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 -
"modern official science"
I have no idea what that is.
the calculation of the period of a pendulum? stuff like that ?
The multitudes of Science Philosophies is huge and no scientist agrees with another. We have to scratch that.
The Science of Yoga (Pantanjali; I use Taimni's translation) is a science with many experiments done in the real world. This must be excluded also since it is an official Science of Mind interacting with Matter/Time/Space/Mind and has listed many experimental results all reproducible ...
I think "official Science" exists more in your own mind.
On this site, we look mostly at the Philosophy of Science. Sometimes we correct junk-science - stuff that is sold as science... usually for personal Fame or monetary gain. The quack PhD's are in every field. They tell people what they want to hear.
If you think Science is closed-minded -- just listen to those "science-gurus" selling books etc. They are usually far more narrow-minded.There are also some "debunker" Scientists who are just nuts. They have their own cliques.
-
Permalink Reply by Ferran Sanz Orriols on
-
Hi, friends! ;-)
"modern official science", yes, I mean the one that's made atomic arsenals, too, and given the psycopaths in goverments tools for massive destruction, the one that gets the money and the social aklowlegment, the one where one can dream of winning the Nobel Prize or at least will give you a job
... in a a world where the Nobel Prize of Peace has been given to someone like Barack Obama...
so I don't think that all this exists more in my own mind
my opinion is that if modern official science was true science, we'd not be in the actual social and ecological crises... I don't care much if this reaches the level of philosophy of science or not ;-) ... anyway, only if modern official science and technology were able to give a solution to the present crisis I'd change my opinion
-
Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on
-
FSO , I really like it , love the happy ray of sunshine that you are !!!
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Perhaps take a look at the site for the peer-reviewed journal Theosophical History Journal , editor James A. Santucci. The list of “Colleagues” demonstrates that many key academics have accepted the Theosophy Castle analogy. The list has both Theosophical Society academics along with academics associated with the typological thinking i.e. Wouter Hanegraaff, Antoine Faivre, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke etc.
The people work together and communicate. With that in mind, I see no problem with what we are doing here.
-
Permalink Reply by Christian von Lahr on
-
Although I've done what you are stating here for years Joe ... it has ALWAYS been a blood bath. Inherently, I think exactly the way you are trying to take things, so ... Two Thumbs Up if you pull this off. I suspect since you few actually have [authority] then those particpants (the followers) are going to be inclined to management's perspective --- this is probably what has been missing elsewhere, managements presentment of the objective you've stated.
-
-
AMEN to the Groups opening statement
-
Permalink Reply by Dewald Bester on
-
hi
i've no coubt been off topic. so will leave my earlier train of thought.
as to Blavatsky's experiences, it might help if an example had been suggested. i am not sure one can capture her experiences. If i reverse the question, and ask, What is Dewald's experience of Theosophy, i dont know how anyone could answer it.
that said, what did come to my mind, was some statements in de zirkoffs. rebirth of the occult tradition. It has more to do with how she accessed knowledge. she notes she sees in the astral light. but what does she see? she says she sees 'scrolls' on which 'things are written'. so she has a supernormal access to normal written works. The SD, in my opinion, is a rational, literary production whose purpose it is is to appropriate authority within and without the TS
most of the occult works are 'translations' or exist in tibetan and chinese forms, e.g. the stanzas. Translating seems to me to be a rational, intellectual process.
I dont say this explains all her statements. She may way have had 'mystical', 'intuitive', (i.e. non-rational) experiences. But that is not my experience of Theosophy, and i am not certain it is the intent of her writings.
-
-
Dear Joe ,
Just some thoughts on the above subject , What I fail to understand is that suppose a person has written about their various experiences encountered during their inner journey , or having had insight into some of the experiences , assiduously has a body of writing on these things - how would it lend itself to a correct interpretation by another person ? given that the original authority on the ideas has passed away ?.
Why I write so is because everyone (even a wise man included) has a constantly evolving body of thought , which can be traced from their childhood to the time off dying , there are puerile writings and there are the more advanced writings, matured writings and even higher . A book can be written of ones inner visions and its interpretations by anyone - but how far is i helpful to another man ? so that he can use the general precepts gained from them in correctly interpreting his experiences and accurately ?. For any accurate knowledge it is a pre requisite that the person should be alive to explain it first hand and verbally . Other wise the whole thing degenerates into only an evaluation of the persona of the author . It definitely does not help in another persons search .
I am not familiar with the Madams writings , but I have some idea about her as they say ''Name precedes a person '' and she must have been a remarkable individual and one with a very valuable thought structure for it to have endured in memory for so long . It is a testimony in itself .
Another thing about the so called experts on a person (particularly in the area of thought ) - their focus on the person does over a period of time give them some insights into the persons writings (not fully - but glimpses are possible and in rare cases sometimes , the exact vision or experience can be had ) depending on the focus the archeologist has to his subject . The mind is capable of delivering the goods properly sometimes , but ones own intuition has to be there in order to correctly ascertain treachery or truth - or else the archeologist is in danger of becoming the fossil itself.
If I have written something ''esoteric or mystic'' - I should also be alive to be called to account for obfuscating issues in the name of knowledge , or to conduct a proper exegesis of my writings , for my writings will be only as good as the care in the chronology that I have followed in my writings any anachronism that creeps in is bound to vitiate the discourse.
Who wrote it is critical when we deal with higher metaphysical writings - to illustrate the situation , what was the internal state of the writer at the time of writing - was the person writing located in the ,body , mind or intellect (higher than that somebody else has to write for the ''oracle''). But in any case the words (written) are mine , but correspondingly higher the images, language, thought,memory, and knowledge are not mine . Then the question is whose is it ? if not mine . The answer is only available if one has cultivated ones own faculties properly and honed them into potent instruments within oneself , in which case all the truths of another mans writings will be open to oneself - without a shadow of a doubt as to what the writer ACTUALLY felt ,understood and knew it as . Improbable maybe to the millions of Academicians and experts , philologists and mere students who make a living by the most fascinating art of ''deconstruction'' . Which we ordinary people apply in a more crude form when we cogitate on a person at random.
On reading a thing the mind flashes the image that the author had , and often times itself will prove the anachronism within the authors thought , which once resolved shows the true understanding and concomitant knowledge - which we can use as the lens through which that writing can be scrutinized - in most cases once a breakthrough is attained - there is effortless ease in deciphering an authors writings - it can be seen as the author meant it or in the light of the highest knowledge - slip ups may be observed , but it is better to check on the integrity of ones own memory before putting it down to the writers ethos .
It is inevitable that our thoughts belong to higher thought structures , which have endured in the light of what is TRUE (not in the light of science ) and lies in remote recesses of infinite memory - so any great persons (and if we are careful enough we can trace the thought systems to which our writings emerge from - a fact ) thoughts and writings can be traced to higher systems of thoughts in the worlds of knowledge . It is really nothing , effort is there only in the beginning , but once having known the fact of things the inner equipments recognize their master and behave well . checking at times to see if the master has degenerated to a slave due to lack of vigilance !!!. In which case they can go to sleep and make us work !!!! nobody likes to work anymore !!!!
I hope that I have been helpful - if after reading this you are thinking of what I am thinking then the answer is Yes , despite the improbability that any man may ascribe to what I have written.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
