Featured Article from our Online Library

Three Ways of Understanding Life

by PW

One of the most difficult—and at the same time most urgent—problems facing humanity in today’s world is undoubtedly the search for a coherent philosophy of life, one that can help answer our innate existential questions about the meaning of existence: Who or what are we? Where do we come from? Does life have meaning? What happens after death?

And what about such ideas as freedom, justice, and brotherhood? In short, we are looking for answers that provide not only a practical but also an ethical basis for an intelligent and rational approach to life—one that does not end in material frustration and hedonism on the one hand, or religious fundamentalism on the other. Many paths have already been explored, from religious and philosophical ones to more modern political, scientific, and psychological avenues, culminating for the moment in the New Age movement, which is now seeking recognition. Where does one begin when one can no longer see the forest for the trees? Broadly speaking, for anyone who seriously reflects on existential questions, the choice is limited to three seemingly simple starting points, which we will briefly summarize.

The first view holds that “the world” is the result of chance interactions among material elements. Over immense periods of time, living beings spontaneously emerge, and present-day humanity is seen as the endpoint of the evolutionary chain. Thoughts and feelings are merely by-products of this material process of development. From this perspective, “existence” is simply an accidental convergence of purposeless activities, and life has meaning only to the extent that we, as human beings, give it meaning. We may summarize this materialistic explanation of life under the term “chance.”

A second view holds that the world originated through the intervention of a being who existed before and outside creation—generally called God—who, independently of other factors such as space and time, brings creation into being solely by an act of will. In this worldview, meaning is determined by the “commandments” of this creator, a supreme being whose character and portrayal bear a striking resemblance to those of his human subjects and who istherefore represented as anthropomorphic, or “made in the image of man.” We may summarize this religious standpoint under the term “God.”

A third approach to the existential question holds that the foundation of existence lies in the principle of Law, grounded in an “Ultimate Reality.” This Absolute is “omnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable,” and transcends all human thought. This principle of Law must therefore be impersonal in character and manifests itself periodically in the universe as cause and effect, known in the East as karma. The purpose and meaning of life become progressively clearer as human beings succeed in realizing more and more fully the wisdom contained in this principle. We may summarize this explanation of life under the term “Law.”

These three views—chance, God, and Law—thus constitute the fundamental possibilities on the basis of which every intelligent person, after deep examination of conscience—for ethical questions are also involved—may arrive, through personal insight and judgment, at a position on the possible nature of life. In reality, no further alternatives are available to us, unless some of these options are combined; but doing so in no way simplifies the conclusions that follow from such a choice.

Without going into too much detail—each of these views has several variations—we may summarize the chief ethical consequences of these three approaches as follows. A first logical consideration is that, before making a choice, we must understand the problems that may arise from applying the chosen path consistently and to its extreme. Since our present world is already an amalgam of the views mentioned above—with all their familiar consequences—it takes little imagination to picture a world in which each of these views were applied consistently and in the extreme by all humanity, and to consider which path would lead to ultimate progress and which to fatal catastrophe.

In the first, materialistic view of “chance,” human beings are seen merely as products of physical and animal evolution. Primary survival needs—such as food, reproduction, and safety—are directed by animal drives such as selfishness, fear, and lust. The capacity for thought and feeling are mainly used as a tool for satisfying and intensifying these drives. Fundamentally, this is a mentality of “every person for himself,” in which selfishness and yielding to every human desire at any cost are treated as the highest good. Family, society, and organizations then become, in essence, ambivalent and secondary by-products that indirectly support these primary needs.

This would mean, for example, that eliminating every obstacle—including human opposition—in pursuit of this highest goal should cause no scruples. If such scruples do arise, they must be regarded as signs of weakness and removed, since they stand in the way of satisfying primary needs.

Ethical reflection, wisdom, and artistic expression—in short, “the good, the true, and the beautiful”—would then belong to the realm of fiction, becoming pastimes for moments when one need not concentrate on one’s primary needs. The right of the strongest, physically and/or intellectually, is absolute; and because every problem reaches its final end at death, the victors in this worldview need bear no moral responsibility whatsoever. Chaos and injustice therefore reign supreme in this conception.

The second view, in which a personal and male supreme being, or “God,” independently decides to create the universe at a particular moment that suits him, places human beings in no better position in principle than the view of chance discussed above. Human beings had no say in the matter—since they did not yet exist—the individual is fundamentally in the same position as in a world governed by chance. The accidents of chance and survival of the fittest in the preceding worldview are simply replaced here by the will and commandments of God.

The difficulty with such a supreme being—conceived as something that exists and has dimensions, and therefore exists as an object in space—is that he is confronted by something even more majestic than himself: the fact of space itself. “Can God be greater or smaller than space?” is a question many thoughtful philosophers have asked. Dimensionality is not a characteristic of space, but of the things contained within it. The hypothesis that such a God exists extra-cosmically—that is, outside space and time—offers no valid alternative.

A final important observation concerning this worldview relates to the ethical element within the idea of a personal God, which is based on God’s will. According to the traditional literature of this doctrine, one is not expected to ask too many questions about the moral characteristics of this supreme being. It follows that the fundamental ethical premise of this teaching is blind obedience to God’s will and to the commandments and prohibitions that follow from it. In other words, the basic and intrinsic personal responsibility of the human being, which comes into play when choices are made, is taken away.

The freedom involved in making decisions—which may be hasty or entirely mistaken—and the accompanying process of learning and correction are called into question. The consequences that result from wrong actions, including actions affecting other people, and the insights that may arise from them, are conveniently replaced by an “act of repentance.” Yet this mere repentance, which may arise in the repentant person within the framework of a single life in this world, cannot undo the consequences of thoughtless conduct that harms others. Injustice and subjection are therefore inherent in this view.

Our final philosophy of life proceeds from the proposition that existence—and therefore the human being as well—has an intrinsically lawful character. It implies that the individual has a fundamental connection with the macrocosmic source from which he or she originates, not only physically but also psychically, mentally, and ethically. This macrocosmic source and background of our existence is therefore not limited to the physical elements of the universe that we can perceive through our physical senses. It encompasses a dizzying range of intermediate degrees of consciousness and substance that link human beings hierarchically to their primal source.

This means, among other things, that through the capacity for self-conscious thought and action, the human being forms an indispensable link in the unity of macrocosmic and microcosmic existence. In a sense, each person reflects on a microcosmic scale the capacities and forces accessible within this hierarchical existence, provided that he learns to give them expression. The ethical conclusion that follows presupposes voluntary cooperation, or brotherhood, with the world around us, guided by the law of cause and effect, which works impersonally and universally in the physical, emotional, and mental spheres of life. Clearly, this evolutionary process must extend beyond a single lifetime and therefore implies the doctrine of reincarnation. Cooperation is its guiding principle.

It is clear that Theosophy, as reformulated by H. P. Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, is represented in this third philosophy of life; but there is more…

Theosophy does not present itself as merely another opinion or “ism” alongside the many other schools of thought available to the human mind. It maintains that it lies at the foundation of all traditional religious beliefs and enlightened philosophies; that it is the root from which they have grown—or perhaps grown awry—and that it is as old as humanity itself. It is the accumulated wisdom of the ages, the synthesis of religion, science, and philosophy, and is therefore called the Wisdom-Religion.

Its custodians periodically attempt to pass this heritage of humanity on anew to those who are interested. In Theosophy, these custodians are called Mahatmas—great souls—or Masters of Wisdom, and their contacts with the outer world are called Messengers, such as H. P. Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. Throughout human history, many such Messengers have undertaken this role; and anyone willing to make the effort can find a number of these Messengers, and even Mahatmas, recorded in history—certainly over the last three millennia.

Jewels of Wisdom

Go here to see the entire library of Jewels of Wisdom

Story

Cross Currents

What is Man?

By H.P. Blavatsky From Isis Unveiled Book 1 Page 214

Man is a little world—a microcosm inside the great universe. Like a fœtus, he is suspended, by all his three spirits, in the matrix of the macrocosmos; and while his terrestrial body is in constant sympathy with its parent earth, his astral soul lives in unison with the sidereal anima mundi. He is in it, as it is in him, for the world-pervading element fills all space, and is space itself, only shoreless and infinite. As to his third spirit, the divine, what is it but an infinitesimal ray, one of the countless radiations proceeding directly from the Highest Cause—the Spiritual Light of the World? This is the trinity of organic and inorganic nature—the spiritual and the physical, which are three in one, and of which Proclus says that “The first monad is the Eternal God; the second, eternity; the third, the paradigm, or pattern of the universe;” the three constituting the Intelligible Triad. Everything in this visible universe is the outflow of this Triad, and a microcosmic triad itself. And thus they move in majestic procession in the fields of eternity, around the spiritual sun, as in the heliocentric system the celestial bodies move round the visible suns. The Pythagorean Monad, which lives “in solitude and darkness,” may remain on this earth forever invisible, impalpable, and undemonstrated by experimental science. Still the whole universe will be gravitating around it, as it did from the “beginning of time,” and with every second, man and atom approach nearer to that solemn moment in the eternity, when the Invisible Presence will become clear to their spiritual sight. When every particle of matter, even the most sublimated, has been cast off from the last shape that forms the ultimate link of that chain of double evolution which, throughout millions of ages and successive transformations, has pushed the entity onward; and when it shall find itself reclothed in that primordial essence, identical with that of its Creator, then this once impalpable organic atom will have run its race, and the sons of God will once more “shout for joy” at the return of the pilgrim.

“Man,” says Van Helmont, “is the mirror of the universe, and his triple nature stands in relationship to all things.” The will of the Creator, through which all things were made and received their first impulse, is the property of every living being. Man, endowed with an additional spirituality, has the largest share of it on this planet. It depends on the proportion of matter in him whether he will exercise its magical faculty with more or less success. Sharing this divine potency in common with every inorganic atom, he exercises it through the course of his whole life, whether consciously or otherwise. In the former case, when in the full possession of his powers, he will be the master, and the magnale magnum (the universal soul) will be controlled and guided by him. In the cases of animals, plants, minerals, and even of the average of humanity, this ethereal fluid which pervades all things, finding no resistance, and being left to itself, moves them as its impulse directs. Every created being in this sublunary sphere, is formed out of the magnale magnum, and is related to it. Man possesses a double celestial power, and is allied to heaven. This power is “not only in the outer man, but to a degree also in the animals, and perhaps in all other things, as all things in the universe stand in a relation to each other; or, at least, God is in all things, as the ancients have observed it with a worthy correctness. It is necessary that the magic strength should be awakened in the outer as well as in the inner man. . . . And if we call this a magic power, the uninstructed only can be terrified by the expression. But, if you prefer it, you can call it a spiritual power—spirituale robur vocitaveris. There is, therefore, such magic power in the inner man. But, as there exists a certain relationship between the inner and the outer man, this strength must be diffused through the whole man.”

Theosophy is Divine Wisdom and?

Altruism

Theosophy stands for the ethical ideal of Altruism. The loving and self-chosen act of putting the good of others before one’s own is an expression of the Ultimate Unity of Life. Human life is filled with examples of this heartfelt sacrifice in the form of the relationships between parent and child, teacher and student. But to make this an ethical ideal which supersedes all selfish desires, guiding all our relationships, governing all our choices, and motivated by a profound sense of Oneness is the moral condition of the Sage towards which all true students of Theosophy aspire.

Go here to read our 21 statements about Theosophical Philosophy