Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00349)

>
>Eldon: You say that Theosophy is a well-defined body of
>teachings. Do you not think it would be truer to say that
>Theosophy *has* a well-defined body of teaching(s)? A small
>point, but IMHO an important one.
>
>Alan

There are a number of ways that I could fine-tune the description.
We could say that there are a well-defined body of teachings presented
to the world, teachings that Blavatsky may have taken the term "Theosophy"
to describe.

When we go further in attempting to define Theosophy, a number of
questions arise, leading to some involved discussions.

Say there is a Wisdom Tradition, perserved by the Mahatmas, and partially
presented to the Western World as Theosophy. Say the presentation is
imperfect, limited, and sometimes clothed in veils or requiring "keys" to
unlock the true meanings. These statements could constitute a further
definiton of "Theosophy."

I've just, though, made a number of points that are open to dispute.
They could be modified or rejected. Is there a Wisdom Tradition? Are there
Mahatmas? Did they present part of their knowledge to the West through
Blavatsky under the name "Theosophy?" That's what the theosophical
literature would say, and I'd define "Theosophy" that way. Is it right?
We may have our individual views on the subject. It is accurate to talk
of it that way? For someone wanting to learn about Theosophy, it would
be fair to present such an idea to them, even if we also want to add our own
views to amplify or contradict it.