Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00487)

RI:

>> [Patrick]:

>>In my own lodge of late some of the members have begun to ask
>>"What is this theosophy thing that gives us our name?

There are a lot of things that the word "Theosophy" could be applied
to. Jerry H-E would probably ask us: "What did HPB intend when she
helped co-found the T.S. and coined the term?"

>> ... I feel it is absurd to have a society with a description in its
>>name theosophical with lodges branches which are not theosophical.

This is a big critism of the Adyar T.S. There are far too many branches
where the basic philosophy is not taught and perhaps not understood.
The ULT and Pasadena T.S. are better at keeping to the original philosophy
but may also be too conservative at times making it hard to introduce
new original ideas.

If everyone teachings whatever they care to believe as original
Theosophy sometimes without even having read the books and being
exposed to the ideas then the philosophy will be lost to the western
world. This is a danger that is continually before theosophical groups.

>You have perhaps touched upon *the* critical question which may have to get
>answered before the Theosophical Society can go forward....

>THE NEW LEXICON WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENCYCLOPEDIC
>EDITION gives two definitions--one for *theosophy* one for *Theosophy*:

>1. *theosophy*: "any philosophical and religious system [add *and fact*]
>based on intuitive knowledge of [add *or transcendental approach toward*]
>the divine."

This spiritual approach to *learning* emphasizes *process* and is fine.
We are not considering though whether this intuitive knowledge is
trained or untrained whether it is based upon exposure to gurus and
spiritual training or if it is based upon the normal course of one's
life without the benefit of hastened evolution.

>2. *Theosophy*: "a system of thought and practice derived from esp.
>Buddhist and Brahminical religious mysticism by Madame Blavatsky in 1875 in
>the U.S.A. and propagated by the Theosophical Society which she founded. It
>claims to be a synthesis of those elements in all religions which result from
>divine revalation and to enable its followers to establish personal
>communion with God."

This definition deals more with the *content* or body of Teachings. But
I don't think it gets it right. The philosophy is not a synthesis of
elements from world religions. It is not a collage. It is a representation
of primal knowledge of the Masters specifically tailored for western
consumption. The philosophy is a fresh presentation of source materials
not a rehash of materials from various world religions. The terms are
borrowed from the religions and philosophies of the world but not always
with identical meaning. And the extensive citations to world literature was
to show the universal nature of the ideas presented not because the ideas
were learned by HPB through reading that literature.

>Now while perhaps both definitions leave something to be desired they do
>provide a clean way to ask the important question: Does the *Theosophical*
>in *The Theosophical Society* stand for something closer to definition #1 or
>#2? In my mind I find it hard to believe that the Founders meant it to
>stand for both--however I don't know.

The definitions show what the popular understanding of the terms "theosophy"
and "Theosophy" consist of. But Theosophy does not change every time a
dictionary is revised. The theosophical doctrines are relatively timeless
and will be around long after any trace of the English language has disappeared
from the face of the earth.

We can guess at what the various T.S. founders thought and intended. The
real founders I think are KH and M and their intent was I think to
stem the rising tide of materialism. What the intent was at the time of
the T.S. founding though is a moot point. At each point in time the T.S.
is a changing tool of possible use to furthering spiritual work in the world.
Depending upon the members and the world situation that tool may be useful
for one purpose at one time and for another purpose ten years later. The
original intent in founding the society says nothing for what it can be
used for at the present time. The present use would be based I think upon
a pragmatic evaluation of what's happening in the world and how the T.S. could
be used right now to make the world a better place.

>Because I came to the Society from a philosophical background and seeing THE
>THREE OBJECTS etc. I naturally assumed that the first definition was the
>operative one. Indeed for most of my years of membership the wide variety
>of subjects explored by individuals etc. gave me every reason to believe that
>it *was* the operative one.

The emphasis on *process* is important. Meditation is an important aspect of
the process of spiritual unfolding. But meditation goes hand-in-hand with
*content* and I'd say that much can be achieved using fragments of Mystery
Teachings as the content of our studies and contemplation.

>For me *theosophy* will principally continue to be the word for the
>epistemology which allows for the validity of knowledge which does not
>come from strict empirical observation or science--the knowledge which
>is associated with religions astrology mysticism esoteric writers
>not necessarily named Blavatsky etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I'd say that the theosophical
doctrines are true as far as they go but there's much that they don't cover.
And Theosophy as we know it is but one presentation of the Wisdom Tradition.
We can find this knowledge from other sources than HPB and those that follow
her in the theosophical tradition. But there is much that is false amidst
what is out there and discrimination is necessary. And our theosophical
doctrines give keys that help unlock exoteric meanings in various religious
materials.

We need to make a distinction between the body of doctrines and how one
learns or comes to a realization of deep truths. The body of doctrines are
dead-letter empty lifeless by themselves. Even though they are true they
often need a teacher or guru or fellow student to inspire one to realize
what they mean. The realization is done by the student when the right
stage of readiness has arrived and the idea is not merely communicated by
the spoken or written words.

You're talking about how the realization comes from within by the student
which I agree with. But I'd still say "about what?" With training or
assistance we can be exposed to much more content to much more to potentially
realize. We can have realizations as things come to us in life or we can
hasten the process by exposure to a systematic presentation of occult
truths like in the theosophical philosophy. In either case it is *we*
that achieve the insights through our own inner work.

>But also within the Theosophical Society we have the definition-#2 people.
>They are strong and getting stronger as the membership declines. They
>would like to firmly establish as a fact that the *Theosophical* in the
>Theosophical Society means definition #2.

I'd say that you're making a false distinction here. The type one process
deals with how we realize deep insights. The type two definition deals
with the specific systematic content of occult doctrine that is of great
benefit for our type one process. It is not an either/or situation. The
content is true although incomplete and we need to bring this type one
realization to understanding what it really means. It's not a situation
of free thought versus Blavatskianity.

>To counter that possibility my answer to members who might ask "What is
>this theosophy thing that gives us our name?"

The problem is not that type two is bad and type one needs to win out.
The problem is rather I think that type one insight needs to be applied
to the true deeply profound and esoteric type two content. Then we'll
benefit from it.

>"It is the method by which you personally and transcendentally accumulate
>little nuggets of unsupported-but-absolute certainty about subjects
>impervious to other methods. Come Spring we're going to dig around one
>theosophist's mother lode--THE SECRET DOCTRINE."

Again I'd agree that this process of mining for the gold of digging for
the precious nuggets is what is missing. But we need both skillful mining
and a vein of genuine gold to work with. And I'd say that there's plenty
to be found *behind* the theosophical literature.

-- Eldon