Anyone Into Theosophy?

I have recently revived my interest in Theosophy - not necessarily Blavatsky's Theosophical Society, but rather Theosophy as a concept, meaning a belief that there is one underlying perennial theological philosophy - an "ancient wisdom" that underlies all religions, as proposed by the early theosophical writers including Blavatsky, Besant, Sinett, Leadbeater, Rogers, and others.

Is there anyone else who understands and is interested in this material?

For those who are unaware, these writings created much of the philosophical underpinning that has evolved into the (very corrupted and watered down) "New Age Movement" and modern "spiritual literature."

What is theosophy exactly ? It seems to be a term that covers a very large spectrum of ideas and debates. It is not new to me as I have listened to Krishnamurti for a long time.

What interest me in theosophy is how it views world religions, how it tries to express an underlying common idea to every religion. I believe there is an underlying idea that is common to all religions, and this idea is the unity of something. Alan Watts says something similar in his books, that all religions try to express the idea that we are all part of something bigger, that we are all connected in some way. I think this feeling of unity is much more older that any religion. I think nomadic hunter-gatherers, thousands of years before the neolithic revolution and any civilization, already had this feeling, just by observation, that everything was linked. They observed that everything came from nature and that everything went back to nature after some time, they observed that animals weren't that much different from them, that a bear could kill you in order to eat just like you could kill another animal in order to eat, that in the end everything goes back to earth.

Then came the neolithic revolution and writing systems, and some people tried to express all these old ideas, that somehow everything is connected. But this idea is easier to understand when reduced to an invisible character in the sky(or visible in the case of the moon or the sun). In order for the masses to grasp the idea that everything is part of something bigger, it had to be trivialized, it had to be made easier to understand. And what is easier to understand than a mother or a father, a god or a goddess ? After all, we all have a father and a mother..

If you're interested, "Levi's" original Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie has been re-translated by John Michael Greer. It was released this past April and is a much better offering in comparison to Waite's translation.

Tread lightly though, it can be daunting.

originally posted by: VictimOfTorture
I have recently revived my interest in Theosophy - not necessarily Blavatsky's Theosophical Society, but rather Theosophy as a concept, meaning a belief that there is one underlying perennial theological philosophy - an "ancient wisdom" that underlies all religions, as proposed by the early theosophical writers including Blavatsky, Besant, Sinett, Leadbeater, Rogers, and others.

Is there anyone else who understands and is interested in this material?

For those who are unaware, these writings created much of the philosophical underpinning that has evolved into the (very corrupted and watered down) "New Age Movement" and modern "spiritual literature."

I'm pretty well read on Blavatsky, Steiner, and theology as a whole. I feel it's full of useful gems with some other elements that aren't so accurate. Using discernment while wading through the material is vital.

It gets TONS of criticism though from many different directions. Use discernment with that as well. There's still fools out there that attempt to link Hitler's ideology to theosophical roots. Sorry, but nope.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
I'm pretty well read on Blavatsky, Steiner, and theology as a whole. I feel it's full of useful gems with some other elements that aren't so accurate. Using discernment while wading through the material is vital.

It gets TONS of criticism though from many different directions. Use discernment with that as well. There's still fools out there that attempt to link Hitler's ideology to theosophical roots. Sorry, but nope.

The racist undertones present in Blavatsky's "root races" concept are exactly one of the reasons I wouldn't necessarily promote "Blavatskian Theosophy" as a religion; however I would absolutely consider her work (and Besant's) to be fundamental in understanding what religion and spirituality actually are (and the difference between the two), and I wouldn't hesitate to consider them to be major spiritual figures - prophets even.

As for Hitler, my understanding is that there were more racist ideologies present in Theosophy's successors, including Ariosophy (Aryan Theosophy) and that he would have embraced a "theosophy" derived from these interpretations.

Blavatsky was more focused on uniting humanity than promoting racial elitism.

I learned about the existence of theosophy from a teacher of mine several years back. She is a student of the writings of Rudolph Steiner, if I remember correctly. The basic principle appeals to me...that each culture around the globe has a "piece of the puzzle", as it were, relating to understanding divinity and human spirituality. I can't help but think of the biblical tale of the Tower of Babel.

I am reading a book called The Outsider by Colin Wilson. It is a fascinating read that you might enjoy. This morning I read a chapter about Ramakrishna, a 19th century Indian mystic and yogi. From the book:

"One of the most striking of Ramakrishna's teachings is the belief in the unity of all religions. The Life [of Ramakrishna, written by an anonymous biographer] tells us how Ramakrishna first practiced various religious disciplines of different sects (which is as strange in India as it would be for someone in England to declare himself at once an ardent Methodist, Quaker and Roman Catholic); later he turned to other religions, and studied in turn Christianity and Mohammedanism, worshipping the Virgin Mary instead of Kali, and then the all-pervasive Allah. Ramakrishna knew the basic reality of the universe; it made no difference what symbols he used to call it to mind; the result was always the same: ecstatic God-consciousness."

Theosophy is not specifically mentioned in reference to his life or teachings, but he seems to have followed the same basic principle as the theosophists do. I wonder if he knew about theosophy, or if he inspired its development? He lived in the 19th century around the time of the founding of the Theosophical Society...I'll need to look into this more. I hope this thread picks up...I'm very interested in the topic.

a reply to: VictimOfTorture

Theo-sophy, not so much.

Philo-sophy, yes.

Got the most out of "Plato's Republic".

a reply to: VictimOfTorture

There are plenty "Societies","schools","Brotherhoods" etc. in our times. Fact.
Many of those claim to have direct links to much older "Schools" going back more than 2.500 years. Fact.
Indeed "Schools" of this kind existed in ancient times, way back in time. Fact.
They existed before religions. They were just groups of people. They were living their lives and dealing with the ups and downs of Life and the problems of their time (bad cell phone reception wasn't one of them).
They had a lot of questions about Life, the Universe and Everything and they tried to answer them. That made them different from those who stayed focused in the material plane mostly.
The "ancient wisdom" came gradually through many generations and it was the "thing" that they had to preserve and pass on to the next generations. Trust me, Fact.
Now, not all things were complex and "mystical". People observed Nature and Life in general.
Many "truths" came from simple practical stuff. Fact.
Take Mathematics for example. (It's a huge subject actually)
Sometimes there wasn't a direct connection between "Wise persons" throughout the land/countries. There wasn't a Teacher-Student relationship. People just came up with these mathematical truths on their own in their own territory.
Can you say that Mathematical truths found in ancient China are "Chinese mathematical truths" or that they belong to them only? Or at that time period only?
At the same time, elsewhere, other people came up with the same concepts. Fact.

So, to cut a long story short. The "Truth" is "Universal and Eternal", (Don't confuse our limited understanding of things and our means of scientific research and our findings that may change from time to time with "The Truth"), all that we do is take steps towards "The Truth". We are not there yet.

And I have read and heard stories about the "Theosophical Society" which prove to me that hey were not there yet themselves.
Though Krishnamurti, who left them (perfect story) came pretty close.

A very simple fact that most people of this modern age (seekers of Truth or otherwise) sadly don't get right is that physical sciences, technology and all that (even at Star Trek level) , although very useful and practical and may help some people to grasp some truths, in essence have nothing to do with "The Truth" and "Enlightenment". They are just tools.

To paint a picture here only:
You think Socrates had a cell phone?
You think Pythagoras had a PC?
You think Buddha had internet access?
And that kept them back?

There are things in life that can keep us from becoming what we are capable of becoming.
But our worst enemy is ourselves.

In the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, there was written " Know thyself ".
Thousands of years later so much little progress on that field.

If you like you can ask me more specific questions on the subject of "ancient wisdom".

a reply to: VictimOfTorture

Ah... a one world religion...... partial truth in all religions....like Satan and his dominion.... he too uses partial truths to misled mankind..... sounds like the same ideology.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Does Christianity not seek converts? What do you think the ultimate aim of that is?

Do you really think it is necessary or beneficial to marginalize the religious beliefs and practices of other cultures?

Oh yeah, theosophy isn't a religion...

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

All religions come from Adviata Vedanta - which is now commonly called 'non duality', which means 'not two'.
The message is that 'there is no thinker of thoughts'.
What is happening is simply just happening - there isn't anyone doing thoughts.

The Thinker and Thought
Is there any relationship between the thinker and his thought, or is there only thought and not a thinker? If there are no thoughts there is no thinker. When you have thoughts, is there a thinker? Perceiving the impermanency of thoughts, thought itself creates the thinker who gives himself permanency; so thought creates the thinker; then the thinker establishes himself as a permanent entity apart from thoughts which are always in a state of flux. So, thought creates the thinker and not the other way about. The thinker does not create thought, for if there are no thoughts, there is no thinker. The thinker separates himself from his parent and tries to establish a relationship, a relationship between the so-called permanent, which is the thinker created by thought, and the impermanent or transient, which is thought. So, both are really transient.
Pursue a thought completely to its very end. Think it out fully, feel it out and discover for yourself what happens. You will find that there is no thinker at all. For, when thought ceases, the thinker is not. We think there are two states, as the thinker and the thought. These two states are fictitious, unreal. There is only thought, and the bundle of thought creates the 'me', the thinker.

www.jkrishnamurti.org...

The thinker is thought
Now, if we see the truth of that - that the thinker is thought, that there is no thinker separate from thought, but only the process of thinking - , then what happens? If we see that there is only thinking and not a thinker trying to modify thought, what is the result? I hope I am making myself clear. So far, we know that the thinker is operating upon thought, and this creates conflict between the thinker and the thought; but if we see the truth that there is only thought and not a thinker, that the thinker is arbitrary, artificial and entirely fictitious - then what happens? Is not the process of conflict removed? At present our life is a conflict, a series of battles between the thinker and the thought - what to do and what not to do, what should be and what should not be. The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside. When we remove the entity that creates conflict, surely then there is a possibility of understanding thought. When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end.

jkrishnamurti.org...

originally posted by: FrankBigelow
There are things in life that can keep us from becoming what we are capable of becoming.
But our worst enemy is ourselves.

The lie is that you can become something. You are BEING what you are.

In the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, there was written " Know thyself ".
Thousands of years later so much little progress on that field.

There is never a time when you are not knowing yourself.
'Know Thyself' is not something that you can do or not do - it is what is happening eternally - there is no other.

There isn't separate things - there is just what there is and it is knowing itself.
A self watching movie.

I am a Theosophist and member of the Theosophical Society in America. I made a basic introductory thread about the Theosophical Society (ATS Link).

I first discovered Theosophy through researching my own thoughts of Perennialism and Monism. The foundations of Theosophy stand on the shared and ancient realization of Unity. What’s great about Theosophy, is that it accepts people from all walks of life, and affords all beliefs and non-beliefs to come to their own understandings: the complete freedom of consciousness.



I would also like to refute the claims that allege; Theosophy promotes racism or racial superiority.

Blavatsky’s works are wide-ranging, and are meant to be considered in a collective manner. The racist ideologies that claim affinity to Theosophy or Blavatsky have actually taken fragmentary bits and pieces of her writings and attempted to understand them completely out of context.

Racism is in absolute contradiction to Theosophy and the teachings of Blavatsky.

Blavatsky actually taught that mankind is a singular family in need of reestablishing brotherly unity.

"All men have spiritually and physically the same origin."

"Mankind is essentially of one and the same essence."

"The Aryan races, for instance, now varying from dark brown, almost black, red-brown-yellow, down to the whitest creamy colour, are yet all of one and the same stock -- the Fifth Root Race -- and spring from one single progenitor."

“If to-morrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations. And it is the descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would fall back into a state of relative savagery. Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy.”

- H.P.B., "The Secret Doctrine"

The First Object of the Theosophical Society actually states:

”To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinct of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.”

• Root Race (Theosophy Wiki)

• Root Races (Theosopedia)

• Responding to Lies about H.P. Blavatsky (Blavatsky Theosophy)

• Is Theosophy Racist about Africans? (Blavatsky Theosophy)

a reply to:Itsnowagain

It may be that we both misunderstood each others words.
But to clear things up and understand each other better and perhaps move a bit closer to the Truth together, let me ask you some questions if that is not too much to ask.

If the words/terms I use have a different meaning for you or you view things differently please say so.
I may be wrong and you may be right.
I may sound too strict sometimes but it is only to get to the truth.

To me belief and knowledge is not the same thing.
Saying to “know something” means that what you know is actually the truth about that thing, nothing more nothing less. Not a false claim or a lie or misinformation or an assumption etc.

What you know must be true for it to be considered as knowledge.

ex. In school you have read and learned some part of WW2 history and you have proven that you learned it by answering some questions in an examination paper. The teachers verified that what you have answered is the correct answer, i.e. the correct knowledge on the subject . So afterwards the teachers can say that you know this part (at least).
People acknowledge that and later on you may become a teacher yourself and teach the same things or just help your children learn that part.
But in Japan the school textbooks have a different narrative on that subject which contradicts your version of history.
Japanese schoolchildren learn the Japanese version of course and get good grades which proves that they know their history well.
In Japan they say that they KNOW and you say that you KNOW how it was.
People can say that one of you must be right about it and the other wrong.
You can go on living your life thinking (believing) that what you know is the true history.

But as it happens the Truth about some details of that part of history is different than what both textbooks write. So you are both wrong.
In fact what you and the Japanese schoolchildren take to be the truth is actually not the truth. It is just a story.
You both believed what was written in some books, that is all. A belief.
Strictly speaking that is not knowledge because it doesn't correspond to the actual events that took place in real life.
You put your trust to the persons who wrote the textbooks and you believed them.
You have a lot of beliefs that you think it is knowledge.

To KNOW beyond any doubt and with absolute certainty what the truth is on a subject, that is true Knowledge.
To know means that you “have” a small part of the the bigger Truth.
To be fair, sometimes what we believe to be the truth is actually the truth but we don't have some pieces of information or clear evidence at hand yet to back this up. These cases can develop from beliefs to knowledge eventually but they do start out as beliefs.

I respect Alan Watts a lot and Krishnamurti tremendously and my teachers as well.
With that said and to understand where you are coming from I am asking you:
Do you believe that there is a Higher power beyond the physical Universe. (Exists even without the presence of dimensions, matter and time)
Do you believe there is a connection between this Higher power and the laws of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry etc. that operate 24/7 in this Universe?
Do you believe that this Higher power and/or the Laws that govern this Universe can not be associated with the concept of “mistake” in any way, shape or form, not even remotely?

Do you Know beyond any doubt that "The lie is that you can become something. You are BEING what you are." or you just believe it?

Please consider the above as my proof to you that this is not the case must take into consideration your views.

Take your time, no pressure there.
Be well

a reply to: Sahabi

We live in a society where REAL spirituality, that which isn't doctrine in any organized religion, is under constant attack. It has been that way for centuries. The "heretics" were persecuted by the "church." Spiritual seekers are labeled "satanists" in today's world.

We live in a world so ate up with materialism and tribalism that most of the population, yes, even the "churchies" and so-called "devout," is agnostic at best. When they encounter those who have any earnest BELIEF in ANYTHING other than materialism or tribalism, nothing but persecution and labelling follows.

originally posted by: gosseyn
What is theosophy exactly ? It seems to be a term that covers a very large spectrum of ideas and debates.

theosophy = theological philosophy

Of course the word has also been used to more specifically describe the philosophies/ideas in the 'new' brand of pantheism, deism or (Mother) nature-worship that people like Blavatsky were promoting. Pantheism in a new jacket so to speak. Often mixed in with some old philosophies and traditions that are popular in Christendom and Hinduism+Buddhism. I generally only use the word when I don't want to type out "theological philosophy or philosophies", often when talking about those traditions and ideas (with a pagan origin, modified or not) in Christendom that have been adopted and melded into Christendom but contradict what the bible really teaches about theological matters, for example the theosophy and doctrine of the Trinity or Triune Gods (and Triads). Or the immortality of the soul (or just an immaterial soul that continues living when the material body dies, not necessarily immortal; the logical requirements for other theosophies and philosophies involving what happens to their souls after death, such as the doctrine of a fiery hell of torment, underworld, "Other World" or "nether world", or reincarnation; both philosophies depending on some part of man continuing to live after death as per Satan's lie to Eve: "you certainly will not die").

What is the "soul"? (ATS commentary regarding the myths of the immortal or immaterial soul)

a reply to: FrankBigelow

Do you Know beyond any doubt that "The lie is that you can become something. You are BEING what you are." or you just believe it?

Thank you for your reply - I will try my best to answer your post - it was a bit long so I will answer a bit and let you ask more if you want to clarify anything I have said.

'Becoming' takes time. What are you now?
Also - 'thing' means 'separateness'.

Do you believe there is a connection between this Higher power and the laws of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry etc. that operate 24/7 in this Universe?
Do you believe that this Higher power and/or the Laws that govern this Universe can not be associated with the concept of “mistake” in any way, shape or form, not even remotely?

I am not sure what you mean by 'higher power' - if there is an assumed 'higher power' then that also assumes a 'lower power'.
The only 'mistake' that comes to mind is the belief in 'things' - the belief in separateness.
The 'truth' is there is not two.

The truth is hidden in plain sight - in the act of seeing/knowing. Without the witnessing (knowing) could any appearance appear?

Kristnamurti speaks about 'choiceless awareness' - which means to be choicelessly knowing whatever is arising.

I am not sure if this helps or not.

Here is a short talk that may or may not clarify.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I hear ya on that! True story: just last week, I was talking to a co-worker, who just so happens to be a church Elder with a PhD to boot. We were having small talk, and I mentioned that I enjoy the Winter Solstice, whereupon, he interjects to inquire, with a hostile and condescending tone, ”What are you, some kind of atheist or pagan?”

I just laughed,.... and then he asks me how I planned to celebrate, so I proceeded to tell him that I was celebrating the Winter Solstice by erecting an Asherah tree in my house to, “deck it with silver and with gold” (Jeremiah 10:3-4), and top it with a Star of Ishtar. Then I told him that the Sun of the Most High was going to remain at the southernmost rising and setting points of the horizon for three days, as a symbolic death. After the third day, it would begin to slowly move north, giving us incrementally more light each day, being a rebirth of the Sun, which gives life and light to the world as we thereafter approach Spring Season. I told him that this is why it is called Sol Invictus, and that at the appropriate time, he could plot the point of the rising Sun by using the three wisemen of Orion’s Belt to follow the Star in the East (Sirius) in alignment to the horizon.

After that, I asked him if it sounded familiar, then asked how he planned to spend his Christmas. He didn’t answer, changed the subject, and walked away.

a reply to: VictimOfTorture

I worked in an Anthropsophical organisation for almost a decade. This is Rudolf Steiner's "splitter" group from Blavatsky and The Theosophical Society etc.

I never joined The Anthroposophical Society as i think a ton of it is purest bunk but i read a lot of Steiner's lectures, took part in all manner of training and activities and spent a lot of time with a wide range of folk throughout the organisation.

There are a lot of similarities between the two, ideology wise afaik.

Steiner is fascinating. Mad as a box of frogs but inspired too. I'm not even convinced he wasnt channelling some powerful stuff. He's worth a read but you need to invest time in it.