Blavatsky and Theosophy: Prebunking Jim Stewartson and other Hacks

It is generally accepted that Helena P. Blavatsky was proven to be a fraud, when an original report of Richard Hodgson by the Society for Psychical Research was published in London, December 1885. However, in April 1986, that case was examined by Dr. Vernon Harrison and published by the Society for Psychical Research. Dr. Vernon Harrison concluded in his study, that Blavatsky was not an imposter. This charge of imposter, fraud and hoax has been repeated throughout books, encyclopedias and by conspiracists; and even at present, readers never find Dr. Vernon Harrison’s study mentioned to them to compare with the Hodgson Report.

Dr. Vernon Harrison’s study does not provide a definitive vindication of H.P. Blavatsky, but a “full vindication” is not the aim of this piece. The aim is to firstly, put into serious doubt, that any reader could conclusively just begin the first line of a paper with “Theosophy, a hoax,” “or “Blavatsky, a fraud” as is oft done. Even worst, is elementary-level research, that depends entirely on people’s prejudices, popular culture and lack of knowledge on a given subject. Childish attempts to demonize the word occult (an accurate term in the English language to use), and not carefully explaining the very complex relationship between occultism and politics is an easy way to manipulate and hook a reader base.

The style of my writing is not to bore my readers with a false sense of objectivity, but I provide my in-depth research as a theosophist, that has been studying the history of the Theosophical Movement and various Esotericisms for more than a decade. I can say, that personally, I care a great deal about factual research, which critics of H.P. Blavatsky and Theosophy often lack, and instead rely upon lazy methods of research, heavy conjecture, and subsequently from this, lies. There are not many theosophists writing dozens of rebuttals for the search engine or to match the slander, so that people are immediately put before better and fair research, that is not grounded in tabloid-style manipulation, sensationalism and weak political conspiracies. As a theosophist, “truth” is of vital importance, as is exposing bad actors, like Jim Stewartson who professes to be “Anti-Fascist” and democratic.

In Dr. Vernon Harrison’s study of the original report of 1885, which had Blavatsky branded a fraud, he notes, that the Hodgson Report is a “highly partisan document forfeiting all claim to scientific impartiality,” and that this report could not, as it had been, considered a model of a report on psychical research. Hodgson used trivial and questionable means to implicate Blavatsky, and ignored all evidence in her favor, similarly to later researchers. Conjecture put forth as fact or probable fact, and slanted statements, he remarks, define the Hodgson Report. It is this report, which is repeated as evidence H.P.B. was proven a fraud, yet was a report built on uncorroborated testimony of unnamed witnesses and downright falsity, Dr. Vernon Harrison states. So, we get from that, bold and false pronouncements in subtext such as “how a 19^th century hoax led to the Holocaust and Mike Flynn” (from a piece titled “Theosophy: The Occult Roots of the Third Reich and QAnon” by Jim Stewartson) in 2022. There are 23 comments commending this man’s bogus and incredibly misleading article as “great” and “beneficial to this fight.” So, he slanders H.P. Blavatsky as an influence of the National Socialists and Ariosophy, and can manipulate his readers, simply because Theosophy and Ariosophy share a suffix. Jim Stewartson casually drops the term “theosophist” and “theosophical” in that article, even attaching it to individuals who are not even theosophists (not even the traditional sense), like Sean Stone (a host of RT America and a Muslim Shiite), nor connected to H.P. Blavatsky’s writings. Obvious lies should be red flags.

There are false statements made confidently by people such as in a Reddit post titled “My favorite occult organization: The Theosophical Society,” that attempt to explain Theosophy to their audience, such as “they seemed to take what they wanted from Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian religions all summed up in a four-volume series of books written by Blavatsky called The Secret Doctrine.” This is not true. There are firstly, only two volumes; secondly, there are theosophists, who are Buddhist, Hindu and Zoroastrian. They do not “take.” The theosophist elucidates upon the esoteric practices, philosophy, ideas and traditions within Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and so forth, or their respective school. Blavatsky was a Buddhist convert and did just this. She was also taught by a Jewish Kabbalist, professed to belong to the Druzes (before formerly converting to Buddhism), and defended the beliefs of the Yezidis. The Theosophical Society is not a “mix of the spiritual movement of the time,” and it is incredibly insulting and false to state, that it was a “predecessor of Scientology.” No scholar says this, nor do those that make such statements put forth any evidence for them.

Then, once the person explains this, they predictably transition straight to 1909, years after H.P.B. dies, and Annie Besant (influence under orthodox Brahmin G.N. Chakravarti) and Charles W. Leadbeater assume leadership of the Theosophical Society (headquartered in Adyar, India) after a conflict with an original co-founder of the Theosophical Society, William Quan Judge, in which the original Theosophical Society splits in 1895. This is never explained in casual writings about the Theosophical Movement. One does not have to believe in the existences of Theosophical mahatmas, or anything the early Theosophists say to trace the subversion of the original movement’s mission and teachings, which others propagate as “theosophical.” No present-day person has the excuse of Theosophical literature and Blavatsky writings being censored, edited and manipulated under the Leadbeater and Besantian leadership. An entire library of information is placed before everyone today to engage in old-fashioned and thorough research. Theosophists are not engaged with and interviewed for questions, and the theosophist is assumed to exist only in the 19^th and 20^th century. The advance of “Theosophy” and its genuine resuscitation is dependent on explaining that history carefully with all available information, and upon the individuals professing and teaching it.

In the article, “My favorite occult organization: The Theosophical Society,” two comments stand out. One claims, “Blavatsky had a huge influence on the development of Nazism in Germany.…one of the big ones….Wheaton, IL seems like an odd location…as I believe there’s a connection to Kellog.” “Agreed….Blavatsky’s views on race…Jews being the inferior degradation of a previous root-race and black people originating from living clay and thus being inferior are two particularly horrific examples.” If asked to provide literary evidence for everything these two people stated, they would not find it, because not only is it non-existent in Blavatsky’s writings, but it is also a misreading. Jews within the concept of root-races are not an “inferior degradation of a previous root-race,” and Blavatsky has never described Jews thus. Also false, is the claim, that her writings teach that Black people are inferior and originate from living clay. Where has she ever written this? Nowhere. I am not addressing this to rebut every person, that writes these claims, but it is an example of how people view Theosophy and H.P.B. The subject is surrounded by falsities to a greater extent more than a few people can inoculate and disarm. All I can do is help readers logically recognize these patterns and tactics of these false claims and narratives about Theosophy that distort facts, as well as badly sourced and non-sourced information, that rely on your lack of information and fears.

Theosophy is not defined by a belief in the existences of Lemuria and Atlantis, nor upon a belief in “a theosophical group of blonde, blue-eyed superior beings that formed a ‘Great White Brotherhood’ of ‘Ascended Masters.’” These theories did not create the Theosophical Movement, nor depends on it. It depends on elucidation of esotericism, living an ethical life within that context and the developing union and network of such minds. The main two “Mahatmas (meaning “great souls”)” that were the sponsors of the Theosophical Society were Indian. The term “Great White Brotherhood” (1) was never used by Blavatsky, or her secret correspondents; and (2) does not refer to White people, but to “light” and “right-hand occultism.” The Mahatmas and Ascended Masters are two different and conflicting concepts, and the latter “Ascended Masters” is far closer to Catholic saints, than to the sadhu, adept, or chief (in Masonry and Rosicrucian lore). The concept of Ascended Masters was not invented by Charles W. Leadbeater or Alice Bailey, as H.P. Blavatsky makes note of imitations of Theosophy (constructed angelologies) cropping up during the late years of her life, she called the “Solar Adepts.”

The term Aryan in theosophical literature refers in one sense to what is called the Fifth Root-Race, and there are seven root-races and seven sub-races within each root-race. The first sub-race of the Fifth Root-Race are the Hindus. Mainly, what should be known about the Root-Races is, that this concept describes epochs in time, descriptions of different periods of existences and the general history of civilizations, tribes and peoples. Each root-race and sub-race (which does not describe “inferiority”) has a calculable time-period from its rise to decline. The third sub-race within the Fifth Root-Race is the period of the Europeans, who will supposedly decline as fast as they rose. Blavatsky states, that “The occult doctrine admits of no such divisions as the Aryan and Semite…” (Isis Unveiled I, 576n) and later reiterates this numerous times in The Secret Doctrine numerous times. The entire concept of root-race is attached to the concept of time-cycles (not rooted in Ismailism, but in Buddhism) and causal-effects (i.e., karma).

The root races are not the inventions of H.P. Blavatsky and have been identified existing within other traditions as I’ve noted before in past articles. Also, these root-races and the myth of their early genesis are described in Buddhist traditions, such as in the Surya-Siddhanta, Theravadan suttas, and among schools of Buddhism: from the Dzogchen, Dharmaguptaka, Lokottaravadin branch of the Mahasanghika, Yogacara, and Sammatiya. H.P.B. demonstrates within The Secret Doctrine, that the concept of root-races exists in certain ancient American traditions and in the Chinese Book of Documents (Shūjīng 書經). Later researchers have shown semblances within Buddhist cosmology.

The Secret Doctrine is a commentary, first and foremost on the Book of Dzyan. She puts forth Atlantis as a hypothesis, and mainly because, in the “Secret Book” and tradition, a great lost continent is mentioned in the book, which is Atlantis under another name. She is aware, that the hypothesis is “positively denied by some learned authors who regard it as a joke of Plato’s.” Then she states of Atlantis, “they may then perceive that Plato’s guarded hints and the fact of his attributing the narrative to Solon and the Egyptian priests, were but a prudent way of imparting the fact to the world and by cleverly combining truth and fiction, to disconnect himself from a story which the obligations imposed at initiation forbade him to divulge.” She gives a great bit of detail about mythical personages and kings, their origins and allegorical stories among the Buddhists and Hindus.

There is hence a great deal of historical and cultural literary context to Theosophy than is given in simplistic descriptions of Theosophy, that mislead. The Theosophical Movement was claimed to mainly be sponsored by adepts from various regions of the world. However, the main brotherhood involved, was a school called the trans-Himalayan brotherhood, which was itself composed of disciples and adepts (each belonging originally to their own schools). The two main individuals, Koothoomi and Morya corresponding with a few Theosophists claim, that the mission of their school is a mission inaugurated by Tsongkapa (1357-1419) who founded the Gelugpa or “Yellow Hat” order, in contrast to the previously existing “Red Hat” (Tibetan zhwa dmar) orders, or “Shammars.” These mahatmas align themselves as the spiritual descendants of Siddhartha’s esotericism and teach that this esotericism precedes him as well. In contrast to forms of quietism among some preceding orders in Tibet, Tsongkapa’s reforms sought to lead Buddhism in Tibet towards a graded path of initiation called lam rim, and its emphasis was on mental development. This “mental development” characterizes Theosophy and the Kalachakra teachings. The emphasis in Theosophy by Blavatsky and her teachers on the importance of intelligence, providing references, evidence, sources, and proofs is (has always been) the antidote to the conflicting morass of information about Theosophy and among theosophists. The context to the doctrines presented by Blavatsky and others largely requires an extant knowledge of Buddhist and Hindu texts and schools of philosophy for comparison. The Theosophical Position (the “Arhat’s secret doctrine”) on God is that it rejects the existence of “God” and teaches radical unity, or non-duality, which is the first fundamental proposition of three propositions, The Secret Doctrine is built on and provides philosophical commentary on.

As to the CUT organization, that engages in affirmation and manifestation prayers, we can describe three main forms of prayers (petitionary prayer, devotional aspirational prayer, and will-prayer). The cycle and chain of causation cannot be propitiated, nor altered by prayer, and punishes with “equal impartiality” we are told in “The Key to Theosophy,” p. 198. Prayer, with the belief that a divine being is going to do something for your selfish benefit is not practiced. Hence, Theosophy generally rejects the first form of prayer, but does not entirely reject petitionary forms of prayer. The “secret god” (ignorant religious conspiracists claim is Lucifer, Satan, or evil) does not “listen,” is some distinct being, nor distinct from the immutable essence or “substance” (primordial matter) indistinguishable from “space” (the eternal parent). However, mantras and the use of gemstones are encouraged, due to the ancient belief in the electric influence of all the prismatic colors and certain minerals.

Blavatsky and the mahatmas spoke explicitly against praying to them and worshipping them, as they are mortal men, not disembodied ghosts. This style of practice (characteristic of the New Age) and the use of fake portraits of special personages from various religions and traditions including Theosophy and Rosicrucianism was popularized by Charles W. Leadbeater, Rudolf Steiner, Alice A. Bailey, Guy and Edna Ballard, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and others. If Blavatsky lived longer, she would have vehemently spoke against it, as her and her teacher’s writings already describe such persons and imitations, resulting from credulity, dupery, a “strange influence…esoteric popery,” and the influence of the “Shammars.”

I cannot say anything is the work of anyone, but if facts exist extant to provide rebuttals for centuries and miles of library length-content against her critic’s repetitive non-sourced claims, we can confidently say, those persons engage in dishonest tactics. People like Jim Stewartson are themselves “chaos agents” as he falsely attaches Helena P. Blavatsky and refuses to let go. He poorly claims to have proven without a shadow of doubt through an article, that Theosophy influenced Nazis and American right-wing politics under Q-Anon. He states that the “fantastical premises” of Theosophy have “blatantly racist subtext,” and continuously repeats the lie, that everything he is associating in a single theory is “based almost entirely on Theosophy.” “Occult Interests and Theosophy in Germany: Blavatsky vs Hitler, List and Liebenfels on Race” explicitly demonstrates, the two are diametrically opposite.

There is not a single belief in Theosophical literature, that as Jim Stewartson claims, provides “the core false beliefs that led to the Holocaust.” Theosophy also did not “appropriate” the “Star of David” (the double interlaced triangle) and the Swastika, and neither of those symbols solely belong to the Jews, or Hindus. Each symbol (geometric and sacred) part of the Theosophical emblem is dissected and explained, but Jim Stewartson does not provide sources about their meaning. His view, that “syncretism” is dangerous is silly, given the fact, that H.P. Blavatsky has also critiqued comparative studies as a “double-edged sword.” Theosophy cannot be simply called a syncretism. This is a lazy cop-out description. One of the reasons for comparative studies and myth interpretation was to prove the existence of the universal esoteric wisdom, and for Blavatsky, that her work “is not a treatise, or a series of vague theories.” “The writer will have to give historical and trustworthy names, and to cite well-known authors, ancient and modern…” Unlike Rudolf Steiner, who attacked Blavatsky after her death, as well as considering William Q. Judge (a co-founder) a nobody, Blavatsky never claimed her teachings were the result of her clairvoyance, or the “Akashic records.” They were the result of her human effort, creative intelligence and analogeticism. Later “theosophists” that used various so-called somatic psychic methods bring little scholarship forth, lacking supporting evidences, and built their teachings on a Christological view and messianic fervor. The fact is distortions of Theosophy from within and outside of it influenced the vast majority of “New Age” adherents, but the Theosophical system infact stands in contrast to them.