Why Theosophy Has to Change

[Susan Thomas]

Theosophy has to change, and it is the perfect tool for changing the world. Theosophy is the bridge between Science and Theology, as HPB pointed out at the conclusion of The Secret Doctrine. At the time of her death in 1891, she was preparing the following article, which was published in the April 1893 issue of Lucifer:
ON AUTHORITIES IN GENERAL AND THE AUTHORITY OF MATERIALISTS, ESPECIALLY

[Lucifer, Vol. XII, No. 68, April, 1893, pp. 97-101]

In assuming the task of contradicting “authorities” and of occasionally setting at nought the well established opinions and hypotheses of men of Science, it becomes necessary in the face of repeated accusations to define our attitude clearly at the very outset. Though, where the truth of our doctrines is concerned, no criticism and no amount of ridicule can intimidate us, we would nevertheless be sorry to give one more handle to our enemies, as a pretext for an extra slaughter of the innocent; nor would we willingly lead our friends into an unjust suspicion of that to which we are not in the least prepared to plead guilty.
One of such suspicions would naturally be the idea that we must be terribly self-opinionated and conceited. This would be false from A to Z. It does not at all stand to reason that because we contradict eminent professors of Science on certain points, we therefore claim to know more than they do of Science; nor, that we even have the benighted vanity of placing ourselves on the same level as these scholars. Those who would accuse us of this would simply be talking nonsense, for even to harbour such a thought would be the madness of conceit—and we have never been guilty of this vice. Hence, we declare loudly to all our readers that most of those “authorities” we find fault with, stand in our own opinion immeasurably higher in scientific knowledge and general information than we do. But, this conceded, the reader is reminded that great scholarship in no way precludes great bias and prejudice; nor is it a safeguard against personal vanity and pride. A Physicist may be an



Page 153


undeniable expert in acoustics, wave-vibrations, etc., and be no Musician at all, having no ear for music. None of the modern bootmakers can write as Count Leo Tolstoi does; but any tyro in decent shoemaking can take the great novelist to task for spoiling good materials in trying to make boots. Moreover, it is only in the legitimate defence of our time-honoured Theosophical doctrines, opposed by many on the authority of materialistic Scientists, entirely ignorant of psychic possibilities, in the vindication of ancient Wisdom and its Adepts, that we throw down the gauntlet to Modern Science. If in their inconceivable conceit and blind materialism they will go on dogmatizing upon that about which they know nothing—nor do they want to know—then those who do know something have a right to protest and to say so publicly and in print.
Many must have heard of the suggestive answer made by a lover of Plato to a critic of Thomas Taylor, the translator of the works of this great Sage. Taylor was charged with being but a poor Greek scholar, and not a very good English writer. “True,” was the pert reply; “Tom Taylor may have known far less Greek than his critics; but he knew Plato far better than any of them does.”* And this we take to be our own position.
We claim no scholarship in either dead or living tongues, and we take no stock in Philology as a modern Science. But we do claim to understand the living spirit of Plato’s Philosophy, and the symbolical meaning of the writings of this great Initiate, better than do his modern translators, and for this very simple reason. The Hierophants and Initiates of the Mysteries in the Secret Schools in which all the Sciences inaccessible and useless to the masses of the profane were taught, had one universal, Esoteric tongue—the language of symbolism and allegory. This language has suffered neither modification nor amplification from those remote times down to this day. It still exists and is still

———————
* [Prof. A. Wilder. Also quoted in Isis Unveiled, Vol. II, p. 109 from Intro. to Taylor’s Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries p. 27, 4th. ed.; p. xix, 3rd ed. 1875 (Rpr. by Wizards Bookshelf, 1980.) ]
———————



Pge 154


taught. There are those who have preserved the knowledge of it, and also of the arcane meaning of the Mysteries; and it is from these Masters that the writer of the present protest had the good fortune of learning, howbeit imperfectly, the said language. Hence her claim to a more correct comprehension of the arcane portion of the ancient texts written by avowed Initiates—such as were Plato and Iamblichus, Pythagoras, and even Plutarch—than can be claimed by, or expected from, those who, knowing nothing whatever of that “language” and even denying its existence altogether, yet set forth authoritative and conclusive views on everything Plato and Pythagoras knew or did not know, believed in or disbelieved. It is not enough to lay down the audacious proposition, “that an ancient Philosopher is to be interpreted from himself [i.e., from the dead-letter texts] and by the contemporary history of thought”;* he who lays it down has first of all to prove to the satisfaction, not of his admirers and himself alone, but of all, that modern thought does not woolgather in the question of Philosophy as it does on the lines of materialistic Science. Modern thought denies Divine Spirit in Nature, and the Divine element in mankind, the Soul’s immortality and every noble conception inherent in man. We all know that in their endeavors to kill that which they have agreed to call “superstition” and the “relics of ignorance” (read “religious feelings and metaphysical concepts of the Universe and Man”), Materialists like Prof. Huxley or Mr. Grant Allen are ready to go to any length in order to ensure the triumph of their soul-killing Science. But when we find Greek and Sanskrit scholars and doctors of theology, playing into the hands of modern materialistic thought, pooh-poohing everything they do not know, or that of which the public—or rather Society, which ever follows in its impulses the craze of fashion, of popularity or unpopularity—disapproves, then we have the right to assume one of two things: the scholars who act on these lines are either moved by personal conceit, or by the fear of public

———————
* [M. A. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato; Introduction to the Timaeus Vol. III, p. 524 (2nd ed.) 1875]
———————



Page 155


opinion; they dare not challenge it at the risk of unpopularity. In both cases they forfeit their right to esteem as authorities. For, if they are blind to facts and sincere in their blindness, then their learning, however great, will do more harm than good, and if, while fully alive to those universal truths which Antiquity knew better than we do—though it did express them in more ambiguous and less scientific language—our Philosophers will still keep them under the bushel for fear of painfully dazzling the majority’s eyes, then the example they set is most pernicious. They suppress the truth and disfigure metaphysical conceptions, as their colleagues in physical Science distort facts in material Nature into mere props to support their respective views, on the lines of popular hypotheses and Darwinian thought. And if so, what right have they to demand a respectful hearing from those to whom TRUTH is the highest, as the noblest, of all religions?
The negation of any fact or claim believed in by the teeming millions of Christians and non-Christians, of a fact, moreover, impossible to disprove, is a serious thing for a man of recognized scientific authority, in the face of its inevitable results. Denials and rejections of certain things, hitherto held sacred, coming from such sources, are for a public taught to respect scientific data and bulls, as good as unqualified assertions. Unless uttered in the broadest spirit of Agnosticism and offered merely as a personal opinion, such a spirit of wholesale negation—especially when confronted with the universal belief of the whole of Antiquity, and of the incalculable hosts of the surviving Eastern nations in the things denied—becomes pregnant with dangers to mankind. Thus the rejection of a Divine Principle in the Universe, of Soul and Spirit in man and of his Immortality, by one set of Scientists; and the repudiation of any Esoteric Philosophy existing in Antiquity, hence, of the presence of any hidden meaning based on that system of revealed learning in the sacred writings of the East (the Bible included), or in the works of those Philosophers who were confessedly Initiates, by another set of “authorities”—are simply fatal to humanity. Between missionary enterprise—encouraged far more on political than religious



Page 156


grounds*—and scientific Materialism, both teaching from two diametrically opposite poles that which neither can prove or disprove, and mostly that which they themselves take on blind faith or blind hypothesis, the millions of the growing generations must find themselves at sea. They will not know, any more than their parents know now, what to believe in, whither to turn for truth. Weightier proofs are thus required now by many than the mere personal assumptions and negations of religious fanatics and irreligious Materialists, that such or another thing exists or has no existence.
We, Theosophists, who are not so easily caught on the hook baited with either salvation or annihilation, we claim our right to demand the weightiest, and to us undeniable proofs that truth is in the keeping of Science and Theology. And as we find no answer forthcoming, we claim the right to argue upon every undecided question, by analyzing the assumptions of our opponents. We, who believe in Occultism and the archaic Esoteric Philosophy, do not, as already said, ask our members to believe as we do, nor charge them with ignorance if they do not. We simply leave them to make their choice. Those who decide to study the old Science are given proofs of its existence; and corroborative evidence accumulates and grows in proportion to the personal progress of the student. Why should not the negators of ancient Science—to wit, modern Scholars—do the same in the matter of their denials and assertions; i.e., why don’t they refuse to say either yea or nay in regard to that which they really do not know, instead of denying or affirming it a priori as they all do? Why do not our Scientists proclaim

———————
* We maintain that the fabulous sums spent on, and by, Christian missions, whose propaganda brings forth such wretched moral results and gets so few renegades, are spent with a political object in view. The aim of the missions, which, as in India, are only said to be “tolerated” (sic) seems to be to pervert people from their ancestral religions, rather than to convert them to Christianity, and this is done in order to destroy in them every spark of national feeling. When the spirit of patriotism is dead in a nation, it very easily becomes a mere puppet in the hands of the rulers.
———————



The first portion of the article can be read here

Bearing in mind the scientific changes in the world going on in her time (this was several years before Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published, we can take some inspiration for today's world as well. The important points are:
1) Just because someone is an expert in their field does not mean they are protected from bias and prejudice, personal vanity and pride
2) We claim the right to argue upon every undecided question, by analyzing the assumptions of our opponents, and
3) Between missionary enterprise-encouraged far more on political than religiousgrounds-and scientific Materialism, both teaching from two diametrically opposite poles that which neither can prove or disprove, and mostly that which they themselves take on blind faith or blind hypothesis, the millions of the growing generations must find themselves at sea. The will not know, any more than their parents know now, what to believe in, whither to turn for truth.

What are your thoughts and what do we do to ask the questions that bridge this gap?

[David Melik]

I am not sure Theosophy has to change, but I think Joe is reasonable in saying the Theosophical movement has to change. Theosophy was good enough when HPB wrote. She stressed the importance of questioning and investigation, so Theosophy by definition deals with new questions and topics. That is how it should be: on a rating on the 'net of whether a religion is a 'bad' cult Theosophy scored close to zero on the scale just because it is assumed all Theosophists consider the SD infallible. Well it should be zero, because even HPB did not do so, and who can speak for all Theosophists?

Philosophy has already always bridged the gap between religion and science. If someone thinks there is not a bridge between them that is mostly their problem. Conflict that creates in society is a separate problem that Philosophy has the solution to because it has the method of problem solving and ideas to make society very civil and advanced.

HPB's texts are insightful great works of genius except in saying Theosophy is 'science, religion, and Philosophy.' That is as nonsensical as people who say Philosophy has stopped having to do with those two fields, because her statement is like 'science, religion, and science & religion & etc,' literally. I think the Theosophical movement has to be able to be objective from such terms because for other reasons 'Theosophy' is redundant and less clear or universal than 'Philosophy;' 'Dharma' would be another good term to consider, though Sanskrit may have another term 'Philosophy,' because Dharma has to do with the practice of virtue. But, I mentioned it for that reason.

In making the term 'Philosophy' less clear it may have been better to say 'Aretosophy' than Theosophy. This would be somewhere between Theosophy and Anthroposophy. Theosophy may have the idea of sunyata includes atman, but it and Anthroposophy have too much etymology from what is not eternally most important to everyday life or viewpoints. Philosophy does with absolute truths of ideal forms, and arete (virtue) is the ideal. One could go so far to say it is an ideal (i.e. divine) form and it is inherent in any ideal (i.e. enlightened or at least reasonably civil) person.

[Susan Thomas]

I agree, mostly, with what you said. However, wording aside, as entities, science and religion have a gap between them. Not so much between science and religion, but science and morality. Back in the 70's we used to say that "You can't legislate morality." In today's scientific world, we (any decent moral human beings, some of whom may be theosophists) have an imperative to state our moral positions on genetics, bio-engineering and other scientific projects to which Joe and others refer in other threads. Blavatsky says that back in the day (Lemuria and Atlantis) scientists or inventors or gods or whatever you want to call them, were not able to create living creatures unless they were willing to enter those creatures and ensoul them themselves. She also refers to Mary Wollstonecraft's Frankenstein as being a possibility.
Going out on a very precarious limb here, I have to admit that I have one very vivid memory of an experiment that resulted in a life form, (which still exists today) The sheer terror of what was happening surrounding that memory and that experience is a powerful motivator for me in this arena. It is ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG for scientists to do what they are doing today. (See monkeys with green glowing feet as an example) It is one thing to play around with genetics that give monkeys green glowing feet, whereas it is a whole other ball game that those genetics were passed to offspring. And I do not have the skills to translate what I know into any meaningful dialogue that would encourage any scientist to give up his/her grant money on moral grounds. My plea here is for people who are motivated to help in this dilemma.
If there was any way to express what I know and make it have the power of what I feel, I would do it.

[David Melik]

Well, I did not get into the practical examples/applications in my post that you did in replying. I certainly agree that what many 'scientists' are doing is wrong. That statement does not disagree with the fact that Philosophy and its synonym Theosophy hold ethics to be a science and Philosophers have to be able to deal with even moral dilemmas. Of course stuff like creating monkeys with harmed DNS is not a dilemma: it is just immoral. Modern society may be more advanced, and though I think human nature is good, the majority of humanity is not 'in full contact' with that true nature of themselves and they need learning/guidance.

Theosophy considering modern problems and still coming up with and debating new ideas is what should be involved in that guidance--or learning when including those in the Theosophical movement that still need to learn themselves. Even those that may have become enlightened may not remain that way and it takes a while before they may stay so (i.e. be a Mahatma, whether HPB's ones were real--since there is such a stage of being fully human.) I suppose it is what Gurdjieff called being 'mesoteric.' I have problems with Gurdjieff, though people that did almost infinitely worse things than condone alcohol have had good ideas--everyone has some humanity and even some amount of reasoning.

[Charles Cosimano]

I'm sorry, if there is a way to clone a new spine for my wife, I'm in favor of it and the morality be damned.

[steel styl]

start a theosophical study group....

[Peter O'Lalor]

Hello,

     Is it Theosophy that has to change or how we present it? I would like nothing more to see it added to curricula in higher education. When I taught Western Civilization, Philosophy, even American History; you bet Theosophy was part of it even though it was never touched upon in the text.When I taught Ethics; and explained it as Latin/Roman translation of the Greek Moral Philosophy; I always presented the lack of ethics in the kind of education that makes up Liberal studies; Theosophy for example.

Sincerely,

Peter

[Nicholas Weeks]

"Negators of Science" is the title of the full article, in CW 13.

[Peter O'Lalor]

Dear Susan,

     I read your post again (albeit slower) I agree very much. Firstly, there are many ways to teach morality; by example, through history and philosophy, making a conscious effort to stop diluting ethics (in government as well as in academia), without acknowledging it's Roman source being taken from Greek Moral philosophy.

      We have a hard enough time keeping a check on morality in government and specifically the Legislative branch; who is too quick to run roughshod over the Founder's principles of morality in Government. Please see Washington's Farewell Address, The Founders were clearly guided by Ethics. The moral and political stability that was colonial America was one nurtured by ideas of active citizenship, social progress, religious and philosophical ethics, See a comparison of Socrates and Jesus as guides of ethical behavior for America's Founders in Carl J. Richard, The Founders and the Classics, Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1994), ibid., 186, 189, 191-192.

     However, progress for the sake of progress, unplanned and unguided by wisdom or morality (which is ethics), is not the social progress that America's Founders believed in. See “The Stoic conception of human nature, which exerted a profound influence upon the founders’ favorite Roman statesmen and historians, held the potential for human progress.”  Ibid., 239. “They [the founding fathers] spoke confidently of social progress,” Ibid., 180

     In a citizenry where it's Founders held independent thought and action* in high esteem; are we really confident enough in this political economy to give free reign to the Scientific Community? I think not.

*“Although the founders considered the classics an important source of enlightenment, they understood that the highest expression of classical virtue was independence of thought and action,” Ibid., 230

Sincerely,

Peter O.

 

Susan Thomas said:

I agree, mostly, with what you said. However, wording aside, as entities, science and religion have a gap between them. Not so much between science and religion, but science and morality. Back in the 70's we used to say that "You can't legislate morality." In today's scientific world, we (any decent moral human beings, some of whom may be theosophists) have an imperative to state our moral positions on genetics, bio-engineering and other scientific projects to which Joe and others refer in other threads. Blavatsky says that back in the day (Lemuria and Atlantis) scientists or inventors or gods or whatever you want to call them, were not able to create living creatures unless they were willing to enter those creatures and ensoul them themselves. She also refers to Mary Wollstonecraft's Frankenstein as being a possibility.
Going out on a very precarious limb here, I have to admit that I have one very vivid memory of an experiment that resulted in a life form, (which still exists today) The sheer terror of what was happening surrounding that memory and that experience is a powerful motivator for me in this arena. It is ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG for scientists to do what they are doing today. (See monkeys with green glowing feet as an example) It is one thing to play around with genetics that give monkeys green glowing feet, whereas it is a whole other ball game that those genetics were passed to offspring. And I do not have the skills to translate what I know into any meaningful dialogue that would encourage any scientist to give up his/her grant money on moral grounds. My plea here is for people who are motivated to help in this dilemma.
If there was any way to express what I know and make it have the power of what I feel, I would do it.

[Capt. Anand Kumar]

One cannot but agree with point no. 1, except that it may apply to theosophists too.

 

Hinduism found Dharma in killing, even the near and dear ones, even those with whom one had no personal issues, through Lord Krsihna's teachings to Prince Arjuna. Yet Gautam Buddha preached Ahimsa. How to reconcile the two positions? When criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, the materialists or the scientists, whose side the theospohists are on - Krishna's or Buddha's? 

 

More than any other thought system, the Theosophists claim to know of the Evolution and the Divine Plan. Do they believe that the current developments in the Genetic Engineering is outside this plan - not approved by the Sanatkumaras of the universe? Is that feasible?

 

History teaches us that Evolution comes at a price. Certain life-forms are eliminated and others are transformed. This is what Genetic Scientists are doing. If human beings have to exist outside of the limits of the physical bodies someday, then we have to pay the price today in the form of all the horrors that is described.

 

More than this understanding, I see the political principle of POWERSHIFT at work here. Most of us will happily accept "Miracles", in the form of of a person healing others with touch, materializing or moving objects out of thin air and all other countless starnge phenomena. We may even call these people Divine or Spiritualists. But what scientists are doing is to give this power to the people. And that is why there is so much of opposition to it. Biotechnology is a direct challenge to the concept of a GOD and its AGENTS. It is only natural that those who derive their "Power" from such concepts, oppose it. But can they stop it?

 

The only alternative for the Theosophists, if they do not change, is to perish. Are they up to it?

Please forgive if the words appear to be too harsh.

[Joe Fulton]

The nature of theosophies lends themselves to being timeless.  Therefore the issue has to be one of expression.

The specific theosophy that most of us find common, that of the tradition identified with Blavatsky has become a caricature of the word theosophy, a mish mash of mythologies involving mythical superhuman masters, founders who need protection from enemies and detractors and all kinds of other garbage ideas clinging on to the kernel of divine wisdom. 

What we have to get back to is the ideas, their value and their application.  More importantly we have to make those our own, not someone elses.  When we start doing this the wisdom will become one that we can share, not as a relic of the Victorian world, but as a guide into an uncertain future.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Joe, Do you think "mythical superhuman masters" is a garbage idea?  Or that many critics think that  is so? 

Even if the latter is the meaning, where do you think these "ideas, their value and their application" came from?  From those Masters and Their greater Masters and so up the Golden Chain.

The notion of Masters need not be up front all the time or even much, but they cannot be tossed aside by theosophists because they are considered a "garbage idea" by anyone.

Joe Fulton said:

The nature of theosophies lends themselves to being timeless.  Therefore the issue has to be one of expression.

The specific theosophy that most of us find common, that of the tradition identified with Blavatsky has become a caricature of the word theosophy, a mish mash of mythologies involving mythical superhuman masters, founders who need protection from enemies and detractors and all kinds of other garbage ideas clinging on to the kernel of divine wisdom. 

What we have to get back to is the ideas, their value and their application.  More importantly we have to make those our own, not someone elses.  When we start doing this the wisdom will become one that we can share, not as a relic of the Victorian world, but as a guide into an uncertain future.

[Joe Fulton]

Yes, Nicholas, for this time, place and circumstance I most certainly do.  The whole idea has led to dysfunctional theosophical organizations more obsessed with making contacts with such beings than doing any practical good.  It's just another flavor of astral intoxication.

So yes, sorry, but for the effect that the Theosophical mythology (as given in official histories) has perpetuated, it is a garbage idea.  We  need to concentrate on the ideas and not the esoteric boogeymen.  Whoever wrote the 1900 Letter to Besant had it right, "the cant about masters must be quietly but firmly put down."  This whole tradition is dying because of an obsession with the HPB / Masters mythology. This is a different issue than taking the highest wisdom that has been given to us by the wise ones of all ages and encouraging people to apply it to their lives and this world for the betterment of all.

In short, I am opposed to theosophical fundamentalism in any form.  The tradition of the "save the poor HPB, Judge, etc." is plain crazy and there is no other, better way of putting it. We have people here who are making a difference today, combining the highest wisdom and following their own lights without the reliance on masters, imaginary or otherwise.  They are doing the right things for their own sakes, which is the highest calling of all, otherwise known as "Service to that Supreme Spirit alone".

It is time to get out of this Victorian rabbit h*** and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.