Talk:Christian theosophy/Archive 1

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)

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)

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: and . 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)

RoyBot: The Secret Doctrine explicitly states that Australian aborigines and African bushmen are not part of any root race, Aryan or otherwise. In other words, their soulless, according to Blavatsky.Hypatea (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Earth Changes delete
Hey, would you people care to give your opinion about Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes --  Subramanian talk 08:47, October 11, 2005

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

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)

Hmmmm...I think that makes sense. The problem is one of "undue weight" and perhaps conflation ("theosophy" and "Theosophy") as well. Due weight would give a great deal of space to Swedenborg and Boehme, but I think a short discussion with links is more to the point. Randwolf 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'Swastika' or 'fylfot'?
I am not sure that the word 'swastika' conveys the innocent, apolitical intentions of Theosophists' use of this symbol. See []. 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)

And just look at a normal Japanese city map. It marks Buddhist temples. --219.110.232.215 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

The problems seem to me undue weight and conflation of two different philosophical systems. The OED gives two definitions for theosophy. Definition one: the philosophies of Pseudo-Dionysius, Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, Robert Fludd and, especially, Jakob Boehme, which are based in Western occultism (pseudo-Denys was a 6cy neo-platonist; the rest were Renaissance mystics). The greatest influence here (not mentioned by the OED) was probably on Swedenborg. Definition two: the theories of the Theosophical Society, which are based in Indian mysticism. If due weight were given, we would have to give Pseudo-Denys and Boehme quite a few more bytes, and Swedenborg might get more space than Blavatsky; I know that when I looked up theosophy I wasn't looking for an extended discussion of the beliefs of the Theosophical Society. I would prefer to see this split this into two articles: Theosophy (history of philosophy), which I would prefer to see at most three or four paragraphs with links to specific philosophers, and Theosophy (Theosophical Society). Randwolf 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started a stub artice about pre-Blavtskyan theosophy. With the exception of the Boehme article, none of the other articles you mention mentions anything about theosophy in their articles. And the Boehme article merely states that he influenced theosophical thought. If you search Theosophy on Google you'll see that all of the first pages of results are about Blavatskyan thesophy. It's much more widely used in this sense. --Jrphaller 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The following reads like a lecture from a Theosophist, not like an entry in an Encyclopedia:
 * The important thing about this interpenetration of each sheath, is that we see the inner person as a fluid and unbroken continuity, although varying in density/flexibility and energy and therefore more and more susceptible to the behest of the Real Person - the Soul/Higher Self since they are less and less encumbered by material boundaries. Perhaps the image of a suspension or colloid in chemistry is an apt perspective.

For example, the use of "we", "Perhaps", etc. There is a general problem with the "voice" in which this article is written. Michael Barkowski (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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:

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

I see nothing on the Terry Bergeson page that indicates she has done anything to introduce Theosophical teachings into public education.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.39 (talk)

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?


 * I think it depends on how frequently Boehme and Swedenborg &c. used the word theosophy: was it barely used it all until M. Blavatsky revived it, or is theosophy a major concept in their works? Algabal 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry for not using proper italicised english transliteration
Thanatos666 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusivenes
Whoever changed the direct quote from the Theosophist (and many other publications) of the stated objectives of Theosophy to make it more "inclusive" (i.e., by removing the word Brotherhood) needs to stop. You just don't change direct quotes so they match your feelings. I have fixed this. Algabal 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of links on theosophy pages
Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) has deleted all links that he could find to the katinkahesselink website, with the pretext that they were spam and were spammed by Kh7. The links were not added by Kh7 to many of these articles, A. G. E. Blake, Mahatma Letters, Ernest Wood, The Ancient Wisdom, Edicts of Ashoka, Ashoka the Great, and many other articles. After she was warned for adding the links, she has only added two links (which she shouldn't have done), but then Ohnoitsjamie goes on and deletes links that were added by other people or before she was warned. The links point to a website that is not a spamsite, a website which is often linked on other websites and is of high quality. Some of these links were added with an explanation that even that they are appropriate to the article. --Voidocore 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy's Racial Belief System
This article is incomplete if it does not mention Theosophy's concepts regarding so-called "Root Races" and "savage" races. See Aryan Race.Typing monkey 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree, this has been a source of great controversy. Algabal 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. See above on Talkpage.Hypatea (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to Agrippa, Boehme, etc.
There was a group of Renaissance philosophers: Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, Robert Fludd, and, especially, Jacob Boehme; the Enlightenment theologian Emanuel Swedenborg was influenced by these.

Judging from some of the discussion here, this sentence seems out of context, incomplete, and/or out of place. It doesn't offer enough details to integrate it with the rest of the article.

The construction is a bit indirect. A better way to phrase it would be:

A group of Renaissance philosophers -- the scientific-minded occultists Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, Robert Fludd, and, especially, the Christian mystic Jacob Boehme -- influenced the Enlightenment theologian Emanuel Swedenborg.

Because I know little about this subject, I'll leave this for others to consider and take action on.

--Athansor 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that this link belongs here, and it is already included in Theosophy (history of philosophy). It is not specific / original to Swedenborg, Blatavsky, et al.Typing monkey 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Krotona
If any editors have information about Krotona, please take some time to help me fill out that stub, would you? I don't know much about it, myself. Eaglizard 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of report: WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
This is to inform editors on this page that this topic, along with a list of related topics, have been mentioned in a report at this link on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It has been mentioned in the noticeboard report that some of the articles listed in the report may be nominated for deletion.

The report at the noticeboard was not posted by me. I'm placing this comment here as a courtesy for the editors working on this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority religious beliefs should not be treated as "fringe theories"
All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for external link
Would anyone object to adding a link to www.esotericscience.org/articles.htm ? The website contains numerous articles of a theosophical nature. They are not "old-school" theosophy (which is why I ask before adding the link); they are very contemporary and bring the teachings right up to date with modern science. For example, article 5a "Esoteric Theory of Everything" is a 21st century presentation of Leadbeater and Besants "Occult Chemistry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.119.126 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the esoteric science website contains a series of contempory theosophic articles that should be of interest to many theosophists. I actually visted this page to ask about adding a link to www.laurency.com - Henry Laurency was a little-known Swedish theosophist who wrote 8 books between 1930 and 1971. Most of his books are freely available online as pdf documents. If you haven't read Laurency yet, I highly recommend you do so. Anyway, since no one else has commented on this last suggestion I will go ahead and add both these links - I hope that is ok. Juan234 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the laurency link, but wiki wouldn't allow me to add the www.esotericscience.org/articles.htm link. It said it was blacklisted as a spam site but it definitely didn't look like spam to me. I will see if this can be sorted. Juan234 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary References section
We should not have a section devoted solely to listing appearances of theosophy in literature, and they definitely shouldn't be given their own articles, either. It's trivia, it's coatracking, and it's unnecessary. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in sources - this article is promotional
A glance at the sources in this article shows a complete bias to publications by organizations devoted to promoting Theosophy. To ignore all the articles which debunk the claims and quotes from people who have been in "telepathic" contact with "Masters" (specifically Blavatsky) appears deliberate bias and makes this Wikipedia article completely non-encyclopaedic.—Ash (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There certainly should be a section on the "Masters" controversy. Would you write it? hgilbert (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Including mention of the Mahatma Letters which have their own wikipedia article.Hypatea (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've put that one up for deletion. You may wish to comment: Articles for deletion/Mahatma Letters.—Ash (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Using anandgholap.net as a source or link
This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. There is no guarantee that texts or images he includes are faithful reproductions or correctly sourced. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Occult Brotherhood"
I removed this as a link to Mahatma. I've read both articles and do not see the link... if there is one, then:

1) "Occult Brotherhood" should link to "Occult Brotherhood" which redirects to Mahatma, instead of just plopping you into what seems to be a random corner of Wikipedia.

2) There should be some mention of the terms "Occult Brotherhood" on the Mahatma page.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

71.7.192.115 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)SBee

Article rewrite - June 2011
Please use descriptive language and avoid jargon as much as possible. See wp:jargon. Do not go into details on the philosophy/history etc in depth; there are other specialized pages, or if there are not, create one and link it.

Be careful not to just throw about Theosophical terms which require explanation if not absolutely necessary. Example: "Manas, the principle of mind and self-consciousness." "Manas" is not necessary, the rest of the sentence is understandable and generic. Also "the principle of mind and self-consciousness" has a different meaning in Theosophy, and the presence of the term would necessitate further clarification.

Be careful of verbose or supefluous wording. Example: "although not a religion, may be seen as a religious philosophy". A religious philosophy is not a religion. No further explanation is necessary - no need to hammer it home. Example: "may be seen". That's implied, as a concensus view for such subjects. Example: "Modern Theosophy". Obviously modern, it says "since the late 19th century".

Be careful of time-sensitive language. See wp: dated. Example: "Modern Theosophy". Example: "Theosophy remains today".

Be careful not to limit the subject by focussing on a subset. Example: "fate of the universe and the living beings in it". Actually, the first principles of Theosophy concern pure metaphysics, going conceptually beyond the universe etc, and into purposes and meanings of existence.

Be careful of language that may lead to misattribution. Example: "according to what Theosophists call the Esoteric Philosophy, or Occult Science". Esoteric + occult disiplines did not start with Theosophy. The statement could be miscontrued. This is about the methodology of Theosophy, not the terms assigned to the methodology by Theosophists.

Finally, and most importantly, please cite statements properly with references from verifiable sources as much as possible.

Thank you. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's hopeless. Again, the article gets clattered with all kinds of detail, while major concepts are left unexplained. All the stuff in "Septenary", for example. It is supposed to be a philosophical overview of Theosophy's contention that the number seven is the underpinning of existence, not technical, jargon-filled expositions of sub-sets of the septenary concept. These belong to the appropriate wikipedia page. Elsewhere, I think there are fundamental errors, for example: "However, transient states of matter and consciousness are manifested in IT, in an unfolding gradation from the subtlest to the densest, the final of which is physical plane". Without being either a philosopher or versed in Theosophy, just by reading of the first few stanzas of the Book of Dzyan and the commentary in the Secret Doctrine I think shows that the so-called absolute, through "emanations" whose "density" is unknown, arrives at what we call "Existence". Then "Existence" eventually manifests several "bodies", one of which is the physical plane (or Universe). I belive the particular text as it is now again describes a sub-set of the philosophy, and not the big picture as a main portal page should. Ofcourse, I could be mistaken, but I think I read it right. Anyway I'm just pointing this out. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * well, it goes with the whole collection of pages. i don't think there's a single theosophy related page where the subject is clearly, simply and concisely explained. they're basically collections of mostly sensational minutiae. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Misleading
As "This article is about the philosophy introduced by Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society.", the opening sentence (the Oxford dictionary definition) is misleading. It says: "Theosophy, is a spiritual philosophy professing that knowledge of God may be realized through "spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations."

The term "God" (capital G) is most commonly associated with monotheistic philosophies and religions, and thus this definition portrays theosophy as sharing in those beliefs, which it emphatically does not. In fact, Blavatsky (who introduced the philosophy contained in this article, according to wikipedia) continually argued against the idea of God.

See here for but one example: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-5.htm

Also, the term spiritual ecstasy is misleading, and simply not found within the theosophical philosophy, or the literature of it's "introducer". Also, 'special individual relations' is far too vague to hold any real value or meaning as a statement.

The term 'Theos' as used by Blavatsky was distinctly different than the way it has been used in other cases, and Blavatsky specifically refuted the way the term Theosophy was used in dictionaries (see below). Thus, the opening sentence in this article is misleading in terms of the philosophy introduced by Helena Blavatsky and should be removed.

From the Theosophical Glossary by Helena Blavatsky: Theosophia (Gr.). Wisdom-religion, or “Divine Wisdom”. The substratum and basis of all the world-religions and philosophies, taught and practised by a few elect ever since man became a thinking being. In its practical bearing, Theosophy is purely divine ethics; the definitions in dictionaries are pure nonsense, based on religious prejudice and ignorance of the true spirit of the early Rosicrucians and mediæval philosophers who called themselves Theosophists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.177.103 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Misleading --> Topic Misnamed
The issue with this page is that a term "Theosophy" can be found using an encyclopedia, even an encyclopedia of Religion, OED, etc. and "Theosophy" is not about Blavatsky per se. If this page were "Theosophy (Blavatsky Schools)" it would work. Theosophy was not a creation of HPB. It is very old, and currently in use in its broader forms -- as checking a Scholastic Source on the term "Theosophy" will point out. This should be a page under the wikiproject Philosophy Metaphysics. Currently it is a Religion page or worse a sales pitch for the Theosophical Societies. The page is a misrepresentation. Actually it violates the intent of Wikipedia to act as an encyclopedia with encyclopedic topics. LuminalSage (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So here is the problem: The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are summarized in the form of five "pillars": Blue pillar (1: Encyclopedia) First: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

Take Wikipedia's first sentence from its first Pillar: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

Here is an example from a specialized scholarly encyclopedia (The Encyclopedia of Religion)

“THEOSOPHY is a part of a broader religious phenomenon known as esotericism. In the strict sense, the word esotericism refers to a gnosis that offers the individual enlightenment and salvation through a knowledge of the bonds that are believed to unite him to the world of divine or intermediary spirits. Theosophy in particular is concerned with the knowledge of the hidden mysteries of divinity. By extension, it also deals with the universe as related to God, as well as to man. Thus one may speak of esotericism in the broad sense as being enriched by a theosophical dimension.”   Faivre, Antoine (1987). “Theosophy” in Mircea Eliade (Ed), The Encyclopdedia of Religion, Vol. 14, p. 468. NY: Macmillan.

The entry here in Wikipedia, for "Theosophy", is not written in the spirit of Wikipedia's first Pillar. In fact it could be considered as a violation (from First Pillar above) "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform,... ". An individual surfing the web for the meaning and for information on "Theosophy" should get an article (scholarly) about "Theosophy" and not about the religion/philosophy/doctrine of HPB and in particular of the organization(s) and individual(s) promoting their use of the word by the entry represented here currently.

What can be done to correct this is to have the doctrines as presented here moved to a page - possibly "Theosophy (Blavatsky Schools)", and we need to replace the content in the page "Theosophy" (here) with an entry that respects the first Pillar of Wikipedia. LuminalSage (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In this specific page (Theosophy), we have a representation of the "specific doctrines" or the philosophy introduced by Helena Blavatsky, and thus the page should be a faithful representation/record of the doctrines and philosophy she introduced (hence the change in eliminating the oxford definition, which was contrary to the doctrine/philosophy Blavatsky introduced, and replacing it with her definition). I also consider this Theosophy page to be specific and there to be the need for another page treating of Theosophy more generally (of which this current page may be but a subsection). Interestingly, even if we research the doctrine introduced by Blavatsky, we will find her saying quite clearly that what she taught was, in her view, but a small sliver of what Theosophy is, and yet on wikipedia we have the illusion that Theosophy is limited to her teachings/writings. See: The Secret Doctrine, Preface (Paragraph's 4-6). However it is approached, the Theosophy pages need to better reflect the reality of what the word indicates. It has been somewhat hijacked by one specific school of thought, imo. For comparison sake, if the page on Christianity solely represented Catholicism, it wouldn't be a fair representation of Christianity as a whole. Same goes here. Just as Catholicism is a subsection of Christianity, so too should Blavatky's teachings be a subsection of Theosophy, however popular or current her teachings may be. JFergus (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page should be expanded to give a more general picture of Theosophy. However, as Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society re-defined and popularized the term beginning in the late 19th century, the article should, necessarily, focus on that body of work. Sunray (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD. I've tried to adjust the lead sentence to meet the guidelines. According to the guidelines, the lead sentence "should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." That is a tall order with this subject. I've used Oxford for a working definition, but left part of it in quotes. We should be able to come up with something that has no quotes. I see that as desirable since our definition will be the one widely used on the Internet. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand this argument "our definition will be the one widely used on the Internet", but it is really a silly way to determine usage. It is like the garbage you get on Islam etc.
 * I find this page a scholarly disaster. It is like typing in "Christianity" and finding out the term is Catholic Christianity. Justified that Catholic is "Universal". People need to get serious here. The page is kind of sales pitch that declares the "only" correct use of the term "Theosophy" is with "Blavatsky". Wikipedia deserves better respect than that. Please, let us call this page by the right name.


 * Theosophy is a subset of Philosophy. That will never change. It is an academic fact. This Page got off to a bad start. It really should be fixed. I am a card carrying theosophist, and even I can admit this is a mistake. LuminalSage (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sunray: I think this is looking better - getting there, anyway. What we now have is the beginning of a distinction, right from the get-go, between Theosophy (as an academic term) and theosophy as defined by Helena Blavatsky and her followers - we're getting more broad and more scholarly. I'm still uncomforable with that specific definition though (the one you added). What about working with the first sentence under "etymology and definitions" - we could give a more literal definition off the start, with the greek included (as is done on many wiki pages)? My problems with the oxford definition you have here are addressed above. Using the term God in context of theosophy is misleading, as theosophy (academic or otherwise) does not depend upon the existence of a singular God. "Divine Wisdom" is much preferred and more accurate to the literal meaning of the word, from the original greek, ihmo.
 * What's really of paramount importance is the issue LuminalSage is bringing up (Please, let us call this page by the right name.). In my view one of two things should be done:


 * This page should be renamed to distinguish it from Theosophy, and thus should be something like Theosophy (Blavatsky School) or the like, or


 * The top line "This article is limited to the specific doctrines as introduced by Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society." should be removed so that we can begin to provide a broader explanation of the term and its meaning, with the TS/Blavatsky uses as a sub-section, or interwoven into various subsections.


 * So, I don't disagree with the use of the dictionary definitions; I just disagree with them being associated with the specific doctrines of Helena Blavatsky. Either of the two options above could solve this. JFergus (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you two be able to indent your comments so we can readily distinguish who is saying what?
 * The reason we write the lead sentence as a general definition is to follow the guidelines, not because it is widely seen on the Internet. Though I mentioned the latter point as an additional incentive to get it right.
 * I don't think I agree with renaming the page. There is a page Theosophy (history of philosophy) regarding general use of the term. That said, I also don't think that this page should be exclusive to the Theosophical Society. Thus I agree with you that the line "This article is limited..." should be modified or removed. Since the Theosophical Society has been the main user of the term for the last 130+ years, I think that the article will logically remain mostly about that brand of Theosophy. Sunray (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, first - the statement "Since the Theosophical Society has been the main user of the term for the last 130+ years, I think that the article will logically remain mostly about that brand of Theosophy", is basically wrong. I agree if you count the words in print you are correct. However, the population at large used an Encyclopedia and Dictionary to find the meaning of this word. The Societies were unheard of. Members names kept secret etc.
 * In fact Encyclopedias still use the correct term, as it has always been used in Philosophy. The term was heavily used in Philosophy classes, with little attention to Blavatsky etc. They are a brief side note. The example I used above was an attempt to point out that the term "Encyclopedia" as Wikipedia uses it, in the First Pillar of the entire Wikipedia project, requires that "Theosophy" be a Scholarly Encyclopedia entry (which is open source). (plus more). Second, take a look at the Theosophical Society's definition of what the Society itself has as a doctrine:
 * (from the Theosophical Society in America)
 * "Theosophical Society is composed of students, belonging to any religion in the world or to none, who are united by their approval of the Society's Objects, by their wish to remove religious antagonisms and to draw together men of goodwill whatsoever their religious opinions, and by their desire to study religious truths and to share the results of their studies with others. Their bond of union is not the profession of a common belief, but a common search and aspiration for Truth. They hold that Truth should be sought by study, by reflection, by purity of life, by devotion to high ideals, and they regard Truth as a prize to be strive for, not as dogma to be imposed by authority. They consider that belief should be the result of individual study or intuition, and not its antecedent, and should rest on knowledge, not on assertion. They extend tolerance to all, even to the intolerant,not as a privilege they bestow but as a duty they perform, and they seek to remove ignorance, not punish it. They see every religion as an expression of the Divine Wisdom and prefer its study to its condemnation, and its practice to proselytism. Peace is their watchword, as Truth is their aim."
 * With the above in mind - the first sentence of the current "Theosophy" page: "This article is limited to the specific doctrines as introduced by Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society." really has to go. Even the Society states outright that they have NO doctrine.
 * I believe that the article page "Theosophy" must be replaced with the original term used in the scholarly circles and Books. (found as studied in major Universities and peer-reviewed Journals). Now - these types of articles, encyclopedias etc. WILL mention the Theosophical Society and HPB. It would be wrong to leave her out. However, the current trend is to return the study of Theosophy forward into the Science/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Esotericism/Ontology/Theology just as it was when HPB started using the term, which incidentally she stole from contemporary works/authors. Remember - contemporary authors (to HPB) were already using the term "Theosophy" in her life time. She took it from them.
 * The current page is a VERY good entry for Wikipedia! please note I want it kept, not eliminate it. However - I want the page to get in the right Spot with the Right Name!
 * Also please remember that (speaking as a Professor/Academic from a small College here) I want students who take a class in Philosophy to find the correct term "Theosophy", and also the brief section on HPB. That would then send them to the correct Wikipedia page for the material that is currently presented here, perhaps called Theosophy (Blavatsky) or something better.. Another note is that "Theosophy" as started by HPB currently has no agreed upon doctrine. I sincerely can state that no two Theosophists (In Theosophical Societies) agree. Also - the term "Theosophy" as used in the academic circles is growing today, and tomorrow, forever. It can not be stuffed in History. Also - if you go to any branch of Philosophy (say Ontology), it does not read "Ontology (Philosophy)". Similarly - placing the academic term "Theosophy" into "Theosophy (Philosophy)" does not make sense either. We really need to assure that Wikipedia remain as useful as possible, and to always be improving it. JEMead (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to be substantial agreement that this article needs to be expanded. I've begun by removing the tagline at the top that said the article was limited to the Theosophical Society. Would an outline of what should go into the article be helpful? Does someone want to have a go at that? Sunray (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sunray. I think removing that tagline is a good start. As to what should go into the article... an outline would definitely be helpful (I'll give my view here). Perhaps JEMead can help by sharing what scholarly items should be included?JFergus (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
I would suggest first that we keep "Theosophy" under a joint effort between Philosophy/Religion and Philosophy/Metaphysics. It has always been a beast from both worlds. If it is actually stated as a Religion - that undermines the entire field and actually damages organizations that are truly interested in the integration of Science/Philosophy/Religion. Actually - the last three words are also used by HPB as well. proper classification can give the page credence, and from this page one can jump to pages on the various Theosophies that may be more religious in nature, or more Scientific/Physics/Ontology in nature. We all basically have the same goal/interest, but not all the same beliefs. JEMead (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you here. What do you mean by "... keep 'Theosophy' under a joint effort between Philosophy/Religion and Philosophy/Metaphysics..." Also, how should this article square with the one called "Theosophy (history of philosophy)"? If I understand you correctly, you are talking about how we categorize this article (referring to categories shown at the bottom of the page). If that is what you mean, I agree with you that how we categorize it will influence how people see it. I like your idea of a main article with the reader being able to jump to the various Theosophies. There is a question as to whether that should be a disambiguation page or a main article. I lean towards the latter approach. Sunray (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wanting people to actually see Theosophy as Philosophy of Metaphysics/Theology/Science. It is a pretty broad subset within all of them. It should reflect that concept. Disambiguation page is really needed for the specific Theosophies. That is what I attempted to say. late reply my apology. JEMead (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)