Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
HPB-SB-8-345: Difference between revisions
Заполнено начало статьи по скану страницы
mNo edit summary |
(Заполнено начало статьи по скану страницы) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{HPB-SB-header | {{HPB-SB-header | ||
| volume = 8 | | volume = 8 | ||
| page = 345 | | page = 345 | ||
| image = SB-08-345.jpg | | image = SB-08-345.jpg | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
<center>{{Style S-Small capitals|the theosophist}}</center> | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
| item = 1 | | item = 1 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = 346 | | continues = 346, 348 | ||
| author = | | author = Blavatsky, H.P. | ||
| title = What is Theosophy | | title = What is Theosophy. | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = Theosophist, The | | source title = Theosophist, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = Vol. I, No. 1, October 1879 | ||
| publication date = | | publication date = 1879-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | This question has been so often asked, and misconception so widely prevails, that the Editors of a journal devoted to an exposition of the world’s Theosophy would be remiss were its first number issued without coming to a full understanding with their readers. But our heading involves two further queries: What is the Theosophical Society; and what are the Theosophists? To each an answer will be given. | ||
According to lexicographers, the term ''theosophia'' is composed of two Greek words—''theos'', “god,” and ''sophos'', “wise.” So far, correct. But the explanations that follow are far from giving a clear idea of Theosophy. Webster defines it most originally as “a supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits, and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge, by ''physical processes'', and by the theurgic operations of some ancient Platonists, or by the ''chemical processes'' of the German fire-philosophers.” | |||
This, to say the least, is a poor and flippant explanation. To attribute such ideas to men like Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, Jamblichus, Porphyry, Proclus—shows either intentional misrepresentation, or Mr. Webster’s ignorance of the philosophy and motives of the greatest geniuses of the later Alexandrian School. To impute to those whom their contemporaries as well as posterity styled “theodidaktoi,” god-taught—a purpose to develope their psychological, spiritual perceptions by “physical processes,” is to describe them as materialists. As to the concluding fling at the fire-philosophers, it rebounds from them to fall home among our most eminent modern men of science; those, in whose mouths the Rev. James Martineau places the following boast: “matter is all we want; give us atoms alone, and we will explain the universe.” | |||
Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. “A Theosophist,” he says—“is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis.” In this view every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent opinions. | |||
There were Theosophists before the Christian era, notwithstanding that the Christian writers ascribe the development of the Eclectic theosophical system, to the early part of the third century of their Era. Diogenes Laërtius traces Theosophy to an epoch antedating the dynasty of the Ptolemies; and names as its founder an Egyptian Hierophant called Pot-Amun, the name being Coptic and signifying a priest consecrated to Amun, the god of Wisdom. But history shows it revived by Ammonius Saccas, the founder of the Neo-Platonic School. He and his disciples called themselves “Philaletheians”—lovers of the truth; while others termed them the “Analogists,” on account of their method of interpreting all sacred legends, symbolical myths and mysteries, by a rule of analogy or correspondence, so that events which had occurred in the external world were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human soul. It was the aim and purpose of Ammonius to reconcile all sects, peoples and nations under one common faith—a belief in one Supreme, Eternal, Unknown, and Unnamed Power, governing the Universe by immutable and eternal laws. His object was to prove a primitive system of Theosophy, which at the beginning was essentially alike in all countries; to induce all men to lay aside their strifes and quarrels, and unite in purpose and thought as the children of one common mother; to purify the ancient religions, by degrees corrupted and obscured, from all dross of human element, by uniting and expounding them upon pure philosophical principles. Hence, the Buddhistic, Vedantic and Magian, or Zoroastrian, systems were taught in the Eclectic theosophical school along with all the philosophies of Greece. Hence also, that pre-eminently Buddhistic and Indian feature among the ancient Theosophists of Alexandria, of due reverence for parents and aged persons; a fraternal affection for the whole human race; and a compassionate feeling for even the dumb animals. While seeking to establish a system of moral discipline which enforced upon people the duty to live according to the laws of their respective countries; to exalt their minds by the research and contemplation of the one Absolute Truth; his chief object in order, as he believed, to achieve all others, was to extract from the various religious teachings, as from a many-chorded instrument, one full and harmonious melody, which would find response in every truth-loving heart. | |||
Theosophy is, then, the archaic ''Wisdom-Religion'', the esoteric doctrine once known in every ancient country having claims to civilization. This “Wisdom” all the old writings show us as an emanation of the divine Principle; and the clear comprehension of it is typified in such names as the Indian Buddh, the Babylonian Nebo, the Thoth of Memphis, the Hermes of Greece; in the appelations, also, of some goddesses—Metis, Neitha, Athena, the Gnostic ''Sophia'', and finally—the ''Vedas'', from the word “to know.” Under this designation, all the ancient philosophers of the East and West, the Hierophants of old Egypt, the Rishis of Aryavart, the Theodidaktoi of Greece, included all knowledge of things occult and essentially divine. The ''Mercavah'' of the Hebrew Rabbis, the secular and popular series, were thus designated as only the vehicle, the outward shell which contained the higher esoteric knowledges. The Magi of Zoroaster received instruction and were initiated in the caves and secret lodges of Bactria; the Egyptian and Grecian hierophants had their ''aporrheta'', or secret discourses, during which the ''Mystæ'' became an ''Epoptæ''—a Seer. | |||
The central idea of the Eclectic Theosophy was that of a single Supreme Essence, Unknown and ''Unknowable''—for—“How could one know the knower?” as enquires ''Brihadâranyaka Upanishad''. Their system was characterized by three distinct features: the theory of the above-named Essence; the doctrine of the human soul—an emanation from the latter, hence of the same nature; and its theurgy. It is this last science which has led the Neo-Platonists to be so misrepresented in our era of materialistic science. Theurgy being essentially the art of applying the divine powers of man to the subordination of the blind forces of nature, its votaries were first termed magicians—a corruption of the word “Magh,” signifying a wise, or learned man and—derided. Skeptics of a century ago would have been as wide of the mark if they had laughed at the idea of a phonograph or a telegraph. The ridiculed and the “infidels” of one generation generally become the wise men and saints of the next. | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|8-346}} | As regards the Divine Essence and the nature of the soul and spirit, modern Theosophy believes now as ancient Theosophy did. The popular ''Diu'' of the Aryan nations was identical with the ''Iao'' of the Chaldeans, and even with the Jupiter of the less learned and philosophical among the Romans; and it was just as identical with the ''Jahve'' of the Samaritans, the ''Tiu'' or “Tiusco” of the Northmen, the ''Duw'' of the Britains, and the Zeus of the Thracians. As to the Absolute Essence, the One and All—whether we accept the Greek Pythagorean, the Chaldean Kabalistic, or the Aryan philosophy in regard to it, it will all lead to one and the same result. The Primeval Monad of the Pythagorean system, which retires into darkness and is itself Darkness (for human intellect) was made the basis of all things; and we can find the idea in{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|8-346}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||