RE: "fundamentalism" in "Theosophy"?
Oct 26, 2001 05:34 PM
Friday, October 26, 2001
Try this for an atypical response.
Theosophy is not a detached religion, a “speculation” or a variable
If you grasp its intent it is a kind of manual . It is the kind of
fundamental manual that enables the knower and the user to handle any and
all incidents in life, and, to freely dream of a future that he or she can
frame for themselves -- and in so doing, use the information that is
provided by the entire UNIVERSE. But the testing and selection is for ever
left in the hand and in the mind of the devotee and pupil. We are all in
the same SCHOOL -- the SCHOOL OF LIFE.
But let me offer you a “for instance:”
As an analogy. Would you like to study a manual or a text on you car? if
so, what are you likely to find? would not the first thing to speak to you
be descriptive? Would the principles whereby a car works be useful -- at
least as base knowledge?
Would you like to know how the air, electricity, fuel and water are brought
together to get the engine running? Suppose you were way out of touch with
any repair facilities, could you diagnose the cause of a failure to
operate -- and fix it ?
Theosophy provides this for the MIND and for the study we ought all make of
our present faculties, and interests. But first they have to be identified.
where to start?
Back to our car analogy:
What makes an automobile work?
Fuel and Air mix in a carburetor (in the average proportions of 1 : 73).
a controlled explosion is generated by a high tension electric spark (of
about 50 to 75,000 volts) in the cylinder head space.
The power of this is transmitted to the movable piston, and from that to the
crankshaft, flywheel, and through the gears this power is transmitted to the
wheels. [But it takes human intelligence and the power of invention to
devise all this and make it work.]
The excess heat of the explosion is controlled through a water jacket
surrounding the cylinder head. And this heat is passed on to the
circulating water, and by it, diffused through the radiator to the air
passing through it as the car fan impels it.
Obviously this describes the blending of several cooperative processes, and
the use of : air, water and fuel, and electricity, heat and cooling, as well
as friction, and mechanical transmission of motion from reciprocal to
circular is employed to make the tires rotate -- and this description can
become far more detailed as one goes into the settings employed for each
This is comparable to a physiological description of the material man.
It says nothing of its history, development, use and abuse, operation,
maintenance or repair.
Now compare this to Theosophy which in regard to the Universe, our Earth,
and Man says a great deal more.
Theosophy deals with the ethico-moral side of nature. the prevalence of
intelligence, the existence of wisdom as an outcome of years and lives of
protracted study. It speaks of the cooperative and integrated aspects of
life and the effect that it has on those who participate in it.
It sketches a program that stretches from an indefinable beginning (SPIRIT)
through the development of self-administered thought and intelligence to a
potential “end” where the interactive participants become wise enough to
frame, and join an BROTHERHOOD of the WISE.
Their ‘Wisdom” includes all aspects of research, education, and a
self-sacrificing service directed to the enhancement of individual
Intelligence in every aspect of the manifested UNIVERSE.
Is this to be considered speculative? Or a historian’s report on these?
You have read the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) -- Do you have The SECRET
DOCTRINE and have you read it? Have you for instance understood the
implications of the First Item described in S D I pp. 272-3 ?
Have you opened the pages of ISIS UNVEILED and seen what is offered there?
Or read the 80 pages of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE -- and absorbed the intent,
and concentration on the ethico-moral principles involved in the human
struggle to become educated and wise in the methods and achievements of the
If your answer is still a perhaps or a maybe, then you have little basis for
your various speculations -- you are not able to play on the field of the
mildly interested student of theosophy. You are writing of things that are
already answered in those books. A couple of months spent in reading and
assimilating their theses would help I think. But I have said this often in
the months we have viewed each other’s correspondence.
What I am trying to say is: come on up here, and with a mental view
increased by what you grasp of fresh concepts and a more united vision,
might have far more weight and value.
The water is for everyone, and the freedom of using a life-preserver is not
denied to anyone. But it is you who will have to do the work. But have you
ever truly formulated to yourself what you seek to achieve?
How could one show this analogy between car and Universe (or man) to be at
First the gases, water and fuel involved:
Air is everywhere (even if highly diffused or attenuated). So too, is
Water. Fuel is concentrated material (hydro carbons usually) and has to be
extracted from its deposits (coal, petroleum and petro-gasses, etc…).
Next: Electricity and Magnetism (generated and used, but still undefined by
All “matter” (including fluids and gasses) are composed of incalculable
masses of molecules and atoms, and as a result, they are compounds or
permutations of these two mysterious forces. Nature generates and bonds
them, as she does all other things.
We are at the frontiers and the cutting edge of Science continually exposing
aspects of the marvelous ways Nature has already in place to produce this
LIVING UNIVERSE, our WORLD, and the forms of all the various beings
(including MAN’S FORM) that interact to make up the vibrant and interactive
Electricity is evoked by mechanical processes that employ rotating magnets.
It is present everywhere in the minutest of atoms and can be said in its
numerous variants to the basic component of all manifested things. But who
or How were those established? Who knows the sources and the laws that
govern their presence and inter-working?
Air, as a mixture of combustible (oxygen -- Prana, or life-energy), and
incombustible gasses (nitrogen -- the Astral Body which provides the gross
body with its form and shape).
Fuel is largely carbon-hydrogen based, and this could be compared to the
gross matter of a physical body.
The combustion of oxygen and carbon produces carbon monoxide, water
(di-hydrogen oxide) and carbon dioxide.
We need a MANUAL for all automobiles. We need to study physics and
chemistry and mathematics and engineering to learn how to deal with all the
rest. And this is what Theosophy claims to provide. The question is: Does
it ? A manual to prepare steel or to drill for oil, or to make a
hydroelectric system, or transform a low voltage into a high one, or discuss
the transference of heat, all these would be part of the Theosophical
scheme. But what Theosophy discusses and illustrates, is the Manual on
MOTIVE and the ETHIC-MORAL equilibrium generally and rather vaguely called
That is essential to our universal co-evolution and to man’s mind melding
with the UNIVERSAL MIND which governs all things.
It is for this reason that Theosophy has been called the WISDOM-RELIGION and
the ETERNAL DOCTRINE. It covers everything in depth, and extends its survey
to include the future. It is a SCIENTIFIC RELIGION and a RELIGIOUS SCIENCE.
It informs, but it does not coerce.
From: m [
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:19 AM
Subject: "Fundamentalism" in "Theosophy"?
"Theosophy is just one of them"? Apparently GK has defined Theosophy in
some specific way . . . I don't know. I think I prefer "Theosophy" as
meaning essentially a certain kind of attitude or approach to life and
values that doesn't have to be necessarily connected with whether or not one
has or hasn't heard of "Theosophy," etc. Meaning that one could be, (to my
way of thinking), a "Theosophist," in a sense, even if one has never heard
of the word.
Since a broader definition of Theosophy/Theosophist/Theosophic would depend
on one's basic approach/values as those would be seen in broader terms
("terms" that might somewhat wax and wane during one's life, possibly, in
some cases?), it follows that, as I see it, one's own sense of "Theosophic"
standing would similarly wax and wane, along the way, in a sense: One
might, for example, start the day as an outstanding "Theosophist," to all
appearances (according to one's interpretation), and, by nightfall, for
example . . . one's earlier APPARENT values might come into some question,
possibly, even by oneself . . .
Which kind of thinking suggests to me that our definitions of "Theosophy"
and "Theosophist" tend to be basically depedendent on preconceived and
arbitrary notions/values that could, depending on one's circumstances and
karma, change, and so could, in some cases, to some extent, change one's
ideas about what a "Theosophist" is all about: So that one's "Theosophic
standing" could be seen, even by one's own judgement, to wax and wane during
one's life, to some extent, possibly.
That is, realistically speaking, surely there is much more to being a
"Theosophist" or one who might be said to be "Theosophically inclined" than
reading and memorizing ("dead letter"/exoteric) literature that's generally
thought of as being "Theosophical"?
That is, if one's defining is all a matter of interpetive degrees and
values, then, as one impersonally/impartially stretches one's definition of
"a Theosophist," who would be left out of such broader defining?
In other words, words to the effect that "Theosophy is just one Path to
Truth" seem to suggest a definition for Theosophy that's "too limited," for
my taste. I think I prefer a "Theosphy" that has "somewhat broader borders"
(to put it as politely as I can, in a sense), ideally. I think I prefer to
think in terms of everybody being "essentially t/Theosophical," in a sense:
In my opinion, "people" qualify as being "t/Theosophical" types. Not that I
have anything against the use of "Theosophist" as a "more specific"
reference to one who has "studied Theosophy" and "Theosophical literature"
and "exhibits and/or has" (by whatever interpretive route) "Theosophical"
But, once we start defining/drawing lines between "Theosophists" and "those
who are not Theosophists" . . . some rather interesting and "somewhat
t/Theosophical" thoughts and evaluations might arise . . . ? No?
Well, I guess I'm trying to say that, as I tend to see it, we're all
BASICALLY "Theosophists," but some of us SEEM more "Theosophical" than
others because of some of our "preferred interpretations."
On the other hand, are "some animals" "less Theosophical," maybe, or should
they be regarded as "potential Theosophists,"
possibly . . . ? And of course some "terrorists," for example, might be
seen as somewhat "less Theosophical," or as "some animals," possibly, I
suppose . . . ?
PS Dallas, if you read this post . . . I already have plenty of examples of
your typical responses. So, thanks, but . . . (not that you're not
"Theosophical"). Not that there aren't all kinds of "typical responses."
And of course some "typical" things might lead to some "more interesting"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application