Mark Passio on the Perversion of Blavatsky’s Occult Writings

Dominique Johnson March 23, 2017 Leave a Comment

I must first explain, despite what is said in the lecture, the theosophical position actually negates the belief in God, and also does not see Nature as God. While an asteroid hitting the earth, or a Supervolcano erupting would remind us of the truly awful and frightening, unmerciful power of nature and the Earth, it is not believed that Nature is “deciding” to do it, as the lecturer seems to imply. Its actual position on the idea of God that has hence developed is not Gnostic, but that such a Power or Being as is commonly believed in fact does not, nor has ever existed, and that it is a mistaken belief and theory that has evolved into a monstrosity. It is seen as actually a hindrance to understanding the natural laws by and through which all life is based upon and functions, i.e., an insufficient model that does not quite explain what is actually the cause of spiritual phenomena.

When Science compares its notions to ancient religious philosophy, the scientists are wholly concerned in comparing with the idea of God that has shaped history and the masses. Many that speak to the public explicitly state the difference of that God-idea from the views of say, e.g., Spinoza. The commonly accepted belief so occupies our imagination. It is the belief in a kind of super-entity, that is somehow beyond Space and Time, willingly controls it, and grants prayers and propitiation however “He” chooses. This is the result and confusing morass developed from the construction of monotheism.

From the theosophical position, it is best to get rid of the notion. The theosophical position is identified with a deeply esoteric yet heretical Tibetan Buddhist position among other classical schools like Sankhya in Indian philosophy. It does not have a radical concept of God. Its position on the nature of reality radically lacks the notion of God, without being atheistic.

General Lecture on the Tradition of Modern Theosophy