This is kind of a difficult topic so please bare with me. Theosophy is originally another term for theology. It is in fact a very old term. The original discussions of theosophy and its relevance stem from a world view that saw the concept of divinity as both a devotional and a naturalistic issue. Many of the very old texts of natural philosophy actually make theosophical statements along side their naturalistic observations. In fact, even before the terms formal use this sort of thinking was present in classical philosophy. The works of Plato and Aristotle did include what is ultimately theosophical reasoning.
So perhaps it was once closer to Taoism with the naturalistic observations? In a sense yes, without the full fledged development maybe, at least not in medieval Europe. To the Europeans it was more a philosophical tendency than a genuinely perceived and acknowledged path of wisdom except maybe in small groups – mystery cults as they are typically called. The two schools of religion were not so separate in common understanding as they are today, and the reason for the dominance of “faith” based religion was more of a political agenda than a genuine interest in seeking spiritual truth. You can even still hear references today to ideas like the hand of god playing out in the workings of the universe and the ordered patterns of nature.
Easier to control people who have ‘faith.’
Today, this sort of thinking is more figurative, a combination of rhetoric and metaphor used in an effort to express intuitions that we are left largely unable to express in a meaningful way today, but originally these observations were not seen as figurative. They were believed to be literal.
So there was not a single strategy for achieving salvation. There were two. One was simple devotion to the divine order in whatever way you understood it to manifest, and this strategy was used world wide not just in what might seem to have been a benighted Europe. The general view was that the world was the way it was because god or the gods wanted it to be that way.
So obedience to the existing order was thought to be perhaps the first and best way to earn divine favour and thus salvation. Some sentiments from the east are actually manifestations of this though we would not necessarily recognize them as such. Submission to the pattern known among other things as the mandate of heaven was seen as a way to achieve and preserve spiritual purity in China for one example.
“At the core of every religion is a sense that order exists in the universe, and that our supreme good and happiness lie in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” — Wm. James 1902. Indeed, very relevant. Thank you.
For others “getting by” didn’t seem to make sense. They felt like people were missing something, so among themselves they started another path, more a system of philosophical inquiry, and although it might on the surface seem to parallel metaphysics it is really in essence quite different. I will summarize and then we can perhaps discuss the finer points as seems desirable.
To theosophical thinkers, obedience could not be exercised to something that presented a too obvious body of rules. The authorities and their rules obviously suited themselves more than whatever divinity might actually play a hand in nature.
A power game? The obedience based line of thinking was seen as a power game, yes, and some theosophical thinkers actually tried their hand at manipulating it as well. An attempt to improve the system from the inside. Orthodoxy has never had the iron grip on spiritual thinking it would have us believe.
That makes sense that any god would be beyond a human rule set.
As they say, history in written by the victors, and victory can be achieved in a variety of ways.
In this case it was a victory of the most manipulative, but yes, the second school of thought was roughly this, that rather than salvation through obedience and faith, one could discover rather than achieve salvation. Salvation through understanding rather than obedience. A sentiment loosely expressed in more modern concepts like Christian Science.
I ponder Council of Nicaea… A very relevant moment from history in this case.
Gnosis?
Yana yoga?
And theosophical thinking does parallel Gnosticism in many ways. Yana yoga as well. Where it differs is contemplative orientation. Theosophical thinkers observed that obedience seemed to make no genuine difference in the well being or prosperity of the world as a whole, so they came to the conclusion that this was not in fact what god wanted (and this conclusion even has some backing in the bible), but instead we were meant to understand and capitalize on the order that the divine provided for us. That the secrets of divine will and providence were written into the stuff of matter itself.
If the divinities invested themselves in “creation” – the physical/mental/emotional realms – then to “know” anything in those realms would be knowing the divinities, or at least some part of them, no? Yes, it would be, though there would be argument about whether knowing is enough. There is also the assertion that one must have the daring to act upon such divine knowledge to actually enact change in the world. Sort of a put up or shut up clause. In this they differed from Gnostic thinkers who most commonly just saw the material world as a distraction, not worthy of much concern.
Theosophy of 19th century was more influenced by Buddhism than Christianity? You are correct. It could be argued that the resurgence of theosophy in that time was more a Neo-theosophy than a continuation of anything from the time before.
We’re talking about the 19th Century now? No, I won’t visit that material in much depth.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.
Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~