Theosophy

Expressions researched:
"theosophical" |"theosophy"

SB Canto 2

The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments.

SB 2.3.18, Purport:

The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merrymaking. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life.

CC Antya-lila

Vyāsadeva is the author of eighteen Purāṇas as well as the theosophical thesis Brahma-sūtra and its natural commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

CC Antya 9.10, Purport:

Vyāsadeva was the son of the great sage Parāśara. Other names for him are Sātyavateya and Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Bādarāyaṇa Muni. As one of the authorities on the Vedas, he divided the original Veda, for convenience, into four divisions—Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg and Atharva. He is the author of eighteen Purāṇas as well as the theosophical thesis Brahma-sūtra and its natural commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He belongs to the Brahma-sampradāya and is a direct disciple of Nārada Muni.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

The, the whole mischief is that everyone has got his own theosophy. And Bhagavad-gītā is a popular book, and he wants to prove his own philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on BG 4.7-9 -- New York, July 22, 1966:

Guest: Swamiji, I suppose (indistinct) of people realize.

Prabhupāda: No. It, simply, simply we have to hear it as it is. Don't try to interpret in a different way. The, the whole mischief is that everyone has got his own theosophy. And Bhagavad-gītā is a popular book, and he wants to prove his own philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā. Because he wants to be important man and he wants to show that "Here is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā," and they present some jugglery of words and mislead the people.

Just like I am repeatedly mentioned here that in our country Mahatma Gandhi, he had his philosophy of non-violence, and he wanted to prove non-violence from Bhagavad-gītā. But Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in the warfield. Bhagavad-gītā is spoken when Arjuna was in problem, whether to fight or not to fight. That is the, I mean the, background of Bhagavad-gītā. Now, if anyone wants to prove that Bhagava..., in Bhagavad-gītā there is non-violence, then you, you, you something else. Violence is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. So similarly, we should not try to under... Yes! We should not try to understand Bhagavad-gītā according to my viewpoint of view. I must understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is presented by Kṛṣṇa. Then it is (indistinct). Then it is (indistinct).

Those who are little advance, they are in the enjoyment of the mind, mental speculation, philosophy, or theosophy. So many "sophies" are there.

Lecture on BG 4.26 -- Bombay, April 15, 1974:

And those who are little advance, they are in the enjoyment of the mind, mental speculation, philosophy, or theosophy. So many "sophies" are there. Somebody putting some theories, this theory, that theory, that theory. Mental speculation. They derives poetry, writing poetry, nice poetry. They are not on the gross platform of sense gratification but on the subtle platform of sense... Mind is also sense. Mind is also sense.

Yogi means the meditators, they are also yogi, and those who are trying to understand the Absolute Truth by philosophical, by theosophical way, they are also yogi.

Lecture on BG 6.32-40 -- New York, September 14, 1966:

Always remember, yogi means either this dhyāna-yogī or jñāna-yogī or bhakti-yogī, yogi. Yogi does not mean simply those who are meditators. Yogi means the meditators, they are also yogi, and those who are trying to understand the Absolute Truth by philosophical, by theosophical way, they are also yogi. And those who are actually yogi, they are in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So yogi... So śrī-bhagavān uvāca. Now, Bhagavān, the Personality of Godhead... We have several times described the definition of Bhagavān. Bhagavān means one who has got complete control over six things. He is Bhagavān. He is God. What are those six things? Now, aiśvaryasya samagrasya: "Complete riches," and vīryasya samagrasya. Vīrya means strength. Complete riches, complete strength, complete knowledge, complete beauty, complete renunciation and complete fame...

There are so many societies, theological societies, this, theosophical societies, but what do they know about God? They do not know, neither can know. It is not possible, because they are thinking with their imperfect senses?

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- London, March 9, 1975:

Ānanda means pleasure, blissfulness. He is always... Kṛṣṇa, while He was present on this planet, He showed how to dance with the gopīs. He was always full of ānanda. Here we have got Kṛṣṇa. He is ānanda-mūrti. He is not nirānanda, without blissfulness. He is always with His consort, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. And He is playing flute and Rādhārāṇī is dancing. This is ānanda. So where is our ānanda? We imitate Kṛṣṇa, but we are not able to enjoy because we are in this material body. In this way from Bhagavad-gītā, if we study Bhagavad-gītā nicely, then we can understand what is God. Otherwise you can go on speculating for millions of years or for many, many births, you cannot understand what is God. There are so many societies, theological societies, this, theosophical societies, but what do they know about God? They do not know, neither can know. It is not possible, because they are thinking with their imperfect senses? How you can have the idea of the perfect, of the unlimited, by your imperfect speculation? That is not possible.

Those who are trying to approach Kṛṣṇa by philosophical speculation, by theosophical understanding, they go up to the impersonal feature of Kṛṣṇa, brahma-jñāna.

Lecture on BG 7.1-2 -- Bombay, March 28, 1971:

This devotional service, or the understanding of Kṛṣṇa, is jñānam. First of all, we have to understand. Kṛṣṇa will explain how Kṛṣṇa is present before you in different features. Just like originally He is present before us as impersonal Brahman, localized Paramātmā, and personally also, Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are all the same. There is no difference, Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān. There is no difference. The same thing, but it is realized under different angle of vision. Those who are trying to approach Kṛṣṇa by philosophical speculation, by theosophical understanding, they go up to the impersonal feature of Kṛṣṇa, brahma-jñāna. And those who are trying to understand Kṛṣṇa as the localized Supreme Soul within one's heart... Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ (SB 12.13.1). The yogis, they are trying to find out Kṛṣṇa within his heart by meditation.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is difficult to be approached by simple understanding of the Vedas. One has to become a devotee. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. It is simple. It is the entrance book for spiritual understanding. It is not very, I mean to say, highly theosophical or theological literature.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca, vedeṣu durlabham ātma-bhaktau (Bs. 5.33). The Supreme Personality of Godhead is difficult to be approached by simple understanding of the Vedas. One has to become a devotee. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. It is simple. It is the entrance book for spiritual understanding. It is not very, I mean to say, highly theosophical or theological literature. That highly theological literature is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So in the Bhagavad-gītā we get all information how Kṛṣṇa expands Himself. Advaita... Vedeṣu durlabha. Therefore one who does not read Bhagavad-gītā through a devotee... Kṛṣṇa... Just like Arjuna is a devotee. He understands Bhagavad-gītā. Without going through a devotee, nobody can understand God or His statements. Thousands of people for thousands of years, reading Bhagavad-gītā, but they do not know Kṛṣṇa. Is it not a fact? Yes.

Mahā-purāṇa means the topmost of all the purāṇas. You have seen the review by the Theosophical Society of India of my books. They have stated this very word, Mahā-purāṇa, Bhāgavatam, the Mahā-purāṇa.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.354-358 -- New York, December 28, 1966:

Now how the two different characteristics of God can be analyzed, that is mentioned in the beginning of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Lord Caitanya is referring. Lord Caitanya's mission as preaching was based on, cent percent, on the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And Bhagavad-gītā is the basic, I mean to say, preliminary study of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore in Caitanya-caritāmṛta you'll find most of the parallel passages and evidences offered by Lord Caitanya, they are from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā and some of the Purāṇas. Just like Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Padma Purāṇa, they are called sattvika purāṇa, purāṇas in the modes of goodness. There are eighteen purāṇas, six for each quality, modes of the nature. Six, six purāṇas for the person who are in the modes of ignorance, six purāṇas for the person who are in the modes of passion, and six purāṇas for persons who are in the mode of goodness, those who are actually qualified brāhmaṇas. So Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is called Mahā-purāṇa. Mahā-purāṇa means the topmost of all the purāṇas. You have seen the review by the Theosophical Society of India of my books. They have stated this very word, Mahā-purāṇa, Bhāgavatam, the Mahā-purāṇa.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

There are so many societies—theological society, theosophical society—they are searching after God. But here is God. Why don't you take reference from the Vedic literature?

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Lecture -- Bombay, January 3, 1973:

Kṛṣṇa also says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti, asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). There is no more parā-tattva, superior source, except Kṛṣṇa. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is therefore..., we are trying to place before the civilized human society that the ādi-puruṣa, the original Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are searching after God. There are so many societies—theological society, theosophical society—they are searching after God. But here is God. Why don't you take reference from the Vedic literature? God's reference is there in the Vedic literatures, and God Himself appeared, and He explained Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā. And God is accepted, not (only) now, even when Kṛṣṇa was present, five thousand years ago, all great sages, saintly persons, great ṛṣis, they also accepted. Nārada, Devala, Vyāsa. When Arjuna, in the Bhagavad-gītā... It is explained in the Tenth Chapter.

General Lectures

This movement is not like that is a sentimental movement. We have background, highest philosophical and theosophical.

Address to Indian Association -- Columbus, May 11, 1969:

So this movement is not like that is a sentimental movement. Don't think that these boys are dancing in some religious sentiment or fanaticism. No. We have background. We have background, highest philosophical and theosophical. Whatever you like. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Caitanya Mahāprabhu, while He was preaching, He went to Benares. So Benares is the seat of Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. The followers of Śaṅkarācārya, they are mostly seen in Benares, Vārāṇasī. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu was there, He was chanting and dancing. So some of the people, they became very much appreciative of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's dancing and chanting, and there was a big sannyāsī, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, leader of many thousands of Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. So somebody went to him and said, "Oh, from Bengal one young sannyāsī has come. Oh, He is so nicely chanting and dancing." So Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, he was a great Vedāntist. He did not like the idea. He said, "Oh, He is a pseudo sannyāsī. He is chanting and dancing. This is not the business of a sannyāsī. This is the... Sannyāsī should always engage himself in the study of philosophy and Vedānta, and He is simply chanting and dancing?" So he remarked that "He's a pseudo sannyāsī. He is not actually sannyāsa." Then one of the devotees, he did not like the idea, remark of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. He came back and informed Lord Caitanya that "These people are blackmailing You. I cannot tolerate this. So if something can be done to stop this blackmailing?" So that's a long history.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

Just like we are discussing about theosophy because we are grown up, and the child, he cannot understand. That does not mean we shall be unkind to the children.

Room Conversation -- June 5, 1974, Geneva:

Yogeśvara: He's asking, "Well, that's all right. But this love that we have for God, only man can give it. An animal can't love God. A tree can't love God."

Prabhupāda: But you can love animal. You are not animal. Animal... Just like we are discussing about theosophy because we are grown up, and the child, he cannot understand. That does not mean we shall be unkind to the children. He may be ignorant, the animal may be ignorant, but I am not ignorant. How can I kill the animal?

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Theosophy and theology is practically the same.

Conversation with Devotees on Theology -- April 1, 1975, Mayapur:

Acyutānanda: Theology or Theosophy?

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Acyutānanda: Theosophy?

Prabhupāda: No, theology.

Śrutakīrti: Theology. Theologian.

Prabhupāda: Theosophy and theology is practically the same.

Prajāpati: No, theosophy is nonsense Buddhist...

Prabhupāda: But according to academic order, logic is the preliminary study of philosophy. Our, our professor, Dr. Watt (?), he defined like that. In 1917...-(Aside:) Come on.-There was the governor in Bengal, Lord Ronaldsey (?), Marquis of Zetland. He was a Scottish man. And our college was Scottish Churches College-(aside:) Get the light. So... don't lean. You'll feel sleep. Just like sit my Guru Mahārāja. Show the picture. Be... Become my Guru Mahārāja. Yes. That sitting is the yogāsana. I am gone to hell. (laughter) You are young men. You learn from my Guru Mahārāja.

I think this is not theology; it is theosophy. Those who are trying to find out God by speculation, they are theosophist.

Garden Conversation with Professors -- June 24, 1975, Los Angeles:

Prabhupāda: And theology is science of God. So what is that science? You are trying to understand God, or you know God; you are going to abide by God's dictation. First of all, two things: you do not know God; you are trying to find out God. I think this is not theology; it is theosophy. Those who are trying to find out God by speculation, they are theosophist. And theologist means one who knows God and abides by his order. Just like we know government and we accept the government's law and abide by it. That is good citizenship. And those who have no government, they are trying to find out some good system of government, and that is another thing. So what is your position? You know God or you are trying to find out God? What is the theologician's position? That is my question.

Theology does not mean to make research who is God. That is theosophy.

Garden Conversation with Professors -- June 24, 1975, Los Angeles:

Mohammed says he is servant of God. Christ says he is son of God. And Kṛṣṇa says, "I am God." So where is the difference? The son will say the same thing, the servant will say the same thing, and the father also will say the same thing. So theology means to know God and abide by His order. That is my understanding. And theology does not mean to make research who is God. That is theosophy. So if you are theologicians, then you must know what is God and abide by His order.

Theosophy means a system of speculation, that's all. And theology does not require.

Morning Walk -- June 26, 1975, Los Angeles:

Brahmānanda: Each man presents his own theory.

Prabhupāda: That is theosophy, that is not theology. Theosophy means a system of speculation, that's all. And theology does not require. Biology. Logy means science. They say anthropology, but it is not logy; it is theory. "Maybe," "200,000,000's of years." What is this? Logy does not mean that.

Jayatīrtha: Still, they're awarding Ph.D.'s in theology.

Prabhupāda: Just like astrology. That is a science. Eh? What is that?

Jayatīrtha: But still they're awarding Ph.D.'s in theology, even they don't know anything about it.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Morning Walk -- January 3, 1976, Nellore:

Harikeśa: I mean, after all, all this talk about God was simply there because of man's desire to explain the unknown. He saw a thunderbolt and...

Prabhupāda: It is unknown to the rascal man. It is known to the sober man. (laughter) He should become sober instead of becoming a rascal. That is required. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne (BG 5.18). Ācāryavān puruṣo veda: "He knows, who has accepted the ācārya." This is Theosophical Society, I think. Huh? That trademark. Or Rāmakrishna Mission.

If I bring God consciousness, they will bring so many gods.

Morning Walk -- January 4, 1976, Nellore:

Prabhupāda: (break) There is Theosophical Society?

Yaśodānandana: Yes, all over the world, international.

Prabhupāda: (break) ...started from here?

Indian man: It was started. Madras center and there in America.

Prabhupāda: (break) ...come from the other side. (break) ...registering this association, some friend suggested, "Why don't you make it 'God consciousness'?" And "No, 'Kṛṣṇa conscious.' If I bring God consciousness, they will bring so many gods."

1969 Correspondence

Aravinda Ashram has their own publication organization; Theosophical Society has their own arrangement; Bible Society has their own arrangement; Ravindra Natha Thakura has their own arrangement. So why Iskcon should fail to have its own organization?

Letter to Gargamuni -- London 22 September, 1969:

I am not very much enthusiastic to publish our books by some publication house, including MacMillan and Company. So far as I know, Ramakrishna Mission has their own publication organization; Aravinda Ashram has their own publication organization; Theosophical Society has their own arrangement; Bible Society has their own arrangement; Ravindra Natha Thakura has their own arrangement. So why Iskcon should fail to have its own organization?