DIFFERENT THEOSOPHIES

PART ONE

It appears to be generally assumed by many that "Theosophy" as a topic refers exclusively to the doctrines first presented in the latter quarter of the 19th century by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky via her works "Isis Unveiled" and "The Secret Doctrine."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary states:

"theosophy // n. (pl. -ies)

any of various philosophies professing to achieve a knowledge of God by spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, esp. a modern movement following Hindu and Buddhist teachings and seeking universal brotherhood.

theosopher n.

theosophic // adj.

theosophical // adj.

theosophically // adv.

theosophist n.

[medieval Latin theosophia from late Greek theosophia, from theosophos 'wise concerning God' (as theo-, sophos 'wise')]"

Note: "esp. a modern movement following Hindu and Buddhist teachings and seeking universal brotherhood."

- which is the usually accepted modern definition.

But also note: "any of various philosophies professing to achieve a knowledge of God by spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations"

This latter is the *primary* definition, and itself includes three possibilities:

1. A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by spiritual ecstasy;

2. A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by direct intuition;

3. A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by special individual relations.

Note also that the commonly assumed Theosophy (based upon the Blavatsky teachings) does *not* necessarily suggest any relationship with God (or a God).

Long before Blavatsky (or "H.P.B." as she is familiarly known) theosophists or theosophers were about their business in a variety of traditions, especially the alchemical, magical, and Kabbalist theosophies. Among such may be counted, in particular, Christian and Jewish mystics, as well as philosophers whose theological boundaries may have not been clear. Examples are Jacob Boehme, Francis Bacon, Cornelius Agrippa, Eliphas Levi and other less known persons.

The theosophy of spiritual ecstasy is perhaps of the Boehme variety, while the others named above probably fall mainly into the alchemical and magical categories.

Of particular interest in our own time are items 2. and 3. above. Item 2. in particular covers the mystical approach favoured in Christian literature by such as Evelyn Underhill and the unknown author of "The Cloud of Unknowing."

My personal inclination and practise has long been item 3: A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by special individual relations. THIS theosophy among theosophies (note the plural in the primary definition) is that of the Kabbalah, itself a subject of more than one approach.

Where the dictionary is lacking here is in any description of what is understood by "special individual relations," and it is very much the case that such a claim is often made among practitioners of "New Age" philosophies and teachers where the "individual relation" is described as "channelling."

Channelling is usually a purported teaching being received by a particular individual from a source of "individual relation" and is often given out as a teaching offered to the world from a particular intelligence *to the exclusion of any other such intelligence.*

In this category could be place, for example, the teachings that were given out in many volumes by Alice Bailey via a personage known to her as "The Tibetan." These are almost entirely a secondary source of material deriving in the first instance from the teachings of Blavatsky.

Where then does Kabbalah differ from, say, Bailey or New Age channellers, and in what respects does it share common ground with the theosophy of Blavatsky? Let me go back - so to speak - to square three:

3. A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by special individual relations.

The work of Bailey, for example, depends upon the prior work of Blavatsky, and the special individual relation is through "The Tibetan." Like Blavatsky's work, therefore, it has a history and a background, mainly, but not entirely, "a modern movement following Hindu and Buddhist teachings and seeking universal brotherhood." This is in some respects simplistic, but as a broad approach it suffices for most newcomers to the subject.

Blavatsky, however, also drew heavily in places upon Kabbalist sources for her work, though these were not her primary concerns, and were usually adduced to support some aspect of her particular teaching.

Blavatsky also, it must be emphasized, made a special point of claiming a tradition deriving, as the dictionary declares, from Hindu and Buddhist teachings, and, more importantly, referred her students to writings from those traditions deriving from ancient and mostly verifiable sources. This is where she differs from most of the latter-day theosophists following in her footsteps, who mostly reiterated the same sources - such as Annie Besant, C. Jinarajadasa, and C.W.Leadbeater, all of whom added their own "take" on the philosophy, often, alas, to its detriment, but the same may be said of the Kabbalist philosophy and its own latter-day exponents, especially those of the "magical" persuasion.

My own approach is most definitely not of the "magical" persuasion, but shares with Blavatsky the existence of a long and ancient historical tradition and literature. This tradition and literature differs in that its origins lie in Jewish and Christian teachings and literature, including, but not exclusively so, the writings of what is popularly called "The Bible." It is also "A philosophy professing to achieve a knowledge of God by special individual relations," but not, as with Bailey, a particular individual intelligence (such as Jesus, or "The Christ" or Abraham, etc.

With Kabbalah, the "individual relations" are with a number or series of teachers spanning centuries of teaching and tradition, or even, for all we know, hundreds of thousands of years. In this, Kabbalah has a special "something" in common with the Hindu followers of the still living Shankaracharya school of philosophy, differing on the surface at least with a number of aspects of that teaching, but below the surface, sharing a strong sense of identity and even perhaps an original origin or source.

The main difference for some, especially in my own approach, is the teaching of a doctrine of reincarnation for all incarnate beings. I hope to come to this in part two of this essay.

Alan Bain

March 1st 1999.