Feedback on Our Change of Direction - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T07:39:48Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/feedback-on-our-change-of-direction?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A109295&feed=yes&xn_auth=noVery nice thoughts Bro. Jaakk…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-19:3055387:Comment:1098952012-03-19T10:24:45.446ZROlly D. Velardehttps://theosophy.net/profile/ROllyDVelarde
<p>Very nice thoughts Bro. Jaakko. I also believe that what our founders and elders has explained about what Theosophy is are all encompassing. What and how we believe as true in our daily study of Theosophy is dependent on our understanding and interpretation of the facts presented. So we alone will decide at the end of the day which is true or what is the truth for us. Until now, we have not found the Theory of Everything that can irrevocably prove the origin of life and our search for an…</p>
<p>Very nice thoughts Bro. Jaakko. I also believe that what our founders and elders has explained about what Theosophy is are all encompassing. What and how we believe as true in our daily study of Theosophy is dependent on our understanding and interpretation of the facts presented. So we alone will decide at the end of the day which is true or what is the truth for us. Until now, we have not found the Theory of Everything that can irrevocably prove the origin of life and our search for an incontestable physical truth of this world is still beyond our reach. What more with those that are unseen and beyond us. Even the Secret Doctrine tells us that with all the knowledge we have now, we have barely lifted a leaf. However, through a collective effort we may one day hit the jackpot. </p> Hi, friends!!!
Well, I say…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-17:3055387:Comment:1097862012-03-17T21:04:28.968ZFerran Sanz Orriolshttps://theosophy.net/profile/FerranSanzOrriols
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> Well, I say that the situation is improving. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. I say that anyone getting access to the true doctrine will today take an oath of sharing it as need dictates. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> Well, I say that the situation is improving. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. I say that anyone getting access to the true doctrine will today take an oath of sharing it as need dictates. </p>
<p> </p> In my opinion, there are two…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-17:3055387:Comment:1099492012-03-17T20:37:42.608ZMaxhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Max
<p>In my opinion, there are two serious problems with theosophy that inhibit treating it as a consistent system of thought.</p>
<p>1. First off, theosophy is an artifical creation that has been made up from bits and pieces of a complete doctrine which have sometimes been distorted on purpose (remember what HPB wrote about blinds?). K.H.'s letters to Sinnett make it very clear. In essence it is a derivative product of deliberately inferior quality, which is due to inherent dangers involved in…</p>
<p>In my opinion, there are two serious problems with theosophy that inhibit treating it as a consistent system of thought.</p>
<p>1. First off, theosophy is an artifical creation that has been made up from bits and pieces of a complete doctrine which have sometimes been distorted on purpose (remember what HPB wrote about blinds?). K.H.'s letters to Sinnett make it very clear. In essence it is a derivative product of deliberately inferior quality, which is due to inherent dangers involved in full disclosure of occult technicalities. Apparently this is the best we can get. Nevertheless it is quite suitable as a starting point for our own research, so for all practical purposes this so-called "theosophy" full of gaps, blinds and coded messages is fine. This is similar to nuclear weapons: we know it exists and works and there is a large body of knowledge behind it, but it is shrouded in secrecy and popular presentations omit many important aspects and are deliberately misleading; nevertheless anyone who is willing to put sufficient time and resources into it would be able to design and build it. But let us not call it true nuclear physics when we come across a popular article that explains how nuclear bomb is made.</p>
<p>2. There are no reasons to believe the situtation would improve. Anyone who gets access to the true doctrine can do so only with an oath pledging secrecy and non-disclosure and won't share this knowledge with others at this forum or anywhere else.</p>
<p>Max</p> The Theosophical Society, fou…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-16:3055387:Comment:1096082012-03-16T11:41:09.312ZJaakko Matti Johannes Alholahttps://theosophy.net/profile/JaakkoMattiJohannesAlhola
<p><strong>The Theosophical Society</strong>, founded in 1875, <br></br> is a worldwide body whose primary object is <strong>Universal Brotherhood without distinction</strong> based on the realization that life, and all its diverse forms, human and non-human, is indivisibly One. The Society imposes no belief <br></br> on its members, who are united by a common search for Truth and desire to learn the mean-ing and purpose of existence through study, reflection, self-responsibility and loving…</p>
<p><strong>The Theosophical Society</strong>, founded in 1875, <br/> is a worldwide body whose primary object is <strong>Universal Brotherhood without distinction</strong> based on the realization that life, and all its diverse forms, human and non-human, is indivisibly One. The Society imposes no belief <br/> on its members, who are united by a common search for Truth and desire to learn the mean-ing and purpose of existence through study, reflection, self-responsibility and loving service.</p>
<p><strong>Theosophy</strong> is the wisdom underlying all <br/> religions when they are stripped of accretions and superstitions. It offers a philosophy which <br/> renders life intelligible and demonstrates that <br/> justice and love guide the cosmos. Its teachings <br/> aid the unfoldment of the latent spiritual nature <br/> in the human being, without dependence.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This is copied from theosophical societys web site. Somehow I can't see a major point on changing direction from this statement, which is the only real mission of theosophy. Theres just really nothing I would add or delete from this great thought that has built the basis for all theosophical thinking in the world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And I don't mean that people shouldn't evolve in their thinking, spirituality or mentality. I only wish that with this base idea, we would evolve forward in our everyday actions and try to improve ourselves better and better every day.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What I do agree is that we have to have conversations with each other and try to encourage and inspirate other people around us to take this base idea of theosophy as an instruction in their lives without taking any fundamental aspects on the matter. Just try to find truth inside you, outside you and make others believe what you believe to be best, not by preachin but by your own everyday actions. Best influence anyone can make, happens within the closest ones around you. If they won't believe what you believe, and you think it's the best there is that time, just take the believe in your actions and those who are ready to seek and believe will do so.</p> Hi, friends!!!
... thinking…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-15:3055387:Comment:1098352012-03-15T21:23:41.512ZFerran Sanz Orriolshttps://theosophy.net/profile/FerranSanzOrriols
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> ... thinking and walking it came to me that I understand theosophy not only as a "science of the soul" but also as a "soulful science"... because I see the present critical situation of humanity as the result of the development of a soulless science and technology during the last centuries... in my opinion true theosophy, which is developing along XXIst century, is the remedy to this situation. We here have a share in this enterprise.</p>
<p> I meant strictly…</p>
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> ... thinking and walking it came to me that I understand theosophy not only as a "science of the soul" but also as a "soulful science"... because I see the present critical situation of humanity as the result of the development of a soulless science and technology during the last centuries... in my opinion true theosophy, which is developing along XXIst century, is the remedy to this situation. We here have a share in this enterprise.</p>
<p> I meant strictly "developing", seeds come from long ago. I don't mean any disrespect to all those who have been keeping the seeds alive for ages to make flourishing possible.</p>
<p> Warm blessings, dear friends!!! :-)</p> Hi, friends!!!
Max, this si…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-12:3055387:Comment:1097182012-03-12T15:14:17.879ZFerran Sanz Orriolshttps://theosophy.net/profile/FerranSanzOrriols
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> Max, this site will be free of dogmatism as long as crazy fellows like me are tolerated here. The nice thing here is that people with different ideas, backgrounds, mindsets, etc. have room to dialogue ;-)</p>
<p> I understand "traditional" as an including qualifying, not as an exclusive one. All traditions belong to human tradition, and tradition is that which passes from one generation to next one. </p>
<p> I'd like some clarification on what's included in this…</p>
<p> Hi, friends!!!</p>
<p> Max, this site will be free of dogmatism as long as crazy fellows like me are tolerated here. The nice thing here is that people with different ideas, backgrounds, mindsets, etc. have room to dialogue ;-)</p>
<p> I understand "traditional" as an including qualifying, not as an exclusive one. All traditions belong to human tradition, and tradition is that which passes from one generation to next one. </p>
<p> I'd like some clarification on what's included in this Transhimalayan Tradition you've refered to.</p>
<p> Yes, if we have the definition of a triangle we can check what is and what is not a triangle... but the definition of Theosophy is not so clear. </p>
<p> Can Theosophy be defined? This is still an open question, and we have a diversity of opinions. And this is good. Dialogue enrichs us. </p> We are a theosophy site that…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-12:3055387:Comment:1092952012-03-12T05:28:23.101ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>We are a theosophy site that studies all theosophies regardless of culture, religion, east, west and era...<br/>"Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger."</p>
<p>correct.</p>
<p></p>
<p>We are a theosophy site that studies all theosophies regardless of culture, religion, east, west and era...<br/>"Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger."</p>
<p>correct.</p>
<p></p> Joe fulton wrote: "First, we…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-11:3055387:Comment:1096182012-03-11T19:36:31.289ZMaxhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Max
<p>Joe fulton wrote: "First, we are moving away from a Blavatsky-centric view of the world... What drove us to changing our emphasis was the realization that the vast majority of those calling themselves "theosophist" were more interested in parroting Blavatsky and her commentators vs. having a true exploration. Many of us here still love the old lady but we have no use for what has become of her tradition, so we seek elsewhere."</p>
<p>I would like to make several points.</p>
<p>1. It may (or…</p>
<p>Joe fulton wrote: "First, we are moving away from a Blavatsky-centric view of the world... What drove us to changing our emphasis was the realization that the vast majority of those calling themselves "theosophist" were more interested in parroting Blavatsky and her commentators vs. having a true exploration. Many of us here still love the old lady but we have no use for what has become of her tradition, so we seek elsewhere."</p>
<p>I would like to make several points.</p>
<p>1. It may (or may not) be true that most theosophists are "more interested in parroting Blavatsky and her commentators vs. having a true exploration." So what? Why should it trouble anyone? It's normal. People often appropriate a teaching, twist it and turn into a dogma; it happens all the time. Tell me something new. But when it happens the problem obviously is with people doing so, not with the original teaching. HPB should not be held accountable for what people did with her teachings.</p>
<p>2. Joe: "we have no use for what <span style="text-decoration: underline;">has become</span> of her tradition, so we seek elsewhere." I underlined "has become" because of its importance. It suggests that the problem is with the present-day presentations of HPB's teachings, right? If so, why not return back to the original HPB?</p>
<p>3. Joe: "we are moving away from a Blavatsky-centric view of the world." I am not happy about this whole idea of moving from a world view centered on something (e.g., theosophy) to another world view centered on something else (e.g., Neoplatonism, or Antoine Faivre's framework, or hermetic keys mentioned by John Mead). Such a move would essentially mean replacing one dogma with another, with all of the ensuing costs and blights. A radical change would be to follow truth wherever it may lead, even if it turns out to be old good HPB's theosophy.</p>
<p>4. John Mead discussed "solid definition of the term “theosophy”." This may be a misguided concern because having a definition what theosophy is would allow one to tell what is NOT theosophy, again with all of the ensuing consequences (e.g., derogatory terms hardly consistent with the brotherhood of humanity). We've already been through it: some orthodox theosophists say that Besant's and Leadbeater's ideas are 'neo-theosophy' rather than genuine theosophy, Alice Bailey's teaching are pseudo-theosophy, R. Steiner's anthroposophy is a hopeless distortion of the truth, and so on.</p>
<p>By the way, both HPB and Koot Humi displayed a remarkable degree of openness and tolerance by freely borrowing from many traditions and easily switching from one presentation of truth to another (Vedanta, Raja Yoga, Buddhism, Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, science, etc.). It would be a good idea to emulate them in this respect if we want to focus on what really is rather than on traditional theosophies.</p>
<p>Do not mistake the pointing <em>finger</em> for the <em>moon.</em> To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger.</p>
<p>Max</p> Thanks Max. Your question tha…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-04:3055387:Comment:1095112012-03-04T12:19:57.275ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Thanks Max. Your question that,</p>
<blockquote><p>does it mean that the THT is out of scope?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer would be a clear no. However, THT's having evolved over several thousands of years and at different locations do have a problem in falling within scope of the Traditional Theosophy. Though, one common thread that appears is the need for proof of what is being said. The THT's applied a strict regime for testing the validity of a proposition, called…</p>
<p>Thanks Max. Your question that,</p>
<blockquote><p>does it mean that the THT is out of scope?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer would be a clear no. However, THT's having evolved over several thousands of years and at different locations do have a problem in falling within scope of the Traditional Theosophy. Though, one common thread that appears is the need for proof of what is being said. The THT's applied a strict regime for testing the validity of a proposition, called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana" target="_blank">Pramana</a>. The Traditional Theosophies do the same, evaluating a concept within the framework of spatial and temporal dimensions as well as evaluation within the framework of "That which is above is like to that which is below".</p> Dear Joe (Fulton):
I have sev…tag:theosophy.net,2012-03-04:3055387:Comment:1093422012-03-04T00:47:37.994ZMaxhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Max
<p>Dear Joe (Fulton):</p>
<p>I have several questions for you.</p>
<p>Could you provide a more detailed explanation of what 'traditional theosophies' are? The historical definition you gave ("They have evolved from NeoPlatonic times," etc.) is a step in the right direction, but it is somewhat vague (have evolved directly from Neoplatonism or from some other teachings that existed in the Neoplatonic times?) and incomplete (what are other systems of thought in the same tradition?).</p>
<p>I don't…</p>
<p>Dear Joe (Fulton):</p>
<p>I have several questions for you.</p>
<p>Could you provide a more detailed explanation of what 'traditional theosophies' are? The historical definition you gave ("They have evolved from NeoPlatonic times," etc.) is a step in the right direction, but it is somewhat vague (have evolved directly from Neoplatonism or from some other teachings that existed in the Neoplatonic times?) and incomplete (what are other systems of thought in the same tradition?).</p>
<p>I don't see how the Trans-Himalayan tradition (THT), incliding Blavatsky, fits into your definition. It is unlikely that the THT has "evolved from NeoPlatonic times"; does it mean that the THT is out of scope?</p>
<p>This website offers Sanskrit lessons, Buddhist materials, and more in the same spirit. Are all these things out of scope too? Shouldn't we take lessons in classic Greek and mediaeval Latin rather than Sanskrit lessons?</p>
<p>Max</p>