Theos-Talk Archives (June 1994 Message tl00015)

Antero Kangas

AK> What is your opinion to an argument, that theosophy is a kind
> of egoistic philosophy with mental training, opening chacras
> and making astral adventures  with a help of some gurus,
> meanwhile common people are doing their best to keep the
> society alive. So that instead of astral world man should do
> something valuable for surrounding world. Which is more
> important to you and to which for universe.

     This is a very interesting definition of what theosophy and
a theosophist is.  What is the source of information upon which
this argument is based?

     H.P. Blavatsky's definition of a theosophist is as follows:

     It is easy to become a Theosophist.  Any person of average
     intellectual capacities, and a leaning toward the
     metaphysical; of pure, unselfish life, who finds more joy in
     helping his neighbor than in receiving help himself; one who
     is ever ready to sacrifice his own pleasures for the sake of
     other people; and who loves Truth, Goodness and Wisdom for
     their own sake, not for the benefit they may confer--is a
     Theosophist.  (From "Practical Occultism," ~Lucifer~, April
     1888)

     In several of her writings, she also defines "Theosophy" as
"pure altruism."  So it appears that there is a rather large gap
between the definition you present and that given by the founder
of the modern theosophical movement.  Perhaps the argument you
present is meant to define something other than theosophy or a
theosophist.


Jerry Hejka-Ekins