What is Theosophy?

lunamoth · 02-03-2006, 09:50 PM

I'm not actually sure where to post this thread, but I wanted to open one up where Theosophy could be discussed and people can ask questions. I think we have at least one member who is a theosophist (Andrew?) whom I hope would be willing to host this thread. As always I hope that respect will be the rule of the day.

So my starting question is, what is Theosophy? What are the basic beliefs?

cheers,
lunamoth

lunamoth · 02-03-2006, 09:57 PM

From wikipedia, a discussion starter.

Quote:

Theosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theosophy is a body of ideas which holds that all religions are attempts by man to ascertain "the Divine," and as such each religion has a portion of the truth. Theosophy, as a coherent system of thought, developed from the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (also Hélène). Together with Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and others she founded the Theosophical Society in 1875.

A more formal definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes Theosophy as "any of various philosophies professing to achieve a knowledge of God by spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, esp. a modern movement following Hindu and Buddhist teachings and seeking universal brotherhood." Christian Theosophy is a branch that strives for the knowledge of God and Jesus obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence.

Adherents of Theosophy maintain that it is a "body of truth" that forms the basis of all religions. Theosophy, they claim, represents a modern face of Sanatana Dharma, "the Eternal Truth," as the proper religion.

The five prominent symbols visible in the seal of the Theosophical Society are the Star of David, the Ankh, the Swastika, the Ouroboros, and above the seal is the Aum. Around the seal are written the words: There is no religion higher than truth.

lunamoth

taijasi · 02-04-2006, 12:20 AM

I was briefly a member of the TSA - Theosophical Society of America - about 15 years ago. I visited the National Headquarters (in Wheaton, a suburb of Chicago). I met some wonderful people there, from as far away as Hawaii, during the Summer Convention of '91. So I do have some firsthand experience.

I also used to post to a youth forum online, more than 10 years ago, and I think it still exists. My ideas have evolved over 15+ years, but I still look to Theosophy as the Beacon of Light in my adult life - and without its influence, I do not think my spiritual path would be as meaningful or as rewarding.

Many related movements exist, yet they all universally agree (along with the TSA and International Theosophical Society) ... that Theos Sophia, or the Divine Wisdom, predates the Society that was founded in 1875. Many regard Ammonius Saccas (3rd Century AD, Founder of the NeoPlatonic School) as the first modern Theosophist. The ideas (doctrines, tenets) that Theosophy proposes, however ... are certainly ancient. It is not unusual for Theosophists to hold that our world's history easily dates back literally millions of years (both in terms of civilization & culture, with all that these entail), rather than the few tens of thousands of years admitted by modern archaeologists & anthropologists.

I would only mention further (since I'm not sure how well folks at CR know this symbol), that the swastika mentioned as part of the TS logo ... is the reverse of the one used by Hitler & the Nazi party - which purposefully sought to distort esoteric teachings and misuse (or direct to destructive ends) the inherent powers of Creation. The swastika is a positive, and spiritual symbol - properly oriented - and this Wiki article might help.

Thank you, Lunamoth, for starting this thread ...

Namaskar,

andrew

Thomas · 02-04-2006, 06:03 PM

Hi Lunamoth -

Perhaps my obvious antipathy towards the Theosophical Society might preclude me from this discussion, but the reasoning behind it is not personal, but theological and ultimately metaphysical - therefore I would say I question its validity from a Catholic standpoint as well as that of the esoterists of the Sophia Perennis, or the Primordial Tradition, whom I believe do champion a true theosophy in the modern world.

This is a big subject, and therefore I shall address it in stages.

Before approaching the TS as such, we must distinguish between what is traditionally understood by Theosophy, and how the TS presents it.

'Theo Sophia' is the science of Divine Wisdom, and can be applied to anyone at any time who meditates or contemplates the Divine Nature. The word itself was coined by the Greeks, and can be applied to the speculations of Anaximander, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle ... even though their views and determinations were markedly different. It's practice, however, is universal, and to a large degree Hindu speculation can rightly be termed theosophy.

Theosophy then, as a belief, relies on the idea that man can know God through the operation of the intellect alone. How this is possible depends upon the nature of the theosophical system and its doctrine or its metaphysics. The Hindu Vedas, for example, regarded as sacred texts, are believed not to be 'revealed' as are believe not in revelatioin but in

In the West theosophic teaching comes to the fore in certain schools of Hermeticism (Egyptian), Philosophy (Greek) and Gnosticism (Persian) - all of which, like the Asiatic traditions, are at root, forms of monistic pantheism.

The JudeoChristian tradition is neither monistic nor pantheistic, and this was why Christianity refused (as had the Jews before them) any accommodation with the pagan world.

Theosophy saw new interest revived in the Renaissance when large works of Greek philosophy, until then lost to the west, became available, like so much else, through trade with the Arab (by then Islamic) world. The works of St Thomas Aquinas, for example, are founded on the application of Aristotelian principle learned at the hand of Moslem scholars.

The Renaissance brought a resurgence of interest in all things theosophic - Platonism, Kabbala, Alchemy, magic and the occult - and flavoured German speculative theology, especially The Theologia Germanica, and the works of the Dominican mystics Eckhart, Susso and Tauler, as well as the mystic Jacob Boehme.

Boehme's mysticism, although expressed in Christian terms, nevertheless regards all formal appearances as at best signs, empty in themselves, but pointing towards a transcedant reality.

Inevitably and periodically attempts were made to unify Christianity to one or more of these varied threads, but the fundamental difference of theology - the knowledge of God made known by Revelation - and theosophy - the knowledge of God made known through the operation of the intellect - led to confrontation, each side arguing the superiority of the other. Whilst there is room to move and resolve this issue in Catholic theology - that man works with God towards his own salvation - the Reformed Protestant denominations - Lutheran, Calvin, Prysbeterian, etc., insisted on salvation by grace alone and the utter inability of man to do anything towards his own redemption.

This was to have a significant impact later on.

Theosophic elements, be they heretical, heterodox and even orthodox, but who challenged the authority of the magisterium, went underground, into the initiatic orders, modelled on the texts which were their inspiration, and took names by which they claimed both an origin and lineage as old if not older than the Church itself.

Thus Freemasons hold they are in receipt of a Secret Doctrine which dates back to the time of Solomon, and the symbolism of the Temple.

The Rosicrucians, another example, are founded on the teaching of the mythical Christian Rosenkreutz, a young man who travelled to the East, met up with certain sages there, who initiated him into the Secret Doctrine, which he caried back to Europe.

+++

This is brief and far from all-inclusive, but it is something of an overview of theosophy as a speculative science, before we look at the nature of the doctrine of The Theosophiocal Society itself.

Thomas

lunamoth · 02-04-2006, 06:35 PM

Thank you both, Thomas and Andrew, for your interest and participation in this thread. I find it all very interesting and hope to see the discussion continue.

Andrew, perhaps you would expound upon this:

Quote:

It is not unusual for Theosophists to hold that our world's history easily dates back literally millions of years (both in terms of civilization & culture, with all that these entail), rather than the few tens of thousands of years admitted by modern archaeologists & anthropologists.

To me this sounds like you believe that perhaps the earth was seeded by alien life, in order for 'culture' to predate the emergence of humans by evolution.

Thomas, so far from your description theosophy sounds quiet a bit like gnosticism (and I am not making any value judgements here, just trying to find what distinguishes the two). Am I reading you correctly that theosophy has a legitimate role in Catholic thought? I remember some posts by Abogado del Diablo about the formation of Christianity by merging Greek and Jewish philosophy/theology. I'll have to find those old threads and re-read them.

lunamoth

lunamoth · 02-04-2006, 06:39 PM

BTW, it's not my intention to micro-manage this thread. Just thought I'd ask a couple questions to let you know I am interested! I hope others will participate as well.

lunamoth

Thomas · 02-04-2006, 08:50 PM

Hi Lunamoth -

... theosophy sounds quiet a bit like gnosticism
Yes, gnosticism comes under the banner of theosophy generally.

Am I reading you correctly that theosophy has a legitimate role in Catholic thought?
In Catholic more than any other Christian denomination, I think.

Catholicism allows for the possibility that by his own efforts man can become aware of God - Aquinas' 5 proofs of God, for example, are based on reason and logic, but they are 5 proofs of a God whom he 'knows' by Revelation far more and far more intimately than he knows by reason alone.

The Catholic view is that Christ will only enter the soul by invitation - the Christian image of soul and saviour as bride and groom speaks of this intimacy, and whilst God 'moves in mysterious ways' to bring man to enlightenment, man is always free to deny God, and thus deny salvation.

I remember some posts by Abogado del Diablo about the formation of Christianity by merging Greek and Jewish philosophy/theology.

I would rather say, as the Fathers do, that Christianity is formed by Revelation (her Hebraic ancestry), and [i]informed[i] by rational philosophical reflection (her Hellenic ancestry).

Thomas

taijasi · 02-04-2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

It is not unusual for Theosophists to hold that our world's history easily dates back literally millions of years (both in terms of civilization & culture, with all that these entail), rather than the few tens of thousands of years admitted by modern archaeologists & anthropologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

To me this sounds like you believe that perhaps the earth was seeded by alien life, in order for 'culture' to predate the emergence of humans by evolution.

I don't mean to give this question short shrift, since it's actually a subject of much fascination to me. But I've just found myself erasing many paragraphs of rambling that never seemed to actually address the question! My thinking may be a bit convoluted at the moment (bad cold, or flu) ... but let me try to give a sensible response.

If we can avoid thinking in material terms ... (and that's a big IF) ... then yes, it could be said that our earth life was seeded from elsewhere. But even science has led us to this conclusion, by teaching us that we are literally stardust - in terms of our material being. The elements that now compose our bodies (and all matter on this planet, in fact), were born in supernovae (Super-Births? hmmm) many billions of years ago!

But that doesn't satisfactorily answer the question as to our spiritual origins, or the development of consciousness as a principle ... and the more direct role of the Divine in our lives. To answer then, perhaps enigmatically (because I don't think there is any other way!), I believe that this very involvement of other Humanities (not native to our planet) in the past ... did indeed play a prominent role in helping our Humanity get to its present state. Thus, as agents of spiritual evolution (whether assisting in our material development or of the principle of consciousness), we have indeed been assisted by ET.

The difficulty in understanding this comes from our limited understanding even of our own constitution. Thomas makes some very good points about the intellect and revelation in his post, and I would like to respond to that next. But in terms of our understanding even of ourselves ... we are as yet almost completely unaware, imho, of who and what we really are. And thus my great fondness for St. Paul's statement:

For now we see through a glass darkly, and then face to face.

Esoteric studies regarding Humanity's origins upon this planet focus on the subject from the point of view of our purpose here, and also from the viewpoint of consciousness itself. Humanity's past in terms of cultures and civilization also becomes of interest if we are to fully grasp the forces at work, and influences present, on the planet today. But to be direct ... no matter how great the fascination with ancient civilizations and their accomplishments (such as my own great interest in Egyptology) ... nothing will substitute for a genuine regard for Humanity's well-being, and a commitment to improving both one's own life, and the life of the greater whole.

If it can be born in mind that assisting Humanities from elsewhere in our Solar System, and even from other Solar Systems, are here to help, then I would readily say that yes - I think we have always been visited, and the seeding of our evolution was a part of the Service rendered by many, many different spiritual agencies throughout Earth's past. But if it causes apprehension, then it would be better to simply trust that the Divine Plan will see to it that Earth receives the assistance she needs - and not become too concerned on the outward agency. After all, the appeal to the Divine is what generates the response, and I believe it was the Christ who said:

"If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?
or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?"

Even when spiritual aid is not explicitly sought, I do believe that evolution requires the participation of many, many great spiritual beings, and a myriad host of lesser lives. The Divine Plan (and its wise & illumined custodians) see to it that our development progresses as well as possible given planetary (and greater) karma ... so even if Humanity is not making conscious appeal to the Divine (such as in periods of spiritual darkness) - we are not forsaken. Always, there are those in the spiritual worlds who see to it that our evolution is safe-guarded. And these presences are not alien, or external to our Planet ... save those forces of tremendous spiritual potency & standing who may be termed Interplanetary, or Extra-Planetary.

andrew

taijasi · 02-05-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Theosophy then, as a belief, relies on the idea that man can know God through the operation of the intellect alone. How this is possible depends upon the nature of the theosophical system and its doctrine or its metaphysics. The Hindu Vedas, for example, regarded as sacred texts, are believed not to be 'revealed' as are believe not in revelatioin but in

Inevitably and periodically attempts were made to unify Christianity to one or more of these varied threads, but the fundamental difference of theology - the knowledge of God made known by Revelation - and theosophy - the knowledge of God made known through the operation of the intellect - led to confrontation, each side arguing the superiority of the other. Whilst there is room to move and resolve this issue in Catholic theology - that man works with God towards his own salvation - the Reformed Protestant denominations - Lutheran, Calvin, Prysbeterian, etc., insisted on salvation by grace alone and the utter inability of man to do anything towards his own redemption.

I think there are two things I might add here. As for the emphasis on Grace alone, yes, I think this a point where theosophical thinking will diverge from Protestanism. I would be interested in dialogue within this area (as I think this is actually where bridges might still need creating). But first it might help if I said something about Theosophical teachings regarding human consciousness & constitution.

Concerning the point Thomas made about intellect, I think many Theosophists would agree that the intellect is a valid means for approaching, understanding, and relating to the Divine ... but it is certainly not the only means, nor the greatest means. This is because intellect is but one of three spiritual faculties of awareness which we all inherently possess. And the notion that these faculties are already a part of our spiritual constitution, as God created us, is the key point.

These faculties are Atma, Buddhi, and Manas, to use the Sanskrit terms, though they might be roughly translated as Divine Will, Divine Love-Wisdom, and Divine Intellect, respectively. As such, they are understood as something we share with Deity, or rather partake of - because we are created in the image of the Divine. To provide a simple, yet effective distinction - between Humanity and the Divine - we should regard Deity as representing the infinite possibilities that open before us once we've fully developed Atma, Buddhi, and Manas. Humanity, in contrast to Deity, has these Aspects in potential, but not fully developed. And yes, in this sense, we are different than Deity in degree, and not in quality (or essential nature). I believe this undertanding is quite Biblical, and can be found repeatedly emphasized both in the Hebrew Scriptures, and by the Christ.

Now there is certainly Divine Revelation present within Theosophy, and Esotericism. It comes by very virtue of the fact that we share in common with more Divine, or Celestial, beings ... these principles of Higher Manas, Buddhi, and Atma. Manas may afford us insight into the Divine Mind, but it is the lowest aspect of the Spiritual Triad. Buddhi, on the other hand, is the very principle which makes of man a Christ - when fully developed (see Ephesians 4:13). It provides direct knowledge - infallible and perfect understanding - of whatever it beholds. Needless to say, it is as yet but an embryonic quality within most of us, yet for the Christ, and the Buddha before him, it was in full perfection.

And the princple of Atma, likewise was fully unfolded by them - considerably in advance of the rest of Humanity, but still in accordance with the Divine Plan, which indicates that in time, this same spiritual unfoldment is what is destined for us all. And again, the Christ Himself confirmed this when he indicated for us our spiritual potential ... (For is it not said in your Scriptures, "Ye are Gods" ... and Greater things than this, ye shall do). Understandably, the average Christian - finding it difficult to reconcile these direct statements of the Christ - looks back to the Church's various commentaries on what these indications might mean. But I suggest that our own Intuition (the Buddhic principle of Straight Knowledge and true understanding) - will provide the correct answer. Again, it has to do with our fundamental Unity with - God ... and our potential relative to God's already-unfolded perfection!

Now the Revelation that comes via Theosophy is nothing new in the 19th century, because the Teaching is that Progressive Revelation means that God will continue to inspire His people, and always lead us forth - through His Messengers and Saviors. But as the Bible also clearly states - The Lord helps the one who helps himself. And thus, we have a responsibility to aspire spiritually toward enlightenment, or Salvation/Liberation ... and also to assist others - though the greatest way we can do this is by example, and not by attempted conversion. If, and only if, we sense that a person is genuinely aspiring toward esoteric wisdom, then it would be appropriate to share with them to the best of our understanding. And in this, Theosophists are a bit like Freemasons. "To be one, ask one." You don't find Freemasons going door to door, seeking converts, because it is a fundamental tenet and strong point of that organization that a person is ready for the esoteric path (or life as a Freemason) only when s/he evidences this through inquiry - and by demonstrating the desire to serve Humanity.

And perhaps it is this reason why the Elder Brothers, or `Great Ones' of Theosophy are so seldom contacted by seemingly-sincere seekers. One must be pure of motive, and seek only to serve - if one expects to be taken on as a probationary disciple. Even then, as we are told, many are called, but few are chosen - because the trials of the path of discipleship are severe. The idea that the 12 Apostles were simpletons - uneducated and but humble fishermen - is only partially correct. For certainly, we may rest assured - if they were called by the Christ (the Greatest of all Masters, to Theosophists), then in former lives they would have proved themselves worthy, and were known to be the "right men and women" for the job. I take it as granted, at this point, that the majority of Christ's disciples were actually women ... since women are inherently more receptive to spiritual teachings. And it bothers be not one iota that the Church has changed the story to suit itself. But alas, Christ will remain a sexist - in the minds of those for whom sexism still holds sway.

At any rate, Theosophy since its revival by H.P. Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and Charles Leadbeater ... let alone since the times of Alice Bailey (NOT a Theosophist, but rather, another Messenger of the Esoteric Wisdom, publishing from 1919 to 1949) ... is most certainly a tradition of Revelation - every bit as much as Christianity has ever been! And while any sincere student understands that the Founders, and various leaders of the Theosophical Movement are themselves human, flawed, and far from perfect, it is viewed as somewhat obvious that the same can be said of the various writers of the Gospels, and the Hebrew Scriptures ... except that in the latter case we are dealing with texts dating back thousands of years ago, translated many times over, carefully edited, selected, inspected, infected, neglected, injected - and all kinds of groovy things ...

... and the result is that - while Theosphists consider the Bible a book of Wisdom, and regard the Christ as the Head of the spiritual Hierarchy on Earth ... the teachings of Messengers (Prophets) since Biblical times are considered as more useful in providing insight into Humanity's past, present, and possible future (if we can get our act together). And the fact that these recent Revealers of God's Wisdom have done so in English - and other current tongues - any of which are easy to translate in the worlds many dialects ... means that error is less likely, and thus confusion is more easily avoided.

Now I can give many, many examples of this, including samples of teachings from more than a dozen different esoteric Teachers, and many Theosophists cherish these as dearly as the fundamentalist Christian cherishes his old & new testament. But the Masters have always insisted that students think for themselves, and they have no need or use for blind devotees, falling over themselves to make alms and kiss feet. What the Masters have asked is that any true Theosophist accept the responsibility and challenge of selflessly & lovingly serving - one's fellow man. And thus, further serving, by becoming a Beacon Light for fellow seekers on the Path. In this sense, it doesn't matter what religion or outward spiritual path a person chooses - the only concern (or hope) of a Theosophist would be that we do our best to Love & Serve God and Love & Serve our fellow man ... which I believe is precisely what the Christ asked of us. And some will do this as ultra-intellectuals, and others as very simple folk, but isn't it interesting how often the latter prove the more loving, loyal, and worthy servers?

Would that I could be more like these Doves!

Ultimately, yes, the greatest revelation for esotericists is that which comes interiorly, without one's own heart ... and it is only by this kind of experience that esotericists believe a person can come to know God, know Wisdom, and fulfil our Purpose here - which is Loving Service. And yet, because most of us are as yet still learning to contact God in the still of our Hearts ... it is acceptable (and helpful) to look to the teachings of the Great Ones, for guidance upon the Path. And these Teachings are numerous, and they are profound, and they are found the world over - and they form, in fact, the very Heart and Soul of every world religion, and every sacred spirituality ... and as esotericists would say - they have at their center a common Truth, which is God's, and every faith or tradition are as the spokes of this wheel. Every spoke is vital to this wheel, yet they are nothing without the common and unifying hub.

Nasti paro dharma ... There is no religion, higher than Truth.

Thomas · 02-05-2006, 05:55 PM

... and every faith or tradition are as the spokes of this wheel. Every spoke is vital to this wheel, yet they are nothing without the common and unifying hub.

Compare the above to quotes from a TS publication, "The Esoteric Basis of Christianity":
"Theosophy claims to be the truth underlying all religions in their exoteric or popular form; and it claims this in virtue of its being a presentation or interpretation of a very ancient system known as the Secret Doctrine, or ancient Wisdom Religion."

"Let me point out here the great mistake which is made by all religionists and sectarians with regard to what they call the truth of their own particular doctrines..."

"what is called the truth of a doctrine is merely a term for its relativity..."

"There is no inner or spiritual meaning in its teachings apart from their literal acceptation. There is no Esoteric Christianity in the Church, we must go elsewhere for it; and it is Theosophy which now proclaims it."

"... the collection of writings known as the Bible, constitutes but one of a number of records which are all derived from, and based upon one unifying system, known at times as the Ancient Wisdom Religion, or the Secret Doctrine."
http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourcework...istianity.html

The import of the above statement is undeniable. As The Theosophical Society holds the proper understanding of The Secret Doctrine, it is apparent that The Theosophical Society claims itself to be the very hub of the wheel of religion, and without the correct interpretation of the world's great religious scriptures, as mediated by the TS, all religions are bankrupt, lost and meaningless.

All claims of univerality and an ecumenism evaporate in the face of a stated and explicit exclusivity and elitism - how else can it claim that every other religion is in error, and that it alone possess the means to diseminate the truth 'underlying' all the world's religious traditions?

Thomas

taijasi · 02-05-2006, 08:14 PM

I think we would do well to quote additional statements by this same author, from the exact same webpage to which Thomas refers ....

"Uniformity of doctrine and belief is impossible, except in a world where every individual is at the same level or point of evolution, and all progressing, or may be retrogressing, at the same rate."

"The mistake which is made by the individual, the sect, or the Church, (and Theosophists need to be warned against this quite as much as others) is in supposing that which is true to them, or true of their own experience, must be true for all the rest of humanity. It is this constant tendency to individualize and restrict, which gives rise to dogmatism, hatred, bigotry, and all the uncharitableness of sectarian religion..." (emphasis added)

"...The test of truth therefore is its universality; it must harmonize all known phenomena, and every factor in human experience; and if we find any set of doctrines dealing merely with a limited portion, and inapplicable to the rest, we have to reject them for wider and deeper principles."

"[scientists] have made up their minds that there cannot be anything supernatural or superhuman, and they define these as anything which lies outside the range of their own particular experience.

"The Christian makes exactly the same mistake in the opposite direction. He has made up his mind that his Bible is superhuman and revealed, and not only so, but that there is no other record in the world which can make a similar claim, or can be compared in any respect with this book; and starting from this principle he is compelled to reject all other records, religions, and experience as false and mischievous..." (emphasis added)

And to put one of your quotes back into context:

"The Church gives us no alternative but to accept or reject its dogmas. There is no inner or spiritual meaning in its teachings apart from their literal acceptation. There is no Esoteric Christianity in the Church, we must go elsewhere for it; and it is Theosophy which now proclaims it." (emphasis added)

Clearly the author means by this statement that the Church does not present an Esoteric Christianity because of it's emphsis on dead-letter interpretations ... and it's insistence on being the only true source of Wisdom and sound doctrine. No small wonder that people turn away, looking for a deeper meaning, since the pat answers given do not satisfty.

"...The Bible as we now have it is a collection of a number of scattered records, selected from a great many more of a similar character. There is no reason for regarding those which have been selected as of greater value or inspiration that those which have been left out. Not only is this so, but we have in other languages, and coming down to us from nations antedating the Jewish race, similar records, dealing with the creation of the world and the relation of man to the universe, in a totally different way, though still to all appearances historically.

Now these accounts cannot all be true; they are on the face of them quite at variance with each other. Either the Bible is true as history -- I am referring now to the account in Genesis -- and all others false, or the Bible is false and the others true; or there is a third alternative, that they are all allegorical...We must call to our aid the result of literary research into ancient civilizations, customs, religions, and symbology; and by careful comparison we shall soon discover the key which we require. For there is a great mass of research and literature available for those who really desire to get at the truth."

I believe if a person will read these additional quotations, and perhaps the rest of the excerpts from this presentation, s/he will see why it is that the author, among many (but not necessarily all) Theosophists do reject Christianity as it has been presented by the Church over the centuries. The rejection is not of the validity of the Christian Teachings, but rather, of their distortion, intentional mis-representation, and the insistence by the Church that it holds the only true doctrine and path to Salvation ... which is what I have argued all along.

In this sense, yes, Theosophy does claim that is presents a deeper meaning, and a better answer to the questions of a sincere spiritual seeker, since Theosophy explains why things are as they are ... and goes beyond the appeal, again & again, to the Holy Bible as the source for all Wisdom and answers (while the Church utterly refuses to explain this same Bible to the satisfaction of her intelligent followers - because she cannot).

Now this will seem elitism to some, but it is not. To me it is like this. If I have an ailment, I may go to a doctor for a diagnosis and prognosis. If this doctor has some good advice and a suggested regimen for improvement, I will follow it. But if he does not, then I will not continue to visit him, inquire of him, and describe my ailment to him. He has had his chance, and he was unable to help.

Thus I will seek out a doctor who does have something to offer, and even he cannot offer me a miracle cure, I will be satisfied with him because he is able to help ... and very likely I will follow his regimen, and make a return visit, and so forth. Theosophy but tries to be the doctor for an ailing and very sick Humanity ... knowing full well that it does not possess all the answers, but being happy to share of the Wisdom that it can offer.

And the Theosophical Society does not purport to hold all the keys to spiritual Wisdom, sitting in some kind of vantage point relative to all the empty & meaningless exoteric religions of the world. I would be wary of such an attitude or claim - and I do think that that shows elitism.

Most Theosophists I've met, and certainly what I call esotericists (who are seldom members of the TS) ... are loving, inclusive, humble people ... and believe in Ecumenism as just about the only hope left for reconciling some of the religious differences so accentuated in our world today. I don't see how it could be any other way.

But this does not mean coming in, dismissing whatever faith is being practiced, and supplanting it with another doctrine. If this is someone's idea of Ecumenism, then they have a lot to learn!

Namaskar,

andrew

Thomas · 02-05-2006, 11:46 PM

"The Christian makes exactly the same mistake in the opposite direction. He has made up his mind that his Bible is superhuman and revealed, and not only so, but that there is no other record in the world which can make a similar claim, or can be compared in any respect with this book; and starting from this principle he is compelled to reject all other records, religions, and experience as false and mischievous..." (emphasis added)

Your emphasis, Andrew, and your error, although I will admit that we do believe the Bible is Revealed. Have we got that wrong too?

The Catholic Church acknowledges the Sacred Texts of the world's religions as issuing from a sacred source, and furthermore regards all other religions as valid and authentic means of attaining salvation - but then Theosphy would say that we are wrong on that point, too.

the insistence by the Church that it holds the only true doctrine and path to Salvation ... which is what I have argued all along.

But it does not insist on that. She states quite emphatically that the world's religions are salvific. You have argued all along that the church does not understand her own teaching ... hence:

In this sense, yes, Theosophy does claim that is presents a deeper meaning, and a better answer to the questions of a sincere spiritual seeker, since Theosophy explains why things are as they are ... and goes beyond the appeal, again & again, to the Holy Bible as the source for all Wisdom and answers (while the Church utterly refuses to explain this same Bible to the satisfaction of her intelligent followers - because she cannot).

So all Christians of good faith are unintelligent then? And by the same measure so are all Buddhists? All Hindus? All Moslems (although the Secret doctrine seems mysteriously quiet about Islam).

And all our doctors, saints and mystics down through the ages ... all of whom were unintelligent, too?

because of it's emphsis on dead-letter interpretations.

Really? dead-letter? You consider Origen on metaphysical principle, Gregory of Nyssa on Being, Irenaeus on Revelation, Athanasius on Doctrine, Clement of Alexandria on 'The New Song', Gregory Nazianzen on Doctrine again, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite on the Mysteries, Ephrem the Syrian on the Ascetic Life, St Maximus on Christology, Eckhart on Essence and Substance, St John of the Cross on Divine Union, St Thomas on metaphysics, St Bonaventure on the Divine Ascent, St Francis on Charity, St Theresa on Prayer, St Catherine on Faith, Thomas Merton and his dialogue with Zen ... all 'dead letter'?

Dare I mention Ibn'Arabi? Or Shankara? Or Rumi? All dead-letter?

... and it's insistence on being the only true source of Wisdom and sound doctrine.

No, that's Theosophy's claim, not the church's, else TS would not be making such bold statements in the first place.

Thomas

lunamoth · 02-06-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

[/font][/indent]Even when spiritual aid is not explicitly sought, I do believe that evolution requires the participation of many, many great spiritual beings, and a myriad host of lesser lives. The Divine Plan (and its wise & illumined custodians) see to it that our development progresses as well as possible given planetary (and greater) karma ... so even if Humanity is not making conscious appeal to the Divine (such as in periods of spiritual darkness) - we are not forsaken. Always, there are those in the spiritual worlds who see to it that our evolution is safe-guarded. And these presences are not alien, or external to our Planet ... save those forces of tremendous spiritual potency & standing who may be termed Interplanetary, or Extra-Planetary.

andrew

Thank you for answering my question, Andrew. I can't really say that I understand it all, but I get the impression that you beleive in something like an ancient, or perhaps eternal, primordial Soul, which is a source of enlightenment and spiritual advancement for us on earth and for any and all other living beings in our universe.

peace,
lunamoth

earl · 02-06-2006, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

"The Christian makes exactly the same mistake in the opposite direction. He has made up his mind that his Bible is superhuman and revealed, and not only so, but that there is no other record in the world which can make a similar claim, or can be compared in any respect with this book; and starting from this principle he is compelled to reject all other records, religions, and experience as false and mischievous..." (emphasis added)

Your emphasis, Andrew, and your error, although I will admit that we do believe the Bible is Revealed. Have we got that wrong too?

The Catholic Church acknowledges the Sacred Texts of the world's religions as issuing from a sacred source, and furthermore regards all other religions as valid and authentic means of attaining salvation - but then Theosphy would say that we are wrong on that point, too.

the insistence by the Church that it holds the only true doctrine and path to Salvation ... which is what I have argued all along.

But it does not insist on that. She states quite emphatically that the world's religions are salvific. You have argued all along that the church does not understand her own teaching ... hence:

In this sense, yes, Theosophy does claim that is presents a deeper meaning, and a better answer to the questions of a sincere spiritual seeker, since Theosophy explains why things are as they are ... and goes beyond the appeal, again & again, to the Holy Bible as the source for all Wisdom and answers (while the Church utterly refuses to explain this same Bible to the satisfaction of her intelligent followers - because she cannot).

So all Christians of good faith are unintelligent then? And by the same measure so are all Buddhists? All Hindus? All Moslems (although the Secret doctrine seems mysteriously quiet about Islam).

And all our doctors, saints and mystics down through the ages ... all of whom were unintelligent, too?

because of it's emphsis on dead-letter interpretations.

Really? dead-letter? You consider Origen on metaphysical principle, Gregory of Nyssa on Being, Irenaeus on Revelation, Athanasius on Doctrine, Clement of Alexandria on 'The New Song', Gregory Nazianzen on Doctrine again, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite on the Mysteries, Ephrem the Syrian on the Ascetic Life, St Maximus on Christology, Eckhart on Essence and Substance, St John of the Cross on Divine Union, St Thomas on metaphysics, St Bonaventure on the Divine Ascent, St Francis on Charity, St Theresa on Prayer, St Catherine on Faith, Thomas Merton and his dialogue with Zen ... all 'dead letter'?

Dare I mention Ibn'Arabi? Or Shankara? Or Rumi? All dead-letter?

... and it's insistence on being the only true source of Wisdom and sound doctrine.

No, that's Theosophy's claim, not the church's, else TS would not be making such bold statements in the first place.

Thomas

The "spirit" of Theosophy, fits me from what I see: to quote the old "new Age" line-I do think we're spiritual beings having a human experience as opposed to the converse. I do think there are multiple "bodies" esoterically speaking. I do believe each person did not start with birth nor will end with death so to speak. As with Huston Smith, I believe almost all world religions were divinely inspired and as you say Thomas, are valid paths. I can easily accept that there are "beings" on "other levels" who can lend a form of assistance to us individually and collectively. What I don't appreciate in some of the Theosophical belief system is what seems to be taking what looks more mythical and symbolic and taking it for concrete historical fact including apparent shoe-horning facts into a shape that better fits their views.

Love your list of the spiritual greats Thomas. I'm particularly a fan of Eckhart and Ibn' Arabi, (a wonderful mystical writer). Would love to see a thread here re Ibn' Arabi. I started one here when I first joined re Eckhart. Let me seed a potential one re Ibn' Arabi-here's one of his:

"It is none other than He who progresses or journeys as you. There is nothing to know but He; and since He is being itself, He is also the journeyer. There is no knower but He; so who are you? Know your true reality. He is the essential self of all. But He conceals it by appearance of otherness, which is you.

If you hold to multiplicity, you are with the world; and if you hold to Unity, you are with the truth...our names are but the names of God; at the same time, our individual selves are His shadow. He is at once our identity and not our identity...consider."

Have a good one, Earl

taijasi · 02-06-2006, 07:16 AM

Here's a bit of rambling, but I believe this is the right thread for it ...

Ibn' Arabi, Rumi, Shankara, and these various other Saints - do indeed sound like what Theosophists consider world servers ... or disciples. Anyone who is responding to the call of the Soul (the Divine within), has begun to tread the spiritual Path.

Esoteric teachings will distinguish between those who resonate more closely with mysticism, and those who adopt a more scientific (or intellectual) approach - and the latter group have traditionally been called occultists. Since the recent decades (and even earlier), when `occult' has ceased to mean hidden, or Inner - and has been equated with `Satanic,' or evil - the term I prefer for Occultism is Esotericism. And many thinkers on Thomas' list fit into the category of Esotericists, while many are the true Mystics. And together, both serve to illustrate that indeed, there is an Inner Wisdom within all religions.

As such, all paths are valid, so long as these paths tend toward Unity, self-improvement, harmlessness ... and active altruism. These qualities will be stressed in differing degrees and in different ways, according to the time period that the religion is introduced, the political and social climate at the time, the inherent disposition - or esoteric makeup - of the people to whom a Prophet/Savior comes, and a host of additional esoteric factors that fall under the category of astrological influences - although many of the affecting energies certainly emanate from (or are at least directed through) our own planet.

And another note. The intellectual, or scientific approach, which I refer to as Occultism proper (or Esotericism) ... is not regarded as superior to the Mystical Path, since one is considered the natural precursor to the other, and thus necessary if one ever aspires to become an accepted disciple. And from the most general point of view, Theosophists probably all agree (as the Masters have always taught) that the whole world, or the entire Human population, are probationary disciples.

The distinction only comes in when a person begins to awaken to the call of the Soul (the call to Loving Service). The first responses move a person out of the realm of the intelligentsia, and into the world of Aspirants. Surely this group would number many, many millions in the world of today, though even a few hundred years ago the number was much smaller. Theosophists regard the work of the Christ (and the Buddha before Him, as well as all other lesser Teachers, and certainly also the work of Mohammad since the times of Christ) ... as greatly assisting Humanity in moving closer to God. As such, all are Saviours, and this is a characteristic of the Aquarian disciple, or those who think in terms of Groups, and the Group Good, rather than just individuals. [The Greater Zodiac ends in Pisces - being the reverse of our lesser zodiac - and so the Piscean Disciple is the World Saviour, as an archetype (such as demonstrated by Hercules in his 12 Labours) ... of which the Christ was the example par excellence.]

For esotericists, Accepted Discipleship marks the point after which a person consciously knows him or herself to be treading the spiritual Path under the tutelage of a Teacher (such as the Master Jesus, one among many). This leads on to the goal of Liberation or Salvation which the many religions preach, or at least, so Theosophists believe. The true purpose of discipleship, however, is not that of one's own attainment of redemption, for this is considered but a form of self-centeredness, if not outright selfishness. Thus the first goal of the disciple is to learn to reverse the flow, and practice the Science of Loving Service - which necessitates an acceptance of and a patience with others, with a crowning virtue being the ability to meet others where they are. And such perfect examples as that of the Buddha and the Christ shine forth, while many additional examples, of other Teachers in every world religion and tradition, show us that we too, can do as these Great Ones did, as they spoke to the masses, while also addressing each individual based on his or her particular (spiritual) need.

Yes, Earl, I think it is a great error to try and rubber stamp certain archetypes, mythologies, or symbolisms onto various cultures, religious traditions, or even esoteric paths ... without carefully studying the path under consideration. Many, but not all, Theosophists continue to follow an exoteric religious path, whether Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, or what-have-you. And I would suggest that in most cases they probably bring an approach, and an understanding to this faith, which might not otherwise be readily found.

The Lutheran church service, for example, is something I grew up with, and I am fairly familiar with its various elements, the hymns, the order of the readings, and so forth. I am used to Communion, which some also call the Eucharist, though I know for many Protestants this is foreign. And I know something of the various colors of robes and vestments that the clergy wear, though I don't go to church often enough to remember them clearly. But I think it is safe to say, that without having studied various esoteric teachings regarding the evolution of the Christian tradition, liturgy, and doctrines, I would regard the Lutheran service in an altogether different light. I might not attend any more or less often, but I feel confident in stating that I would be blind to much of the meaning, or intended meaning, behind the service. Or, if I did have an understanding, it might be limited to what I was taught in Sunday School, leading up to my Confirmation. And while yes, this was all of much value and helpful, I will gladly state that I consider Theosphy to have been immensely more helpful for me - in understanding what's going on and why ... and this is to say nothing of all the rest of the esoteric literature (including non-Theosophical teachings), meditation groups, meditation experiences, and so forth, that I've been through.

Now some will gain more from an esoteric study, and some less, but esoteric teachers have always clearly indicated that only the sincere student - who seeks more than to but satisfy an idle curiosity - will truly benefit. And the benefit comes when the student has ceased to be concerned about him/herself, and is focused entirely on the well-being of others, and on serving God - which means to serve Humanity. Did Christ not say, I come not to be served, but to serve? As the Christian hymn indicates ... Christ was born for this! And yet, it is curious that so many who claim to follow him, are loathe to model their lives after his. Thank goodness there are World Servers of all traditions.

It is true, the soteriology and metaphysics of esotericists does differ considerably from that of most Christians, and also from that of most Buddhists - since Theosophists generally do admit of an `Atman,' or surviving, individual Soul - one's true spiritual Self. Yet Theosophy is also not Hinduism, even if many of its inspiring thinkers were Indian Rishis. There is equally an influence from the Masters of Ancient Egypt, this line of approach being closer to the Western mind and style of thinking. But from Blavatsky's day (1875) forward, a new emphasis has been placed upon the key idea, or core tenets, of these varying & various spiritual traditions in an effort to show (to the intelligent wo/man, who can ascertain this truth for him/herself) ... that indeed, each tradition proceeded from the Heart, and Mind, and Will of God (of the Divine). And if all proceeded thus, then surely each is valid. Upon such ground, I stand firm - knowing that this rock will not wash away. For New Revelation does not render null & void that which proceeded before. Christ says, I come not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law.

And that is what I believe Christ did. The Messengers of God whom esotericists revere and would emulate, are not considered perfect, as was the Christ, but they do help prepare the world for Christ's return - which is their Highest Purpose at the moment. And if a person finds use in studying the esoteric teachings, then that is well & good, so long as s/he is ready and willing to put such knowledge to good use. Otherwise, it is better to keep to what is deemed of better use for one's spiritual progress. And this is certianly left up to the student to decide! Thus, no esotericist ever asks that another accept something just because it is purported to have some auspicious character, or source. This only leads to blind obedience and an unhealthy, fanatical devotion. The Buddha knew this, and cautioned his bhikkus to use their own reason and consciousness. He further advised:

"I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

So let it be ...

(and help us to do our part).

Andrew