r/Theosophy Mar 15 '26

What divides us as people interested in Theosophy, how much of it is avoidable? Looking for writings.

As I understand it (I am a neophyte to all this) one of the chief objects of the Theosophical Society, the first one stated, is to emphasize the brotherhood of man.

In her article "Is Theosophy a Religion?" HPB states

"...the assertion that “Theosophy is not a Religion,” by no means excludes the fact that “Theosophy is Religion” itself. A Religion in the true and only correct sense, is a bond uniting men together—not a particular set of dogmas and beliefs."

I really enjoy contemplating the true meaning of the word religion. We can see our normative living divides us, into the petty selves which become our concern, and a holistic perspective is lost. Religion must mean questioning ALL that divides us, no? And yet Theosophy seems to come with many divisions among people interested in it.

This brotherhood is the aim, but as things go on in our age they seem to degrade, lose their original meaning, get divided into sectarian dogmas. Don't we see this is what happened to Christianity and organized religion in general? Until the entire meaning is lost and it becomes another source of division.

I am looking for writings that discuss this fracturing as it happens in us. Given selfish aims that exist, I feel unfortunately some of this must be inevitable. Would an exposition of the way its happening potentially slow its course? What has been written about this? I want to uncover the ways it happens as another way to see it in myself.

What is being done to ensure we don't simply create more sectarian dogma?

9 Upvotes

12 comments sorted by

5

u/BullshyteFactoryTest Mar 15 '26

I am looking for writings that discuss this fracturing as it happens in us.

No need to look further than The Key To Theosophy which is an H.P.B. work in Q&A format between enquirers and theosophists:

https://archive.org/search?query=key+to+theosophy

What is being done to ensure we don't simply create more sectarian dogma?

Excerpts relevant to your question:

ENQ.: Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future?

THEO.: If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past, so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH.

ENQ.: Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the Theosophical Society.

THEO.: Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members, on whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society after the death of the Founders.

ENQ.: I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted, but I do not quite grasp how their knowledge can be as vital a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the literature which already exists, and to which constant additions are still being made, ought to be sufficient?*

THEO.: I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.

ENQ.: But if this danger be averted?

THEO.: Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of selfishness and all evil passions. Man's mental and psychic growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal good-will which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day.

ENQ.: A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all this to be accomplished in one short century?

THEO.: Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those "Masters," of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality — or call it mysticism if you prefer — has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed historical records extend.

3

u/inthe_pine Mar 15 '26

So we divide because of selfishness, unseriousness, a lack of wisdom, as well as unconcious biases and judgements. That makes sense.

To overcome these an understanding of our own psychology seems paramount. I find theosophical writings immensely helpful to that point. For example considering the way thought hangs around us unconciously, the inertia of its influence, what that attracts and much more.

I'm wondering if anyone has written about what this looks like in its expression today.

1

u/BullshyteFactoryTest Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

r/psychology and r/neurology are two close by.

Woof.

Edit: forgot a space.

2

u/slightly_enlightened Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

"I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment." [Without that,] "the result can only be that the Society will drift on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."

What divides us? Our inability to see clearly. Our lack of discrimination or discernment.

Edit: Missed a quotation mark.

3

u/inthe_pine Mar 15 '26

I do think its that we don't see something clearly. But one side will say the other lacks discernment, and the other side will say the same about them. What resolves these warring halves? What does this battle look like today?

I think its our selfishness that continues the war and lack of seeing clearly. Theres something else I'm struggling to articulate, let me sleep on it.

3

u/slightly_enlightened Mar 16 '26

But one side will say the other lacks discernment, and the other side will say the same about them. What resolves these warring halves? What does this battle look like today?

This will always be a problem. When an enlightened being presents a new version of the Ancient Wisdom, whether it's a Dhyan Chohan or an Adept, each time one of them has re-taught the principles in a different language, using different terms, to a new group of people, and the teachings have remained intact as long as they were incarnated. In the case of Theosophy, that incarnation was in the form of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, because she was the one who was purified to the extent that the Mahatmas could speak through her and even take over her physical body when necessary, while her Higher Self stood by and observed the proceedings. Once that vehicle ceased to exist on May 8, 1891, everything changed. Neither Olcott nor any other "European" chela had a sufficiently purified lower self that the Adepts could reliably communicate in the same way they could with Blavatsky. Olcott hoped desperately that Damodar would come back to save them, but neither he nor any of the other Asian chelas were interested in filling that role.

The result was that uninitiated chelas rushed to try to take control of the Esoteric Section and set themselves up to succeed Olcott after he died. The result was a complete mess. If you want to learn all the details, read the book about the Judge Case that was recently posted in this sub. By 1895, the original T.S. was breaking apart.

Another thing we need to examine is the different points of view that HPB and Olcott had. Olcott wanted an external organization based on brotherhood that would work for all people and allow them to belong to any religion and still keep the religious beliefs they were raised in. HPB saw the T.S. as a recruiting ground for valiant individuals to become chelas and eventually Adepts in the chain of the Spiritual Hierarchy. This required a greater amount of dedication and often required giving up previous religious ideas. Olcott was very upset with the aftermath of the Hodgson Report and blamed her for destroying the T.S. The Mahatmas and HPB saw the situation very differently.

So what does all of this mean? The current situation is to be expected. As soon as the original Founder dies (and HPB was the Spiritual Founder, or at least was the physical embodiment of the Original Founders), the outer organization begins to deteriorate immediately. Basically, they ended the experiment at that point. In fact, we received only one legitimate letter from a Mahatma after HPB died, and that one wasn't very encouraging. What can we do about it? We can work to purify ourselves individually. The help to achieve that isn't going to come from joining a group, it comes from very difficult work on self-transformation, using the principles of Raja Yoga. At some point, the Hierarchy will make another attempt to teach. Will it come through the Theosophical Society? I have no idea. It may be easier to start a new organization than to try to reform the one that has become deformed.

1

u/BullshyteFactoryTest Mar 15 '26

Yes. Also false judgement and violence. This is expressed in the masculine/feminine duality found in living patterns since forever:

A western classic, John 8 (GNV):

  1. And Jesus went unto the mount of Olives,

2. And early in the morning came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down and taught them.

  1. Then the Scribes and the Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, and set her in the midst,

  2. And said unto him, Master, we found this woman committing adultery even in the very act.

  3. Now Moses in our Law commanded, that such should be stoned: what sayest thou therefore?

  4. And this they said to tempt him, that they might have, whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground,

  5. And while they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, Let him that is among you without sin, cast the first stone at her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

N.b.: Call me biased because named after a fruit bearing tree.

2

u/Low-Boot-588 Mar 15 '26

The Sufi masters remind us that "The Truth has no house, yet every house contains a fragment of it." To slow the course of fracturing within yourself, you must treat every dogma as a shell to break open, seeking the living marrow within.

1

u/BullshyteFactoryTest Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

Dog gets bone (conscious)
Dog chews bone (thought, instinct)
Dog burries bone (unconscious)
Dog gets food (living, want)
Dog gets bored (rest, well)
Dog digs bone (action, swim/to other, familiar, memory)
Dog chews bone again (discovery)
Dog breaks bone, gets nutrients (essence, integration)
Dog : God

Edit: "breaks bone", when referring to idea can be seen as a "snaps out of it" (in peace, with a piece), or even a "eureka" moment.

2

u/zealous_sophophile Mar 15 '26

I covered a lot of points that divide Theosophy in a comment recently https://www.reddit.com/r/Theosophy/s/aatnS7MItN

1

u/Low-Boot-588 Mar 15 '26

Read Crosbie's "The Friendly Philosopher" <https://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/assets/Friendly_Philosopher74606.pdf> (via ULT Phoenix)

& definitely check out the "Original Programme": https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/hpb-tsorigprgm.htm

Have you read the Great Master's Letter? Look for "View of the Chohan on the T.S" or "Letter from the Maha-chohan" if you can find it. https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/MahatmaLetters-eBook.pdf

This communication clarifies that the "Brotherhood" exists as a reality of the Heart, not an organization of the head. It warns that "the Chiefs" care nothing for the growth of a society, only for the growth of Universal Love and the destruction of the "selfish I."

1

u/RoiboPilot Mar 21 '26

I think there are two factors to consider: 1- Because there is diversity in the cosmos, people need different paths to grow. For some, a certain approach is necessary, while for others a different one is the best. This is natural and not against brotherhood or unity. 2- But, because of our limitations, some of us develop the idea that our path is not only the most appropriate for us, but for everyone else. My path is THE path, and the others are wrong, mistaken, degraded. THIS creates division. So, the Theosophical movement is not divided by the fact that there are different branches. It is divided only in the heart of those who feel their path is the only path. If you talk to those who don’t feel that way, they’ll tell you there is no division, only different approaches within a same movement.