[iH1wMOhE]

Hello everyone. For a good many years I have been mildly involved in Theosophy.
One of the views posited by this group is the existence of family reincarnation whereby many generations of a family grouping is seen to work out "karmic problems" within the family.
As I have heaps of problems with reincarnation per se, this additional idea confused me even more.
Theosophy claims to have adopted many Hindu and Buddhist teachings (via Madam Blavatsky).
Another confused teaching to me is the view that all monads are given the option to choose a future existence and are given a review of their past errors (how far back?)
Do these notions align with any serious Buddhist teachings? Thank you.

[toponlinecasinoer]

Hello everyone. For a good many years I have been mildly involved in Theosophy.
One of the views posited by this group is the existence of family reincarnation whereby many generations of a family grouping is seen to work out "karmic problems" within the family.
As I have heaps of problems with reincarnation per se, this additional idea confused me even more.
Theosophy claims to have adopted many Hindu and Buddhist teachings (via Madam Blavatsky).
Another confused teaching to me is the view that all monads are given the option to choose a future existence and are given a review of their past errors (how far back?)
Do these notions align with any serious Buddhist teachings? Thank you.

Hi Murchovski,

do not take any thing for granted when it comes to Theosophy. This has nothing to do with the Dharma. Theosophy was founded at the beginning of the 20th century just as an obscure movement of some British Upper Class folks with too much money and time on their hands. Sheer phantasy and "fake spirituality". The founders tried to establish a new religion by claiming that the Maitreya; Buddha of the Future; that he would be, or was discovered by founding member Anne Besant in India. This went totally wrong of course and it caused the appearance of the humanist philosopher Jitu Krishnamurti...who denied their strange claims as long as he lived.

[Liabmeasez]

Well firstly I had to google "Theosophy" so thank-you for teaching me something today,
Do these notions align with any serious Buddhist teachings? Do they align with your own reasoning and common sense?

[DenisMoor]

...Do these notions align with any serious Buddhist teachings? Thank you.

No. To the contrary, the claim for the existence and reincarnation of monads is contrary to anatta. IF Theosophy took anything from Buddhism, it subsequently distorted it beyond recognition.

[Faumpiggueria]

Thanks Hajurba
Yes they really are all over the place and very dogmatic in some areas, while claiming to be very open.
It is interesting that Annie Bessant was very heavy into atheism before moving along.
The theosophist Leadbeater, who moved to Australia, was quit involved with Krisnhnamurti.
I sometimes go to a Nepalese cafe ,(om); love that Nan bread.

[PNCarl]

Thanks Karma.
Well my imagination does get away with me at times. But NO!

[Enjoymms]

do not take any thing for granted when it comes to Theosophy. This has nothing to do with the Dharma. Theosophy was founded at the beginning of the 20th century just as an obscure movement of some British Upper Class folks with too much money and time on their hands. Sheer phantasy and "fake spirituality". The founders tried to establish a new religion by claiming that the Maitreya; Buddha of the Future; that he would be, or was discovered by founding member Anne Besant in India. This went totally wrong of course and it caused the appearance of the humanist philosopher Jitu Krishnamurti...who denied their strange claims as long as he lived.

I agree. I have read books on Theosophy many years ago and other spin offs like Steiner's Anthrosophy (did I spell that right?), and cannot see how it aligns with the teachings of the Buddha. To be honest I'm surprised Theosophy still exists after Krishnamurti stuck a spanner (wrench) in the works so to speak. Krishnamurti's teachings was probably much nearer to the Buddha's eventhough he did not want to be aligned with any organised religions, including their scriptures, rituals and techniques.

[Hdzcxqoi]

I agree. I have read books on Theosophy many years ago and other spin offs like Steiner's Anthrosophy (did I spell that right?), and cannot see how it aligns with the teachings of the Buddha. To be honest I'm surprised Theosophy still exists after Krishnamurti stuck a spanner (wrench) in the works so to speak. Krishnamurti's teachings was probably much nearer to the Buddha's eventhough he did not want to be aligned with any organised religions, including their scriptures, rituals and techniques.

Steiners Anthrosophy is an other diversion that confuses seekers for true understanding of the Dharma. One should ignore these phantasies. That Theosophy still exists is truly bad. Sheer "fake spiritual shopping" and consumerism.

About Krishnamurti... it is worth to have a deeper look at him...try it out if you wish so! I do not propagate him here...far from that...just tell you what I think.

I still like to read stuff from him. He had a clear cut insight into reality. He was very aware of impermanence. His aversion for organized religions was caused by Theosophy because he was mentally abused by them since childhood. Actually he was a very tragic case of abduction by the powerful Colonial elites in British India. As a result he became one of the best known critics of all world religions. His analytic mind delivered very elegant and neutral descriptions about what is wrong with them.

What I admire most, was his capability to criticize religious dogmatism without ever insulting his larger audience. No one ever felt hurt by his intelligent rejection of any world religion.

Late Krishnamurti can still teach us a lot. His best performance was and still is, that one has to discover his teachings accidentally because he had instructed his foundation to stay out of the lime light and do not advertise his name and teachings in public ever. Bookshelves in libraries around the world keep his many books lesser visible to the eyes of seekers and one has to do some efforts to find them. I like that.

[fiettariaps]

Hi harjuba

I have read many of K's books and a few biographies. A very intersting character. Eventhough I'm British I do find the way you expressing the topic of this thread quite refreshing. Without trying to go off topic, reading K's stuff is a real kick up the back side especially to organised orthodox religions. But at the same time K's lack of informative structure is difficult for a humble mortal being like myself (said slightly tongue-in-cheek). But I can understand why he thought that way, especially after his experience with the Theosophy Society. This is some thing that interests me about Buddhism: that you can follow the structure of it, live it and (from what I can see) finally dump it!

Best wishes

Dave

[DoctorDeryOne]

Hello Dharma Dave.
I have read a little of Krishnamurti and while he is refreshing in his very open approach, besides being easy to read, I often feel after some initial acclaim, that he has really said nothing at all ( an unstructured perusing of the ineffable).He does stress the need to find oneself; this in itself is Hell of a lot better than succumbing to the herd mentality from wherever it originates. Kind regards.