Jon Fergus

I couldn’t agree more with you on Plato and Taylor. I proofed/edited Taylor’s translation of Proclus’ “On the Theology of Plato” earlier this year and am now close to finishing his trans of Proclus’ commentary on the Timaeus. I’m blown away by both works, and am always impressed with Taylors explanations. I believe one could study English…[Read more]

Well, to my view, if we wish to try to reduce the theosophical philosophy down to one essential idea, that idea would be Universal Brotherhood. The study of the nature of reality is, in a certain sense, but a means to better realize the essential unity of all beings; and a greater understanding of the Secret Doctrine ought to pave the way for a…[Read more]

Thanks for tracking that down Peter. In regards to the substance of the quote, it strikes me as a quite poetic interpretation of Buddha’s message from the point of view of a westerner raised among Christian ideology. The “needing no testimony” idea is found in the Kalama Sutta and this quote here does seem to be a general paraphrase of that…[Read more]

It’s definitely not from Light of Asia. The earliest use of this quote I’ve found is from “Splendour Of Asia: The Story Of Teaching Of The Buddha” by
L. Adams Beck (1994), and he gives no reference for the quote; it seems rather to be his paraphrase. I see the same quote used again in “Cultural and Religious Heritage of India: Buddhism” by Suresh…[Read more]

Very interesting discussion. Thank you all.

This quote seems meaningful to me: “Knowledge is never and nowhere in the world separate from ignorance; neither is ignorance at any time and for anyone separate from knowledge,” especially if we combine it with this, from HPB:

“As we rise in the scale of development we perceive that during the stages…

[Read more]

re: comment #5478.

It is not either; scholars don’t need to convince theosophists and theosophists don’t need to convince scholars. The whole premise here is faulty.

In regards to “scholars”, it may be the case that a small handful of scholars do indeed have their “eyes open”, or that some scholars are indeed “wise men”. But if we take the bulk…[Read more]

Thanks for sharing this quote Ramprakash. Very fitting and wise words.

Well said Pierre.

Each of the statements made here (comment #5441) apply only to those who operate on the level of belief and blind faith in what others say. Creme followers believe they have truth, Bailey followers believe they do, “majority of theosophists” believe they do, “intelligensia” and scholars believe they do. So do fundamentalist Muslims, Christians,…[Read more]

All these attempts to categorize adepts and initiations, or to predict avatars, or to explain the working structure of the Brotherhood, etc. etc. are hilariously misguided, and about a light year away from what’s important in theosophy. Reminds me of the church fathers trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle while…[Read more]

When it comes to the Masters and what they teach, one ought to rely upon one’s own direct experience, and never on the claims of others, not even HPB. It is unimportant whether or not such and such individual claims to have been inspired by or taught by this or that so-called Master; it is only important what that person gives forward to the w…[Read more]

You are free to take it as you wish. However, pointed and strong disagreement, directly stated, is not synonymous with attack. Brotherhood can exist even when we strongly disagree (it’s not brotherhood if it can’t withstand that), but I don’t believe it can exist when we are not being forthright and honest in our communications or our motives.…[Read more]

James, there is nothing “clear” in any of this. It is but your interpretation of selected quotes and other interpolated ideas pieced together by you yourself. It is your theory, and whether or not HPB would agree in full is not something we can verify because she is long gone.

On one hand you criticize “certain websites” who throw around the…[Read more]

James, I just want to step in quickly with a thought. Whenever I hear someone say that “HPB has clearly stated” such and such… it makes me wonder if they’re reading the same HPB as me. 😉 Saying “HPB clearly stated” is quite similar, in my opinion, to saying “the bible clearly says” such and such. For most statements made by HPB one will find…[Read more]

I think this is a very important point, and one that is underestimated by many. The seeds of popery are well into germination already it would seem.

Looking at modern progression in the studies of the world’s religious traditions, I can see that as time goes on most serious students are beginning to use the Sanskrit (or Pali, Greek, etc.) terms when it comes to specific technical concepts. You won’t hear many Buddhist scholars, for instance, adopting English terms for technical terms in…[Read more]

Just want to share a few thoughts relating to some ideas shared thus far. Kristan, the way the word “illusion” is used drives me a little nuts too, so you’re definitely not alone there. I find it to be a wholly inadequate translation for the term “maya” (which HPB refers to as a “cosmic power“, not as illusion; see Theosophical Glossary and SD…[Read more]

I suppose we may add that the pineal gland must have it’s corresponding “organ” on each plane of our being; the pineal gland being the physical representative of some astral organ, which must be built upon the framework of something on the mental plane, and so on.

There would also appear to be an important symbolism in that it is called the Eye…[Read more]

This is a good point about “dual-aspect monism”, Samantha.

HPB notes that the esoteric philosophy is essentially an “Objective Idealism” (SD 1:631)

Earlier in the same section of the SD, she had also said the following:

“It may be correctly stated that were Leibnitz’ and Spinoza’s systems reconciled, the essence and Spirit of esoteric phi…

[Read more]