Theosophy, the Successor of Neoplatonism?

IN THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, HELENA BLAVATSKY CALLS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY THE MODERN SUCCESSOR OF THE NEOPLATONIC SCHOOL. This would have definitely come true, if only the Theosophical Movement managed to stay consistent a little longer into the twentieth century. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Neoplatonism in the first paragraph basically explains what the Theosophical School sought to do.

The Gnostics are often taken to task, as they even were by Plotinus himself in the ninth tractate of the second Enneads (II.9), in what he critiqued as the irrationality of the Gnostics and their disparagement of the physical world (II.9). Theosophy explains the Gnostics more than critique them.

Plotinus viewed himself as Greek and a Platonist, and his message was the last message of Greek philosophy to the world. It was German scholars in the mid-nineteenth century that coined the term Neoplatonism, to distinguish the ideas of later Greek and Roman Platonists from those of Plato. According to Augustine, the successors of Plotinus were not considered Platonists, when to Porphyry he remarked, “Thou didst learn these things, not from Plato, but from thy Chaldean masters.” Then again, this highlights that Christian tendency similar to Jews to idealize their heroes and demonize their foes, as to myths about Babylonian Chaldea — an attitude we as theosophists do not share.

While Christians found in Neoplatonism, a system common with Christianity in the mysticism of its apostles, John and Paul, Theosophy presented to the West more than the proposal of a shared metaphysical idealism with Christianity. As I see it, Christianity did not need this. H.P. Blavatsky basically explains that the raison d’être of the Theosophical Movement is to wage a war on all dogmatic religious forces obstructing esoteric truths and historical facts of their origins. It argued that: (1) the battle that ended the Gnostic movement was far from over; (2) that a new Buddhist propaganda was being prepared; and (3) that Theosophists have entered the fray to defend and equip Asia with the knowledge to contend with the Christian missionaries.

Hence, the attempts at Christianizing Theosophy despite the efforts or statements of Rudolf Steiner tired of the “anti-Christian” attitude in the Theosophical Society only served to always obstruct the real message of Theosophy to the world. Attempts to blend Christianity with Theosophy to make it more palatable to Christian-majority nations or communities always do a disservice to both, and do not take the words and history explained here into account. These persons who attempt to “simplify” Theosophy, because of their attachment to the dogma of messianism or to Christianity itself always construct for themselves some new messianic idealism.

Messianic fixations of certain theosophists made Theosophy a target to angered Christians and gave missionaries the ammo they needed in their accusations against Theosophy and every other alternative to Christian dominance as harbingers of their mythical antichrist. This helped mobilize Christians, particularly of the religious Right, leading them on a rabid campaign throughout the entire twentieth century against Indian religio-cultural influences, the Neo-Wiccan and “New Age movement” like a frantic child with a bee caught in his eye.

Christian establishments resorted to old dishonest strategies, even though the Theosophists were already contending with the Spiritualists. Theosophists had more than Christianity to tackle, attempting to intervene in the conflict between Science, Atheism, Modernization and Religion.

The Christian opponents of Porphyry in their attempts to discredit him and fabricate stories about him, forgot that Porphyry studied directly under Plotinus in Rome in 263 C.E., after studying under the scholar Longinus in Athens.

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry shows on the next page, those called Neoplatonists did not limit Greek philosophy to Plato, but understanding Plato was essential. H.P. Blavatsky attempts to demonstrate her understanding of Plato and show there was more to Plato’s philosophy not able to be gleaned by those early Christians in the Key to Theosophy. The Torah was known widely to the Greek philosophers already, before the “New Testament,” and Porphyry utilized his scholarly acumen to dissect the Bible. Porphyry produced a fifteen-volume critique of Christianity, but the failure of the influence of his work, Against the Christians, was mainly due to the fact the book was banned in numerous imperial edicts, such as that in connection with the Council of Nicaea.

The Neoplatonic priority of reason, expressed by Porphyry is also similar to the Theosophists, which Porphyry and Roman sages’ critique in their initial encounters with Christianity as lacking. Remember, that Christians studied the pagan philosophers, not merely because some intellectual Christians like Augustine found its qualities attractive and similar to Christianity, but because they sought to hone their arguments against the pagan philosophers to end their influence.

A common tactic employed in the developing Christian argumentation of that time was to quote the pagan philosophers before attacking them. This tactic apparently is still overused, finding them utilized on both an Anti-Masonic and Orthodox Traditionalist Blog. It is certain, that in conversation for many years with Christians, certain authorities like Augustine and Irenaeus are always mentioned first. Their arguments did not settle the great conflict as to what are “heresies,” from a philosophical, nor archaeological and historical standpoint. Scholars are changing how we view these things, drastically.

It is in my experience, that certain Christians often lurk and find interest in such philosophy only to argue against with Scripture. Pablo Sender explained that many theosophists adopted the Neoplatonic point-of-view (see Gnosticism and Theosophy), which we can see throughout the literature. The following passages below belong to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Neoplatonism and H.P. Blavatsky’s magazine article directly addressing Christian readers, because both complement each other along with the commentary.

“Late antique philosophers now counted among “the Neoplatonists” did not think of themselves as engaged in some sort of effort specifically to revive the spirit and the letter of Plato’s dialogues. (…) However, and more importantly, their signature project is more accurately described as a grand synthesis of an intellectual heritage that was by then exceedingly rich and profound. In effect, they absorbed, appropriated, and creatively harmonized almost the entire Hellenic tradition of philosophy, religion, and even literature. (…) The result of this effort was a grandiose and powerfully persuasive system of thought that reflected upon a millennium of intellectual culture and brought the scientific and moral theories of Plato, Aristotle, and the ethics of the Stoics into fruitful dialogue with literature, myth, and religious practice. In virtue of their inherent respect for the writings of many of their predecessors, the Neoplatonists together offered a kind of meta-discourse and reflection on the sum-total of ideas produced over centuries of sustained inquiry into the human condition.”

Wildberg, Christian, “Neoplatonism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)