What is Theosophy?

[taijasi]

Poh,

It's very good to be posting with you again!
Thanks for being a part of this discussion, and helping to create the bridge ... (antahkarana)

I included this term, and a link to a page from the online Theosophical Glossary, because I think it's relevant here. I'm also uploading a chart ... from the works of Alice Bailey, who was not strictly a Theosophist, yet who studied The Secret Doctrine of H.P. Blavatsky, and who presented Theosophical concepts in her writings.


The chart is on `The Science of Meditation,' and shows many things at once. With respect to what you said, Poh, the three head centers are at the very bottom, as the alta major center, pituitary body, & pineal gland. No doubt you will recognize them!

These form a triangle of energies, which allow the threefold Individual Human Soul (the yellow triangle labeled `Ego' according to the Theosophical terminology) to express itself in the etheric body of the physical world. So the Soul, or `Ego,' is understood as belonging to the upper portions of the Mental Plane, while a person incarnates temporarily through a mental body in the lower mental world, an astral or emotional body, and a compound etheric-physical body (which houses the meditative, or higher creative triangle). {I know all this is familiar, and charts are quite 2-dimensional, obviously ... but maybe this one helps?}

A lower triangle of creative energies also exists, consisting of the root chakra, the sacral (or sexual) chakra, and the reproductive organs (or gonads) ... which must be gradually sublimated in order for the higher creativity (especially expressive via the throat chakra) to come into activity and properly function. No wonder the emphasis on the celibate, or monastic lifestyle - as a necessary stage of the spiritual path, at one point or another, in some particular incarnation. Not that there aren't other reasons, but here is the practical reason, in terms of specific energies (Kundalini-shakti, to which I think you were referring, Poh).

Nick, your mention of the fourth world, or Fourth Round, in Theosophical terms ... is to that stage in Humanity's unfoldment wherein lower manas, or lower mind, is being developed, is that correct? The idea of Fifth Round Humanity suggests a time when the entirety of the Human Race will be much farther along, spiritually speaking (and developing Higher Mind, globally, instead of in individual cases here & there, or sometimes in groups) ... maybe equivalent to those beings that Theosophists call `Masters' or Adepts. Under this system, a Sixth-Rounder would then be much closer to the Christ (or Bodhisattva) in terms of attainment, and the final, or 7th Round man ... will be a Buddha.

For this to make sense, it is helpful to have considered the Theosophical idea that: Where mankind now is, every more advanced being once was ... and thus, where advanced beings now are, mankind will one day be. I'm not sure if this is completely in sync with the classical idea of a Great Chain of Being, but it is definitely what the Theosophist believes when s/he speaks of all of Nature as consisting of a great Hierarchy of Lives ... in the broadest sense of this term.

Every single atom, even, is ensouled by living energies, and thus Annie Besant put to words the ideas of the Unity of all Life, the consequent Brotherhood of one man with another, and the existence of the Divine Presence even within the smallest unit of evolution ...

O Hidden Life, vibrant in every atom;
O Hidden Light, shining in every creature;
O Hidden Love, embracing all in Oneness;
May each who feels himself as one with Thee,
Know he is therefore one with every other.
​

Namaskara,

andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Pohaika Wahine,

Thank you for telling us about Hawai'ian views of the nature of man.

You said,

"...there are many paths to the mountain top, but when we get there we all see the same moon...."

--> How true. The goal is one, but the paths are many.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You asked,

"Nick, your mention of the fourth world, or Fourth Round, in Theosophical terms ... is to that stage in Humanity's unfoldment wherein lower manas, or lower mind, is being developed, is that correct?"

--> Correct. I was hoping there was a correlation between that idea and the Hawai'ian idea, but they seem to be different after all. That is OK, we still got to read a little of the Hawai'ian view of the nature of man.

Hey, I can match you chart for chart!

 

[taijasi]

I suppose we could continue this debate on ad nausium, but both of us have made our point. Perhaps it suffices that there are two sides to the question, and it is up to the people out there to make up their own mind. Christianity teaches a monotheistic creation of humanity. Theosophy acknowledges, nay, celebrates a pantheistic creation of humanity.

If I might add to the very last line of your post, Nick, which I have emphasized, I'd like to quote from the Stanzas of Dzyan. H.P. Blavatsky presented the Stanzas to the world as the basis of the Secret Doctrine, which treatise is simply a commentary and elucidation of such stanzas ... that the world might better understand both Cosmogenesis (the creation of the Cosmos), and Anthropogenesis (the creation of Humanity).

These four slokas are from Vol. II of The Secret Doctrine, and refer specifically to the Creation of Humanity ... including reference to our Spiritual origin, as provided in the first two slokas, and the fourth sloka is surely one of the most important teachings ever given under the name `Theosophy'. I want to emphasize it (in blue), for consideration:

14. THE SEVEN HOSTS, THE "WILL-BORN LORDS," PROPELLED BY THE SPIRIT OF LIFE-GIVING, SEPARATE MEN FROM THEMSELVES, EACH ON HIS OWN ZONE.​

15. SEVEN TIMES SEVEN SHADOWS OF FUTURE MEN WERE BORN, EACH OF HIS OWN COLOUR AND KIND. EACH INFERIOR TO HIS FATHER. THE FATHERS, THE BONELESS, COULD GIVE NO LIFE TO BEINGS WITH BONES. THEIR PROGENY WERE BHUTA, WITH NEITHER FORM NOR MIND. THEREFORE THEY ARE CALLED THE CHHAYA.​

16. HOW ARE THE MANUSHYA BORN? THE MANUS WITH MINDS, HOW ARE THEY MADE? THE FATHERS CALLED TO THEIR HELP THEIR OWN FIRE; WHICH IS THE FIRE THAT BURNS IN EARTH. THE SPIRIT OF THE EARTH CALLED TO HIS HELP THE SOLAR FIRE. THESE THREE PRODUCED IN THEIR JOINT EFFORTS A GOOD RUPA. IT COULD STAND, WALK, RUN, RECLINE, OR FLY. YET IT WAS STILL BUT A CHHAYA, A SHADOW WITH NO SENSE . . . .​

17. THE BREATH NEEDED A FORM; THE FATHERS GAVE IT. THE BREATH NEEDED A GROSS BODY; THE EARTH MOULDED IT. THE BREATH NEEDED THE SPIRIT OF LIFE; THE SOLAR LHAS BREATHED IT INTO ITS FORM. THE BREATH NEEDED A MIRROR OF ITS BODY; "WE GAVE IT OUR OWN," SAID THE DHYANIS. THE BREATH NEEDED A VEHICLE OF DESIRES; "IT HAS IT," SAID THE DRAINER OF WATERS. BUT BREATH NEEDS A MIND TO EMBRACE THE UNIVERSE; "WE CANNOT GIVE THAT," SAID THE FATHERS. "I NEVER HAD IT," SAID THE SPIRIT OF THE EARTH. "THE FORM WOULD BE CONSUMED WERE I TO GIVE IT MINE," SAID THE GREAT FIRE . . . . MAN REMAINED AN EMPTY SENSELESS BHUTA . . . . THUS HAVE THE BONELESS GIVEN LIFE TO THOSE WHO BECAME MEN WITH BONES IN THE THIRD.​

In sloka 15, the words `shadow,' `color' and `kind' should be understood as indicative, but not necessarily literal. They connote something, but I think we should focus on the idea that man is the creation of the Seven Elohim - the Seven Hosts from sloka 14, or the Will-Born Lords. Notice that these Elohim were "propelled by the Spirit of Life-Giving," and see how this corresponds to what you provided, Thomas, as part of the Catholic Church's Catechism:

Para 295: We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."

Also, in sloka 16, Manushya refers to human, and in the clause that follows, Manus also refers to Humanity. Same roots, yet each usage has a specific connotation. And since Theosophists regard a person as a being consisting of several trinities, each ensouled by a Higher, or greater trinity ... then we might look at sloka 16 as a preparation for the more complex sloka 17. The "good Rupa" that is produced refers to a form ... definitely not a human being as we know it, but sort of a prototype. And again, `chhaya' means "shade," or "copy."

Although we could just emphasize slokas 14 and 15, relative to the question of Theosophists' celebration of the pantheistic creation of Humanity ... I wanted to focus on stanza 17, since this is where the details really come into light. In special connection to the two charts we have posted (was that synchronicity? lol) ... here we find almost a narrative, wherein various of the Hosts are speaking about what each provided in terms of Humanity's end-resulting spiritual, psychological and material constitution. Notice, by way of significant importance, that even at the end of sloka 17, we are still missing something quite necessary.

The word `Bhuta,' in this stanza, is quite like chhaya, or again, shadow, even rupa. All of these are related, perhaps with slightly different connotations, and sometimes the difference is just a reference to which plane of consciousness, matter or being is under consideration.

Yet the bottom line, and the point of emphasis and importance - in my mind - is that even after this collaborative, co-creative work of the Elohim (plural) and the Creative Hosts in Nature (Intelligent, Spiritual POWERS - plural, operating on various levels or planes of existence) ... Humanity is STILL without `Manas,' or Mind, at the advent of "the third" (3rd Root Race, or Lemurian Humanity, 18+ million years ago).

What happens next? Well that's the part I think is really most important (!!!), because this is the `recent' history of the race, which traces our spiritual and evolution (in Theosophical teachings) through the second half of Lemurian times, through the Atlantean (4th) Root Race, and into the current, Aryan (5th) Root Race, up to the present.

As for, how does mankind RECEIVE the gift of Mind ... (which is where we're left at the end of sloka 17), it will take the rest of the 49 slokas of The Secret Doctrine to explain this - yet such is the story, in the Ancient Wisdom, of mankind's Spiritual Legacy ... and it corresponds, roughly speaking, with what Christianity calls the Fall from Grace, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and even `Original Sin.'

Of course, just as there may be a Catholic, or Christian emphasis on Humanity's Creation by a Monotheistic God, which Theosophists will speak of as Humanity's origin by the co-creative, collaborative efforts of a Pantheon of Intelligent Beings expressing the Divine Will ... so in Theosophical teachings we will regard `The Fall,' `The Expulsion from Eden,' and `Original Sin' as but symbolic terms, conveying an allegorical rather than a literal truth.

Again, Theosophists and Catholics/Christians may not see eye-to-eye here, but in the interest of Interfaith discussion and dialogue, I would return to the quoted passage earlier in my post, from your presentation of Catholic Catechism, Thomas, wherein Theosophists and Catholics may mutually celebrate the good fortune (or blessings) of a life, incarnate in the material world(s) ... in which we are afforded every opportunity of spiritual growth and progress - regardless of differences in terms of outward observances of thankfulness, or worship, when it comes to recognizing these opportunities.

I guess that's a wordy way of saying that we may all be thankful (!), but then, Grace in a Christian context is not something that has ever quite signified the same to me, as it does to most other people at CR. Since I believe in Karma, Rebirth and Cycles of Necessity (or Incarnation), and reject a monotheistic God of chance or whim (certainly one who does or doesn't "show favor" on worshippers vs. non-worshippers) ... I just don't know what to make of this notion of Grace. {Perhaps you have thoughts, as a Theosophist, Nick?} Nonetheless, our accord seems more important, here, than our differences, n'est pas, Thomas?

Love and Light,

andrew

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

There are two issues here. (1) The Bible as it exists today, in English. (2) The original language of the Bible.

To both points, Bible Scholars work in the original Hebrew, not in translation. My course tutor, for example, is fluent in English, Hebrew, Greek and Ugaritic (and possibly others).

I would suggest that most erroneous assumptions, such as the idea of polytheism or pantheism in the Bible, are because people are working from translations, and are unaware of the Hebrew, its lexicon, linguistic forms, genres and narrative styles.

But the over-arching issue is: If the Sacred Text of the Jews is Pantheistic, why are the theologians and sacred scribes, who so painstakingly composed and copied these texts for posterity ... so fiercely monotheistic? Are we to assume they don't understand the plain text before them?

I'm sorry, but this is no argument, this is just opinion flying in the face of reason, a common experience for me in such discussions.

Christianity teaches a monotheistic creation of humanity. Theosophy acknowledges, nay, celebrates a pantheistic creation of humanity.

Our doctrines are different, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Pax,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

But the over-arching issue is: If the Sacred Text of the Jews is Pantheistic, why are the theologians and sacred scribes, who so painstakingly composed and copied these texts for posterity ... so fiercely monotheistic? Are we to assume they don't understand the plain text before them?

I would offer this, from an online Theosophical Glossary (compiled by Gottfried de Purucker), as I think it addresses this point:

Jehovists one of the two main trends of ancient Jewish religious thought, the other being the Elohists. "The portions belonging to these respectively are so blended together, so completely mixed up by later hands, that often all external characteristics are lost. Yet it is also known that the two schools were antagonistic; that the one taught esoteric, the other exoteric, or theological doctrines; that the one, the Elohists, were Seers (Roeh), whereas the other, the Jehovists, were prophets (Nabi), and that the latter -- who later became Rabbis -- were generally only nominally prophets by virtue of their official position, . . . That, again, the Elohists meant by 'Elohim' 'forces,' identifying their Deity, as in the Secret Doctrine, with Nature; while the Jehovists made of Jehovah a personal God externally, and used the term simply as a phallic symbol -- a number of them secretly disbelieving even in metaphysical, abstract Nature, and synthesizing all on the terrestrial scale. Finally, the Elohists made of man the divine incarnate image of the Elohim, emanated first in all Creation; and the Jehovists show him as the last, the crowing glory of the animal creation, instead of his being the head of all the sensible beings on earth" (BCW 14:183-4). David is said to have introduced this worship in Judea after living among the Tyrians and Philistines where such rites and beliefs were common: "David knew nothing of Moses, it seems, and if he introduced the Jehovah-worship, it was not in its monotheistic character, but simply as that of one of the many [Kabeirean] gods of the neighbouring nations -- a tutelary deity of his own [

]to whom he had given the preference, and chosen among 'all other [Kabeiri] gods," (IU 2:45). Blavatsky holds that the Jehovists altered the Mosaic texts.​

I think it is the convenience of things being "just-so," when we can explain them, and a complete and utter mystery, when we cannot ... which particularly bugs me. I should think that, at best, our greatest understandings still fall short, but then, as a Theosophist, I also believe in relative degrees of Divinity, Perfection and Godhood. The word `Absolute' appears for a reason ... and the Theosophical conception simply does not equate with the God of Christian theology.

In this, I do think certain ideas are incompatible - and indeed, "ne'er the twain shall meet," as you put it, Thomas.

~andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You said,

"In sloka 15, the words `shadow,' `color' and `kind' should be understood as indicative, but not necessarily literal."

--> I am not sure if you know, but `shadow' refers to the Chhaya, the first human race. The Chhaya existed entirely on the astral plane, and did not have physical bodies.

“Chhaya ... is the astral image.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 101)

“But men, during the first and the second races, were not physical beings, but merely rudiments [astral entities] of the future men: Bhutas....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 108)

“Hence we believe in races of beings other than our own in far remote geological periods; in races of ethereal, following incorporeal, "Arupa," men, with form but no solid substance....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 194)

“...primeval humanity had at first an ethereal ... form, evolved by gods or natural "forces," which grew, condensed throughout millions of ages, and became gigantic in its physical impulse and tendency, until it settled into the huge, physical form of the Fourth Race Man....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 151)

“In those early ages, astral evolution was alone in progress, and the two planes, the astral and the physical, though developing on parallel lines, had no direct point of contact with one another.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 157)

You said,

"I just don't know what to make of this notion of Grace."

--> It is similar to what is called Buddha-nature. It is similar to what we experience at the moment of Enlightenment, when our sense of separateness from each other is removed.

Unfortunately, Grace also carries connotations of un-accountability, which flies in the face of karma (the ultimate form of accountability).

 

[taijasi]

Nick,

Thanks for the clarification re early Humanity. I've only been able to piece together an understanding of `Blavatskyian' Theosophy after many years of study and meditation - and to be honest, much of the picture is still "gelling." The quotes your provide help to clarify my understanding of the Polarian, Hyperborean, Lemurian and Atlantean Root Races.

Of even more interest, for me personally, is what you've shared about Grace as akin to Buddha nature. I'd never thought of it this way, but in light of my understanding of karma (and total agreement with you on this point), I am much inclined to your take on things.

cheers,

andrew

 

[Francis king]

nobody else has said it, so I will...

u asked- what is theosophy..? theosophy, as a word, is the "wisdom of god"...

theo- god, and sophia- wisdom...

Theosophy, as a religious system, exploits the themes of all religions, mixes them up, and arrives at a great compendium of pseudologic, and is all the fault of a mad Russian middle class bird who had a few mates who knew a bit about religion, and they conned their way through Europe in the 1890's...

today, theosophy is still a religion, of sorts, but not one which if u have any sense u will swallow, as although it leaves a sweet taste in the mouth it will burn ur belly...

the theosophists have tried to take over the world at various points in history, by setting up Messiahs for the ppl to follow, but thankfully the general public are not as stupid as the theosophists would like u to believe...

if u want to study religion, thats great... but if u want to mix up christianity, spiritualism, and hinduism, oh, and I forgot buddhism, and arrive at a system which is supposedly better than them all, u'll be a theosophist... it is not an adequate study of comparative religion, unless u are interested in the genesis of cults, and u'd be better off going to ur local free library and sticking to the classics... but thats just my opinion...

 

[taijasi]

Francis, you have missed the point of CR, you have abused your privilege of posting here, and your post does nothing to invite further discussion whatsoever.

I'm so, so sorry that you feel you must come here with an axe to grind, and look, if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed ... then hey, don't worry, we've all been there. It happens.

But what you cannot do, is come **** all over other people's cornflakes, you know, stink up the place the way you have just done.

You came in here and contributed nothing; instead, you have attempted to shut down this discussion.

This is a personal vendetta, or agenda. You have an axe to grind. As I say, I do not know why, but so long as you go do it elsewhere ... I really don't care.

~andrew

 

[pohaikawahine]

andrew and nick - mahalo nui (thank you very much) for the charts and thoughts .... I do think that ancient hawaiian thought (as I understand it - not everyone would agree) is very compatable because it seems to stem from that ancient line of wisdom, buried in the sounds of the words themselves..... and thomas, you posted a comment about the Hebraic mind and the Hellenic mind which I found absolutely fascinating .... truthfully, I don't feel as "scholarly" as the rest of you in these postings because my thoughts are pretty simply and basic but I am following this with great interest .... lately I've been posting (when I do) primarily on the Judiasm site because I've been pulled so deeply into the Torah and all her symbols (so beautiful) .... anyway I will follow this thread and post when I think I have something to share of interest .... I'm going to try and draw a picture that comes from the outside of "the god's house" on a small island in the south pacific and scan it to see what you all think about the symbols .... aloha nui, pohaikawahine p.s. I have my thoughts on these symbols but will be interested in what others think....will try to do this on the next post ....

 

[taijasi]

Thank you, Poh. I look forward to anything you'd like to share ... as I always enjoy your posts, and find them extremely informative!

Did I ever mention that one of the first real, live Theosophists I met in person was someone who had traveled to Illinois from Hawaii? We met for the National Summer Conference in Wheaton, and I got there from NC by motorcycle (a 2-day trip). The woman's name was Jana, and she shared a lot with us about the Huna healing tradition.

This was completely unknown to me, and I found it fascinating that she had arrived at Theosophical teachings from a completely (even radically) different path, and background, than I had!

It comes back to what Nick said elsewhere: Truth is One, Paths are Many
(That was part of a beautiful design on my favorite T-shirt, which I bought at that conference in 1991, long since worn out, of course!)

Anyway, mahalo nui ... and Namaskar,

~andrew

 

[taijasi]

Some excerpts from The Letters of Helena Roerich, Series II, which I wanted to share regarding Theosophy's greatest Messenger (H.P. Blavatsky):

We can also recall H. P. Blavatsky, and all the appearances of the Mahatmas. How skeptically and often scoffingly were their messages and manifestations received! But, as I have already written, "...even if Christ Himself appeared now among us, would He be able to escape imprisonment, or even execution?...One must realize that the Greatest Individuality cannot be manifested now, in the midst of chaotic thinking and the vibrations of depraved crowds.​

Regarding slanderers, and betrayal:

It is true, the practice of occultism in the way it is understood by the majority, that is, the performance of mechanical exercises, is most dangerous. But the path of Light, the path of selfless service to humanity, readiness of the spirit, constant striving toward the perfectment of the inner man, and steadfast devotion to the chosen Ideal, this path, although difficult, has its spiritual joys. On the last step, the Carrier of Light inevitably drinks the chalice of poison, the chalice of betrayal by the nearest ones. Thus it was, thus it will be. The brighter the Light, the denser the darkness. Moreover, each Carrier of Light has his own Judas or Devadatta - be it a false-hearted king, as in the case of Saint-Germain, or the Coulombs and Soloviev in the case of Blavatsky. In the history of each Carrier of Light there is a tragic page of black betrayal.​

But we know how the Great Teachers look upon the betrayers. Indeed, "The Teacher permits the beginning of a new step. Betrayal is an attribute of such ascent. The Teacher considers the manifestation of abuse useful. The Teacher regards a dish of slander as a wonderful offering. The manifestation of slander brings tension of atmosphere, and each tension is already an ascent. Let the ignorant dance, they arouse the waves. The traitors will be overthrown." Thus, in full calmness and trust in the Guiding Hand we will continue to build.​

True, someone will ask, How could such traitors be allowed to approach? But we should not forget Judas, Devadatta, Cassius, Brutus, and all murderers and betrayers, whose name is legion. Betrayal, like a shadow, follows a great achievement, and precisely by betrayal the greatness of an achievement can be measured. Many dark betrayers were known to H. P. Blavatsky and Comte Saint-Germain, and those Carriers of Light nearer to our own time, but their names became only greater because of this.​

Let us also not forget our own genius, H. P. Blavatsky, who was so slandered. She spent three years in one of the Ashrams of Tibet, and then returned to the world with great knowledge and an illumined message regarding the Mahatmas. Had there not been so much malice and envy on the part of her contemporaries, she would have written two more volumes of The Secret Doctrine, in which, pages from the lives of the Great Teachers of humanity would have been included. But people preferred to kill her, and her work remained unfinished. History repeats itself, and again the dark forces creep out of their holes and try to suppress the resplendent Message, but Light conquers darkness!​

...​

No Teaching ever entered life without being attacked by the hosts of darkness, and the same thing takes place today. Verily, the dark ones assist the manifestation of each work of Light; hence, we know the value of all obstacles and even of slander. Long ago, N. K. wrote an article, "Praise to the Enemies." Each betrayal gives an opportunity to all faithful co-workers and friends to be united even more closely. There will be all sorts of actions, even up to and including betrayal, but on the earthly plane such manifestations are necessary. The victory of Light over darkness must be revealed​

I recall a well-aimed remark by one of the contemporaries of H. P. Blavatsky, "In spite of all that was written about H. P. B., she was never embarrassed by any slander, for she knew the value of the drumhead." Thus, let the drums beat. And in the Teaching, there are already enough definitions of slander. Let us not fear!​

Unless the Admins and moderators see fit to remove Francis' earlier post - as I think would only be right, in keeping with the CoC at CR - I will glady defend the good name, and purpose, of Theosophy and its Founders & modern-day adherents from such invective. To this end, consider:

today, theosophy is still a religion, of sorts

And in response, I will quote again from the website of the Theosophical Society in America:

Theosophy holds that all religions are expressions of humanity's effort to relate to one another, to the universe around us, and to the ultimate ground of being. Particular religions differ from one another because they are expressions of that effort adapted to particular times, places, cultures, and needs. Theosophy is not itself a religion, although it is religious, in being concerned with humanity's effort to relate to ultimate values. Individual Theosophists profess various of the world's religions—Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist. Some have no religious affiliation. The Society itself is an expression of the belief that human beings, however diverse their backgrounds, can communicate and cooperate.​

True, Francis king tests us on this last point. But I, for one, and I suspect Nick, for another, will bear out the words and the Wisdom of Helena Roerich, H. P. Blavatksy, and the Masters ... in pointing out that these slanders and attacks only provide us with fuel for demonstrating the triumph of Good (cooperation & open communication) over such lesser manifestations of darkness.

And, thankfully, Poh has also shown that Light means more than dark, while I would further submit that - even maintaining a difference of opinion and belief - Thomas has shown on this thread that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

the theosophists have tried to take over the world at various points in history, by setting up Messiahs for the ppl to follow, but thankfully the general public are not as stupid as the theosophists would like u to believe...

And to this, what can we say? I can do no better than quote again from the Theosophical Society in America website, in demonstrating that Francis king is sadly misinformed. Francis, I think you've been spending too much time on those websites about conspiracy theories and `The cult of the Illuminati' ... since in fact, the Theosophical Society:

has a vision of wholeness that inspires a fellowship united in study, meditation, and service.​

encourages open-minded inquiry into world religions, philosophy, science, and the arts in order to understand the wisdom of the ages, respect the unity of all life, and help people explore spiritual self-transformation.​

holds that our every action, feeling, and thought affects all other beings and that each of us is capable of and responsible for contributing to the benefit of the whole.​

Hmmm ...

but thats just my opinion

Well you see, an opinion is one thing, especially if you can back it up, defend it, or otherwise demonstrate how you have arrived at it. When all you've done is proceeded to hurl invective and slander, empty-minded personal attacks ... and then tacked on these five little words at the end as somehow a free license for this kind of thing, then I think you've said a whole lot more about yourself, than about anything `Theosophical' or even vaguely related to Theosophy.

On another forum, if you feel that it would helpful, and personally beneficial even, to start a discussion about negative experiences you've had - either as a member of the Theosophical Society, or for whatever reason, in discussing Theosophical concepts with others - then perhaps that would be understandable. I'd be glad to participate, because I would have an especial interest in helping to clear up misunderstandings, on the one hand, but also because I am sympathetic to anyone who feels s/he has been proselyzed to ... by any religious or philosophical group with ulterior motives.

And yet, while I am outspoken on this thread as someone with Theosophical beliefs or background, I notice that on other threads, such as the Five Fundamentals thread - we have have the same kind of disrespectful, trashing of other people's beliefs or ideas going on ... because of what? I just don't get it Francis. You'd like to shut us all up? Tear everyone down? Make atheists of us all?

As far as I can get it is that you feel somehow jaded, and disgruntled by any and every spiritual philosophy or belief-system that doesn't jibe. Well what I want to know is "jibe with what?" When are you going to enlighten us with how things really are ... and lift all us poor, misguided Theosophists and Christian Fundamentalists out of our contemptible human ignorance?

if u want to study religion, thats great

As long as we check with you first? As long as we don't dare try and arrive at conclusions of our own, without running it by Francis? And Heaven forbid we should actually try and DO something with our studies, n'est pas? Clearly we see what happens when the world forgets to see if Francis king approves.

Hell hath no fury ... (and that may get me in trouble; I apologize - I'm just more than a bit disgusted right now)

On with the crusade, Francis ... Still convinced you can stamp it all out if you're bitter and caustic enough?

Sorry, greater messengers than you (and me) have weathered far worse, for higher causes ... and to hell with my ego, I'm just hoping someone around here is willing to confront your crap for what it really is. WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHAT is it that you feel you have to contribute? Think it's not my place to ask? THEN STOP GIVING ME A REASON

~~~

The First of the Three Objects of the Theosophical Society:

• To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.

The Theosophical Cause is not built upon a house of cards. There is no Francis, no person, who can find just the right card, and - removing it - render null & void, or a wasted labor, the effort to fulfil the First Object of the TS. Your false assumption is that we are dealing with a house of cards to begin with.

But then ... I might be completely mistaken. You might just be a rather embittered, jaded young person, with the proverbial axe to grind, and an intellect & education that is a bit overdone for your own good ... such that you're not quite sure what to do with it (them), and going around, tearing other people down just seems the easiest use of your "special talent."

Attacking a philosophy or set of religious beliefs is one thing, but what you have perhaps not yet realized is that in attacking Theosophy, you also attack the Ideals of Brotherhood, Brotherly Love, and even that simple human kindness as espoused by such men as the Dalai Lama, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mother Teresa.

One does not just go online and fill out a form, or simply subscribe to a monthly newsletter & pay membership dues, in order to become a Theosophist. Just as Bible study will not in & of itself make a man a Christian, nor will the outer utterance of a creed or wearing of some kind of badge make a man a Theosophist. And while the very point and purpose of the Theosophical Teachings (as well, perhaps, of the Christian, Buddhist, etc.) is to help us to recognize our underlying human Unity ...

... I find myself wondering, Francis king, is all that completely lost on you?

I sincerely hope not, yet I will not own your bitterness and resentment, and your overall attitude of negativity. Anything you'd like to address about that via PM, or elsewhere, please feel free. Else, it's really not fair to waste other people's time & eyesight.

~andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew, you must stop your name-calling. It is just not allowed in Theosophy. Do not allow yourself to come down to Francis' level. Even though she is intolerant, you must remain tolerant.

The funny thing is, her post may have the exact opposite reaction from what Francis had hoped. Whatever religion Francis belongs to, I find myself further distanced from it by what she has said, and others will feel the same way. Her religion allows such intolerance, while any form of religious intolerance is absolutely forbidden in Theosophy.

More people may take a look at Theosophy now, in moral indignation to what Francis has said. In a way, we should thank Francis.

This is a good time to take another look at the first two Fundamentals of Theosophy.

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

2. To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science.

Lessons in Theosophy

Andrew, your work here is to bring together, not drive us apart. make the Fundamentals your "rules of engagement". Take these opportunities to show that Theosophists are willing to go the extra mile, in order to promote brotherhood.

And tolerance.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Pohaika Wahine,

You said,

"I do think that ancient hawaiian thought (as I understand it - not everyone would agree) is very compatable because it seems to stem from that ancient line of wisdom, buried in the sounds of the words themselves...."

--> Yes, Theosophy is based on something called the Ancient Wisdom, which is the source of all religions. This Ancient Wisdom is continually being re-released through the centuries. Unfortunately, man gets a hold of teachings and changes them as the centuries go by. A periodic re-release is necessary.

“ ... religions never evolve; they always degenerate. Contrary to the assumptions of comparative mythology, they do not originate in crude primitive feelings or ideas, and then transform themselves slowly into loftier and purer ones. They begin lofty and pure, and deteriorate into crasser forms. They come forth in the glow of spirituality and living power and later pass into empty forms and lifeless practices. From the might of the spirit they contract into the materialism of the letter. No religion can rise above its source, can surpass its founder; and the more exalted the founder and his message, the more certainly is degeneration to be looked for. There is always gradual change in the direction of obscuration and loss of primal vision, initial force. Religions tend constantly to wane, and need repeated revivals and reformations. Nowhere is it possible to discern anything remotely like steady growth in spiritual unfolding.
“It is the occult theory that what we find when we search the many religions of the earth is but the fragments, the dissociated and distorted units of what were once profound and coherent systems. It is difficult to trace in the isolated remnants the contour of the original structure. But it is this completed system which the Theosophist seeks to reconstruct from the scattered remnants.”

(Alvin Boyd Kuhn, THEOSOPHY , pages 3-4)

"...thomas, you posted a comment about the Hebraic mind and the Hellenic mind which I found absolutely fascinating ..."

--> As a matter fact, Theosophy shows similarities between the Hebrew and Hindu faiths — who would have thought such a thing to be possible? It is possible, because they originally came from the same source. This showing of commonality is the very reason for the existence of Theosophy.

"I'm going to try and draw a picture that comes from the outside of 'the god's house' on a small island in the south pacific and scan it to see what you all think about the symbols."

--> Great. We will be waiting for your picture.

 

[Francis king]

indeed, u should thank me, for being honest... I thought a forum was the place where ppl ask and offer, opinions... if this is indeed the case, then my megre words have no real effect, do they? I didnt realise I could only come here to espouse a certain party's doctrine... my opinion is as valid as urs.. so whats the problem..?

 

[earl]

Andrew,

You said,

"In sloka 15, the words `shadow,' `color' and `kind' should be understood as indicative, but not necessarily literal."

--> I am not sure if you know, but `shadow' refers to the Chhaya, the first human race. The Chhaya existed entirely on the astral plane, and did not have physical bodies.

“Chhaya ... is the astral image.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 101)

“But men, during the first and the second races, were not physical beings, but merely rudiments [astral entities] of the future men: Bhutas....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 108)

“Hence we believe in races of beings other than our own in far remote geological periods; in races of ethereal, following incorporeal, "Arupa," men, with form but no solid substance....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 194)

“...primeval humanity had at first an ethereal ... form, evolved by gods or natural "forces," which grew, condensed throughout millions of ages, and became gigantic in its physical impulse and tendency, until it settled into the huge, physical form of the Fourth Race Man....” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 151)

“In those early ages, astral evolution was alone in progress, and the two planes, the astral and the physical, though developing on parallel lines, had no direct point of contact with one another.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 157)

You said,

"I just don't know what to make of this notion of Grace."

--> It is similar to what is called Buddha-nature. It is similar to what we experience at the moment of Enlightenment, when our sense of separateness from each other is removed.

Unfortunately, Grace also carries connotations of un-accountability, which flies in the face of karma (the ultimate form of accountability).

Just wanted to pop in re this subject of grace. You may have noticed all of Tariki's postings re Pure Land Buddhism which is all about notions of grace. The excellent point made by Pure Landers so to speak as there is a real paradox innate to many Buddhist paths which emphasize "self-power," one's efforts to obtain enlightenment. That paradox of course is how ultimately do "self"-efforts enable one to see there is no self? There is a subtle notion in the self-power path that implies one will be "rewarded" for one's efforts, whereas grace implies it occurs irrespective of self-effort. The further paradox though of Pure Land is to imply that the free, full flow of grace can only really occur if one can fully surrender self-will in total trust in Amida, so there still is the personal choice point. But no spiritual path including Pure Landers let 1 off the hook as to responsibilities as all Buddhist paths certainly teach ethical expectations, (accontability in that sense) which are intrinsic to Buddhism. I'm glad Andrew has theosophical companionship here. earl

 

[taijasi]

Andrew, you must stop your name-calling. It is just not allowed in Theosophy. Do not allow yourself to come down to Francis' level. Even though she is intolerant, you must remain tolerant.

I believe this helps to remind me of the perspective which I'd lost ... apologies both to you, Nick, and to you, Francis ... as well as to forum readers.

Andrew, your work here is to bring together, not drive us apart. make the Fundamentals your "rules of engagement". Take these opportunities to show that Theosophists are willing to go the extra mile, in order to promote brotherhood.

And tolerance.

I believe Christ had some advice for what to do in these situations ... good for Theosophists, not just Christians.

To that end, I'm sitting back down so the boat can stop rocking ...

I thought a forum was the place where ppl ask and offer, opinions

Indeed you are right, and I stand corrected.

Namaskara,

andrew

 

[pohaikawahine]

“It is the occult theory that what we find when we search the many religions of the earth is but the fragments, the dissociated and distorted units of what were once profound and coherent systems. It is difficult to trace in the isolated remnants the contour of the original structure. But it is this completed system which the Theosophist seeks to reconstruct from the scattered remnants.”

I like to think of them not so much as "scattered remnants" but deeply planted seeds waiting to be nutured .... I've been searching for well over 40 years now, so "siriusly" (andrew that was for you) I must have a little bit of the theosophist in me .... it all connected about 10 years ago and since that time the symbols and sounds are easier to see and hear .... what an absolute joy to know about our ancestors and how wise they were .... my time and energy now is spent teaching my "mo'opuna" (grandchild) whom I call "mo'o" (which in Hawaiian means dragon) .... I'm still working on the drawing (I have to scan it and try to copy it to a message .... I'm not too good at this computer and will have to work it out again) .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Pohaika Wahine,

A big Mahalo for your post. All of us here are in the business of "planting seeds".

If you need any help with the scanning, let me know. (I am Microsoft-certified and very computer-friendly.)

A hui ho kua,

Nick