One-week,
12-part short article series on similarities and differences between
Blavatskyan theosophy & the alternative spirituality/occulture/new
age movement. More of a subjective mode, based on personal observation.
5- Transcendence and progress.
Another point both schools have in common is that they are both concerned with spiritual evolution. In the New Age circles, there are often references to moving on to higher planes, higher levels of consciousness, higher levels of evolution, higher levels of vibration. There is constant progression, and you often hear about new phases of evolution. In year x, it will be time for people to rise to a higher phase. Soon people will enter into higher vibrational planes. In the next phase, there will be a new form of discipleship, etc...
With original theosophy, it is similar, only not quite so much, not quite so frequent, not quite so explicit. The evolutionary processes occur over long periods of time, so it is not necessarily easy to make a quantum leap in a single incarnation. The doctrine of cycles is considered very secret, therefore not much information is given, although Blavatsky gave out a workable amount. Hence the concepts are similar to the alternative spirituality schools, but not as fast and frequent, the evolutionary changes are considered to occur slowly and gradually over centuries and millennium.
And even though Blavatskyan theosophy is concerned with higher planes of consciousness, they might have more of a focus on the lower planes, the problems of concrete material existence and the challenges of the material world, similar to the mystical traditions that are sometimes divided into three phases, where the first phase is strictly concerned with ethical problems and conquering vice and lasts a long time, perhaps a whole lifetime, before one is ready for the second phase, which is again, not that mystical, but is more concerned with developing and perfecting virtue, detachment and renunciation.
6- Modern and Traditional aspects
I think both movements do a good job at combining traditional notions with modern ideas. Sometimes maybe in alternative spirituality there might be a situation where they claim to be reviving ancient wisdom, like Celtic wisdom or Shamanism, and actually the research was fairly superficial and a lot of it is just made up or heavily adapted. I think it's ok to do some adaptations, but when it no longer resembles the original tradition, then maybe there it's possible that there might be a problem somewhere. But there has been a tremendous amount of work on both sides in researching ancient traditions.
My opinion is that alternative spirituality has a more modern perspective whereas Blavatskian theosophy has a more traditional one. Which way is better, if my opinion is correct, is not for me to judge. The main problem I think, is that modernism tends to be very materialistic, and that to me, can be detrimental for a spiritual philosophy. Blavatsky however did formulate a philosophy that wished to both re-discover ancient values and traditions while integrating modern knowledge and discoveries. It's a difficult project in that sense, because it requires a lot of work of filtering and adjusting. Then there is the problem of even determining what is traditional and what is modern. That is not so obvious, either. But I personally feel that Blavatsky still maintained an essentially traditional world view and traditional values, while integrating certain modern aspects and also opposing the more materialistic aspects of modernism. At the same time, she was concerned with reforming old, outmoded practices and mentalities. It's like finding the right balance between conservative and progressive perspectives. Hence, one difference I see with the alternative spirituality movement, is that it appears to be based more in a modern mentality, with more traditional elements added in varying degrees...
No comments:
Post a Comment