Theosophy

[Nicholas]

This work in three sections was "Dedicated to the Few":

The Voice of the Silence | Universal Theosophy

 

[Nicholas]

Isis in America by Henry Steel Olcott: 9780399169236 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

Henry Olcott helped Blavatsky to found the Theosophical Society. He kept a diary which reached several volumes called Old Diary Leaves. That work is now in one volume titled Isis in America.

 

[Nicholas]

Here is more testimony on the reality of the Adepts, from Echoes of the Orient, vol. III:418-20.

Mahatma of the Circle on the Theosophical Society & HP Blavatsky
The following is from a letter lately received from an Indian brother...[B.K. Lahiri] and is recommended to your attention as independent evidence of the position of H.P.B. and the connection of the Masters with the T.S.
Annie Besant, William Q. Judge March, 1893.

THE LETTER
K.B., a Brahman Yogi, recently went up to the Himalayas: on his way down to Deccan, he was kind enough to stop at my place for some days... I must mention here also that this gentleman did not know much of H.P.B. before nor of the Theosophical Society, and whenever I spoke to him about them he used to say, as it were passively, that it was a good work, no doubt, and that H.P.B. must have known the occult philosophy... that whenever the Rakshasas [demons] became powerful some goddess is sent to destroy them, and so she was sent to destroy the materialism of the all-powerful western Rakshasas.

However, now I shall relate what he told me when he came back from the Himalayas. The first thing he said was: "Go on! go on! go on! Fit yourself; you have much to do: go on, go on, and go on." The next thing he told me was, that this time he considered himself thrice blessed by the sight of a Mahatma... in the snow-covered and impassable cave of the Himalayas...

The Mahatma, he said, he saw perfectly naked; that no living soul could venture to look at his eyes; his color appeared to be of such a peculiar hue that it is not like anything worldly, but when he touched his hand (K.B.'s) between the third and fourth fingers, the latter could not stand the electric shock that ran up to his head from the extreme parts of his feet... He became almost unconscious, although he himself is a real yogi of 22 years' standing...

He said the body of the Mahatma, though it looked like butter, proved to be hard as steel, and that it was impossible for him to say of what it is made. The Mahatma does not speak, and with him only spoke where he could not make the latter understand his thought perfectly well. After he received his instruction, whatever was necessary for him, he asked: "that in India there they have established a society called the Theosophical Society, and that Madame Blavatsky started it with Col. Olcott. What is this? Is there anything real in it? Who was H.P.B.? Was she a yogi? Is Col. Olcott a yogi? What will be end of all this? Is anybody to come in the place of H.P.B.? My certain friend B.K.L. who takes much interest in the T.S. pressed me for the latter information."

He said, "The T.S. was their work: it was established to change the present current of the human mind and destroy Nastikism, [materialistic atheism]... that he was present when H.P.B. was sent by her Master from the Manasarovara Hills in Tibet... she was sent to carry out the work of the Mahatmas; -- that she was very high up there is not the least doubt, that he himself was one of the Circle, although not so high as the Guru of H.P.B.; that Col. Olcott is a good man no doubt but no yogi, he is entirely different from H.P.B. with whose name you cannot mention Olcott. That what was necessary was done by H.P.B. and the Society is successful... that hitherto the T.S. followed a particular line, but in India there should be a change in that line, but there will be no change in the West, they must go on as they do now."

Since the Svamiji has come back from the Himalayan Hills his ideas about the T.S. and H.P.B. are entirely different; instead of passive tolerance he simply says:

"Oh! I like to worship the portrait of H.P.B.; no one has done so much good for humanity, especially for India, after Buddha and Shankaracharya... The T.S. is ours, established for certain purposes by our Mahatmas; go on and go on, work and work."

I must tell you that the Svamji never knew any of these informations about the T.S., the West, or H.P.B. before he went up to the Hills. The Svamji showed me his hand where the Mahatma held it with his two fingers -- there is the white sign of inflammation still existing, and subsequently the skin was off from that place. These are the facts that are revealed to me... It appeared also that the Svamji is the chela of one of the chelas or grand chelas of a Mahatma of the Circle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He said, "The T.S. was their work: it was established to change the present current of the human mind and destroy Nastikism, [materialistic atheism]... that he was present when H.P.B. was sent by her Master from the Manasarovara Hills in Tibet...

Given the present state of the world, TS certainly did not come close to destroying Nastikism, it has to the contrary spread like cancer, and the Abrahamic religious prophecies wrt End Times is unfolding as the Heavenly Lord promised.

 

[Nicholas]

But weak and splintered as theosophical groups are, the movement has uplifted the "current of the human mind" toward its higher nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I fully agree, TS helped open the 'doors' of my mind to the greater reality present.

 

[freelight]

Purucker on God in Theosophy:

QUESTION: I would like to ask where and what is the place of God in the Theosophical scheme of things.

ANSWER: This question has often been asked. In order properly to answer it, let us choose the Socratic method, and ask the questioner a question. How can this querent expect to obtain a clear answer to his question until the question itself has more definiteness to it, and a more perfect outline?

In the first place, what is meant by 'God'? Is it the God of the Christians which is meant, or the God of the Hebrews? Is it the God of the Brahmans? Is it the God of the native American Indian? Is it the God of the Eskimo? Is it the God of the Druid, or is it the Zeus of the Greek, or the Jupiter of the Roman, and so forth? You ask a question, and tacitly suppose that 'God' conveys an idea sufficiently clear and definite to all men, whereas history shows us that there never was a question on which men differ so greatly as upon the answers they might give as regards the nature of the Divine.

We may briefly say first, that for such national or theoretical gods as those above alluded to, be they one or be they many, and which are the offsprings of man's religious imagination, the Theosophical philosophy has absolutely no place. Theosophy deals with realities, and not with men's mere beliefs or imaginings about infinites or supposed infinites.

The very heart of the Theosophical Religion-Philosophy-Science, is the Divine, as we call it, because we must call it by some name in order to let others know what we are talking about. Concerning the thing itself, the Theosophical philosophy is likewise extremely precise, definite, and runs straight to the point. Our conception of the Divine is an absolutely limitless Life - for we must give it some name that our human brains can understand. This Universal Life is the source and origin of everything, of all beings, and of all worlds; the best qualification of it that perhaps could be given to it would be comprised in the one word 'Space.' Space comprises everything, because it is everything. There is nothing outside of it, therefore it is the ALL.

Space, as Theosophists use the word, does not mean mere extension of matter. It means everything that ever was, that is, or that ever will be, visible and invisible, small and great, on all planes, because all these are comprised in the abstract meaning which we give to the word Space. It is not mere limitless extension; nor is the Divine a stock or a stone; but all these are in the Divine, so to say, and partakers of the Universal Life, which it is. Can you think of anything which is outside of Space? Of course not.

But our God is not a personal God, obviously not. It never was not and it never will cease to be. It neither thinks, nor feels, nor acts, because all these actions are predicates of finite entities such as men. The Zeus of the ancient Greeks, or the Jehovah of the ancient Hebrews, who thundered and lightened, are in either case a conception of the Divine which, in our majestical Theosophical philosophy, seems not merely grotesque to us, but downright blasphemous.

May we not say, therefore, that the Divine, Universal Life, Space, is neither conscious nor unconscious, neither active nor inactive? A long string of such hypothetical contraries might be enumerated, all of them expressing human emotional or mental actions; but what good would it do? Assuredly these cannot be ascribed to the Divine, to That which is at once limitless and endlessly enduring. All such contraries are but descriptions of human imaginings, taking their root and rise in our own limited human consciousness.

We are conscious, and in our egoism, we imagine that the stock or the stone is unconscious. Theosophy teaches us better. All entities and things are offsprings of the Universal Life, and each, in its way and manner, and to the fullest extent of its capacity, contains all that we do as enlightened human beings - in other words, each contains all in germ.

These differences among entities arise out of the various stages of evolution which they have respectively attained. Some things are more advanced than others, and manifest thereby the more fully the inner potencies, faculties, powers, call them what you like, which are at the heart or core of every human being, and of every other entity or being or thing.

Hence, answering the question more directly, in view of the foregoing necessary explanation, it may be said with perfect truth, and said emphatically, that the Theosophical philosophy has no 'God,' as that word is commonly understood by people who do not think, and who therefore imagine that ideas which have become popularized by time, and which throw one's intuitions of the Divine into a chaos of contradictions, must contain some essence of reality, some essential truth.

Not so very long ago, men thought that the sun moved around the earth, and that the stars in the splendid, dark-blue vault of midnight were sparkling light-points placed there by a personal God in order to proclaim his own greatness to his erring and sinning children on earth. We know better now. No, such a God, or a God of any such kind, has no place in our Doctrine of Truth.

Nevertheless, no one can equal the Theosophist in the unspeakably profound reverence which fills his heart as he endeavors to raise his spirit in awe in contemplation of the Divine. It is our Source whence we came and whither we are journeying on our re-turn pilgrimage to it; we issued forth from the 'Bosom of the Divine' - if we may use easily understood terms - as unselfconscious God-sparks, and shall return to it as fully self-conscious gods, thereafter to take a god-like part in the great Cosmic Labor. We are even now co-operating instruments, or rather co-operating agencies, in the fulfilment of the great Cosmic Work, to the extent of our capacity.

Greetings Nicholas and all following,

In my journey so far, I consider myself more of an 'eclectic theosophist' at heart, or 'meta-theist' - I've read some of the original Theosophical authors and founders and like to know their teachings first, then follow/compare those with later teachers or offspring movements growing from these original roots, so I've dabbled in a good variety in my ventures. Happy to have found some kindred spirits here.

I got a more defined essay of Blavatsky's concept of 'God' as 'impersonal' from Key To Theosophy, and other theosophical authors, and understand it, but also accept 'God' being approached or related in His/Her various personality expressions thru the various 'personifications' of Deity and various gods/goddesses so have no problems including those in my worship or study, as its all 'God' anyways, in whatever substance or form, - the universal One or All is certainly not limited to any one substance or form, or personality for that matter, but is inclusive of all as well as ever transcending all. - thats a 'given', but I have no problem with using images, icons, symbols or forms in the cultivation of devotion to Source.

For a time I really went thru J. Krishnamurti's writings as a springboard into individual truth-seeking as he veered quite far from the Theosophical Society's prescribed role for him, a true rebel of sorts denying titles and formulas for a more pathless way to reality.

Dabbled into a bit of Neo-Theosophy (Beasant/Leadbeater), just one book of Steiner, but find the original teachers and their devotees pretty solid on fundamentals, although I still have some liberal views on 'rebirth' process and some terms and definitions. Familiar with some of Alice Baileys stuff too. I also have not gotten full into the root race concept and its logics as of yet. The fundamental 3 propositions and the Motto though seem pretty sound and foundational - I have some of Blavatsky's books on kindle, but sometimes hard to read on those platforms. I've also been meaning to read all the issues of her Lucifer magazine, which seem to be a real treat and throwback towards the christian Church of her time. I resonate more with the christian mystics, gnostics and find some good material there as well as from the eastern traditions, so its all good. Truth is truth wherever it is found, among its various forms and symbols.

Anyways,....lest I babble on (lol) I'd like to maybe start some of my own threads here on various topics, and fine with exploring esoteric subjects here among theosophical teachers/teachings. Thanks and Namaste

- Paul





-----------o

 

[Ostronomos]

Welcome.

It seems you are well on your way to mapping your personalized mind to the transcendent reality that exists beyond all things.

 

[freelight]

Welcome.

It seems you are well on your way to mapping your personalized mind to the transcendent reality that exists beyond all things.

It would appear that the wisdom of 'Theos' or the 'gods' (elohim) is the best wisdom to study. - a universal approach seems most logical to study truth, since truth is universal. I also think such a study and exploration would be 'eclectic', all-inclusive, synergistic.


~*~*~

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here's the rub so far as I understand it. There is an underlying unity to all that is, call it what you may, and it is in the transcending of the apparent duality of self-identification with the incarnated form which creates the impression of all non-self as being separate, that will restore the non-dual nature of being. To realize the universal oneness, one's ego self must disappear?

 

[SalixIncendium]

To realize the universal oneness, one's ego self must disappear?

This won't happen so long as one is embodied. Ego is inherent to the body mind complex.

As I see it, ego must be realized as an object that appears in the Self...the "universal oneness"...and must be managed/kept in check.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This won't happen so long as one is embodied. Ego is inherent to the body mind complex.

As I see it, ego must be realized as an object that appears in the Self...the "universal oneness"...and must be managed/kept in check.

Yes, I agree. However, having realized the body's ego as an object that appears in the Self, can it be translated from the physical to the spiritual/Atmic through some efficacious religious practice, such that while still embodied, Self-awareness is present in addition to the physical self-awareness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, I agree. However, having realized the body's ego as an object that appears in the Self, can it be translated from the physical to the spiritual/Atmic through some efficacious religious practice, such that while still embodied, Self-awareness is present in addition to the physical self-awareness.

From my perspective, Self-awareness is an oxymoron. The eye cannot gaze upon itself. How can the Self be aware of the Self? That would just render the Self as another object, and therefore not the Self. Ego...the physical self...thoughts...all objects that are appearances in the Self. The moment One renders the Self an object to be aware of, it is no longer the Self.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From my perspective, Self-awareness is an oxymoron. The eye cannot gaze upon itself. How can the Self be aware of the Self? That would just render the Self as another object, and therefore not the Self. Ego...the physical self...thoughts...all objects that are appearances in the Self. The moment One renders the Self an object to be aware of, it is no longer the Self.

So you seem to be implying Self is devoid of awareness. Perhaps it would help if you would explain what you consider Self to be?

 

[The Hammer]

From my perspective, Self-awareness is an oxymoron. The eye cannot gaze upon itself. How can the Self be aware of the Self? That would just render the Self as another object, and therefore not the Self. Ego...the physical self...thoughts...all objects that are appearances in the Self. The moment One renders the Self an object to be aware of, it is no longer the Self.

Awareness, aware of awareness is One.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So you seem to be implying Self is devoid of awareness. Perhaps it would help if you would explain what you consider Self to be?

Quite the contrary. The Self is pure awareness...pure consciousness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Awareness, aware of awareness is One.

As I see it, awareness is just that. "Of" introduces duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Quite the contrary. The Self is pure awareness...pure consciousness.

So Self awareness exists! The source of my self is Self, the ultimate source of my self-awareness is Self-awareness, or if you prefer, pure-awareness?

 

[freelight]

From my perspective, Self-awareness is an oxymoron. The eye cannot gaze upon itself. How can the Self be aware of the Self? That would just render the Self as another object, and therefore not the Self. Ego...the physical self...thoughts...all objects that are appearances in the Self. The moment One renders the Self an object to be aware of, it is no longer the Self.

Yes, the 'ego-complex' or any complex must be surrended within and/or transcended in the original unity of Being, which is primal Awareness itself. The idea of being aware of being aware is a 'pointer' just to allow consciousness to re-cognize itself as being. (See Rupert Spira's teaching). There is just Awareness.....this awareness is prior to and beyond any thing (subject/object relationship) as all duality/multiplicity of appearances arise within IT.

As far as Theosphy's teaching as to how far it correlates its philopsophy/practice to 'non-duality' as we know in advaita vedanta, that remains to be seen, but it appears to be sourced more in the eastern concepts of vedic/buddhist metaphysics/cosmology than any western religious tradition. How it may bridge both east and west is most interesting.


~*~*~

 

[SalixIncendium]

So Self awareness exists! The source of my self is Self, the ultimate source of my self-awareness is Self-awareness, or if you prefer, pure-awareness?

What is it that is aware?