In “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 169, H. P. Blavatsky warns that of the various branches of Vidya or esoteric knowledge, “it is only the last one, “Atma-Vidya,” or the true Spiritual and Divine wisdom, which can throw absolute and final light upon the teachings” of the others. “Without the help of Atma-Vidya,” she warns, “the other three remain no better than surface sciences, geometrical magnitudes having length and breadth, but no thickness.” Unless “the key to [the] teachings is furnished by Atma-Vidya, they will remain for ever like the fragments of a mangled text-book, like the adumbrations [i.e. vague shadows, faint images, partially concealed sketches] of great truths, dimly perceived by the most spiritual, but distorted out of all proportion by those who would nail every shadow to the wall.”

In that passage, she is contrasting Atma Vidya – which literally means “Self Knowledge” or “Science of the Self,” Atma or Atman usually meaning the higher, spiritual, divine Self, the universal essence present within all – with other Vidyas mentioned in Hinduism, “namely, “Yajna-Vidya” (the performance of religious rites in order to produce certain results); “Maha-Vidya,” the great (Magic) knowledge, now degenerated into Tantrika worship; “Guhya-Vidya,” the science of Mantras and their true rhythm or chanting, of mystical incantations, etc.”

Very few students of Theosophy are involved with the Yajna Vidya, Maha Vidya, and Guhya Vidya that are spoken of there. But this passage is nonetheless very important since it also serves as a warning regarding anyone’s approach to Theosophy.

It is all too easy for Theosophy to remain – even for a completely sincere, serious, and devoted student of it – little more than “a surface science,” by which we mean that one may become so caught up in the vast, deep, and complex metaphysics and philosophical details that the light of Theosophy is not allowed to penetrate very much further or deeper than the brain-mind and intellect. Anyone can quite easily assess for themselves to what degree this is so in their own individual case: when a serious crisis, difficulty, or challenge confronts you – or even, for that matter, a relatively small one – how do you react and respond to it? How do you deal with it? If it overwhelms you, unbalances you, and throws you off course, affecting you in much the same way as it would affect any ordinary person who has not even encountered Theosophy or spiritual truths, this is quite a clear sign that one’s Theosophy has not yet gone much further than the mere surface of our being. We emphasise “not yet” because this can readily be altered and corrected.

Another sign of this issue is a desire to “nail every shadow to the wall,” i.e. to make emphatic, rigid, and often dogmatic statements and definitive assertions about those Theosophical subjects and teachings which have only barely been hinted at or only very briefly outlined by the Masters of Wisdom and Teachers of Theosophy. This is not to say that one should adopt a “wishy-washy” approach to the teachings but HPB has warned us that no student of Theosophy should consider himself or herself “as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher – one who has no right to dogmatize.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” p. 4) Similarly, in her “Gems from The East,” we read “Theosophy is the vehicle of the spirit that giveth life; consequently, nothing dogmatic can be Theosophical.” Obviously this concept has been misrepresented by some Theosophists, who claim that it is dogmatic even to repeat and present the teachings of H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters. No, that is certainly not dogmatic but the attempt to “nail every shadow to the wall” cannot help but “distort out of all proportion” even some of the greatest truths, both in our own perceptions and understanding and that of those to whom we may impart them.

In other words, (1) to take an entirely or almost entirely intellectual and theoretical approach to Theosophy, and (2) to try, whether consciously or semi-consciously, to make Theosophy into a fixed, rigid, religious system in which no alternative or differing viewpoints and perspectives are tolerated, welcomed, or even considered, – are very problematic. But no-one is to be blamed for this and no doubt all of us have succumbed to it to some extent at one time or another, hence HPB issuing the warning and pointing to Atma Vidya as the solution. In her article “Occultism versus The Occult Arts” she refers briefly to “ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply “Knowledge of the Soul,” true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means far more. This last [i.e. Atma Vidya] is the only kind of Occultism that any Theosophist who admires Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive after.”

In Chapter 10 of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna imparts to Arjuna numerous details of metaphysical realities but then concludes the chapter with a question which is very applicable to all Theosophists: “But of what use to you is the knowledge of all these details, O Arjuna?”

Clearly, there is a use to which such knowledge can be put, otherwise there would be no point to the rest of the chapter that preceded that question. The point is that knowledge of occult details is meant to be applied, meditated upon, and put into practice, as far as possible, rather than remain a mass of theoretical information which may go no further than the brain-mind.

Although Theosophy itself is the esoteric teaching, it is nonetheless possible to turn it into an exoteric form and some have unfortunately done this. Are there any solutions for this or ways to avoid it?

There are many. Take, for example, the compilations and explanations found in The Raja Yoga of Theosophy, The Theosophical Guide to Meditation, Practical Theosophy, Helpful Hints for Spiritual Progress, Daily Self-Study and Self-Examination, Living Consciously, Mental Devotion and Buddhi Yoga, Sakshi: The Unchanging Inner Witness, Theosophy on Prayer, The Two Paths, and other articles listed under the heading “SPIRITUAL LIVING AND PRACTICE” on our Articles page. The compilation titled The Heart sheds light on the distinction made by Theosophy between the “Heart Doctrine” and “Eye Doctrine” and which relates closely to what we are discussing here.

We appreciate that for some, the consistent daily application of the more directly practical side of Theosophy may not come very naturally or easily. That is perfectly alright and everyone is different. Many people are drawn to and attracted by Theosophy because of its great appeal to the intellect and intellectual faculties. There is nothing at all wrong with that but it must not stop there. Remember Atma Vidya. Once one begins to truly and deeply reflect upon Atma or Atman – the ONE Universal Self of all and in all and expressing Itself as all – and once we make the effort to keep that in our thoughts and reflections every single day, it becomes far more naturally and easily a basis for thought and action. There is a big difference between KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM.

~*~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 300 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. If you found this article helpful you may also like to read

UNIVERSAL THEOSOPHY AND UNIVERSAL THEOSOPHISTS
and THEOSOPHY AGAINST DOGMATISM, SECTARIANISM & ORTHODOXY

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~