Template talk:Theosophy

Though Doubleday was a theosophist, he was probably not a major enough player to qualify for the template. There were thousands of well-known people connected with the movement. Hgilbert (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Doubleday served as President of William Quan Judge's faction. So I guess that qualifies as a central figures in the theosophical movement. I would like to add Katherine Tingley, who has a wiki article about her. When I get time, I'd like to add a new article about Ernest Temple Hargrove. I have added the Theosophical Society in America (Hargrove) faction to the tab as well.Jemiljan (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check the related topics list; is this complete and consistent? hgilbert (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we need to add the western theosophical tradition/currents. The Theosophical Society tradition/current covers the eastern theosophy i.e. covered by the current template. This division/separation is pretty standard. The western theosophy traditions are very often referred to as Christian Theosophy. I find that term misleading to average readers since Hermetics, Christian Kabbalah, Alchemy etc. is not associated with Christianity (by Christians, or vernacular usage). There is overlap, so perhaps it is only a matter of simple editing rather than trying to divide things in half. ?? JEMead (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the side banner template. It is more accurate w.r.t. content. JEMead (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many names here were not Theosophists: Origen, Vladimir Solovyov, etc. I have removed obvious ones. Some fact checking would be in order for the rest of the names. HGilbert (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - many names were heavy contributors to theosophical thought. I will revert - we need to discuss some. Several were key figures. For Instance the Transcendentalists were key movers. I can see where this may confuse people, but western theosophy is different from the TS in ideas (overlap exists). Sophiologists, Gnostics, Trandentalists, Jung and even Schrodinger and Oppenheimer etc. all were critical (I left the Physicists out, too controversial). Hence Origen, Vladimir Solovyov, Emerson etc were valid contributors. Thoreau drew from the Vedas. Emerson used Isaac Newton's translation of the Emerald Table. The point is contributors develop many of the esoteric ideas used in Theosophy. I guess you deny Jung? Many of these were critical to the development of the Beat Generation, New Age etc. (Blavatsky was only a part of this). We also have a section for Western Theosophists - that is a different. category. JEMead (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I took the western theosophist's section out. Contributors makes sense, but many people refrained from the term because of the HPB association (only after HPB of course). e.g. GRS Mead was not a Theosophist in that he denounced the society and started his own. He was a Gnostic. Krishnamurti was not a Theosophist, but he is included TS. JEMead (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Origen - not a gnostic but a theosopher/contributor, got expelled from the church. (wanted to clarify). Theosophical ideas were involved. 96.247.155.220 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) JEMead (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of these people were not theosophists. I mean, on what basis are people like Ambrose included in the list? The list look very random --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we write down a list of criteria for inclusion in the list of (traditional) theosophists? Like that they self-identified as theosophists, or wrote on/about the term "theosophy".... --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the obvious (because chronologically inappropriate) candidates. HGilbert (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it dubious to name the sections Western Thesophy and "Theosophical Society." The movements in the "Thesophical section" do not just include TS movements, but also its offshots like Anthrosophy and non-TS people like Krishnamurti and others. Theosophy (the occult movement) was also (though not exclusively) a Western movement.

It makes more sense to name the sections pre-Blavatskian and Blavatskian theosophy and its offshots. --Trinity9538 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Academics do not follow your suggestion. We use their conventions. i.e. Theosophy and Theosophical Society, That is what they use. JEMead (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these academics? It seems to me that you are relying on a small strand of academics, and not on any consensus among academics. As someone in the archived discussion said: Over-reliance on Faivre is a problem here. Faivre is not the established mainstream writer on Theosophy; Faivre has been challenged. GRS Mead was probably another person with similar opinions, but it is not the mainstream view.--Trinity9538 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Academics are the people who teach in college and write books on theosophy and esotericism used in colleges. Faivre should be replaced by Christian Theosophy. It is a very famous model and heavily used. All academic theories get challenged, Christian Theosophy has stood the test of time and is very mainstream. Faivre's name is not important. See a modern text or reference, like the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (2006; editor is Hannegraaf) JEMead (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to re-titling, but "pre-Blavatskyian" would not be a wise choice. HGilbert (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with Traditional and Modern Theosophy (if we need to split those sections in two at all). --Trinity9538 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional and Modern seems fine. Western is better. JEMead (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western would imply that Blavatskian Thesophy is not Western, which would be pov. --Trinity9538 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TS is where it (HPB etc) is usually categorized. TS is just not Theosophy as History would dictate. Hence TS is best. I am fine with Modern Theosophy though.JEMead (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: your edit to this template goes directly to Theosophy (Boehmian), when as a template for Theosophy it should surely go to Theosophy, as two forms exist, and where the reader / researcher can choose between Theosophy (Boehmian) and Theosophy (Blavatskian). One of the rare times a link to a Disambiguation page is actually correct. Your thoughts? Edmund Patrick – confer 05:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try creating a redirect Theosophy (disambiguation), redirecting to to the disambiguation page Theosophy. According to plan, this will keep the link out of the maintenance pages. Step two is having a chat with the creator of the disambig page/article mover, as this created a lot of <ugly word> that (s)he left to clean up by others... (I think I had to fix 12 templates). The Banner talk 10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mallarme: Mallarme, are you still editing? as creator of this template any thoughts, difficulties etc created by the points raised in this discussion. Thanks, @The Banner: I am not computer savvy enough to muck around with templates, if it creates problems each article has a link wihin it for the other one. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 15:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has created the redirect. That should take care of it. The Banner talk 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]