Comment

Comment by Martin Euser on February 9, 2010 at 4:38pm

Mikhayl said:

"theosophy by its very essence only attracts the very few"

Indeed, a theosophical teacher of mine always was worried if there were loads of people at his lectures, thinking he had done something wrong!
It is the "small and narrow path", spoken of in the Christian Bible.
It is a true Raja Yoga, the way of developing understanding and who wants to make the effort in his or her life to go through that sometimes painful process of letting go?

Mikhayl> if we seek to market it as a new age religion im sure it will do very successfully,

Perhaps so, but this is like serving a "diluted soup" to the masses. And this has already been done by many authors and organizations. The trick is to keep its essence, but present it in a more palatable form. Still, it will be something that involves a good deal of philosophizing. There are some books around (in my language) that try to present philosophy in a palatable way. And comparatively many people do read such books. That is one valid way of proceeding.

Mikhayl>but otherwise it will only exist in some form or another by the merit that there are those of us who need some gathering place to discuss these ideas. the essence of theosophy in this sense really transcends its name.

Exactly. We must not be fooled by names. The real theosophic spirit is not confined to anything Blavatskian, although it will contain some of her essence. Anything political, class or race related is not useful, in my opinion. The timeless components can be clearly found in ancient Greek theology/philosophy, and in many a mystic's writings and mythologies (to answer a question of Joe).

Mikhayl>i think id rather look for its spirit then its package and we will all do so whenever we find a discussion outside the norm.

Yes, anything different than the materialistic bias is potentially interesting!

Comment by Martin Euser on January 23, 2010 at 3:38pm

Mme. Blavatsky never claimed that what she brought was anything new. On the contrary, she was reiterating ideas from East and West from diverse philosophies. Theosophy was (and is) claimed to be an exposition of core elements of the Ancient Wisdom-Religion which was later taught, in various forms, in the Mystery-schools of old. Blavatskean Theosophy is not an easy to grasp system of thought. On the contrary, it requires a lifelong dedication to and contemplation of truth (akin to Plato's world of Ideas, so to speak). Nowadays, research indicates that especially people in the range between 45-65 years have some interest in such philosophies. Younger people do often believe in 'something', but this 'something' is a rather hazy thing. Older people are often stuck in Christian beliefs, or are, perhaps, disillusioned by religion and church.
Having said this, ideas such as karma and reincarnation have gained a lot of ground during the last hundred years. That in itself is an encouraging development.
Blavatskean theosophy was organizationally instituted in diverse ways. Some TSs chose to operate as a semi-mystery school, without explaining that fact to the newcomers. A rather strange way of operating, I find. Either one chooses the form of a Mystery-School (which is a valid choice, especially if there are spiritually developed leaders present), or not.

As to the study of Blavatskean Theosophy: this requires a study of sometimes complicated terminology, especially Sanskrit words, but also Greek and Latin. Not that easy for people who haven't got a background in these languages.

From another angle, one can see that there has been an enormous diversification in the field of religion/spirituality. The "pagan" philosophy (in reality based on pre-Christian beliefs) is on the rise as in Wicca and Druidism and what have you not. New-age is an eclectic mishmash of beliefs, often not that coherent.

Some topics Katinka mentions, such as "quantum-spirituality" (what the heck would that be?), requires deep knowledge of both quantum mechanics and spirituality, and this is a rare combination, despite the plethora of books that are available on that subject.

From yet another angle, TSs have usually thought that they can reach out to all people in the world, if only these people would want to listen. But do they? That is one of the cardinal questions one can pose. I myself have some doubts in this respect. Obviously, if one has a clear story to tell, there will always be some listeners. My own approach to all these matters is syncretistic: compare the world's classic thinkers/philosophers and show the common ground (and the differences) that is there.
Greek philosophy comes to mind,especially Neo-Platonism. Hermetic teachings. And so on.
Not everyone's cup of tea, but I think that there are diverse channels and organizations now through which some wisdom flows into the world. And they don't need to (and don't) bear the name of theosophy. There certainly is some interest in mythology today and new forms of expressing spirituality, rites de passage, which could form a starting point for theosophical organizations, if they would care for that.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on January 23, 2010 at 9:14am

Our lodge in The Hague is doing well. We've had attendance of 20-30 people per public lecture. The trick: relevant topics, and lots of PR (folders in libraries, a good website etc). We've managed to create an atmosphere where a lot of people feel welcome (due to a very good chair), and the topics are wide, though serious.

Moderator Comment by M K Ramadoss on January 23, 2010 at 8:41am

We can try to present theosophical doctrines in modern language that young prospects can understand. That is the easy part. The difficult part is how do the young prospects become aware of theosophy. How do we find prospects. We are not used to going house to house like the various christian sects do.

In the past, our local lodge used to participate in local activities, such as World Earth Day by having a table or booth for Theosophy with flyers. Usually there is a good amount of traffic and we get inquiries and these days the inquirers go home and later may be googling theosophy. Also from time to time there are local social issues that provide opportunities for individual theosophist to participate. Unless we get involved with public as individuals and take every opportunity to remind that there is such a philosophy as theosophy and TS, we will not find young men and women interested in theosophy. I live in a city of seven million and in the last thirty years the membership is small and dynamism has gone down. I am sure same pattern can be seen around the country and for years no one has come down from the national leadership to see first hand what is going on and motivate local group.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on January 23, 2010 at 5:58am

Oh, and more upscale, but definitely within the theosophical target audience:

- Ken Wilber
- quantum spirituality
- evolution / creationism/ something in between

etc.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on January 23, 2010 at 5:28am

For me an essential question is: what topics are people in the spiritual scene discussing these days, that we are NOT? There are loads:

- 'the secret' aka 'the Law of Attraction'
- the Law of One (LOO)
- wicca / witchcraft
- herb law
- astrology
- money, selfishness, unselfishness
- aliens, extraterrestrials

And more generally: what inspires people?

Of course these are merely the topics I've found to discuss that people want to discuss. There are probably loads that I have NOT come across and therefor not discussed.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on January 22, 2010 at 6:58am

I think that that last sentence is too negative, though I do agree with the rest of your assessment. 'without any thought to the power that once moved it'... I personally have a lot of thought for the power that once moved it. The question is: do we have enough people attuned to that - or do we only have people who think they are (and yes, it's possible I only think I am too).

Comment by Mikhayl Von Riebon on January 22, 2010 at 6:40am

it depends on whether that place has long since passed and our preoccupation with it blinds us from the present movement of things.

i think once something is established or is made concrete, there arises a certain expectation or formality; the solidifying of some place creates with it, its own culture. this process on its own wouldnt be so bad if we werent trying to achieve something outside of it. instead what we have is the exchange of one culture or one set of ideas for another.

the 'theosophical society' was once a symptom or product of a greater spirit of the 1800s but once it became institutionalized it lost this spirit, and instead this liberating spirit became embodied through some other mode. now we have many trying to rekindle an old shell without any thought to the power that once moved it.

Comment by Katinka Hesselink on January 22, 2010 at 5:01am

Mikhayl: 'a place to discuss such things' is not so very bad, is it? But yes, any attempt to make it more will automatically make it more dogmatic in one way or another. Whether in 'ethics' or organisational structure.

Comment by Mikhayl Von Riebon on January 22, 2010 at 12:49am

I joined theosophy when i was 20. im now 24 and speaking from a youth perspective there are perhaps three reasons why even i feel a need to move on. firstly, there is promoted a rather difficult atmosphere of christian based ethics, which i believe is simply reflective of the conditioning of senior members, however one will agree when i say it is the members who constitute the spirit of an organisation. the reason why this atmosphere is rather awkward is that on the one hand, what is promoted is an idealistic nietschzean-liberation of protestant values and on the other hand a reassertion of these protestant values and methodologies in the organisations approach to the esoteric.

secondly, and very much tied with the first, there is a certain fundamentalist perception on the idea of 'diversity.' however due to the nature of the type of body that the theosophical society is trying to achieve, this attitude is inevitable. theosophy is trying to achieve a state without dogma, but on the same level, it needs to have some body; some unity in order for others to come together within some kind of 'brotherhood.' but what are we united in? is it some objective? all of us most certainly would have a different perception on what this is. specifically we are united in 'brotherhood,' or at best we are united in an agreement to help each other within each other's search. however the degree to which this is effective is only within how open we are to the views of others and sadly this has been proven to be rather difficult.

who we 'are' is defined in part, by what we believe and if we were to all believe the same thing we wouldnt all be able to express our sense of individuality. equally so there will be beliefs which will be diametrically opposed within this organisation and resistance is going to inevitably ensue. a singular objective then, is problematic, because not everyone is going to share it and who determines it/who enforces it, is going to embody that 'structure' which so many of us have been trying to liberate ourselves from in the first place.

im afraid then that this dissaray is naturally unattractive to those who dont understand. theosophy by its very essence only attracts the very few. if we seek to market it as a new age religion im sure it will do very successfully, but otherwise it will only exist in some form or another by the merit that there are those of us who need some gathering place to discuss these ideas. the essence of theosophy in this sense really transcends its name. i think id rather look for its spirit then its package and we will all do so whenever we find a discussion outside the norm.

thats where real theosophy is.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page