[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Qabala vs Theosophy

Aug 03, 1997 12:19 PM
by Jerry Schueler

>HPB was only vaugely familiar with Kabbalah, although, she gave strong
>endorsements for the pursuit of kabbalistic theosophy even though her
>particular brand of theosophy was much more pantheistic having strong
>ties to Hinduism.

I respect your opinion.  She was a lot more versed in Kabbalah
than I am (I am reasonably versed in Qabala, but know very little
of Kabbalah--I leave that to Alan).  

I am uncertain what you mean by Hinduistic pantheism.  I don't
see much difference between the Cosmocrators or Manus of HPB
and the Angels or Archangels of the Kabbalah.

>Kabbalah is a model of theosophy which would be ultimate reality. Models
>are excellent tools for exploration of systematic knowledge, and in this
>case the model has magical properties and purposes.

Here we have a point of difference.  I see theosophy (little t) as the
pursuit of ultimate reality, but not ultimate reality itself.

The fact that the Kabbalah and Qabala have magical properties is
the very reason why most good theosophists shun them.  Like you,
I enjoy the magic, and in fact have dubbed the entire inner 5 planes
the Magical Universe to emphasize the point.

>The discovery that the "Tree of Life" is a fractal geometry makes less
>likely the assertion that the Tree or even the Decalogue are human
>inventions, although, it does not eliminate that possibility. 

The entire Magical Universe is fractal.  Life is fractal.  Earth is
fractal.  It is my personal opinion that the Tree of Life is, indeed,
a human invention.  So are the Watchtowers and Aethyrs of
Enochian Magic.  So are the Aeons of Gnosticism, and the Pylons
of Osiris of the ancient Egyptians.  And even so are the Globes
and Planes of HPB's model.  All are human created attempts to
organize infinity and eternity.  This does not denigrate them, nor
denigrate their enormous value as mental maps or structures to
allow us to keep our sanity while exploring these regions.

>Ethics stem from self knowledge. Western tradition recommends 
>that one seek self knowledge in order to love completely.

This is a different slant on the picture, but I can't disagree with you.
The thing is, when we finally come to grips with our "self" we will
learn that we are not so different from others.  Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you is still probably the only real
ethical law we need.

Jerry S.
Member, TI

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application