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