Blavatsky and contemporary politics 3/5 - General Influence

In the last forty years, studies of the influence of Blavatsky and the Theosophical movement has given surprising results, and so her status as a marginalized, much slandered figure has improved considerably. It has become apparent that somehow she was successful in being very influential, a surprisingly widespread influence, so much so that you could call it pervasive. It is surprisingly difficult to find a spiritual organization  that has not been influenced by Theosophy, in one way or another. The reason for this probably because that she presented spiritual ideas in a modern language, giving nominal possibilities for integrating theories of evolution, scientific processes, etc. in an increasingly global perspective. Moreover, at a time when people were searching for something new, she presented strikingly original ideas, within a holistic, systematic framework that probably has yet to be surpassed. 

 

On the other hand, Blavatsky's influence does not account for the entire alternative spirituality movement. Before Blavatsky, an alternative spirituality movement already existed since around 1850 (including alternative Christian movements), and needs to be studied more. Spiritualism had become a considerable movement. So an alternative spiritual movement was already well underway when she arrived on the scene.

 

I suppose the very pervasive nature of her influence makes it difficult to summarize. Moreover, her ideas were adapted, modified, improvised on in the typically individualistic ways of modernism, so that it is quite rare to see someone develop her specific ideas and philosophy explicitly and faithfully. It is doubtful that Blavatsky herself would recognize or agree with many contemporary neo-Theosophy or post-Theosophy currents, many that claim her as an inspiration. Sometimes the concepts are presented in a way diametrically opposed to what she originally explained. 

 

In certain cases, theosophical groups become problematic when they depart from the original program and absorb or get absorbed by the materialism, capitalism, consumerism, individualism, or the competitive, hedonistic aspects of modern society. Many of the the modern Mahatmas phenomena are more a case of spiritualist practices absorbing Theosophical ideas in a distorted way.  Below is a useful description of the fragmentation process, from a mainstream magazine:

'What we actually have is a highly derivative form of Theosophy— bits and pieces of what should really be termed neo-Theosophy, almost certainly lifted from sects that had themselves broken away from the larger Theosophical movement, such as the “I AM” Religious Activity in the 1930s and 1940s or the more recent Church Universal and Triumphant, and that have provided the Hatonn materials with a fragmentary and superficial Theosophical gloss.'

 

Generally speaking, true to the ‘salad bar’ approach  of the New Age movement, alternative spirituality groups tend to have an eclectic mix of influences, which I would break down into spiritualist (channeling, mediums), new thought (mind power, positive thinking), and theosophical (Eastern philosophies, comparative religion). One useful step in examining an alternative spirituality group would be to consider degrees of influence from those three currents. For example, one of William Pelley’s magazines (an influence on Guy and Edna Ballard's 'I AM' movement, a QAnon influence) has been described as being ‘in the center of the occult / New Thought / Theosophical mixture of the time’.

Hence, saying a given movement, such ‘I Am', or starseeds or traditionalism has Theosophical influences is not saying much, as virtually every spiritual movement, modern and traditional, has varying degrees of Theosophical influences. So I think that today, we’ve reached a point where it is necessary (and possible) to be more nuanced (this is occurring in academia to a certain extent, much less so in mainstream media, it seems). One needs to do the work and specifically trace the nature and extent of that influence, which is a difficult task because one has to have a good knowledge of the source of influence as well as the more recent manifestations. Before assuming there is a problematic theosophical influence, I think the primary blame should go to the person directly responsible for a specific movement's wrongdoings.

 

Looking again at William Pelley, although more research needs to be done, it seems readily apparent that  the radical right wing racist elements come from, besides Nazism directly, fundamentalist Christian sources and not from the theosophical elements.

 

Part 4

Blavatsky and contemporary politics 2/5 - Neo-theosophy

The second point I’d like to discuss is mainly for clarification purposes. I would like to suggest that there is a need to distinguish the 1875-1900 period as original theosophy and the 1901-1935 period as neo-theosophy. In academic studies, this is done to a certain extent, but not consistently. I don’t mean the term ‘neo-theosophy’ to be derogatory but simply to demarcate a period where the literature, which had a certain consistency, began to noticeably differ from the original doctrines. As many specifically neo-theosophical ideas from that later period get attributed to the original theosophy, more consistency in distinguishing the two forms could help to lessen the confusion. Moreover, I’ve noticed that when historians try to take on the whole early period of 1875-1935, they tend to have a lack of knowledge of one of the two periods (it's a very complex period in history), or run into semantic difficulties, and is therefore rarely successful. 

 

Briefly stated, I would describe neo-theosophy as a shift to a greater emphasis on modern, western, exoteric values (to the detriment of traditional, eastern, esoteric values). It emerged when, following a tendency begun by H. S. Olcott and A. P. Sinnett, Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854 –1934) began a close collaboration with Annie Besant (1847 – 1933), who was elected president of the Theosophical Society after Olcott's death in 1907, and released a controversial series of books which developped Theosophical principles in a direction noticeably different from Blavatskian theosophy, a kind of proto- New Age outlook with a greater emphasis on psychic powers, clairvoyance and past life exploration in such books as the Inner Life (1911), A Textbook of Theosophy (1912), and the Masters and the Path (1925). 

In 1910, Leadbeater contended that Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895 –1986) was to be the probable  “vehicle” for the new “world teacher”. After being groomed for such a position with the support of Annie Besant, Krishnamurti eventually left the Theosophical Society in 1930 and became a successful independent spiritual teacher. (James Santucci, Theosophy and Theosophical Societies, Theosophy Forward, 2013, pp 10-22).

Probably partly due to the intensely tumultuous period of the first two world wars, schisms within the society began to occur and various offshoots organizations were founded by former Theosophical members in the early twentieth century period, some important early ones being:

Max Heindl (1865 - 1919) who founded the Rosicrucian Society in 1912.

Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) who founded the Anthroposophy group in 1913.

Alice Bailey (1880 –1949) who founded the Arcane school in 1920.

All three have a more or less pronounced Christian emphasis, an important point that will be further considered.  From there, further divisions and offshoots have resulted in a broad Theosophical current that have many common general points of agreement and many differences of points of detail. I think that it is safe to say that the neo-theosophical offshoots can be characterized by a narrowing of the original theosophical values, goals and free, open, universalist approach.

One could ask if Blavatsky is to be blamed for all the subsequent fragmentation. I would argue that she tried her best to prevent it. One can see in the Mahatma letters, in her correspondence, in the magazine she edited, that she was fighting distortions in the original teachings and tendencies of veering away from the original values, especially in her struggles with Olcott and Sinnett, two of her closest colleagues. Moreover, her writings often show that she was aware of the serious problems of corruption that any new spiritual movement faces, for example, the article ‘Pseudo-Theosophy’

Part 3

Blavatsky and contemporary politics 1/5 - History

Continuing from last month, I've broken down my op-ed comments on Theosophy's role in current politics into five parts: history, influence, neotheosophy, politics, and a defence, which will run this month. A final piece will be a comparison of Blavatsky and Guénon's views on the Kali Yuga, which seems to me to be a key distinction between theosophy and traditionalism.

 

When you see some dramatic current political event, the January 6 US election riots, with the QAnon Shaman connection with the Starseed movement, QAnon’s connection with the ‘IAm’ movement, Steve Bannon’s connection with traditionalism, and with the Russian-Ukraine war, Alexander Dugin’s connection with traditionalism, with a little inquiry, it becomes apparent that these movements origins were influenced by Theosophy to a certain extent. Does this cast a dark shadow on the already very challenged Theosophy ‘brand’? Should Theosophy be blamed? Should Blavatsky be held responsible? These are some basic questions that come to mind, which to address properly would require considerable historical research that is beyond the scope of this editorial. I will simply propose a few observations that strike me as relevant to the current state of the general perception of Theosophy, and historical awareness of H.P. Blavatsky’s influence in particular.

 

To begin, I'd like to suggest that since her theosophical ideas seem to have an importance in today's political landscape, then a comprehensive and accurate historical and intellectual study of her influence and ideas are necessary. And if this stark reality serves to further encourage the growing field of esoteric history, then I think that is good thing, because it could help to clear up the significant inaccuracies, confusion and misunderstandings that continue to be propagated about her.

 

History

 

Modernism  inherently gives little value to historical study other than for propaganda, that is to justify itself, to promote the superiority of modern values. Hence the twentieth century historical approach was to focus on rationalist materialism, often tacitly excluding all perspectives that do not agree with that viewpoint. What was perceived as an advance in objective rationalism, began to be perceived as biased, repressive and rigid as currents of post-modernism began to emerge, and so people started to become more interested in more spiritual, mystical, alternative aspects that were previously neglected and excluded. The historical study of esoteric currents began to emerge and has slowly grown and developed over the last four decades.

 

There is a slow awareness that these alternative esoteric currents might not be as marginal as mainstream institutions would like to believe. So to a certain extent, it would seem that the emergence of Steve Bannon, the QAnon movement, and traditionalist political currents have caught people off guard and left them scrambling to understand and analyze them.

 

There has been appreciable historical study of the Blavatskyan theosophy current, things have improved. Over the last forty years, every new decade has seen more accurate, detailed, insightful research. Still, there remains a sort of a niche mentality, so I think it would be useful to further integrate the research into mainstream history (although I’ve seen tentative efforts being made in that direction). Greater research budgets should allow for more meticulous, serious research. It is a field that shows promise and there have been some impressive studies and books.

 

Blavatsky and other theosophists had a distinct propensity to document their activities, believing that they would be historically important. Had this idea been incorrect, it may appear vain and obsessive, but the last twenty years has shown that to be, to a certain degree, correct. So that leaves a treasure trove of useful material for historical research, which has yet to be fully taken advantage of. Thankfully, IAPSOP has emerged as an outstanding resource. A problem in Blavatsky’s case is that her globe-trotting tendencies make it necessary to conduct research in the United States, India, England, and Russia at the very least.

 

Like many or even most academic fields today, thing are in a state of flux, and the field of esoteric studies is no different. It is something of a mixed bag, with a variety of approaches and varying levels of quality and accuracy. It is still a field working at finding a semantic approach that can make sense of an area of study that includes supernatural beliefs, practices, and phenomena. To briefly mention some problems observed, you have presentism – perceiving Blavatsky against today’s values, current New Age trends (often ignoring the stark realities of colonialism which she faced). The Negative tendency of perceiving alternative spirituality from a Marxist / Max Weber perspective,  presented as a cautionary warning, spiritual =irrational, deviant to the rational ideal of modernism. This favouring of social theory results in a tendency to limit engagement in the discussion of ideas and doctrines (although improving), hence I see a need for deeper engagement with specifics intellectual ideas of Blavatsky per se. There are also semantic issues of increasingly narrow specialization without a global perspective.

 

Moreover, there is the problem of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, judging the theosophical movement as a whole solely by the worst examples, giving disproportional emphasis on the extreme, excentric, dysfunctional manifestations, which are bound to occur in any movement that gains a certain prominence. Hence I suggest a consideration of Gershom Scholem’s notion of the distinction between healthy normative social standards in spiritual movements and pathological deviations, which  Scholem comments on in his writings on the 17th-century on Sabbatai Zvi and the religious-social movement of Sabbatianism. For example, frequent reference is made to ‘Blavatsky and her Ascended Masters’, even though the term Ascended Masters, although they may claim to be the same as in Blavatsky’s time, whatever they are, are noticeably different from the originals and people tend to incorrectly associate them directly with her, probably facetiously, for derogatory purposes.

 

Unfortunately, there has been considerably less efforts by esoteric organizations themselves to  make use of their rich archival repository and present some historical overviews of their own, which would conceivably offer a more spiritual outlook. The study of the history of esoteric tradition is an important aspect of theosophical perennialism, which french Mason Jean-Marie Ragon has demonstrated, as well as Blavatsky (notably in chapter 8,volume 2 of Isis Unveiled and her review article of A. E. Waite's 'The real history of the Rosicrucians'. )

 

Part 2