Blavatsky's Theosophy
On Theosophy.Net we look at theosophies as a matter of experience. They originate as a result of direct experience and are not derived from books or second hand knowledge, no matter how lofty or authoritative. This is important to understand.
In this vein, perhaps it is important to apply this perspective to HP Blavatsky, the name most commonly associated with the word "Theosophy". The vast majority of her writings are those derived from other sources. For example, "Voice of the Silence" is from "The Book of the Golden Precepts". The "Secret Doctrine" is based on the "Stanzas of Dzyan", and so on and so forth.
This is a new avenue of research into Blavatsky herself. What was her Theosophy? What are the insights that she wrote about which were derived solely through her own, personal experience?
Perhaps there are those who read this site who may be able to help assemble instances of insights she had of a theosophic nature.
For those of you who are not sure about the essentials of Esotericism and Theosophy, please read our Frequently Asked Questions. Those will provide a guide into the nature of Esotericsm and Theosophy that we pursue here and help frame your replies. In addition, the works of Antoine Faivre serve as a good springboard to this area of study.
Let's be creative!
Joe
Replies to This Discussion
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Now to get the Theosophical Societies to believe it. <G>
HPB assumes both 5 and 6 in the list of esoteric typologies as both mandatory;
we consider those optional.
Also she believed in One Perennial Wisdom Religion. We do not require that either. Her Secret Doctrine, becomes a Dogma and religion with those assumptions and beliefs.....
It is ok if you believe those things... just don't expect everyone else to...
i.e. I do not think that all enlightened beings across the entire world/universe of space and time would agree on these things.
Faivre made an excellent point. I am glad you brought that out!
Thanks Miguel!!
-
Permalink Reply by Ferran Sanz Orriols on
-
.... believe, believe, believe...... BORING!!!
why do people seem unable to read and think?
... be it the Bible or the Secret Doctrine, no book is foolsproof... anyone can read the Bible or the SD and find wisdom there or use them to make dogmas to believe and follow... it's up to us
HPB didn't think that her theosophy was different from traditional one... this kind of differences come from the desire to own, which, in my opinion, is the opposite of wisdom
HPB claimed to have personal contact with the "enlightened ones" and she also wrote that any wisdom in her writings was not hers, but received from that tradition of enlightened ones. This idea of a fellowship of enlightened ones existed long before HPB in many countries.
... and keeping silence on one's own experiences or realizations is quite traditional, from Kabbalists to Taoists. :-P!
-
-
hi!
here's the link to the 1875 article where HPB used for the first time the word "theosophy"
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/bcw/b75-6-15.htm
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
I really agree. Quotes by HPB are somewhat interesting, but they are hollow words in books unless the Dynamics of an actual theosophy can be uncovered. She does not touch on that.. well, if she did, there is sure a lot of material to try and decipher.
So how does it fit into the typologies of Esotericism and Theosophy?? got me.
Her work will just fade into the halls of all the books she stole material from; or was told by people she seemed to believe in. Her stuff does not work in the 21st century. Frankly - if people want to know about Theosophy... keep them away from HPB. They will only become entrapped in the Esoteric Bogs and attempts to define/unify and justify her Doctrine of the "One Perennial Wisdom Religion". That is a fatal trap for most people's personal growth...
Where is the:
microcosm <-> mesocosm <-> macrocosm
those are individual to each person and guides the growth therefrom.
-
Permalink Reply by Dewald Bester on
-
hi
I am enjoying this, and it is challenging. some thoughts which come to my mind.
HPB's theosophy is definitely a dogmatic, closed system, accessed only by privilege. (I regard myself as a 'Blavatsky Theosophist' and have no problem with this.)
Yes, quoting HPB only helps to explain what HPB was trying to say, and does not add copious insights into the 'Theosophy' envisaged here. (Perhaps this site has lost as much as it gained by retaining the term Theosophy. It will I am sure be jealously guarded by all involved.)
Can we really access HPB's 'experiences' beyond her works? Perhaps an example would be helpful.
I get the sense that the site wants to engage with academic currents of thought, faivre being mentioned. But that opens the door for real criticisms. Firstly, why Faivre, who is open to criticism in the academic field. I dont think it helps to just pick the social scientist you like and not properly engage with the entire field, of western esotericism. I found the following journal article useful : http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/docserver/09433058/v22n1_s2... - i hope it is accessible - it is online. "What is esotericism..." by Bergunder.
I also suspect that underlying some of the assumptions of this website is a 'perennial bias'. Even if it is on the level of 'experience'. (Everything is an experience anyway.) What about the studies of Steven Katz on mysticism, who seems to essentially argue that one's existing beliefs determine one's experiences. There is no 'realm of true reality' out there for us to access. or if there is, it is not accessed by, mystics.
Is this site not going to end up replacing one type of theosophy (HPB's) for another type (less well defined, but still in the believers realm.)
i do think that if one intends to engage with the contemporary social sciences, which is what the site seems to suggest, it shouldnt be done on a 'preference' basis.
I am studying Theosophy at university level. I dont see any place where any perennial philosophy is tolerated in the academic arena.
that is my experience of academia at any rate
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
“Firstly, why Faivre, who is open to criticism in the academic field. I dont think it helps to just pick the social scientist you like and not properly engage with the entire field, of western esotericism.”
Faivre has been a leading expert in Esotericism and Theosophy for decades. The (highly acclaimed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Macmillan 1987; Editor: Mircea Eliade) has an article on Theosophy and also an article on Esotericism, both written by Faivre. Just FYI - The article on The Theosophical Society was written by Shirley Nicholson (Krotona Institute of Theosophy in Ojai, CA). Faivre then was instrumental in establishing definitions of Esotericism and Theosophy based on typology only. Only after this conceptual breakthrough (~1990) did the Academic study of Esotericism become possible. In the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Brill 2006; Editor Wouter J. Hanegraaff) this is a key point and is strongly emphasized. This book has around 130+ International Contributors from the various Academies. However, at this point, Faivre has retired and the field has been expanding across Universities with the creation of various positions, such as the Exeter Centre for the Study of Esotericism (EXESESO) Director: Professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (now deceased).
Your note that people in academia argue about these things (still) is true. That is their job to do so. <G>
I should point out that Hanegraaff’s current book Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture (Cambridge University Press , 2012) talks about this and even refers to the article you mention.
“Is this site not going to end up replacing one type of theosophy (HPB's) for another type (less well defined, but still in the believers realm.)”
This is confusing, since nothing is being replaced to the exclusion of the other. It is not either/or exclusive; It is an inclusive “or”. (A or B) or (A and B) are allowed.
What we have gained is a broad Inclusive "Castle" with many rooms and everyone free to dialogue (but NOT proselytize a religion). What you will find different is the realization that “Blavatsky-ism” is a recognized religion (here) and is treated as a religion. The theosophy of HPB is an option people can keep or toss.
Perhaps the above helps some.
John
Please tell more about the Grad-school class in Theosophy!!
Which school? Course Syllabus and Texts I would love to hear about!!
-
-
Hi!
It seems that academical studies take the place of religions for some people hehehehehe.
Anyway, the nice thing about this site, in my opinion, is that we do not agree on the definition of theosophy.
This is good because doors are left open.
-
-
hi
While i sort of understand the rejection of definitions. I think they are important, and note that this website offers 2 definitions for 2 very complicated ideas. I dont think it is practical to think in a reasoned way without defining what you are thinking about.
On the 'Castle and its many rooms' analogy. I think i was suggesting that the websites approach is another room in the Castle. it is not the inclusive Castle. In my opinion, the definition of esoteric excludes the Egyptian religion (the gnosis criteria). and your definition of theosophy excludes gelugpa and theravadin buddhists, neither of which have a concept of the 'divine' i think is being suggested.
On Faivre, i dont think anyone is disputing his importance for opening the field. Will his ideas define it forever? Clearly not. The reason you appreciate his ideas are precisely the reasons he is being criticised for within the academic community. As i gather, even he did not push his ideas back beyond the 15th century. Has anyone tested his ideas back to the 3rd century ce. Theosophists, and i include myself, are prone to just making statements without testing them. Or, just as suspicious, with an agenda in mind. What for instance do you make of Erik Hornung's work The secret lore of Egypt.
My larger point about Faivre, is that while you did engage with the academic world, it is only up to a point. A point which presumbably suits you. What is the reason for choosing his definition/typology? So it is not a full scale engagement with the academic world. I personally feel that 'theosophists' should be engaging in great detail with the academic community.
I am a little suspicious of outright rejection of academia. Who spends as much time, resources, and energy as academics in any field? This effort must bear fruit. It cant just be totally rejected. Unlike many Theosophists who parrot the past teachings, academics actually engage in the field they study. (I dont by the way exlude myself from the parroting theosophist label.)
As for my own studies, i unfortunately live in South Africa. There is not university course on western esotericism as in Europe and the US. (I would bet money that not a single academic university in South Africa has a copy of the Hanegraaff book you mention above.) I am completing a ma, which content i have basically forced a local university to accept. They did so reluctantly. So, to be honest, i am working with what i have. I dont have the resources to study overseas.
My topic is to do with how HPB drew the egyptian religion into the Secret Doctrine, and how her ideas have stood the time against current academic perspectives.
If i am coming across critically of the site, it is not intentional. The site is amazing. I remain a Blavatsky Theosophists, studying in the academic field, and anything i say will inevitably be from that perspective.
-
-
Hi, Dewald!
Pleased to meet you, you are welcome! ;-)
Sometimes I can't help writing in a mischievous tricky way, I think that this is a part of the share that the Divinity has given me in this site, and I love playing the game!
My opinion is that when the beginning is a "definition", the practical result in most cases is boredom, so our perspectives seem to be quite opposite, which is good.
Yet, we agree on many points. I wish that the site's approach were so broad to embrace the whole castle, not one or some of the rooms. This is also the wish of the One and Only Hierarch I aknowledge on this site: Mahatma Joe (unless I have misinterpreted His Words)
... and, well, this is so difficult that it is really challenging!!!
In my opinion, any "theosophy" will have to do with "divinity" or "God". The reason is so simple: this is a Greek word with a history and a meaning. Anyone with a different or new idea would do good using another word. So I understand that HPB sincerely thought that she was inside the tradition meant by this word. If her followers think that she represents a kind of "separated" tradition, I think they misinterpret her.
... and, now, we can add that "divinity" or "God" are used because they are broad terms that allow a variety of understandings, so each one has room to think; and that the equivalents of "divinity" or "God" in other traditions, like the Buddhist ones you've mentioned, can be included.
I agree with you, Faivre's characteristics of "esotericism" and "theosophy" are valid only in their historical context. There is no historical proof of a living link between the neoplatonics and the Renaissance neoplatonists. No one will deny that the later received inspiration from the books of the former, either.
I got my philosophy degree in a Catalan Catholic University so I did engage with the academy ;-) My opinion is that anyone who truly wishes to be an esoterical disciple is to understand that he has to work a lot more than an academic.
I think that esoterical life is closer tho the arts than to the modern official sciences. This applies on how I see the relationship with academy. It is clear that "artist" and "art historian" are different jobs. I wish this was clear here too.
I also think that the only chance to achieve a useful description of "theosophy", broad and simple, is dialogue.
Have fun today, friends!!!
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
(fyi - I seem to have lost an argument with the Ning editor: this is a reply to Dewald Bester's post on Egypt studies he is working on)
I wanted to make sure you saw this Egyptian Demonology Project
It is not what you are doing, however it does show that some places will support various PhD students to do some rather weird things.
The other piece is if you keep your ears to the esoteric schools/sites on-line (etc.), they may have some good contacts (and possible programs) that may interest you and even assist you in finding possible sources for your Grad. work.
Just a thought --- I have no idea whether it is useful information for you.
-
-
hi , thanks
I cant agree with you that there can be a definition of 'divinity' which can include gelugpa and theravadin buddhists. (possibly i lack the capacity to think outside the box.) it seems to me any definition like that would impose an idea onto their system. we might a well declare them as wrong, as hpb might have. if this website wants to exclude some traditions, i dont have a problem with that, it is a matter of choice.I also dont think i agree that esoteric study needs to be outside of the academic world. how is it possible that something which is 'true' cannot be rationally argued in a university? surely, of all possible interpretations of religion, 'theosophy' would be most easily defended as it is the most 'true'. i dont think divorcing the intellect from the 'intuition' is inevitable, or advantageous.
I would like to see theosophy defend itself in the academic arena, instead we have been kicked out. why is that?
what is an "esoteric life". without a definition it can be anything. including my own, and i am studying at a university. engaging in rational thought. or are some esoteric lives better than others?couldnt definitions be provisional statements to be tested, refined, rejected, accepted. possibly, behind each or our stances is a 'philosophy of knowledge' and how knowledge is obtained? it could be examined.
cheers
-
-
hehehehe ;-)
in my previous post I have carefully avoided the use of the term "definition", I just wrote "approach", "will have to do with", "meaning" and that the terms "divinity" or "God" are used because they are broad enough allow each one to make his/her understanding of them and that the equivalent terms from other traditions can be included... dollars are dollars and euros are euros, but an equivalence between them has been found, and this makes trade possible
here the equivalence may be the idea of the "source of true wisdom": "God" and "Buddhahood" can be considered as equivalent from this perspective
My answer to the question: "how is it possible that something which is true cannot be rationally argued in a University?" is quite simple: we happen to live in a deeply insane society. This is a theosophical realization inside me since childhood, I'm totally sure about it. And I am also aware of the fact that once I have written it, it becomes an opinion and many will disagree. This is OK, what kind of divine revelation would it be if I needed people to agree with me?
so esoterical life as I understand it is a life in which what happens inside and the skill to look inside properly are the most important... of course your own life has an esoterical aspect, that which happens inside before we write is the esoterical aspect of writing ;-) honesty is the key virtue, the one that makes any step on the path possible
as I understand it, intuition comes from the Heart (read "soul" if you prefer ;-) and is given form by the mind and when expressed passes through emotional and etheric bodies and the nervous system, so it's quite a long path from intuition to words... Heart is the true master and any master is found within the Heart, and the job of the esoterical disciple is to prepare mind and bodies to become useful servants of the Heart
so mind must be cultivated but mind is not the master
this issue of authority, although most often it is not shown openly, lies below the separation between theosophy and academy, modern official science holds a part of the mind as the only ever-would-be-master, the part of the mind that works with "proof", "demonstration", etc.., this kind of stuff, tools for control... well, I think that I'm the only one here with such a bad opinion of modern official science, but as I see it, that part of the mind seems to fear the part of the mind that is able to be inspired and creative and pretends that the later does not exist at all as a tool to know ...
theosophy, both people parroting HPB and people who try to serve the Heart, claims that there are other (and better hahaha :) ways to know than the ones considered within official studies, and this is not much tolerated in official studies, of course
it's different if you are an historian some 100 years from now and say "hey, even in 2012 there were still a few fellows who prefered HPB to Darwin"
and I don't mean at all that official studies and ideas are not worth the effort to finish and understand, I need to know exactly what I am against, with a high degree of precision hahahaha ;-)
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
