I’m curious what others think does and does not constitute theosophy.
Few would argue Blavatsky doesn’t, but what about the works of someone like Ken Wilber? He has labored for 30 years to show the underlying unity of philosophy, religion, science and the arts in the context of the perennial philosophy and his first books were published by the Theosophical Publishing House, yet many would argue his work is not theosophical, or at the very least, not Theosophical.
What is the difference between little-t and big-T theosophy?
Is it historical and institutional, or philosophical? If the former, where are the lines drawn? If the latter, what ideas are definitive?
Most importantly, can any new ideas be truly Theosophical?
I want to clarify some of the things I said in my last post, and also take the opportunity to answer one of Chris’ questions that I didn’t answer before.
Over the last day or so, the questions I posed in my last post have been weighing on my mind and I think the message I was trying to get at may be garbled due to some unfortunate wording. I said,
Then I go on to to ask questions which imply the opposite: That we (being the members of any given Society) may have missed the message by falling into such staunch division and that that may be the reason the Masters don’t appear to be in the kind of communication with our leaders that they once were.
What I was trying to say was that it’s only in certain isolated quarters that I witness debate over the issues of who interpreted Blavatsky correctly, whose version of (T)heosophy is more faithful to her work. TPH isn’t publishing a lot of new (T)heosophical material; its current focus does, though, seem very (t)heosophical and that may owe just as much to an acknowledgement of the folly of earlier divisions and the embrace of a more unitive approach as it does to the apparent lack of new ground to cover (T)heosophically; furthermore, I speculate that those two possibilities may not only both be valid, but they may be directly connected.
I do think it is a decision that is highly connected with the identity of the organization. After thinking through the consequences of the questions I posed, I realized I was beginning to paint a picture of a Theosophical Society that had dropped the big-T, so to speak; and that didn’t feel right. In fact, it felt absurd even to have pointed in that direction; (T)heosophy represents the roots of the Societies and without it, the Societies wouldn’t have formed.
While the Masters do seem to have stopped contacting TS leaders, there are others, as Chris mentioned, who claim to have been in contact with them. Why isn’t their work acknowledged? It could be because their work doesn’t readily fit into the framework established by earlier (T)heosophical teaching; it seems to be why Bailey’s teachings are, even to this day, considered taboo in the TSA. In reading Besant and Leadbeater, I have picked up a definite sense of pride in the TS-Adyar, and a conviction that Blavatsky and Olcott were specially chosen by the Masters, that the TS was destined to be the flagship of the Masters’ message. When Masters allegedly begin to contact others, it takes some wind out of their sails. Paired with the current lack of new teachings, it seems the only solution to the problem that leaves the Society’s identity intact is to ignore/discredit others who claim contact with the Masters and continue to draw from the teachings already received, while exploring other areas of inquiry.
For me THEOSOPHY is only the classical version: the original teachings from the Masters of Wisdom that came to us via HPB and the original founders of the Theosophical Society. This is what we, as Theosophists, need to preserve and disseminate: the vastness, the richness and the authentic legacy of the Theosophical Society. If we do not preserve this legacy, given to us by the Masters themselves, their profound teachings will simply disappear, remain unknown to many, or be completely forgotten.
The rest that some call theosophy nowadays is simply modern blah blah, a melting pot of metaphysical ideas, new age concepts, and modern spirituality and science. This is okay, but this is not Theosophy —even if some of these ideas are in consonance, to some extent, with the three objects of the Theosophical Society.
Besides the Classics, Theosophy is what we used to read years ago on the magazine “The American Theosophist.” But in the same manner that this magazine disappeared, Theosophy will equally disappear if we do not properly preserve it and disseminate it, so that the present and future generations will know it and pass it on to others later.
I wonder what HPB would say, and certainly in the context of the TS being a “public” organization (much the same being true for the other branches of the Theosophical movement).
I would contend that the essence of the Theosophical movement lies in the Objectives laid out by the founders and modified over the years to suit the prevailing environment.
I. To form a Nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of Race, Creed, Sex, Caste or Color.
II. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science.
III. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.
Whether HPB, N. Sri Ram, or Alice Bailey wrote something, in a sense, is of no concern. The real question is, does the specific writing conform to any of the three guidelines above?
The one thing where perhaps a line needs to be drawn is in the methodology. Encouraging study and investigating the unexplained is not to be confused with blindly making dogmatic assertions and pronouncements based on wrong thought or fancy. It is also not the same as hiding behind some “authority” in order to overpower someone who may not be as diligent or skilled in their faculty of discrimination.
That’s one of the reasons that the Theosophist, under HPB’s editorship was such a wonderful work. It’s still a great read for any who want to get a real feel for how the work of the TS was handled in HPB’s day. There’s some lessons for us in there, too.
Well, I must agree with Joe. In the three objects of theosophy there is implied a deep commitment to eclecticism.
Somewhere it is also stated that theosophy is non-dogmatic and non-political. These two pillars are a great relief to everyone who has been plagued our modern world, and its spindoctors.
Kabbalah is excellent as theosophy. Kabbalah provides an ontological model in the tree of life. There are inspired writings on cosmology, which are currently being valided in scientific studies. Beyond metaphysics Kabbalah is grounded in ethics. Epistemologically Kabbalists embrace truth revealed through experience.
Kabbalah has a long history.
I have found that the nested platonic solids can serve as a memory castle for attributions of the ten sefirot of the tree of life. The solids also can be ordered in ten productive pairs, which are harmonius with the ten orderings of the decalogue.
The tree of life is, through the ancient greeks, a five part model of the soul empowered by the five ancient states of matter.
Best regards,
Vincent