What “Liberate Theosophy” Means: Beyond “Back to Blavatsky” and Criticisms

The call to “Liberate Theosophy” is not a mere “Back to Blavatsky” call. It has to be more than that. I am convinced, that the public is not well-educated about the motives and aims of the Theosophists and Helena P. Blavatsky (a key proponent of the Theosophical Movement in the 19th century). What I mean by Liberate Theosophy, would be to literally say — give back “Theosophy.”

It is common for others to deride Theosophical Writings as merely “New Age.” We challenged this in Helena Blavatsky On Pseudo-Theosophy And Pseudo-Messiahs on why she is not the “Mother of the New Age.” Contrary to some people with influence who spread these ideas, after having examined Theosophy very superficially. Theosophy is not a blend of Eastern and Western religions and philosophy. It’s not a hodge-podge, or salad, but there is a habit to present theosophical ideas through an overly-intellectual or multi-language jargon, that can be highly unnecessary. Blavatsky’s orientation in this is very purposeful and intentional, and she makes linguistic mistakes, and isn’t perfect. She has explained her reasons, and addresses her critics, but the critics never read her writings.

They criticise something, she then explains a few passages before or later, or in hers and another theosophist’s letters; and in her late meetings and commentary. If you’re a researcher, you have to consider that, but it isn’t sometimes. She is presenting her work, as someone who knows she will be calumniated and scapegoated, and she anticipates the criticisms of her opponents.

I want you to take a honest look at Steve on no. 1 —

This guy is wrong as well, so let’s explain.

Theosophists are, or ought to be Analogeticists like the Neo-Platonists as they saw themselves in the line of upholding. In Isis Unveiled, Blavatsky’s first book, she explained, that in order to demonstrate the truth of the secret doctrine and ‘Eastern Esotericism,’ it was necessary to collate all supporting evidences in that direction. So, she sought to explain the discrepancies and similitude using dozens of schools and traditions to demonstrate that such a system exists. A classicist should already be well-acquainted.

There are contemporary renowned classicists of Hellenic Studies, e.g., that engage in the same type of parlance as Blavatsky and G.R.S Mead, and unless you’re someone engaging in none of the scholarship, Theosophy just seems like gibberish and a massive swab of art pasting on a single canvas. Theosophy adds further difficulty. It is not alone based on Hellenic Studies. It involves the expertise in Studies of many traditions; because Theosophists aim to trace their every root and branch.

Among esoteric lineages are disputes as well, but hardly no one across the traditions know how to solve them. Theosophists attempted to solve them, and demonstrate minor disputes were the result of ignorance, and showed exactly where and when certain concepts developed.

Theosophy, or ‘Sapiential Tradition’ has become entirely associated with Blavatsky, but it is not. So, attacking Blavatsky to attack Theosophy is not smart. To attack Theosophy would be to also put the entire history of natural philosophy into question, and religion in general as atheists already do. Many persons present this history as the superstitions of primitive peoples and their idolatry, from Atheists to the Orthodox of every Conventional Religion. This is not just about 1875.

It is about the History of Humanity, Civilisations, and Peoples, lost and known. Legends, fables, myth, mystery, puzzles, etc., that require solving.

Some Perennialists, Traditionalists, and Theosophians of some particular School loathe this characterization to a degree, that they find they need to criticise and refute Blavatsky’s writings as entirely bogus and unworthy of examination. This would be a huge mistake. As we have argued, those attempts put into disrepute by Theosophical writers, though not filtered into public opinion about Theosophy, prove this tactic has not helped anybody. Theosophists know this, and certain persons themselves point out the issue of Theosophists relying on the works of Blavatsky. Theosophical literature however covers a lot of traditions, and there is much more to be done with it. If you want to attack Theosophy, they just go to H.P.B., entirely leaving the works of others in the shade, or forgetting the fact that the contemporary Theosophists are mortal. They are not theurgists. They are not presenting their work as revelations, but on human effort, as we state are the conditions under which scriptural literature is written from the viewpoint of many Theosophists.

So when people say, The Secret Doctrine is a scripture, this is false. She writes in the work HERSELF, what the work is meant to do, but people don’t read it. They just open it, and say it’s gibberish. The Stanzas of Dzyan, the Ancient Mystery schools and cults, Northern Buddhist and Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Schools of Thought, Buddhist Tantras and the Kalachakra are we’re sure very real. All the while certain people laugh at Theosophists, they are capable of moving scholarship forward, if more individuals could be guided to understand properly what Theosophy is. Now, there are people interested in Theosophy who do make Theosophy a “New Age thing,” but this has become a charge like “Fascism,” us heretics can’t seem to escape. I have addressed this fact, especially as to the American Theosophists, because that has been the cultural influence and habit since the last century. I’m tired of the misperceptions about Theosophy, because I write about it. I like writing about it. There is no doubt that some Theosophists are too reliant on only Theosophical writers.

Don’t you think we recognise that?

Despite this, Blavatsky’s writings serve a great function, and to outright dismiss them would be intellectually dishonest. So, it is underestimated. She has been criticised by others, for another reason, because despite her writings, some critics say she just brings a new myth.

A legitimate criticism.

It is like the Oapse, the Urantia, or the three shinshūkyō (新宗教) of Japan, influenced by Shinto and shamanism (Tenrikyo, Kurozumikyo and Oomoto). Theosophists have to demonstrate, that among all the charlantry of the past two centuries, that what they’re explaining leads to real knowledge. It is however silly to fully satisfy the cravings of a humanity that repeatedly mock things they wish to understand.

University Departments are dying for persons who can teach Asian Philosophy. Asian Philosophy also has esoteric tradition and lineages. There is a complete hidden history about religion, that is ignored in our understanding of the origins of religion. Western Occult Tradition is based on Islamic and Christian scriptures and Kabbalism chiefly. This is very limited; and what Theosophists tried to get Spiritualists and others to observe, was that even with the greatest admired names of Western occult philosophers, they were mistaken too. What students are learning in the West confuses them about Eastern philosophy. They learn the husks, the conceptions, etc., and learn it in accordance to Western habits of pure Greek rationalism. We do not suspect a science of the soul as the Platonists or of the Gnosis, and we do not approach religion scientifically.

The Times call for New Generations of Genuine and Hopeful Theosophists.

Muslims are busy trying to expand Islam because they believe it is the true original religion of Humanity and Christians are insecure about their future condition, and Theosophists like the Atheists provide alternatives. We are not New Age thinkers. As said, there are points on which Theosophical literature can be criticised; but for people to just totally disregard the Theosophical School of Thought and their Approaches, like I read in comment sections, though showing they’ve read very little is very lazy

Liberate Theosophy means, liberating it from ways of thinking that breeds its stagnation…

Liberate Theosophy means, liberating it from ways of thinking that breeds its stagnation; which are consequent of certain habits of logic common in religious thought. There is so much escapism into abstract thinking by some today, and criticism of Theosophy by Theosophists is good. Observing how people view Theosophy is good, so to improve, but some people are really intent on making Theosophists look like the dumbest people with the stupidest beliefs:

“There is a highly popular school of ‘occultists’ which is 99% an escape-mechanism.” (Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears, ch.71.)

“‘Theosophist.’ A person who talks about Yoga, and does no work.” (Aleister Crowley, Glossary in Liber ABA, Part 1: Mysticism)

Theosophy did not begin in 1875, and one need not reduce all knowledge to what “the Masters” state. That’s a religion. That’s stagnation, and I want to change that. I want you to help others see the reason for a renaissance, a revival of effort beyond the walls of the Theos. Soc. Take a look at all these like-minded practitioners:

Timeline A: Templars-Enlightenment (1075-1875) They did their own work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s