Theosophy—What is it?

Hello there!

I have ordered from your company, and enjoy your books. I was reading your review regarding C. S. Lewis, and noticed your use of the word “theosophy.” Having majored in philosophy, I didn’t recall the same definition, so I looked it up. According to the Oxford dictionary, its definition is: 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; from the Greek, wise concerning God. I don’t think that would be the opposite of theology, which can also be non-Christian. I don’t mean to be critical; I do think you could be a little clearer so that those who disagree won’t be able to accuse you of misstating the facts. I have written some possible changes in all caps. How about this?

Theology is the study of relating to God. Theosophy is OFTEN the study of relating to God’s opposite or archenemy. The Chronicles ARE full of NON-CHRISTIAN, theosophical beliefs. The idea that God’s enemies go to heaven is a distinct theosophical tenet. This only makes sense. Those who serve and worship the devil do not expect to spend eternity in hellfire and brimstone for doing so.

Most theosophy is thrust upon the world today as its opposite—CHRISTIAN theology. The reason is obvious. Most people would not accept it for what is at face value, but disguised as religion, church, faith, etc, it is readily acceptable to those who have less care for being discerning. The American Theosophical Society met in 1901 to discuss how to plan and implement the goal of propagating theosophy throughout this nation and the world. The conclusion drafted at that convention stated that such propagation was only possible through the churches—that theosophical values must be disguised as Christian or religious to be accepted popularly. So what are we being taught by these scholars that tell us that all this theosophy is actually Christian?

I haven’t had the time to read all of the reviews, but they certainly look very informative. Thanks for all the great work you’re doing!

Linda

Hi Linda,

Thanks for the input. It was a great question. Sometimes, though I attempt to be as explanatory as possible, I simply ought to have gone into greater detail. I think that, rather than change the article, I will post your comments with the article along with my answer. I do so because I can see others having the same thoughts, but I really think that we are talking about the same thing here. The Oxford Dictionary, being a secular work, makes no real attempt to distinguish Christianity as the one true faith. In fact, the more common theme among secular works of this century is to lean toward effacing that distinguishment. Consider for a moment . . .

“. . . professing to achieve a knowledge of God by spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations,”—These are all special phenomena experienced by the individual. God’s people know Him first through His Word, and next through obedience to the same rules that apply to every individual who wishes to come to Him. Things like spiritual ecstasy are foreign to God’s Word. Direct intuition such as channeling are not needed because of His Word. As far as special individual relations, God is no respecter of persons. You see, these ideas are all in conflict with Christianity which is the real theology.

“. . . esp. a modern movement following Hindu and Buddhist teachings and seeking universal brotherhood;”—We need here, first, I think, to remember that when we are dealing with Buddhism and Hinduism, we are not even dealing with God. We are dealing with gods. No one really argues that these belief systems are based on the one true God. We must remember that the worship of gods is the worship of the antichrist. This is really the opposite of theology.

“. . . wise concerning God”—Here, I simply have to disagree with the definition given. When you have borne me out (seen the next few definitions), I think you will agree. But first, “theosophy” is an English word not a Greek one. Though it comes from the Greek “theos” denoting God and “sophos” denoting wisdom, these Greek meanings in no way imply a meaning of “wise concerning God.” This wisdom in the Greek includes a broad range of meanings. It can mean things like cunning and slyness, which is where we get our English word sophism, which means according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: fr Greek - clever device, artifice; to become wise, act craftily, deceive, deal in sophisms; fr sophos skilled, clever, wise. 1) an argument that is correct in form and appearance but is actually invalid; esp, an argument used for deception, disputation or the display of personal brilliance. 2) specious reasoning. 3) sophistry.

This meaning of “sophos” fits much more appropriately the ideologies and philosophies of a theosophist (theo-sophist - one who offers perverted arguments about God). Remember, this group specifically chose their name and best knows its meaning. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says a theosophist is one who pretends to derive his knowledge from divine illumination. This was obviously the meaning when these people decided to go by this name (Theosophical Society) in 1875. There are hundreds of books on theosophy and it is found all over the internet. I personally have been unable to find any theosophic material that has not been thoroughly laced with occult ideas.

I would not consider Webster’s Third New International Dictionary to be more Christian or less secular than any others nowadays, however, it does offer a more complete definition of the term theosophy: 1) a body of doctrine relating to deity, cosmos, and self and held to rest on direct intuitions of supersensible reality by preternaturally perceptive individuals and to give a wisdom superior to that of historical religion of empirical philosophy of science by which the initiate can master nature and guide his destiny: a system of often occult and esoteric thought presented as a means of individual salvation and sometimes associated with mysticism, pantheism, or magic. 2) a syncretistic system of theosophy following chiefly Hindu philosophies and associated with a movement originating in the US in 1875, aiming to serve through its societies as the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of man and to guide the individual toward perfect wisdom through the study of world literature on the laws of the universe and through the development under the esoteric teachings of mahatmas of his latent inner senses responsive to the invisible cosmos, and teaching physical and spiritual evolution (as of the soul through reincarnations); also: the modern movement promulgating this theosophy.

I would almost wholly agree with this definition except, when we speak of a belief system based upon supersensible reality, preternaturally perceptivity, and the mastering of one’s destiny presented as a means of salvation, and mixed with mysticism, pantheism and magic, I do not personally think that we would be correct in saying that these ideas are often occult. I think we must say always occult. Each and every tenet presented is an occult tenet, and though theosophists claim to be one world-wide brotherhood, let us remember that Christianity is based on the concept of exclusivity. Those who do not belong to the one true Christ are neither brothers of Jesus nor members of His church, and as such will not share eternity with Him.

Following are a few quotes from What are the Theosophists written by H. P. Blavatsky, considered by most to be the mother of all modern theosophy:

1) “He who would seriously attempt to fathom the psychological sciences, must come to the sacred land of ancient Aryâvarta. None is older than she in esoteric wisdom and civilization, however fallen may be her poor shadow—modern India.”

2) Quoting an Anglo-Indian journal—“the only direction in which, it seems to us, the efforts of the Theosophists in India might possibly be useful. The leading members of the Theosophical Society in India are known to be very advanced students of occult phenomena, already, and we cannot but hope that their professions of interest in Oriental philosophy . . . may cover a reserved intention of carrying out explorations of the kind we indicate.”

3) “With how much, then, of this nature-searching, God-seeking science of the ancient Aryan and Greek mystics, and of the powers of modern spiritual mediumship, does the Society agree? Our answer is: with it all. But if asked what it believes in, the reply will be: "As a body--Nothing." The Society, as a body, has no creed, as creeds are but the shells around spiritual knowledge;”

4) “But, when we come to consider ourselves individually, it is quite another thing. The Society's members represent the most varied nationalities and races, and were born and educated in the most dissimilar creeds and social conditions. Some of them believe in one thing, others in another. Some incline towards the ancient magic, or secret wisdom that was taught in the sanctuaries, which was the very opposite of supernaturalism or diabolism; others in modern spiritualism, or intercourse with the spirits of the dead; still others in mesmerism or animal magnetism, or only an occult dynamic force in nature.”

5) “But as all work for one and the same object, namely, the disenthralment of human thought, the elimination of superstitions, and the discovery of truth, all are equally welcome. The attainment of these objects, all agree, can best be secured by convincing the reason and warming the enthusiasm of the generation of fresh young minds, that are just ripening into maturity, and making ready to take the place of their prejudiced and conservative fathers.”

I hope that, though you may not agree with all of my positions, that you can at least understand why I feel that I should not change the review. However, as I said before, I appreciate your comments, and I feel that they have provoked a discussion yielding a much richer presentation of all the thoughts and ideas involved in this topic, which is often dealt with so subtly and nonchalantly that they are very often overlooked altogether.

Best regards,

Jeff Zakula