TECHNICALITIES OF BAD RESEARCH ON THEOSOPHY, BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY HISTORY
When people write about Theosophy, they mix many fantasies into history, and they repeatedly use words like “Ascended Masters,” “the Great White Lodge,” the “Great White Brotherhood,” and “Mahatmas of Agartha.” The history of the Theosophical Movement is not one continuous or consistent flow of ideas, and its lack of cohesion is the chief source of its inability to respond adequately and authoritatively to anything that is said about it. Since, what is being said about Theosophy has more popularity than what any individual Theosophist says.
Theosophists do not believe in a “Great White Brotherhood,” nor do we employ that term.
We also do not use the term “Ascended Masters.” This isn’t just a term, but represents an idea about masters, and a very marked and traceable transition in ideas about the masters, which take on a more mythical, immortal, saint-like (quite Christian and Catholic) idea for certain groups to use to develop a new angelology. Theosophists do not believe in immortal “Ascended Masters” who nurse humanity and hang over their heads like bats or await the Return of a Messiah, or the “Master Jesus.” That is not Theosophy, and I am going to strongly counter these developments and leftovers from the late nineteenth-century to twentieth-century, so people can actually understand Theosophy better so we can adequately react to the times.
This is how new consensus and research develops. When you read in an article combination of these terms with Blavatsky and Theosophy, e.g., “Blavatsky’s Himalayan adepts of the White lodge,” or “Blavatsky’s Ascended Masters,” this is a sign that you ought to question the use and combination of this terminology.
Part of Theosophy is that it is the philosophy of Blavatsky’s teachers. What is their philosophy? Is it an incorrect or oversimplification of Buddhism? If you argue that it is, what have been the counters this far to your assertion? Because the common view that it is is not correct. Is it an Orientalist view? If you argue this, what are the counters to this position, and is it an adequate position to leave readers with? This is not analyzed in depth by non-Theosophists. It is their philosophy, which she reiterates repeatedly to Theosophists. So what are the ideological contents of this teaching? It is hardly ever written about.
It is still generally held by the public and researchers who simply regurgitate the bias of others, that H.P. Blavatsky invented The Mahatma letters.
However, none of these people ever mention just for example, Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa, the Ceylonese author and Theosophist’s book Did Madame Blavatsky Forge the Mahatma Letters. They make assertive statements like it is a matter of fact (e.g., “the Hodgson Report proved Blavatsky concluded Blavatsky was a fraud and forged letters”) and move on.
A credible Encyclopedia here or there as another example will briefly make a statement in a sentence concluding on this case, which is not concluded. The 1884 Society for Psychical Research report set a precedent for dismissing Blavatsky’s work, and thus Theosophy by concluding that the letters were forged by Blavatsky. Although, the Report was long after she lost her credibility retracted by the same Society for Psychical Research, that first issued it due to bias.
Many issues are never brought up, such as the Christian missionaries and others forging letters that supposedly reveal Blavatsky admitting fraud. After the Coulombs for example were dismissed from the Theosophical Society, they went to their Christian missionary friends of the Free Church of Scotland, furnishing for them letters that were allegedly written by Blavatsky to Emma. These letters suggested that Blavatsky was a fraud.
This is quite peculiar why writers do this and invest a very personal animosity for the Theosophical Society and Theosophy. The kind of researcher I am exhibits a very thorough one, and I fail to see thorough research.
We know “Great White Lodge” just means the White Adepts in contrast to the Black (or red-auric) Adepts, but Blavatsky does not use this terminology.
These terms like “Ascended Masters,” “the Great White Lodge,” the “Great White Brotherhood” and “Mahatmas of Agartha” and many others belong to and began with specific groups and individuals; and the categories of neo-Theosophical and pseudo-Theosophical adaptations. The term (a) neo-Theosophical will refer to innovative developments of ideas in the minds of Annie Besant, Charles W. Leadbeater, Alice Bailey and Rudolf Steiner (who made several slanderous accusations against Blavatsky to bolster his own authority). Typically, these ideas take on a Christological tinge; (b) Pseudo-Theosophy refers to individuals and groups outside of the Theosophical Society who were cribbing concepts from the Theosophists and re-constructing with them as they saw fit. The former and the latter in cases blend, but historically, both would become more influential than Theosophy, even having in turn influence on the generations of Theosophists into the twentieth-century and into ours. So, consider this when I make these points, as some of them do not like to be told. They are attached to these orientations, and have not put it aside, but try to make excuses and room for it.
I do not represent a “Back to Blavatsky” movement. That period belongs to historical context within the history of the Theosophical Society, but I am beginning to understand the problem Theosophy has in the twenty-first century.
Anyone willy-nilly says what they please about Theosophy. We are already facing a decline in our society in reading comprehension. We are “Lovers of Truth,” and there is much to critique and respond to in relation to this decline with the evolution of artificial intelligence. I sometimes test artificial intelligence in its knowledge about Theosophy, and artificial intelligence pulls from the largest voices and information about Theosophy, e.g., Grok will say that “Helena Blavatsky channeled the Mahatma Letters.” We know, that this is false. Blavatsky did not channel the Mahatma Letters.
The AI will provide oversimplifications that perpetuate misunderstandings about Theosophy. Understanding what AI says about Theosophy reveals if other people are learning about Theosophy through AI, and interactions with AI require critical thinking. I will demonstrate why people are not using critical thinking. Discussions on social media platforms perpetuate inaccuracies based on outdated and distorted views. These distorted views inform people’s worldview.
As I had caught for example on X, a person named Redpill Drifter who received thirteen thousand likes using the photo cover of K. Paul Johnson’s book, “The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge.”
“If you don’t know who this woman is and her teachings, then you haven’t went that far down the rabbit hole. You still have work to do in order to understand.”
The comments were calling Blavatsky “Jewish” and a “Bolshevik Zionist.”
Another blue check named Mαr Mounier said:
“Helena Blavatsky, a Russian-Jewish figure, is regarded as one of history’s grandest charlatans. She scribbled manuscripts, lacing them with pagan myths under the guidance of shadowy Masonic Satanists, theurgists, and other vile sorts. Her books are a rancid heap of literary dung, crafted to ensnare gullible, ignorant minds.”
They received 667 likes for this mad drivel.
The first sign of the lie is that this sad person calls Blavatsky a “Jewish figure,” which she was not, but this did not stop comments from agreeing with her, and repeating the statement, or adding more falsehood to it.
A person under her commented,
“She was not Jewish at all. Theosophy and Ariosophy were pagan belief systems adopted by the Nazis.”
This is incorrect, so I had to explain to the person who is a Jew that this misled belief that “Theosophy and Ariosophy” were “pagan belief systems” “adopted by the Nazis” is dangerous to perpetuate.
I responded:
“Theosophy was not a pagan belief system adopted by the Nazis. This is an extremely vile and idiotic lie. Even as a non-theosophist, you KNOW this is wrong and irresponsible to say.”
Then I further explained:
“As I had written in my recent post “Maurice Joly: Origins of the Protocols of Zion and its Impact on Theosophy,” both Jews and Theosophists were affected by a long history of libel and hoaxes, and paid the cost for it.”
In all this, I asked myself, where are people learning about Theosophy from! This is insane. If adequately dealt with, it would be a turning point for Theosophists, wherever they are to respond to the times strongly. Some are fatigued by this merry-go-round for decades.
Historians do not explain the history of World War II in such way. I think partly, it would have a wider effect on the history books and establishment. Keeping Theosophy in the dark and as a fraud and mockery is simpler, but we live in a time where these outdated understandings are creating problems. There are ideas Theosophists propagated that were not true, and there are things that are and still hold true and have incredible value for our world.
Many say Theosophy is irrelevant today, yet I see every sign, that it is needed. Some redditor said to me, Theosophy is irrelevant and is not needed, because we basically have so many alternatives that provide similar things in the West. This is a laughable claim. Does this not explain these movements like the New Age with all these tales of extraterrestrials and tales of the “Land of Agartha,” which have cratered any genuine hopes in the West at a revival of real Philosophy?
Writers who use the kind of terminology explained above are either ignorant or approaching their argument or research from a particular bias. We cannot say whether these individuals are plainly ignorant, do not care about due diligence in research, or simply lie about Theosophy deliberately to confound their audience. This is like when reading about an article on Theosophy, and some people mention Theosophy in the same sentence as Scientology to make a quick wrap of it — false equivalencies. You can tell that such a writer has some personal problem with H.P. Blavatsky.
It is over a century since the beginnings of the Theosophical Movement. Blavatsky was complaining that in her time the same misunderstandings were passed in the press, in journals, etc., preventing the public from really knowing anything properly about Theosophy.
I had learned in my introduction to Computer Science class, that the internet was initially created for academics to share their writings, and now it is just a horrible place full of illusion, rigged elements for accumulating money to influence the masses, and people cramming it with distortions and conspiracies.
A specific issue I will address in the next article is about respected scholars, that falsely present to readers in research about Theosophy and Blavatsky, that K. Paul Johnson’s books about the identities of Blavatsky’s teachers are concluded facts, and not conjectural arguments and theories, which have been presented counters and refutation. Many articles into the current year still do this.
This entire issue reminds me of a time in college before gen. AI became a thing. Writing a paper, students lazily resorted to simply grabbing any book they can find on the topic of their paper and just quote from it to complete the paper, without utilizing any counter sources or arguments. It reminds me of the world of modern Journalism — the illusion every truth-seeking aspiring journalist eventually learns. There is a topic, and you pick a side to sway public opinion in the direction of the side you pick. There is no nuance, or you lose your audience in the complexities of a story. I can critique Theosophy myself, and yet present counterpoints. No one does that in academia, and the public does not. The scholars are not teaching the public well but are contributing to the decline and intellectual laziness.
No one wants to call it out, because everyone has pressure on them, psychologically and financially. People have to turn out work like fast food, make things poppy (or catchy), and sensationalize. We’re all going down for it, and there must emerge a reaction against it.
NOTES
This article highlights the social and even financial pressures and influences on writers to give into sensationalist research and warn against lack of integrity and critical analysis.
The American Minervan 
Leave a comment