knowledge, let us say, of those aspects of occultism which find expression in Buddhism. Our ideal, however, must always be to meet the one point of view with just as much understanding as the other and to establish over the whole earth a harmonious and peaceful relationship based on mutual comprehension.

-Br.Bruce

Quotes form Steiner

[Bruce Michael]

The Christian and the Buddhist can come together in agreement under the banner of Theosophy.

"The Buddhist and the Christian who have become theosophists will understand one another, they will be sure to discover a standpoint where they are in harmonious agreement. A theosophist has always before him the ideal of a universal single occultism, free of all religious prejudice. The Christian who has become a theosophist will understand the Buddhist when he says: "It is not possible that a Bodhisattva who has passed from incarnation to incarnation and has at length become Buddha (as happened in the particular case with the death of Suddhodana) should afterwards return again into a human body. For in becoming Buddha he has attained to such a lofty stage of human evolution that he does not need ever to pass again into a human body."

Certain concepts from Buddhism can, quite harmoniously, be included in Christianity:

The Christian will reply to the Buddhist: "Christianity has not up to the present given me any revelation concerning Beings like Bodhisattvas, but as I strive after theosophy I learn to recognise not only that you know this truth out of your knowledge, but that I too must receive it as truth." For as theosophist, the Christian will say to himself: "I understand what a Bodhisattva is, I know that the Buddhist speaks absolute truth about these Beings, he utters a truth which could be spoken in lands where Buddhism prevailed. I understand it when the Buddhist says that a Buddha does not return again into a fleshly organism." The Christian who has become a theosophist understands the Buddhist who has become a theosophist. And if the Christian were now in his turn to address the Buddhist, he could say: "When one studies the Christian faith in its true occult content, as it is studied in occult schools, then one finds that the Being who is designated by the name of Christ" — the name of Christ may be quite unknown to the other — "is a Being who was never on earth before the time of the Mystery of Golgotha. He is a Being who can never come again in a physical body; for that would contradict the whole nature of the Christ."

The Buddhist too, will gain an understanding of Christianity:

"When the Buddhist who has become a theosophist hears this from the Christian, he will answer him in the following way: "Just as you understand how impossible it is for me to admit that a Buddha, after he has once become Buddha, can come again in a fleshly body, — just as you understand me, recognising what has been imparted to me as truth, so am I ready to recognise the share of truth that has been communicated to you. I try to recognise what you receive from your faith, namely, that at the beginning of Christianity stands, not so much a Teacher, but a Deed, an Act." For the occultist places at the beginning of Christianity not Jesus of Nazareth, but the Christ, and he sets the actual moment of its beginning in the Mystery of Golgotha.

-Br.Bruce

Quotes from Steiner

[Bruce Michael]

The essential difference between Buddhism and Christianity:

"Buddhism differs from Christianity in that it has a personal teacher as its starting-point, whereas Christianity has a deed, the deed of salvation and release, the deed accomplished by the death on the Cross on Golgotha. Not a doctrine but a deed stands at the foundation of Christian evolution. This the Buddhist theosophist understands, and he receives what is given as the occult foundation of Christianity and in doing so helps to establish harmony among mankind. He would be breaking the harmony if he were to apply to Christianity his Buddhist ideas. It is the part of the Christian, when he becomes theosophist, to understand Buddhism out of Buddhism itself, not to re-mould in some way of his own the ideas about Bodhisattva and Buddha, but rather to understand them as they are contained in Buddhism. Similarly it is the part of the Buddhist to receive the Christian ideas as they are, for they form the occult foundations of Christianity. Just as it is impossible to bring together the Being Who is named with the name of Christ with Beings of a lower kind, namely with Bodhisattvas, so also is it impossible, if we would remain loyal to the ideal of theosophy, to allow theosophy to be anything else than a faithful reflection of the single undivided occultism....."

Universal Occultism:

"Occultism has always had the character of universality and is independent of every Buddhist as well as of every Christian shade of colouring. Hence it can understand objectively the Mussulman or the Zoroastrian or the Buddhist, even as it can also the Christian. What I have said will help you to see how it is that occultism, which is universal, has come to assume in theosophy so many different forms in the course of human evolution. And you will be able also to see why in our time it is so important to hold up as the ideal, not that one form of religion should gain the victory over the rest, but that all the different forms of expression of religion should mutually
understand one another. The first condition for this, however, is that men should come to an understanding of the occult foundations that are the same for all religions."
- Rudolf Steiner

-Br.Bruce

[Snoopy]

The recent book that I read on the history of Buddhism’s journey to the West (All is Change by Lawrence Sutin) contained a chapter on Theosophy. It begins:

“It is the central paradox of the Theosophical Society that its writings on Buddhism, by Blavatsky and others, were sometimes blatantly inaccurate as to matters of fact and even of basic doctrine – and yet there were many in Europe, America, and even Asia, who were spurred by those writings to pursue a deeper understanding of Buddhist practice.”

Other words that I found notable in the chapter included "disrespectful methods", "lurid", "mythic fabrication" and "fraudulent".

I think that's satiated my interest.


s.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The recent book that I read on the history of Buddhism’s journey to the West ... contained a chapter on Theosophy. It begins:

“It is the central paradox of the Theosophical Society that its writings on Buddhism, by Blavatsky and others, were sometimes blatantly inaccurate as to matters of fact and even of basic doctrine – and yet there were many in Europe, America, and even Asia, who were spurred by those writings to pursue a deeper understanding of Buddhist practice.”

Other words that I found notable in the chapter included "disrespectful methods", "lurid", "mythic fabrication" and "fraudulent".

Yes Snoopy, and some folks still call HPB, St. Germaine, and Cagliostro (HPB in her prior incarnation) charlatans ... simply because they do not know better! We've seen that here at C-R, time & time again.


What's difficult in this situation, is that no one bothers to actually READ The Secret Doctrine, in which book we find clarification as to some of the confusion even in the very INTRODUCTION to the First Volume!!!

Unwise are those who, in their blind and, in our age, untimely hatred of Buddhism, and, by re-action, of "Budhism," deny its esoteric teachings (which are those also of the Brahmins), simply because the name suggests what to them, as Monotheists, are noxious doctrines. Unwise is the correct term to use in their case. For the Esoteric philosophy is alone calculated to withstand, in this age of crass and illogical materialism, the repeated attacks on all and everything man holds most dear and sacred, in his inner spiritual life. The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of an absolute Divine Principle in nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable. Furthermore, the records we mean to place before the reader embrace the esoteric tenets of the whole world since the beginning of our humanity, and Buddhistic occultism occupies therein only its legitimate place, and no more. Indeed, the secret portions of the "Dan" or Jan-na"("Dhyan")of Gautama's metaphysics -- grand as they appear to one unacquainted with the tenets of the Wisdom Religion of antiquity -- are but a very small portion of the whole. The Hindu Reformer limited his public teachings to the purely moral and physiological aspect of the Wisdom Religion, to Ethics and MAN alone. Things "unseen and incorporeal," the mystery of Being outside our terrestrial sphere, the great Teacher left entirely untouched in his public lectures, reserving the hidden Truths for a select circle of his Arhats. The latter received their Initiation at the famous Saptaparna cave (the Sattapanni of Mahavansa) near Mount Baibhar (the Webhara of the Pali MSS.). This cave was in Rajagriha, the ancient capital of Mogadha, and was the Cheta cave of Fa-hian, as rightly suspected by some archaeologists.


Time and human imagination made short work of the purity and philo- sophy of these teachings, once that they were transplanted from the secret and sacred circle of the Arhats, during the course of their work of proselytism, into a soil less prepared for metaphysical conceptions than India; i.e., once they were transferred into China, Japan, Siam, and Burmah. How the pristine purity of these grand revelations was dealt with may be seen in studying some of the so-called "esoteric" Buddhist schools of antiquity in their modern garb, not only in China and other Buddhist countries in general, but even in not a few schools in Thibet, left to the care of uninitiated Lamas and Mongolian innovators.

Thus the reader is asked to bear in mind the very important difference between orthodox Buddhism -- i.e., the public teachings of Gautama the Buddha, and his esoteric Budhism. His Secret Doctrine, however, differed in no wise from that of the initiated Brahmins of his day. The Buddha was a child of the Aryan soil; a born Hindu, a Kshatrya and a disciple of the "twice born" (the initiated Brahmins) or Dwijas. His teachings, therefore, could not be different from their doctrines, for the whole Buddhist reform merely consisted in giving out a portion of that which had been kept secret from every man outside of the "enchanted" circle of Temple-Initiates and ascetics. Unable to teach all that had been imparted to him -- owing to his pledges -- though he taught a philosophy built upon the ground-work of the true esoteric knowledge, the Buddha gave to the world only its outward material body and kept its soul for his Elect. (See also Volume II.) Many Chinese scholars among Orientalists have heard of the "Soul Doctrine." None seem to have understood its real meaning and importance.

One has to thoroughly consider the implications of this idea - call it an HYPOTHESIS if you must - that only an INITIATIC Tradition can preserve the true and innermost teachings of such a Great One as the Buddha (Shakyamuni, let alone His predecessors) or the Christ.

Once this is realized (or contemplated), it will become apparent that no disrespectful methods, and no mythical fabrications have been made by H.P. Blavatsky and the early Theosophists as regards the true nature of esoteric BUDHISM (spelled with one `B'), or even as regards the exoteric religion BUDDHISM which is highly praised as being closest of today's great spiritual traditions to the true, Esoteric Doctrine.

Now, HOW would HPB be in a position - of authority, and/or of knowledge - to KNOW all this, and to proclaim such?

Simple. She LIVED AND STUDIED ... LITERALLY, At the Feet of the Master. HPB visisted Tibet not once but TWICE, and she spent more than a year in her own Master's Ashram - inasmuch as that Ashram had, at the time, an outward physical expression in the Sacred valley in Tibet. She learned from Masters KH and M, as well as from the Arhat Initiate pupil of KH, Djhwal Khul. And HPB witnessed DIRECT many, many things which are recorded in her various writings.

Those who KNOW all this, have testitifed to it, since HPB's day, and DURING her lifetime ... right up to the present. Others have chosen only to slander her and deny what they neither understand, nor have any experience of (either direct, or otherwise). Remember, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

And yet in the case of HPB, and of Theosophy, we have PLENTY of eyewitness testimony as to all manners and methods of demonstration of various MINOR occult powers, or lesser siddhis, which HPB was allowed (even INSTRUCTED) to demonstrate - not to gain a blind following, or to make fast converts - but to help suss out those who might recognize these phenomena, these demonstrations, for what they really are/were.

Anyone who has bothered to study these matters firsthand, taking into consideration the dozens upon dozens of SWORN or pledged testimonies regarding HPB's abilities and demonstrations - testimonies NOT from her `confederates,' but from MEN OF SCIENCE, and people of NO BIAS, or real SKEPTICS if anything - anyone considering these accounts, cannot but conclude that SOMETHING indeed, was going on ... and this, MORE than fraudulence and charlatanism.

But you see, Snoopy, so long as you are reading from second-hand sources, and from account written by those who have an axe to grind ... you're not going to get to the heart of the matter.

Are today's Buddhist `experts' biased and uneducated? Well, yes to the first part, but certainly no to the second. The various high lamas, even including His Holiness himself, have all - clearly - mastered a great portion of the EXOTERIC teaching, and I daresay they are fairly initiated into and aware of an esoteric tradition (Tantrism, for example) as well!

However, this is not the same as INITIATION, as it is understood, taught and preserved (and enacted, or conducted) in the Universal sense, or as per the tradition of Theos Sophia ... which does not mean AN Theos Sophia, but rather - the Theos Sophia. This is called Brahma Vidya in India, and we can only call it the Ageless Wisdom here in the West in an effort to suggest that these are TIMELESS TRUTHS - forming the heart, or the core, of every great religion this world has ever known.

To propose that it is a different `God' - or set of Gods - Who Initiate each person into the Inner Mysteries ... according to race, nationality, choice of religion and even world epoch or astrological age ... might be an idea worth pondering, but not against the backdrop - or the underlying teaching in the Ageless Wisdom - of THE ONE. Not Monotheistic, but more Pan-En-Theistic, all true Initiates of the Ageless Wisdom tradition gain entry into a Planetary Spiritual Hierarchy ... and NOT simply the inner portions of their particular religious path, etc.

We have seen the argument, from non-initiates, to the contrary - but such is unsupported. No one is suggesting that the various world religions do not preserve - to varying degrees - portions of the original doctrines of their Founders. But simply because I might happen to be a Lharampa Geshe, and have highest honors as a master of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, does NOT mean - that I am an INITIATE in the esoteric sense of this word. Much as I myself find such lamas to be an inspiration, and much as I enjoy hearing their teachings, as I have done in the past, I must maintain my own recognition - or awareness - that we do not certify ourselves into Tushita Heaven, or into Nirvana, any more than Christians save themselves, thereby gaining eternal Salvation.

No earthly institution exists, as yet, bearing the authority (even based on Wisdom or knowledge, let alone bearing the true power) ... to INITIATE us into the Mysteries, and to thereby bring us closer to the heart of God. On other posts, I have mentioned that the Christ, or Bodhisattva is the HIEROPHANT for the 1st two Initiations, this making clear the true and esoteric meaning of John 14:6. At the next two Initiations, it is our Planetary Deity, or `the Father,' Who presides. This would have been true for HPB, just as it was for St. Paul, and for Jesus before him ... and for the Saints, mystics, initiates and sages of every religious tradition - for 18 million years.

This gets a bit away from the criticisms of early the Theosophical Society by those who really don't have a clue ... but then, it is helpful to know something of the FOUNDATION of the true Work. As yet, I would say that 99% of the authors writing upon the subject demonstrate nothing but pure bias and ignorance, showing that their accusations are totally baseless ... while the remaining 1% fall into various camps, according to whose second-hand material they happen to agree with, either pro or con, and even then, we have several generations of Theosophical writing and authority.

Nick, or Bruce Michael, can do this subject much more justice than I can, and probably with greater brevity ... yet I have tried to show that we are dealing with accustations and opinions from those who either have a clear bias, or who are forced to toe the party line, because they feel they must DEFEND their various traditions (Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc.), owing to the fact that they haven't even READ what HPB has to say (firsthand).

Poor old Jack, I know she was just trying to get people to realize that all of these many branches (and twigs) proceed from One TREE ... even THIS being a necessary realization before we can begin to speak about our common ROOTS.

Yet here the various groups are, all fighting to say, "NO! WE are the only BRANCH that matters; all the others are unimportant - and false!" ... as if a bunch of branches of the Great Yggdrasil just kind of hang there, unattached and self-existent.

One Trunk, with roots deeper than any of us yet realize ... and NOWHERE does HPB say that Theos Sophia, in its modern form, has been a presentation of `the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.' She simply tells us what it is, where & how it originates, and why it is begin given forth - in greater measure - at this time. And she leaves it up to the wise, to those with a MODICUM of recognition and discernment, to learn and apply the Truths she has made available (as instructed by the Great Ones).

She has been followed by half a dozen or more Messengers in the late 19th and 20th Centuries. A shame, that people still cannot get over HPB-bashing, much realize what Great Work she helped prepare, and even wrought, herself.

Some of us see it. And we thank her. We KNOW - about the Messengers.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The recent book that I read on the history of Buddhism’s journey to the West (All is Change by Lawrence Sutin) contained a chapter on Theosophy. It begins:

“It is the central paradox of the Theosophical Society that its writings on Buddhism, by Blavatsky and others, were sometimes blatantly inaccurate as to matters of fact and even of basic doctrine – and yet there were many in Europe, America, and even Asia, who were spurred by those writings to pursue a deeper understanding of Buddhist practice.”

Other words that I found notable in the chapter included "disrespectful methods", "lurid", "mythic fabrication" and "fraudulent".

I think that's satiated my interest.


s.

Did you read this thread Snoopy?

"There can therefore be no such thing as a Buddhist theosophy or a Hindu theosophy, or a Zoroastrian or a Christian."

The Theosophical Society is a place where occultism is discussed- it does not have dogmatic teachings. In fact in one lecture hall that I am familiar with, there are symbols of all the major religions.

Blavatsky was drawn to Tibetan Buddhism when not a great deal was known about it in the West. She did make some mistakes, but some of what she presented was meant to be secret teachings.

As to doctrine, the various Buddhist sects have different doctrines.

But as I said, the Theosophical Society is not there to be another dogmatic religion, but a place for much varied discussion. The original members were in fact Masons, not Buddhists or Hindus.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yes Snoopy, and some folks still call HPB, St. Germaine, and Cagliostro (HPB in her prior incarnation) charlatans ... simply because they do not know better! We've seen that here at C-R, time & time again.

But you see, Snoopy, so long as you are reading from second-hand sources, and from account written by those who have an axe to grind ... you're not going to get to the heart of the matter.

Well I was reading a book on (primarily) Buddhism so I’m not claiming to be reading an original source of Theosophy.

My assessment of Theosophy has not come from those on this forum who do not “know better” but from those who promote and defend it. It appears to me, in my ignorance, to be a dog’s dinner cobbled together by a well dodgy fraud (rather like scientology in that respect, strangely, given their linkage on the Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions? thread.)

There may be precious jewels of Christianity and precious jewels of Buddhism to be found in Theosophy but they appear to me to have been assembled by a jewel thief. Still, whatever floats yer boat...

s.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well I was reading a book on (primarily) Buddhism so I’m not claiming to be reading an original source of Theosophy.

My assessment of Theosophy has not come from those on this forum who do not “know better” but from those who promote and defend it. It appears to me, in my ignorance, to be a dog’s dinner cobbled together by a well dodgy fraud (rather like scientology in that respect, strangely, given their linkage on the Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions? thread.)

There may be precious jewels of Christianity and precious jewels of Buddhism to be found in Theosophy but they appear to me to have been assembled by a jewel thief. Still, whatever floats yer boat...

s.

Ahhh ... so Christ and Buddha are Jewel Thieves, because they come to us on the 2nd Ray under the Cosmic Christ on Sirius?

You say that these Great Founders of religions are the frauds?

Snoopy, you do NO LESS when you fall in with the lockstep goose-stepping accusers ... having no real inkling of what HPB was about - and WHY she labored so tirelessly. I know you have no real understanding of WHO sent her, but for God's sake, at least show that you are better than the folks who cannot go to the Source on the matter. Give it a shot, eh?

If, once you have done so, you discover that she was anything other than what she purported to be ... then I will stand corrected.

Until then, all of the baseless accusations and slander are only just so much p*ssing in the wind ...

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Ahhh ... so Christ and Buddha are Jewel Thieves, because they come to us on the 2nd Ray under the Cosmic Christ on Sirius?

If you say so. I didn't.

You say that these Great Founders of religions are the frauds?

No I didn't say that.

s.

[Nick the Pilot]

Snoopy, you shared with us a quote,

[The Theosophical Society's] "...writings on Buddhism, by Blavatsky and others, were sometimes blatantly inaccurate as to matters of fact and even of basic doctrine...."

--> Perhaps you could share some examples? Perhaps there is a side to Buddhism that we have not seen?

You also listed these words regarding Theosophy.

"disrespectful methods", "lurid", "mythic fabrication" and "fraudulent".

--> Such negative accusations need to be backed up with examples. Feel free to provide them.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Snoopy, you shared with us a quote,

[The Theosophical Society's] "...writings on Buddhism, by Blavatsky and others, were sometimes blatantly inaccurate as to matters of fact and even of basic doctrine...."

--> Perhaps you could share some examples? Perhaps there is a side to Buddhism that we have not seen?

You also listed these words regarding Theosophy.

"disrespectful methods", "lurid", "mythic fabrication" and "fraudulent".

--> Such negative accusations need to be backed up with examples. Feel free to provide them.

As you will see from my post, I was quoting from a book. Feel free to read it.

s.

[Nick the Pilot]

Snoopy,
I am too busy to read the book. You have made general, vague, negative references to Theosophy, but you do not provide specific examples here.

That is called trash-talking.

I have reservations about other traditions, and I am always willing to discuss concepts in other traditons, but I never trash-talk.