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