Rehabilitation of H. P. Blavatsky

[arpaxad]

Meeting, Thursday, July 13, 1944
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.

I would like to stress once again here (as I have done elsewhere) that the theosophical movement and the writings and work of H. P. Blavatsky should not be taken synonymously. It would be the same as equating Jesus with the Catholic Church.

The Theosophical movement has deteriorated immediately following H. P. B.'s death, due to the work of such people as Annie Beasant and C. W. Leadbeater, who has brought Jiddu Krishnamurti into the picture (who later disavowed his ties with the Theosophical Society). The teachings promulgated by these people were, indeed, impractical, as far as I can see, and quite possibly harmful. The fact that Laura confuses H. P. B.'s work with the "spin-offs" is unfair, in my opinion.

Both Gurdjieff and Laura, IMO, stand on the shoulders of giants like H. P. B., who, they may not realize, created the conditions for their own work to occur. Blavatsky took it on on herself to counteract the intellectual movements of the late 19th century, such as the putrefying teachings of the Christian churches and the scientific, materialistic, and dogmatic positivism. With the intellectual function being just one of the human functions, indeed, you, on this forum, will probably be the last to say that it doesn't influence global events on the grandest scale possible. So, "The Secret Doctrine" should be taken with that view in mind, but the work of H. P. B. was not limited to this intellectual surmising, as I hope to show some time afterwards.

Most other points well taken.

 

[arpaxad]

Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article on H. P. Blavatsky (with numerical references omitted):

She lived simply and her followers believed that she refused to accept monetary payment in return for disseminating her teachings. [...]

G. R. S. Mead [if you are curious who that is here is a good link.--arpaxad] proclaimed, "Two things in all the chaos of her [Blavatsky's] cosmos stood firm in every mood – that her Teachers existed and that she had not cheated." [...]

In November 1889 she was visited [in London] by the Indian lawyer Mohandas Gandhi, who was studying the Bhagavad Gita[...]. He became an associate member of Blavatsky's Lodge in March 1891, and would emphasize the close connection between Theosophy and Hinduism throughout his life.

In the closing paragraphs of a very sympathetically written biography of Helena P. Blavatsky by Howard Murphet [Murphet, H. When Daylight Comes. Wheaton (Ill.): Theos. Publ. 1975. 277 p.], it is also written:

The fact that it was Madame Blavatsky's influence that first led Gandhi to the Ancient Hindu spiritual Wisdom is interesting and perhaps little known.

In the same source, the following passage from Gandhi's Autobiography, or The Story of My Experiments with Truth is also quoted:

"'They [the Blavatsky's disciples] also [...] took me on one occasion to the Blavatsky Lodge and introduced me to Madame Blavatsky [...]'"

And further, also:

"'During my first sojourn in South Africa it was Christian influence that had kept alive in me the religious sense. Now [i.e. after his return from England] it was theosophical influence that added strength to it. Mr. Ritch was a theosophist and put me in touch with the Society at Johannesburg.'"

----------
Edit: expanded note to the reference on G. R. S. Mead.--arpaxad

 

[Laura]

{{Sigh}}

After 25 years of studying all the available esoteric material that I could get my hands on, if I had thought that Blavatsky had some decent clues and that her work pointed in a useful direction, I would never have engaged in years of channeling experimentation in order to go deeper/higher. Hinduism/Buddhism doesn't get it, Judeo/Islamo/Christianity doesn't get it - none of these things deal truly efficiently/effectively with the reality as it is presented to us. There are too many aspects of same that simply are not part of those expectations/explanations. I will acknowledge the usefulness of much of that sort of thing in terms of how NOT to make a lightbulb.

If you haven't read "The Wave" and the Secret History series, please do so - it's not fair to expect me - or others - to stop what we are doing and go back and explain it all again when it is done in those works. And a new one is coming out very soon which I am working on at present. Like within weeks.

 

[Alada]

I think there is a very simple thought which can be applied: If a material in question contains useful data, data which can be applied and works to help man improve his lot (and not just imagine that he does). Then that will produce in him a certain understanding of said material. If he then understands he should be able to re-transmit this to others, in his own words, adapted to the level of the listener’s understanding.

What often seems to be present in many such quoted passages, and in subsequent discussions of them by those attracted to same are whole reams of words, but no usable data and no discernible effect, other than the illusion in the reader that something new, something 'speshul' is now known.

Another thought is that if something is 'of the light', it should stand up to the scrutiny of questioning. Very good questions to ask of any material in my opinion is: Has this material produced in me any useful results?

 

[beherenow]

Posted by: Alada
What often seems to be present in many such quoted passages, and in subsequent discussions of them by those attracted to same are whole reams of words, but no usable data and no discernible effect, other than the illusion in the reader that something new, something 'speshul' is now known.

arpaxad, the defense of your knowledge smacks of what Chögyam Trungpa called Spiritual materialism. ( another one of the many people in which the message and the messenger should not be confused).

In Psychology Today, Michael J. Formica gives this definition: "Spiritual materialism is that process by which the ego grasps at the accomplishments and progress of the self upon the spiritual path; an act by which its very nature denies the Self."

and this...

"As soon as we cast something into a role, as soon as we put a label on it, as soon as we name it and give it life by virtue of our investment (read: ego), we take away all its power and it is nothing more than an event -- it is no longer a spiritual revelation, but simply a material experience. That is spiritual materialism at its peak"

I hope you can realize this is not an indictment...its just something that a lot of esoterically minded people suffer/suffered from, including myself and many others who have come here with "baggage". There are many threads here where what the person was promoting was not nearly as "wrong" as was the way that they clung to it.

Years ago,( before discovering this place) i had read Trungpa and due to a genuine lack of understanding it actually contributed to an increase of that very thing!...( the ego truly is the ultimate intellectual "gymnast").....much later on, when i finally realized how full of crap i was, it put me in a state FAR worse than the miserable condition that initiated the searching in the first place. To be honest, I still wonder at times if I'm not possibly doing the very same thing with what I've learned here!...it seems to be something that needs constant monitoring once discovered, IMO.

I'm not really sure if its whats going on for you, but there is a "flavor" to your posts that I've seen here before. I say that it is NOT an indictment, because it does seem to be an intrinsic part of the "spiritual" path...a fork in the road so to speak...one path to greater awareness, and the other to possible "guru-hood" with its personality worshiping followers and all that....which I do not judge as necessarily "bad"..if that's what one wants.

 

[Buddy]

there is a "flavor" to your posts that I've seen here before. I say that it is NOT an indictment, because it does seem to be an intrinsic part of the "spiritual" path...a fork in the road so to speak...one path to greater awareness, and the other to possible "guru-hood" with its personality worshiping followers and all that....which I do not judge as necessarily "bad"..if that's what one wants.

"Flavor" aspect to posts is an idea that vexed me for quite awhile after I had first run across it on here. It took me awhile to figure it out and to confirm it by looking back over my own experiences.

In a nutshell, and from my point of view, it seems to be simply this: When a person reads a great deal from a single author and accepts the writings to a certain extent, he/she not only captures and copies the patterns of thought of the author, but attitudes and moods as well.

Attitudes and moods in writing can apparently be picked up and copied into memory unconsciously and people don't seem to be aware of it when they start their expressions. Or, if they do have a clue about this, they seem to think the attitudes and mood is theirs.

When I was doing it, it felt normal, but after I learned about it and looked back on the practice, it seemed more like I was animating someone else or having a 'spirit' attachment of something. It wasn't "me."

One reason why I've always enjoyed reading Laura's writing: I don't 'cop an attitude' afterwards, I just learn something. Of course, the whole of this 'flavor' issue may be more complex, but this is an important example of it, I think, and worth getting to know about for own's own development.

 

[Menna]

Arpaxad - Congradulations in networking about the person that has had a big influence in your search however you are on this forum now and this forum has a wealth of information not only from Laura and the 4th way work but other bits and pieces from other sources "recommended reading section" your esoteric information end gathered so far from this person is great and was/is needed for you to progress. Maybe it's time to make some room in your intellectual/emotional center for some other esoteric pioneers to have an impact on you. It has been said don't take any source at 100% face value always research and question and learn for yourself. It's not so much that this person that has lead you hear on your journey should be forgotten but maybe set aside always remembered but set aside for other sources to have an impact on you and at times considering all sources what rings true for you on your own individual way....

 

[striveforselflessness]

I appreciate the education on Blavatsky. I think the main thing to understand is that ideas and research have evolved in the meantime. I have less of an opinion so no judgmental force behind that statement, in regards to whether the material is good or bad, although rational analysis is always useful. For an instance of this progress there could be the following, to help comprehend:

...

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.

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.

I think when Gurdjieff said psychopath he did not mean it in Cleckley's terms, whom I doubt he read. Rather what you refer to in the part I bolded is what Gurdjieff referred to. In Life is Real Gurdjieff seems to understand the psychopathic type (I say seems to since even so, some who cut ties with him could have had legitimate reasons, as far as I know). However, in the context above Gurdjieff seems to refer to something more like psychotic (most likely) or perhaps neurotic; otherwise he would not out a student he speaks to as "psychopathic."

 

[Yaakov001]

Hello, all. I just finished reading this thread, and thought I would add my two cents, for whatever they are worth. I am just now beginning to read the works of Madame Blavatsky. I found a copy of 30 of her books in one volume on my Kindle for US$0.99.

Right now, I am uncertain WHAT to make of her. Her biography is a mess; one has no idea what parts are true and what parts are fictional. I have already detected one problem. In 1854, she claims to have travelled from the USA to India via Japan. Now, she may well have gone to India. But up until 8 July 1853 no foreigner was EVER permitted into Japan under penalty of immediate execution except at the Dutch trading post in Nagasaki, and then only the Dutch who were pre-approved by the Japanese Shogunate.

On 8 July 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry, USN, showed up and forced the Japanese to sign a treaty opening the country to trade with the USA. Furthermore, foreigners who landed in Japan by mistake or through no fault of theirs (bad weather, shipwreck, what have you), were to to be treated kindly.

But this did NOT suddenly make Japan a haven for foreigners. Even today, it is hard to enter the country legally except for brief tourist visits, and in 1854 it was virtually impossible, especially for a subject of the Russian Crown, the very existence of which, with its immediate proximity to Japan, terrified the Shogunate.

Is it THEORETICALLY possible that a person coming from the USA would have been admitted to Japan? I suppose. If the Japanese decided that they really did want to stay on America's good side, some immigration official may have "overlooked" Blavatsky's papers indicating her Russian citizenship. However, the odds of this happening are, well, ridiculous. And I worked for an offshore sportsbook oddsmaker at one time (yes, it WAS/IS legal, Mods), so I know of that which I speak.

But I am going to see what the Lady's work has to say. I am quite curious. I shall post my thoughts here as I have them. Peace.

 

[leesmith]

Great thread; and, oh, yes, Blavatsky is intriguing until...

Here's a long article by Miles Mathis, a "guy" I read and like; I don't recommend him because he has put himself out at the very tip of a branch on the subject of James Joyce. Nevertheless, he is literate, plausible, and has a way of demonstrably outting cointelpro agents that is, at the very least, suggestive. http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf

I'll quote him here briefly, and you can decide if you want to read the whole article.

Caveat and disclaimer: this is an opinion piece, based on my own personal research. I follow what looks to me like a logical line of reasoning, but—as with all things of this nature—the truth is hard to find. It has been made hard to find on purpose, and I am not claiming I know everything or anything. My conclusions are not based on emotions, but on the evidence I give to you here. You may come to different conclusions, either more or less standard than mine.

In my last paper, we went all the way back to 1564 to try to decloak the occult. In this exposé, we will only go back to 1840 or so, but we will find that the nearer to the present we get, the weirder things become.

As I have always done before, I will lead you into this mystery by the same path I entered. I started with Madame Blavatsky, who came on the scene in about 1875, when she founded the Theosophical Society in New York with Henry Steel Olcott. I never had any use for Theosophy, being able to see through it from the beginning. However, like most people who pass it by, I simply assumed it was composed of and by people who had different interests than I do, or who were beating around in the bushes in their own ways. That is, I found it to be wrongheaded or uninteresting, but until recently I thought no more about it. Only after discovering that many other things were not what I thought they were did I return to Theosophy, the Beat Writers, and other fads, to give them a closer look. What I found may surprise you.

The key to Theosophy is not found by studying its various tenets and claims, but by studying Henry Steel Olcott. It is no accident that Helena Blavatsky was used as the frontwoman, since Olcott needed to remain in the shadows. If he had been more prominent, more people would have looked closely at him from the beginning, and the whole plot may have unwound long ago. As it is, I don't think anyone understands how or why Theosophy was really created to this day.

Even though Olcott has remained in the shadows, you can learn enough about him from mainstream sources like Wikipedia to go on. You don't have to prowl around in libraries for weeks or months. The first red flag is that he was a colonel. Since that is the first word on his page at Wikipedia, you get the first clue very fast. Not only was he a colonel, he was probably in what was then military intelligence. You aren't told that outright, but you are told it implicitly. He was a special commissioner of the War Department and then was transferred to the Department of the Navy after the Civil War. That is another red flag, although most people won't see it flapping. Military Intelligence has always been run out of the Navy, and to this day the ONI or Office of Navy Intelligence is the ranking intelligence arm of military intelligence. They also admit that at Wikipedia.

Beyond that, Olcott was one of only three people sitting on the commission to investigate the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This commission was like the Warren Commission of its time, so you can see that Olcott was what we would now call a high-ranking spook. These commissions—then as now—are put together as cover-ups, hiding the truth and manufacturing some slick story to send to the papers. If you don't know what I mean, I encourage you to study the 911 Commission Report, which was the same sort of thing.

So we have red flags popping up all over the place concerning Olcott. Olcott was probably drafted into Intelligence because he had worked as a reporter for Horace Greeley in the 1850's at the New York Tribune. Olcott was present as a spy for the paper at the hanging of John Brown in 1859 in Charles Town, Virginia. You can read Olcott's story online, where he admits he was a spy for the newspaper.

His connection to Theosophy also began as a news story years later for the New York Sun, when he began investigating the spiritual powers of the Eddy Brothers of Vermont in 1874. He is said to have met Blavatsky at the Eddy farm. What is not made clear is why Olcott had returned to newspaper reporting in 1874. He had worked for Greeley in his 20's, but that was two decades earlier and he had since become a colonel and a ranking “investigator” for the Navy and the Government. We are told he also became a lawyer in 1868 specializing in fraud. Why would a high-ranking military man and lawyer return to newspaper reporting, especially to investigate what were then considered fluffy topics like spiritualism? Any person awake would assume he was on assignment, but not by the newspaper.

You may think Olcott was spying on Blavatsky, since she was a wealthy Russian and world traveler. The War Department may have thought she was a spy herself. But it is even deeper than that. If we study the published relationship of Blavatsky and Olcott, we see them working hand in hand. Olcott was not trying to undermine either Blavatsky or Theosophy. They were both promoting it to the best of their abilities. Although any cursory investigation then or now would find that the Eddy brothers were small-time conmen, the highly trained Olcott seems to have missed it. Why? Most likely because he was paid to miss it. But why would the US Government promote spiritualism and Theosophy, and assign a top agent to lead the promotion? To figure it out, we have to look at Theosophy in relation to what came before it and what came after.