Rehabilitation of H. P. Blavatsky

Hi all :),

I would like to introduce some of the things related to the work of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831--1861), if permitted, and see if that is followed by an increased popularity of some of her ideas among the forum members. Her work, I believe, has a lot of similarities with the work of Laura, and I would sincerely like to restore her good reputation among those who, like herself, combine the scientific approach to the possibilities of man's psychological and spiritual evolution with critical analysis of other teachings, history, and political events.

So, without further adieu, here are a few introductory paragraphs from

THE SECRET DOCTRINE: THE SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY
by H. P. BLAVATSKY, Author of "ISIS UNVEILED."

Click to expand...

which, I hope, will throw some light on the nature of her work, which, in principle is expressed by the motto of the Theosophical Society:

"There is no Religion higher than Truth."

Click to expand...

First of all, just a couple of fragments on how she herself related to the work being done, its purpose, the claims she made, and how she, so prophetically, perceived that her work will be received:

PREFACE said:

[...]
These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the author claim the position of a
revealer of mystic lore, now made public for the first time in the world's history.

The writer [...] is fully prepared to take all the responsibility for what is contained in this work,
and even to face the charge of having invented the whole of it. That it has many shortcomings she is
fully aware; all that she claims for it is that, romantic as it may seem to many, its logical coherence
and consistency entitle this new Genesis to rank, at any rate, on a level with the "working hypotheses"
so freely accepted by modern science.

The aim of this work may be thus stated: to show that Nature is not "a fortuitous concurrence of
atoms," and to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe; to rescue from
degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all religions; and to uncover, to some extent, the
fundamental unity from which they all spring; finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never
been approached by the Science of modern civilization.

If this is in any degree accomplished, the writer is content. It is written in the service of humanity, and
by humanity and the future generations it must be judged. Its author recognises no inferior court of
appeal. Abuse she is accustomed to; calumny she is daily acquainted with; at slander she smiles in silent contempt.

De minimis non curat lex [Latin for: "The law does not concern itself with trifles"].
H.P.B.
London, October, 1888.

Click to expand...

Now, just a couple of short excerpts from the Introduction, which is very lengthy and teems with facts mostly of historiographical (historiography - the study of historical writing) value:

INTRODUCTION said:

[...]
[Regarding the relationship of "The Secret Doctrine" to "Isis Unveiled," her earlier work:] [T]he present attempt to elucidate some mysteries of the Esoteric philosophy has, in truth, nothing to do with the earlier work.
[...]

To my judges, past and future, therefore -- whether they are serious literary critics, or those howling
dervishes in literature who judge a book according to the popularity or unpopularity of the author's
name, who, hardly glancing at its contents, fasten like lethal bacilli on the weakest points of the body --
I have nothing to say. Nor shall I condescend to notice those crack-brained slanderers -- fortunately
very few in number -- who, hoping to attract public attention by throwing discredit on every writer
whose name is better known than their own, foam and bark at their very shadows. These, having first
maintained for years that the doctrines taught in the Theosophist, and which culminated in "Esoteric Buddhism," had been all invented by the present writer , have finally turned round, and denounced "Isis Unveiled" and the rest as a plagiarism from Eliphas Levi (!), Paracelsus (!!), and, mirabile dictu, Buddhism and Brahmanism (!!!) As well charge Renan with having stolen his Vie de Jesus from the Gospels, and Max Muller his "Sacred Books of the East" or his "Chips" from the philosophies of the Brahmins and Gautama, the Buddha. But to the public in general and the readers of the "Secret Doctrine" I may repeat what I have stated all along, and which I now clothe in the words of Montaigne: Gentlemen, "I HAVE HERE MADE ONLY A NOSEGAY OF CULLED FLOWERS, AND HAVE BROUGHT NOTHING OF MY OWN BUT THE STRING THAT TIES THEM."

Pull the "string" to pieces and cut it up in shreds, if you will. As for the nosegay of FACTS -- you will
never be able to make away with these. You can only ignore them, and no more.

[...]

Click to expand...

And finally, some passages from the PROEM, or second introduction, which is, by itself, is a philosophical masterpiece, in my opinion:

PROEM said:

[...]

It is the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its
regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet
absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, "a chaos to the sense, a
Kosmos to the reason." Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is
called in esoteric parlance the "Great Breath,"* which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the
sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE. That which is motionless cannot be Divine. But then there is
nothing in fact and reality absolutely motionless within the universal soul.

[...]

Therefore, when the Pantheists echo the Upanishads, which state, as in the Secret Doctrine, that "this"
cannot create, they do not deny a Creator, or rather a collective aggregate of creators, but only refuse,
very logically, to attribute "creation" and especially formation, something finite to an Infinite
Principle. With them, Parabrahmam is a passive because an Absolute Cause, the unconditioned
Mukta. It is only limited Omniscience and Omnipotence that are refused to the latter, because these
are still attributes (as reflected in man's perceptions); and because Parabrahm, being the "Supreme
ALL," the ever invisible spirit and Soul of Nature, changeless and eternal, can have no attributes;
absoluteness very naturally precluding any idea of the finite or conditioned from being connected with
it. And if the Vedantin postulates attributes as belonging simply to its emanation, calling it "Iswara
plus Maya," and Avidya (Agnosticism and Nescience rather than ignorance), it is difficult to find any
Atheism in this conception.** Since there can be neither two INFINITES nor two ABSOLUTES in a
Universe supposed to be Boundless, this Self-Existence can hardly be conceived of as creating
personally. In the sense and perceptions of finite "Beings," THAT is Non-"being," in the sense that it
is the one BE-NESS; for, in this ALL lies concealed its coeternal and coeval emanation or inherent
radiation, which, upon becoming periodically Brahma (the male-female Potency) becomes or expands
itself into the manifested Universe. Narayana moving on the (abstract) waters of Space, is transformed
into the Waters of concrete substance moved by him, who now becomes the manifested WORD or
Logos.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, that will be enough for now. If you are interested in perusing this further, I will be most glad to discuss any issues. The philosophical and metaphysical gems that this work contains are innumerable. The amount of factual information is tremendous. It is regarded by many as somewhat difficult to digest, and I know I haven't been ready to read and understand this work for a long time. However, I believe, participants of this forum have enough intelligence to browse this work on their own and form their opinion on that, and not on hearsay, which has always been somewhat imperceptive to great truths.

Cassiopaean Session Transcripts / Re: Session 5 December 1994

Q: (L) Okay. Now, I would like to know, for the sake of all the Theosophists around the world, what was the source of the information in the book "Isis Unveiled" by Helena Blavatsky?
A: Orions STS and STO. 6th Density.
Q: (L) So, her information was from both sides? And it is up to the reader to figure out which is which?
A: Good idea.
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that the information we get through this source is STS oriented?
A: Yes. Always possibility.


................So, it would seem, discernment is in order. Like eating fish with a lot of sharp bones?

I'm not terribly interested in rehabilitating Blavatsky since she was caught out in definite fraud a time or two.

Yes, discernment is in order, like with everything, isn't it?

Some real tasty fish have a lot of bones ;)

But yes, if you are not sure about your critical thinking ability, maybe you shouldn't read it. Although, honestly, I haven't found anything there that would be ethically questionable. Only perhaps some very abstruse philosophical concepts that are beyond my ability of verification, anyway (hence, I don't take them as truth till I can obtain more evidence).

But I would question this quotation from the Cs: does "Always possibility" refer to H. P. Blavatsky's writings or to every kind of information source that we can find in 3D?

And I would like to stress once again here, that this is a question about "Isis Unveiled", which was an early work of hers and her ideas were largely revised in "The Secret Doctrine."

H. P. Blavatsky was, in all her life, an example of Selfless Service, Self-denial, and Transmutation of her lower qualities into Service for Humanity and for the Highest Good, as far as I can see.

I can also C that the information coming from the Cs, contrary to almost everything they say, is taken in a sectarian fashion, which is a very common thing in people, and instead of thinking for themselves (and always aligning oneself with the highest ethical ideals), they prefer the sleep in the illusion of certainty.

arpaxad said:

I can also C that the information coming from the Cs, contrary to almost everything they say, is taken in a sectarian fashion, which is a very common thing in people, and instead of thinking for themselves (and always aligning oneself with the highest ethical ideals), they prefer the sleep in the illusion of certainty.

Click to expand...

I've read Blavatsky and a lot of spinoff literature. It's really not worth the time and trouble. Based on your attachment to it, maybe this is the

Laura said:

I'm not terribly interested in rehabilitating Blavatsky since she was caught out in definite fraud a time or two.

Click to expand...

Laura,

May I say that I have studied H. P. B.'s biography quite intensively and, though I haven't read all the existing sources, the accusations of fraud were mostly, if not all, fraudulent?

Your opinion is probably due to the SPR report that was based on a biased investigation.

Moreover, in 1986 the SPR admitted that the investigator, Mr. Hodgson, had set out to disprove and attack Blavatsky rather than conduct an unbiased analysis of her claims and abilities to be the case and retracted the findings of the report.

Another major attack came from the people with a "history of extortion and criminality" who started a blackmailing campaign (the so-called "Coulomb Affair") for some petty financial reasons.

All these campaigns of libel and defamation were mostly resolved during her own life, yet the shadow they have created is unbelievably persisting.

Laura said:

I've read Blavatsky and a lot of spinoff literature. It's really not worth the time and trouble. Based on your attachment to it, maybe this is the

Click to expand...

Maybe this is a wrong bar.

So, if Laura's opinion is the final word here, I will exit.

Laura?

Do you see yourself as one and the same as the ideas you have about this person? Does the milieu you are in at any point in time have to accept these ideas? Do you need constant validation?

Whatever this person means to you, whatever role she's played in your life, however much you've invested of yourself to her, well, no one can take that away from you. She just doesn't mean the same to others.

Maybe you can be ok with that?

arpaxad said:

So, if Laura's opinion is the final word here, I will exit.

Laura?

Click to expand...

My main thing here is practical metaphysics and dealing with the real world we live in. That's what we are about here. I don't see any useful benefit to anyone to spending time combing over 19th century metaphysics except as a historical exercise for better understanding how things got so messed up today.

arpaxad, here is something from G, whom you've apparently studied, that is in definite opposition to your interest in the theosophists....and the "mixing" of the two. It also testifies to the importance of the body and its proper functioning and why the folks here stress "cleaning the machine"

I hope it helps clarify what Laura said.

Meeting, Thursday, July 13, 1944

Mme de S: Are there any questions to be asked?

Dr. Blano: While I am working I have the impression of the complete disappearance of my
physical body. I feel two distinct things; one which is more vast than my usual. proportions and of which I know not the limits. The other, more internal, more limited, capable of directing me and which does not have a precise form, although it is comparable to my body.

Mr. Gurdjieff: That which you explain, now, does not resemble our work. If you continue, you have a fine chance of soon being a candidate for an insane asylum. It is state
which the spiritualists and theosophists know. Stop immediately. You must not
forget that you are a body. You must always remember your body. You have not
as yet an "I", no "me". Do not forget it. Thus only can you have a future. Later
your body will have to have a real "I", a real "me" as every normal man should
have. Now you feel the absence of body, No?

Blano: Yes

Mr. Gurdjieff: Well, you must feel your body ten times more. It is not necessary to leave your body. It is necessary to strengthen it. Many people exist like you; they are
psychopaths.

Blano: How can I intensify the sensation of my body when I feel that it is leaving?

Mr. Gurdjieff: Wash your head in cold water. Do a difficult gymnastic. For example, hold your arms crosswise fifteen, twenty minutes, a half-hour, while thinking "I am", "I
want to be". Think if with the body. Feel your body. Drive out all the
psychopathic associations; these are sickness, weakness.

Click to expand...

The quote came from this site, that of course, i found from another post here...i think it was about self remembering/ Here is a link..

http://www.gurdjieff-internet.com/article_details.php?ID=291&W=19

ps, please understand that I am not implying that you're a psychopath, as there is no way i could know that....but i think it is a definite warning about living only in your head and the dissociative states that can occur if one meditates without a "seed"..FWIW.

Arpaxad - you may be right that some members around here seem to take the C's in an all too sectarian a manner. Without ascribing that same behaviour to myself, let me summarily explain it as a discriminative shortcut - that is, quoting "authoritatively" from a trusted source which was examinated over time, as itrovided sustained practical hints about the manner of the Work, rather than investing precious time-energy investigating at length another source whose value over time seems dubious - especially if we were to judge the Theosophists by their fruits as an organization, and the new age spiritual disinfo which seems to have originated from them.

Now, you will recognize, as I do, that this is a most risky shortcut, one that has the potential to undermine one's mental hygiene. This might be why you are so vehement in recommending a source which to you was very meaningful at some point of your process and allowed you to connect some dots. In which case, might I recommend you distill the essential nuggets of wisdom you see in that work, and sustain with quotes as necessary? This might spark a more constructive communication than expecting members to alter the flow of their individual work and spend days to recon a source whose reliability might seem dubious to them to begin with.

Now, I'm not saying that I see Blavatsky as dubious myself. I wouldn't mind analyzing the Secret Doctine if I got my hands on it (slightly hard, as an eternal backpacker). For this very reason, I read your quote of the Proem with interest, considering your highest recommendation that came with it; yet I saw nothing in it that isn't found in other more modern, inclusive and practical works, such as comparative mysticism Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, or integrative psychology Wilber's Spectrum of Consciousness. Actually, as Blavatsky can be no better that a secondary source, drawing as she does on eastern philosophy, I do not see why I wouldn't skip her entirely and aim directly for the primary sources, be they the Upanishads, Shankara, Nagarjuna, the Lankavatara Sutra, or the modern greats like Aurobindo, Sivananda, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi or even Nhat Hanh.

Again, maybe if you could distill what it is exactly that Blavatsky brings to the table - not subjectively, as she affected your own progress at a specific point in time of your development, but objectively, as she stands compared to other sources - and bring this to the forum, then it would be a great way for you to contribute and would more likely provide a healthy starting point for productive discussion.

My 2 cents.

(Edit: mostly spelling (typing from smartphone))

HI arpaxad, I don't know if you'll still be here reading this, but for what it's worth. I understand that it can feel very invalidating for someone you've admired and looked up to for so long to be dismissed by others you (presumably) admire. But I think it is a heavy weight to want others to see what you do specifically in Blavatsky. In esoteric work many people have bits of truth, so many people can be sent in the direction of esoteric schools such as this by the work of authors that nudge in a particular direction. For me it was Eckhart Tolle, for you it is Blavatsky. What is important though is acknowledging the value that this teacher has had for YOU, for where you were on your journey when you first encountered her. It is important to have personal gratitude for such people, because they create in your life the possibility of seeing and accessing something higher. It's an opportunity to move onto works with even higher signal to noise ratios. She may not be respected, but the fact that you're here on her account and learning further than she went (if you choose to stay) does a credit to her in its own right. OSIT. :)

This reminds me of Gurdjieff's lecture on repairing the past. It has to do with parents, but books are like parents in ways. They teach us about the world but can foist their own blinders and agenda onto us sometimes.

Gs: You know "Justice" is a big word - it' is a big thing in the world. Objective things are not small things like microbes, they go according to law, as the law has accustomed them to go. Remember as you sow, so you will reap. Not only people reap, but also families and nations. It often happens that, that which happens on earth comes from something which was done by a father or a grandfather. The results converge on you, the son or grandson it is you who have to regulate then, This is not an injustice, it is a very great honor for you it will be a means which will allow to regulate the past of your father, grandfather, great-grandfather. If misfortunes come to you in your youth, it means that someone brought them - for this you must reap. He is dead, it is another on earth who reaps. You must not look at yourself egotistically. You are a link in the chain of your blood. Be proud of it, it is an honor to be this link. The more you are obliged to repair the past, the more you will have remorse of conscience. You will succeed in remembering all that which you have not done as you should in the past. Those things which you have done contrary to JUSTICE have mortified your grandfather. Thus you can have ten times more remorse of conscience and your worth will augment in proportion. You are not tail of a donkey, You have responsibil­ities, a family. All your family, past and future, depend on you, your entire family depends an the way you repair the past, If you repair for everyone, it is good. If you do not repair for everyone, it is bad. You see your situation, Logically, do you see what Justice is? Justice is not occupied with your little affairs, unredeemed pledges, it is occupied with big things. It Is idiotic to believe God thinks of small things. It is the same with Justice. Justice does not touch all that and at the same time, nothing is done on earth without it. Search for the reasons You are obliged to have a position of responsibility in the line of your blood; you must work more to repair the past. It is difficult to understand all at once.

Click to expand...

Thank you, whitecoast, for transcribing G's excerpt. I had read it time ago, and it was good to go through it again. Big responsibility, working to repair the past. Hard work.

arpaxad said:

Hi all :),

Click to expand...

Hi arpaxad.

arpaxad said:

...
The aim of this work may be thus stated: to show that Nature is not "a fortuitous concurrence of
atoms," and to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe; to rescue from
degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all religions; and to uncover, to some extent, the
fundamental unity from which they all spring; finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never
been approached by the Science of modern civilization.

If this is in any degree accomplished, the writer is content.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Here we may see the parameters that delimit Blavatsky's work to the aims stated. As we might also see, it is not intended to be the kind of esotericism that leads to an alchemical transformation of the whole of any individual. That is not its purpose. It may result in a transformation for a person's intellect, but the intellect is not the whole person and so the usefulness of that work to the whole person is limited and may even lead to detrimental effects for anyone who becomes bound to it through identification. ATM, I've convinced myself that beherenow was pointing to just that possibility.

So anyway, my journey so far has involved coming to understand how the universe is fractal at all scales and scopes; that the Hermetic thought: "as above, so below" is a recognition of the coherence, regularity, consistency and reliability of the patterns of energy and the context fields in which are established the laws that relate these patterns one to another on every level.

Without getting into too much detail, I said the above in order to have something to which the following can hopefully be related and grounded:

I see that one aim of the ancient mystics and of useful esotericism is for the alchemical transformation of the whole person for his life right here right now, and, by hopeful extension by those so capable, all of humanity and which is to include the caring of the world we live on and within.

The fractal geometry and mathematics, the Hermetic thought mentioned above and all I have studied taken together shows me that the genuine purpose for pursuing any esoteric or 'occult' work is for the purpose I have already stated.

If such be the case, then should you take a look around you with fresh eyes, you may grasp that you are right in the middle of such an alchemical work that can transform you towards your own honorable goals. You even posted on one of the threads that I sometimes link to for other reasons, but can now link to as a demonstration of people using this work and a demonstration of those helpful explanations and examples from Laura that make it possible.

That's a little bit about how I'm thinking and hopefully you can see that most all of us here (and that CAN include you) are interested in improving the whole of ourselves and anyone else so inclined.