First off I belive that nothing happens by chance and there is a reason behind every single thing that happens to us, which is too learn from our experinces.

I have some questions about Theosophy and I do tend to rant so i'll apologize for that now. From my research this is what I have found out about Theosophy please correct me where I falter.

all or most of the worlds religions are teaching the same ideas with a little different spin on it due to the times in which the ideas were formed and the people who came up these ideas. This is because the leading figues in the religions were members of the Great White Brotherhood or Ascended Masters who brought these teaching to us so we could learn and evolve spirtually and hopfully leave our phiscally bodies behind and Ascend/gain Enlightment

so we will all natrually evolve into these Ascended beings or must we gain a tranforming knowledge that we are one and the same with nature and everything and realize our (lack of a better word) God-like potentiol as in Kabalah?

also planets, stars, and the entire cosmos are conscious beings?

I have found the online books and literature about these very confusing I understand that these are extremly complex ideas and theorys so they require a complex explanation but some of it seems (not trying to offend) like nonsense, so if somebody could explain to me some of the more complex ideas such as the Astral planes, Enlightenment and the Masters.

Hi, TheSeeker, and welcome to the Forum.

You asked,

"...nothing happens by chance and there is a reason behind every single thing that happens to us...."

--> There is a saying, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

"...all or most of the worlds religions are teaching the same ideas with a little different spin on it due to the times in which the ideas were formed and the people who came up these ideas. This is because the leading figues in the religions were members of the Great White Brotherhood or Ascended Masters who brought these teaching to us so we could learn and evolve spirtually and hopfully leave our phiscally bodies behind and Ascend/gain Enlightment...."

--> All of this is correct. By the way, Theosophy does not use the term Ascended Masters. That term was developed by the I Am movement of the early 1900's. Also, the term Great White Brotherhood is not used by some Theosophists. Instead, many use the term Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood or just Brotherhood.

"...so we will all natrually evolve into these Ascended beings or must we gain a tranforming knowledge that we are one and the same with nature and everything and realize our (lack of a better word) God-like potential as in Kabalah?"

--> Correct. Theosophy agrees with many Kabalistic ideas.

"...also planets, stars, and the entire cosmos are conscious beings?"

--> Yes.

"I have found the online books and literature about these very confusing...."

--> Theosophy is the most complicated philosophy I have even seen. Nothing is more confusing.

"...some of it seems (not trying to offend) like nonsense..."

--> No problem. Which ideas sound like nonsense?"

"...if somebody could explain to me some of the more complex ideas...."

--> That would take pages and pages of writing. Do you have specific questions you wish to ask?

Nick,

I could be wrong, but it seems like I remember Annie Besant using the term "Great White Lodge" in her book "The Ancient Wisdom". Does that ring a bell at all?

Steven,

You are correct, she does. However, there are Theosophists who do not use the title Great White Brotherhood, and think Besant should not have used such a term.

It is important to note that, just because one Theosophist uses one set of terminologies, or believes a particular idea, not all of the other Theosophists in the world agree with that person. Theosophy is a hodge-podge of ideas, and not all Theosophists agree on everything. Indeed, there is a great deal of contentiousness and disagreeing within Theosophy. This can be bad, as it creates dissention.

It can also be good. Disagreements and contentiousness guarantee that no one is the final authority on what Theosophy teaches. Theosophy forces each one of us to use our critical-thinking skills, and decide what fits and does not fit into our own personal belief system. (It makes me wonder if such disagreements and contentiousness were intentionally built into Theosophy....)

Hi all

There is also a problem with the term "Ascended Masters". Do you mean that the Adept actually ascended in his physical body, like it is said to have happened with Christ? According to the theosophical teachings, that is impossible.
Besides, the nature of an Adept or Master of Wisdom has been very much defiled in the New Age teachings. The "Ascended Masters" and the "Masters of Wisdom" are two different entities.
One important part in the theosophical development is to have a right conception of the nature of the Masters of Wisdom. Meditation on their nature is a highly recommended method to develop the impersonal virtues that are fully expressed in the Masters. I would recommend to consciously comparing both descriptions, in case anybody has the new age background on that subject and comes across the theosophical teachings.
I don't want to sound dogmatic, it is not my intention, but I do think to know this distinction is important. Then, you can choose whatever description you personally agree with.

Pablo,

I am unfamiliar with what the term "Ascended Masters" really means (especially because such a term in not used in Theosophy), whether they take their physical body into Heaven or not.

Theosophy, on the other hand, is very clear: we are unable to take neither our physical body nor our astral body up to Heaven (Devachan).

That's fine. But on the other hand, just because you and many other Theosophists don't use the term "Great White Lodge/Brotherhood", does that many other Theosophists can't/shouldn't? What's wrong with using that term?

I've never said that all Theosophists agree on that teaching or any other teaching. But if the term was used by Annie Besant and appears in Theosophical writings, I believe that it is fine for other Theosophists to use that term as well and at least consider it a valid hypothesis.

Steven,

Theosophy maintains a full belief in the freedom of thought. Each Theosophist can believe whatever they like, and no other Theosophist has the right to tell them what to believe. As you have pointed out, this also pertains to terminology. Any Theosophist is free to use a term like the Great White Brotherhood if they so desire.

However, there is another side to the story. Theosophy is divided into different traditions, and sometimes the different traditions make an effort to maintain their uniqueness. The term Great White Brotherhood is associated with the Besant/Leadbeater tradition within Theosophy, and there are some Theosophists who stop reading something as soon as they identify it as it coming from the Besant/Leadbeater tradition.

I certainly have the right to use the term Great White Brotherhood, but such usage would alienate some Theosophists from reading my writings. I wish to bring together as many Theosophists as possible. So, out of respect, I avoid using a term like Great White Brotherhood. For me, it is a small price to pay, to bring all of us closer together.

Nick, I appreciate your purpose; as we see the frays on other groups.
On the term 'Great White Brotherhood', what do you think they mean by 'White'?
White skin color (sub-race), white light, aura, or magic?
Jim B

Jim,

I see it as white magic. (I wonder if Nicholas agrees on this one...)

HPB often refers to the right-hand path (the good path) as the path of white magicians, and the left-hand path (the path of evil) as the path of black magicians.

In my research the "white" was refering to their Aura

The left-hand (black) path being that of selfishness, the right (white) being that of selflessness.

Jon,

I like your wording better. I feel that the word "magic" was not what I wanted. I do not want to give people the impression that the Mahatmas are a bunch of magicians. That really gives the wrong impression of them.

Nick the Pilot, thank you for clearing that up for me. I wasn't sure what you meant.

What are Mahatmas?

Steven,

Mahatma is another title for the two Masters (also called Brothers or Adepts) that started Theosophy. The name is most notably used in the title of the book, The Mahatma Letters to A.P.Sinnett.

Barker, A.T., The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnet (online)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-hp.htm

Barker, A.T., The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnet (hardcopy)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/mahatlet.htm

By the way, the two Mahatmas that started the Theosophical Society are named Morya and Kuthumi (also spelled Koot Hoomi).

http://www.koothoomi.net

http://www.morya.net

Nick,

I thought HPB started Theosophy? How did these Masters start it?

Oh... has anyone here ever heard of the Stanzas of Dzyan? I've heard of those but haven't found much information about them.

Steven,

Madame Blavatsky was a psychic who lived in the late 1800's. She ‘channeled’ religious information from a group of mystics called the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood. (The word ‘channeled’ is used loosely, as Madame Blavatsky usually maintained full consciousness and full self-control while communicating with the Brotherhood.) According to the Brotherhood, all religious scriptures (Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) come from the same source, and are indirect versions of the original scriptures. Theosophy is the first direct release of the original scriptures.

Theosophy, then, comes from the Brotherhood, most notably the two Brothers Morya and Kuthumi. Blavatsky was merely the person who transmitted their teachings to the west. Blavatsky was the first westerner, living in the west, and speaking a western language, who brought the teachings to the west. (Before this, the teachings were not available to anyyone living in the west.) This is why what Blavatsky did was so special.

As a caveat, Blavatsky had the difficult job of translating thousands of deep, mystical terms and concepts into English. Perhaps translate is the wrong word, because most of these words and concepts had no English equivalents. Blavatsky was constantly scrambling to figure out how to explain archaic concepts in English (which explains many of the mistakes she made). We can now appreciate the hugh amount of work she did.

Before Blavatsky arrived, Buddhism and Hinduism were practially unheard of in the western world. Theosophy takes credit for popularizing these ideas in the western world. Imagine, if you will, the religious scene in New York City in 1875. Reincarnation and karma were unheard of, religions like Buddhism and Hinduism were virtually unknown, and “New Age” bookstores had yet to appear. Into the middle of all this, Madame Blavatsky brought her new and revolutionary ideas.

In my humble opinion, if Blavatsky had not come along, we would not have seen the explosion of interest in eastern philosophy that we now see in the western world. Yes, Theosophy takes that much credit.

This also explains why there has been a Christian backlash against Theosophy and Blavatsky. When Blavatsky arrived, Christianity was in full control of the religious scene in the west. Theosophy is largely responsible for the eroding of the Christian religious monopoly in the west, and Christians have repeatedly attacked Theosophy as a result. (Have you heard the story of how Theosophy single-handedly defeated the Christian missionaries in Sri Lanka?)

http://aryasangha.org/olcott-prothero.htm

Christian missionaries had been very successful in Sri Lanka, almost completely wiping out Buddhism there. Indeed, they were within inches of achieving their goal. In came Olcott, saving Buddhism there, and wiping out years of work the missionaries had done. The missionaries were outraged. The Christian "defeat" in Sri Lanka rallied them to take on Theosophy with a vengence.

Regarding the Stanzas of Dzyan, they are the core teaching of Theosophy. I have prepared a study program on the Stanzas of Dzyan, and I think Pablo has too.