Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00110)

Hello Pablo,

What you say may be perfectly true. However, my concern was much more 
mundane, and falls under what is called "merchandising." In other 
words, when I was managing a bookstore many years ago, I placed the 
Secret Doctrine in the Theosophy section, because that is where I 
expected most people would look for it. 

Also, to add a little more detail to my story, I did notice that Isis 
Unveiled was filed under Theosophy, even though it has quite a gold mine 
of information on Kaballah. So was Besant's lecture on the Mahabarata 
under Theosophy. If her rationale for where she places books was 
consistent with her explanation of putting the SD under Kaballah, I 
would expect to have found Besant's lecture on the Mahabarata under 
Hinduism--not Theosophy. Or, at least cross filed under both. So, 
perhaps her rationale was even more esoteric than we both suspect. 

BTW, some years later, a woman named Zella Balsh (spelling?) took over 
the store and re-arranged the Theosophy books, including the SD, under 
Theosophy. 

--j




leonmaurer@a... wrote:

>In a message dated 11/09/04 8:13:17 PM, jjhe@c... writes:
> 
>
>>Hello Pablo,
>>
>>Yes, there was a member of the Adyar TS who is given the credit for the
>>quip: "Theosophy is everything, but everything is not Theosophy." The 
>>first time I heard this was when I visited the Quest book shop in Ojai,
>>looked through the Theosophy section and noted that HPB's Secret 
>>Doctrine was not to be found. I asked the store keeper if they had the
>>book for sale. She replied, "Oh yes, the SD is over in the Kaballah 
>>section." I asked why it was not in the Theosophy section. She explained
>>that the SD was really a work on Kaballah. I countered that the SD also
>>has a lot on Hinduism, Buddhism etc. and that considering who wrote the
>>book, Theosophy might be a more appropriate section for the book. She 
>>then explained that "Theosophy is everything, but everything is not 
>>Theosophy." I often think of that exchange and wonder whether she was 
>>trying to shut me up with a non-answer, or offering a koan for me to 
>>solve, or....
>>--j
>> 
>>
>
>Neither. She was just telling you the way it is. The Secret doctrine is far 
>closer to the Kabbalah (both Egyptian and Hebrew) -- which encompasses all 
>the ancient Thoth-Hermes esoteric teachings that long preceded Buddhism or any 
>other exoteric religion. 
>
>Besides, since the "theosophy" in the SD relates directly to explaining the 
>Book of Dzyan -- which is pure metaphysics, and a synthesis of science, 
>religion and philosophy in a strictly generalized sense, its connection with 
>particular religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, are just incidental... And, other 
>than as references from a practical religious point of view, such connections 
>are of little interest to the true occultist, or prospective "Adept," that the 
>SD was really written for. 
>
>Therefore, "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" are not theosophy. And, while Blavatsky 
>presented the SD as a teaching of theosophy or "divine wisdom," she was in 
>fact an Occultist and Kabbalist long before she took Buddhist vows (actually 
>Bodhisattva vows)... And also, had much disagreement with some of the dogmas of 
>both Buddhism and Hinduism -- particularly their ideas of karma, reincarnation, 
>nirvana, the self, after death states, etc. 
>
>So, that's what is meant by "Theosophy is everything, but everything is not 
>Theosophy."
>
>LHM
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]