LUCIFER. Theosophy and Occultism are synonymous terms, that imply a fundamental conception of MATTER and invisible Nature, worlds, and beings. This briefly featured article gives an unapologetic tone and defense of theosophical elaborations on the Christian mythic figure herein, prepared to improve on “Everything About Lucifer in Ancient Mythology,” and critique Per Faxneld’s “Blavatsky the Satanist: Luciferianism in Theosophy and its Implications.” It is often the way Theosophical ideas are worded in criticism, that reveals motive, masquerading as objective research. In the Abstract of Per Faxneld’s paper, we are told that Theosophical sympathy for the Devil extends to the Theosophical Journal’s name, LUCIFER.
“To Blavatsky, Satan is a cultural hero akin to Prometheus” it states. Theosophist’s reading of Bere’shith ch. iii., is described merely as a “reinterpretation” of the Christian myth of the Fall, as if concluded from thin-air; and the Christian’s stretching of this Jewish text, is not itself worthy of skepticism. Per Faxneld situates the ideas in the wider nineteenth-century context, where poets and socialist thinkers held similar ideas and a “counter-hegemonic reading of the Fall,” which he argues had far-reaching feminist implications. We must disagree!
This leads to scapegoating the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT.
The Abstract and Conclusion of Per Faxneld’s paper suggests, as many already do, we blame Theosophy and Helena P. Blavatsky for contemporary radical use of the figure of Satan, “filled with both political implications and strategic didactic maneuvers” (pg. 227). He states, “I propose that we view her ‘Satanism’ as an expression of a religious cosmology” (ibid.). This is a subversive approach. Real ‘Satanism’ is absolutely and definitively super-egoist. It is a principle of the commercial culture, economy, and central to “neo-feminist” thought, as in Anton Lavey’s The Compleat Witch, or What to Do When Virtue Fails (1941) or The Satanic Witch on manipulation, and emasculation of men. Per Faxneld repeatedly speaks of the “political implications” of Theosophical ideas, like Lee Penn. We fail to see the influence of Theosophical ideas on society here, but as an occultist, ‘Satanism’ — this is not a reference to Lavey’s ideological Satanism, but as it is in practical occultism and oft-scoffed “magic” — is embedded into a society centred-round the inauthentic and compliant corporate entity. Satanism and Gynocentrism rules; not philosophy, illumination, and ethics in what THEOSOPHY inculcates.
We must ask, that people truly not spread further misunderstanding on Occultism. There is a double-side to Occultism, which is bound up in the nature of SPACE and MATTER (Magnes), or the Aether. The occult teachings of Theosophy finds its vindication in the classical theories; and not in socialist thinkers, humorous poets, and clever feminists of the nineteenth-century. Lucifer has no Biblical justification, firstly; therefore, whatever Blavatsky states on Lucifer, should be firstly viewed through mythical phraseology and expression. The one time Lucifer (Septuagint translation of Helel ben Shaḥar) is used in the Torah is a reference to the King of Babylon. The popular legend of the Christians is an amalgamation of myths: Vita Adæ et Evæ, Samyaza (the heaven-seizer) and Azael in the Slavonic Enoch. It is similar to the Promethean, or Pre-Hesiodic myth, and Venus lore.
The myth of the King of Babylon is derived from a Babylonian or Hebrew sidereal or star-myth (similar to the Greek myth of Helio’s son, Phaéthōn). In times then, stars were regarded as celestial beings.
It is because the theories on the conception of nature, this double-side to Occultism exists. This term cannot be separated from religion, and used as a synonym for “evil”; and because knowledge is secret, does not mean it is evil. It means, it is hidden. You may be an atheist, devout religionist, or not, but when it’s stated that the key to esotericism is to “know thyself,” this is not about mere self-reflection, or the personal self and its likes or dislikes in relation to the material world and possessions. To “know thyself” is the psychological teaching of the ‘Greek Gnosis’ taught by its philosophers, and gnosis in general (outside of ancient Greece); but it is protection from the tactics, that help keep the majority of people docile, fragmented, and even opposed to new knowledge. Lucifer is merely used in reference to what PRINCIPLES in Occult phraseology the popular myth corresponds to, such as 1) the Sidereal, or Astral Light (a lower aspect of the Aether); 2) mind-consciousness; and 3) the lower aspect of the mind (the adversary). The latter is similar to what Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 C.E.) does, when he identifies Lucifer with Sat’an (שָּׂטָן).
So, I want to encourage us to reject the ‘comic book’ narrative people have believed from priests and preachers, which has given us the popular conception, that even Biblical literalists could not defend. In Lucifer Protogonos, I stretched Lucifer into the Phanes and Apollonian myth from the classic mythology and MYSTERIES similar to what Blavatsky did. Her Magazine, LUCIFER, has a story to its founding, beyond the first page introduction, but basically she wanted to deliberately “troll” Christians. Seeing, that disingenuous Christian propaganda repeatedly and virulently connects this to Bailey’s Lucis Trust and NGO status, it is high time to never back down, by feeling shame for naming a magazine after an ancient comic book character.