Talk:Theosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Old comments from 2002
This article appears to be a collection of quotes... where are these quotes all from? Did whoever put them here have permission to quote them? (The amount of text quoted, especially in comparison to the amount of unquoted text, probably exceeds the amount permitted under fair use.) SJK 15:29, January 10, 2002
Also, it would be useful to have some information on when, where and by who theosophy was founded, and where its beliefs derived from...i.e. its historical sources. -- SJK 15:29, January 10, 2002
Apparently from the web site cited in the article: see http://www.ts-adyar.org/theosophy.html - but where are they from? -- The Anome 16:02, January 10, 2002
I agree with SJK here re fair use. Quotations from a creed do not really make for a good encyclopedia article in any case. I'd like to hear from the person/people who added this article, before we just remove all the quotes. --LMS (Larry Sanger) 17:42, January 10, 2002
I'm still working on the article. I plan to paraphrase all the quotes and add comments of my own, as well as some history. Sorry to create such a stir! :) F. Lee Horn
Better now? NO, it is not DONE! ;))) F. Lee Horn 21:02, January 10, 2002
Sorry this is taking so long to write, but I can only take Theosophy in small doses! (unsigned, undated entry from February 2002)
[edit] Congratulations!
I have been a Member of the Teosophical Society for over 20 year. I not only congratulate your efforts but thank you for helping us spreading the existence of the Divine Wisdom. Theosophy is not an easy matter and I understand you cannot tackle it all at once. Thank you once again and keep the good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.199.99.237 (talk • contribs) 11:31, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I see that there is a Samael Aun Weor quote in the article. Is he considered a member of Theosophy? I would think otherwise. Luis Dantas 13:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reason I have deleted the irrelevent comments from this talk page is that they do not discuss the article, which is what this talk page is for. Furthermore, they may be interpreted as offensive. --Blainster 00:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One of the root races in Theososophy is the Aryan. The word "Aryan" translates as "noble". I'm not sure exactly what significance the concept of nobility has in Theosophy.Gringo300 12:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Research Topic
Can somebody please search for the perported racist and anti-semitic quotes made by Mm. Blavatsky and Alice Baily. I am thinking of making a balancing heading on this article which may reveal some unpleasant things about this religion (please try to study the context also, I do not want to go on a wild goos chase by adding presumptions). Also add it's possible foundation in racist enterpretations of the Varna system.
I feel there are some issues that we must tackle here, serious issues that may involve much of the New Age and "Postmodernism"... (See: [1] and [2]. Thank you, see my other contributions.
RoyBot 11:46pm, 17 Dec 2005
I mean Alice Bailey is easy: http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/bailey.html "The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God [and against the Aryan race, whom Bailey admires] Thus the history of the wandering Jew began and the Jew since has known no lasting peace."
As for the Varna system, if you want to cite rascism, you need to look to what India did with it. Origonally, the Varna system origonally had nothing to do with race, and one's position was NOT inherited. Sethie 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Actually, according to madame Blavatsky's "The secret Doctrine" , the Jews were part of the Aryan Race. --Vindheim 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Earth Changes delete
Hey, would you people care to give your opinion about Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes -- Subramanian talk 08:47, October 11, 2005
[edit] Reincarnation, Karma in Chistianism
Hello! We may need your opinions here, as the article on karma, as well as the article on bible and reincarnation, have been labeled tendentious (POV). Subramanian talk 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course there is Karma in Christianity, the the word for sin (Chet) and Dharma are antinyms (Chet, as you may have heard, is an archery term similar to "foul" in baseball). In Christian theology, man is inherently unable to fulfill his dharma (as is quite evident). The scape goats, sin offerings, peace offereings, and Christos himself can be coneptualized as a kind of shock obsorber, taking in an ever compounding negative force (which generally overwhelms our attempts to express it possitively). However, if you mean karma as reincarnation, the answer is negative, (we are ressurected, possibly implanted into superior, possibly mechanical beings given the scriptural description).
RoyBot 06:21pm, Dec 18 2005
[edit] Theosophy and theosophy
I came to this page from the Wiki article on Jakob Bohme. Bohme's theosophy is distinct from the Theosophical Society that this article treats. This distinction is recognized in most academic study of Western esoteric thought presently. See, for example, http://www.theohistory.org/prospectus.html - esp. note 1. Mixed into this article are references to both senses of the word, and this is very misleading and confusing.
I propose that a disambiguation page be created and an article be made that deals with 'lower-case "t"' theosophy, and that the few references here to that sense of the word be removed and placed in the new article. I may be able to do this myself at some point or someone else may offer to do it. I will wait to see what people think before I take any further action ofcourse. Aglie 23:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Swastika' or 'fylfot'?
I am not sure that the word 'swastika' conveys the innocent, apolitical intentions of Theosophists' use of this symbol. See [[3]]. Etaonsh 08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For Indian Hindus and Theosophists, the swastika continues to be a symbol of auspiciousness. It has existed for millenia as such, and became part of the Theosophical logo well before its appropriation by the Nazis. Recent European history should not be the sole determinant for what is appropriate for Wikipedia, if this encyclopedia is to have global relevance.--Chhaprahiya@yahoo.com 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
I would question the neutrality of this article. I refer you to the first paragraph, claiming the coherence of Theosophy. Perhaps this should be re-worded to avoid any neutrality issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.36.79 (talk • contribs) 12:37, May 22, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] seal of theosophical society
The seal shown is not that of the main theosophical society (TS- Adyar). I have therefore removed it's description.--Vindheim 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC) The seal was deleted:
[edit] Delete external link to Terry Bergeson?
I'm Athansor 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)new to Wikipedia, so I thought I should ask before I acted.
In External links, there is a link to a Wikipedia page on Terry Bergeson, a state politician who happens to be a theosophist. The page itself looks a little suspect to me. A person seeking knowledge about theosophy isn't like to gain very much from following this link.
I would suggest that the link be deleted.
Athansor 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Including Dr. Bergeson in the list of theosophists is essential. Her work in introducing Theosophical teachings into public education should not be ignored nor minimized.
I highly recommend keeping the link.
B8 3 February 2007
[edit] Major blanking
Since "Theosophy" means much more than Blavatskean Theosophy, I've moved most of that material to Theosophical Society. Hope the edit sticks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.160.171 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- Probably not. The Theosophical Society page is about the organisation. This page is about the Philosophy and Religion. If you fancy to do something useful, you can well write something about the "other theosophy" here or on a dedicated separate article. --Mallarme 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think you have it backwards. "Theosophy" is the broader term (as HPB herself says), and was around for literally thousands of years before her. If a new article is needed, it should be "Blavatskean Theosophy" or something, and leave this as the more general one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.169.39 (talk • contribs).
Wikipedia uses the most common name of a person or thing. When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? For example, the page about jazz should simply be called "Jazz", not "Jazz music", because "jazz" refers in almost any context to a genre of music, and the simpler title makes linking easier. Adding the word "music" is redundant. We use Julius Caesar (not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus.) Even if there are many other Julius Caesar's Julius Caesar (disambiguation). You can well write something about the "other theosophy" here or on a dedicated separate article. --Mallarme 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I suppose our disagreement is about how (un)important Blavatskean Theosophy is viz. other forms. I would compare the situation with "Madonna"--a search engine will yield links about the entertainer, but the encyclopedia should give priority to the Virgin Mary. In both cases the wider, older term should get priority.
- So Lucius Julius Caesar should now also be the Julius Caesar article, because he lived before the more famous one? Wikipedia uses the most common name for the article name. When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? Even if modern Theosophy is not the oldest Theosophy of the world, it is the most common use of the name. The articles discusses both concepts, and since the modern use of the term is much more common and has much more secondary sources, it has more place in the article. You are not willing or not able to write anything about your "Theosophy" in this or another article, but you only blank everything about the modern use of the term. This is just vandalism. --Mallarme 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Could we please hear from people other than Mallarme?
[edit] sorry for not using proper italicised english transliteration
Thanatos666 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)