Explaining Modern Theosophy: Hyponoia, Analogy and Eclecticism in Classical Philosophical Rigor

An analysis of the intellectual and philosophical lineage of Modern Theosophy through an explanation of the classical methods and practices that underlie Theosophy, religion and theology, and the implications of Theosophy’s roots in a primordial tradition of ancient Persia and Central Asia and the peoples and cultures of South Asia.

No one term ever fits all, but it is important that I explain what is meant by the terms Theosophy and Classical Eclecticism, and what defines my work. The way in which I think about philosophy myself does not depend on H.P. Blavatsky. I began with the classical sources and will end till my dying days on them. I learned the method of analogy and interpreting in its most basic, intuitive and necessary form before I first encountered Theosophical literature, H.P. Blavatsky and Annie Besant and continued to develop that practice.

It was enhanced due to both application of methods, reflection and the work of others who have been doing the same in our times and long before us. Please understand, that I am not claiming to be special, because this ability was understood by the Greek philosophers to be inherent in human beings to sense hidden truths. I will explain this in the next entry, The Naturalist Epic explaining how the ancient physics of Heraclitus and the logic of the Pre-Socratics was turned into a practical life philosophy by the Stoics.

I have already been at work trying to show how the Christians picked up from the Stoics and formed the basis of American republicanism as an eclectic system, that is counter to this farce of Christian Nationalism which represents a lineage and an ignorance (or false knowledge) deadly hostile to this history.

The American Minervan educates about the ancient, classical foundations of esoteric philosophy and Theosophy, but keep in mind that there are streams of classical foundations of esoteric philosophy, Science and Theosophy that converge, divide or complement. The key to understanding this is in the history of the practice of eclecticism, the roots of analogeticism and study of under-meanings. I seek the revival of classical eclecticism, Neoplatonic analogetics, and pre-nineteenth-century theosophical roots, aimed at spiritual regeneration and republican virtue to challenge modern religious exclusivism and narratives. The ideal is anti-oligarchic, virtue-oriented republicanism that advocates decentralized ownership, reciprocity and cultivation over capitalist excess and socialist centralism, and this tradition represents a bottom-up American democracy against top-down traditionalism.

More on this bottom-up against top-down (Theosophy) logic, in relation to emergentism (Naturalists) and immanentism (Stoicism). In the end, one has to observe all three of these, and develop an understanding that is complementary.

Now, what can we say is the classical philosophical and intellectual lineage of Theosophy before the modern Theosophical movement comes into the picture?

The inheritance of Western Civilization is traceable in a number of schools, but to keep it simple, the most evidential lies in Middle Platonism, Neoplatonism and the Alexandrian Philosophers (i.e., late antique Neoplatonic tradition). Modern Theosophy, in its own way continues the analysis and practices of the early allegorists. The work of the theosopher involves observing all classical terms related to the science or method of hidden meaning, or the under-thought.

These are:

1. allegoria (ἀλληγορία), i.e., saying one thing and meaning another, encompassing compositional allegory and interpretative allegory;
2. hyponoia (ὑπονοεῖν), or how people sense hidden truths in myths;
3. ainigmata (αἰνίγματα) or interpretation of myths as riddles concealing natural or ethical truths; and reading symbolism, philosophically indicating something that points beyond itself.

When we get further into this history in antiquity, it further involves:

1. The study of “the Mysteries,” meaning hidden or initiatory truth particularly passed through oral transmission.
2. dianoia (διάνοια), or the deeper “thought” (intention) behind a text.
3. skopos (σκοπός) or the guiding aim or underlying purpose of a work which may, e.g., be made unintelligible through use of literary devices (e.g., ainigmata or riddles) to an unintended or untrained analyzer; and the use of “physical allegory” to interpret gods as natural forces.

All these are integral to the approaches in Theosophy and to many other schools preceding it. I have already introduced the pre-Homeric origins of the god Phanes, and then into the current time, the “Pre-Socratics” or the early philosophers of physis at the foundations of “Western Philosophy” and Science.

H.P. Blavatsky is in dialogue with the Pre-Socratics, but she does not teach the philosophy or framework of the Pre-Socratics. This is important to understand the relation of Theosophy to Neoplatonism as opposed to Stoicism, because Stoicism is distilled from the framework of the Pre-Socratics. Blavatsky points to the Milesian and Ionian philosophers and utilizes them in her arguments about metaphysical elements to support the philosophy of the Indo-Tibetan philosopher-adepts at the basis of the Theosophical Movement in the nineteenth-century, whose system is described generically as “the Aryan-Arhat esoteric system” and the wisdom belonging to the most secret schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The legacy of Theosophy is dual — representing the mission of Ammonius Saccas and Je Tsongkapa. Blavatsky’s interpretations or use of the Pre-Socratics are for the most part correct in The Secret Doctrine, of Plato and the later Neoplatonists that utilized a top-down model and logic, but she performs some philosophical surgery on the Pre-Socratics.

Plato is the champion of the top-down system, and Blavatsky is correct in constantly emphasizing this and its relation to Tibetan esotericism. She characterizes Aristotle as the father of the bottom-up approach, which she views as a degradation into materialism. In a sense, this is true in her argument that Aristotelianism and the Naturalists paved the way for modern science, which treats consciousness as a result of biological complexity, but who more degradingly limit consciousness to matter in the brain. However, in another sense, she fails to address the flaws and limitations of the top-down model that run thoroughly through Theosophy that led to this development (and the seeming irrelevance of “Occult Philosophy”), because those unaddressed flaws manifest in the Neo-Theosophy of the Besantian orientation and others.

Theosophy is furthermore stuck trying to explain things like the interpretations between Iranian versus Vedic mythology and “correct interpretations” of “The Fall” between the Mesopotamian traditions versus Christians, which is adamantly fought against in a world where people and theologians regard these myths as historical events. Blavatsky explains that the Fall simply represents the descent of spirit into matter, and the incarnation of the Gods in Man, but all of this creates new problems — Theosophy recovers ancient myths and gave life to a new myth.

Bear with me.

Blavatsky did better than her predecessors Dunlap, Mackey and Pike in tracing “the Primordial Tradition” (including the Pre-Socratics), but her ideas are still grounded in Antediluvian theory among other claims. One of these central claims was that the Primordial Tradition was originally top-down but was misunderstood as naturalist, and Aristotle becomes seen as secondary to the initiate, Plato. The fact, however, is that Pre-Socratics were actually trying to escape the top-down mythology of Homer and Hesiod (where Gods cause storms and births). The early Greek naturalist philosophers are still different from the materialism of the scientists, but they were the first to suggest that the universe runs itself through internal mechanics. Blavatsky essentially tries to re-mythologize them, claiming their Fire and Atomism were just blinds (veils) for hidden spiritual Gods like the Manusaputras, Kumaras, etc. We know, in one sense she was showing that the Hierarchies of Angels in Christianity was built off the pantheon of older models, but this does not stop the fact, that certain modern Theosophists pray to Devas and are fixed to a Neo-Hindu orientation.

She quoted in her commentaries a line of Epicurus of Samos that I included in The Garden Philosopher: Epicurus of Samos on the existence of the Gods:

“The gods exist, but they are not what the hoi polloi suppose them to be. And the impious man (Gr. ἀσεβὴς, asebēs) is not he who denies the existence of the gods whom the multitude worship, but he is such who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the multitude.”

EPICURUS OF SAMOS, EPISTLE TO MENOECEUS.

The gods are not what the hoi polloi believe, but Theosophy still re-mythologizes them. Modern Theosophy gives us a new myth from the Buddhist Tantras. The means it takes to interpret the gods partially come downstream from the late Neoplatonic Alexandrians.

As I have stated before, there are other ways to study and critique Theosophy that are closer to an actual analytical study of it, rather than the usual polemic and slander to deflect and defend threats to religious orthodoxy. All the terms above and methods referred to uncovering coherent, systematic, philosophical meaning beneath mythic language, which the Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Middle Platonists, Neoplatonists and others are known for.

When I use the term analogetic method, I am referring to this very robust analogical method that functioned as one of the core interpretive and philosophical tools in Greek thought under the classical philosophical category (or interpretive science) of analogia (ἀναλογία). This method was a foundational principle in Greek philosophy, mathematics, grammar, and hermeneutics, and often overlapped with hyponoia, allegory and symbolic exegesis. Analogia encompasses proportion, correspondence, or structural similarity to explain (1) the harmony of the cosmos, (2) the relationship between visible and invisible realms; (3) the correspondence between mythic images and philosophical truths, and (4) the structure of language and meaning. Analogy was used to justify reading myths, rituals, and poetic images as symbolic representations of deeper truths before the use of the term allegory became dominant. All these terms are related and used in relation to analogy in interpretive contexts, forming the vocabulary of ancient esoteric interpretation.

The knowledge underlying this science is still considered divine by both Pre-Socratics, Neoplatonists and Modern Theosophy.

The terms in modern usage of the terms “eclectic,” “syncretic,” or “analogical” are very dismissive and are used as a weapon to delegitimize, straying from their classical meanings to imply superficiality, indiscriminate or clever mix-and-match spirituality. Ancient analogical methods would undoubtedly shape later “esoteric” traditions. When I use the term “Analogeticism” in the contexts of Stoicism, Middle Platonism, Neoplatonism, late-antique Neoplatonic tradition and Theosophy, it is used to describe (1) systems built on analogy, (2) symbolic cosmologies, and (3) esoteric correspondences.

According to the modern use of the term eclectic, Theosophy is not eclectic in the modern sense. The definition of Theosophy as a combination, blending or patchwork of religions is more polemical as a result of widespread collective of digital information from misunderstanding. The similarities among traditions arise because they share a common esoteric root, not because Theosophy borrows from them arbitrarily. The term Theosophy is comparable to classical Eclecticism. All those traditions before Theosophy, certainly the eclectic Celsus claimed access to a primordial wisdom and used multiple sources to articulate it. Theosophy just represents a modern expression of those efforts with these methods.

The modern use of the term eclecticism and its related dismissive terms are distortions. Eclecticism in antiquity was a rigorous method of philosophical integration. Celsus and other Middle Platonists used eclectic methods while maintaining coherent metaphysical systems; and Theosophy, like those ancient systems claim to restore a primordial wisdom, not assemble or construct a “pseudo-religion” from fragments.

Theosophy is not syncretism and it is not a comparative project. Even if you think of the term Theosophy solely in association with nineteenth-century Victorian Occultism, this also does not define Theosophy in the nineteenth-century. I am not even going to get into the condemned mystic orders during the Crusade era, the Swedenborgians and Vico in the eighteenth-century, and Rosmini.

What is called Theosophy in the nineteenth-century is however a deliberately careful and selective dissemination of a few fundamentals of an underlying philosophical superstructure tied to the real history of esoteric Buddhism, of tenets which supposedly embody Siddhartha’s own authentic esoteric teachings which they called generically, the “Aryan-Arhat Esoteric Tenets” in the possession of adepts that claimed to belong to an esoteric school in the trans-Himalayan regions. The adepts and their disciples are patriots of their respective countries, intent on forming an institution of the universal brotherhood, and the purpose of Theosophy was to form the cornerstone of such institution with Blavatsky defined as their direct agent, despite her flaws, which their correspondents and correspondences note.

“In the book known as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, in the section on ‘the Supreme Ātman–Self—as manifested in the character of the Arhats and Pratyeka Buddhas,’ it is stated that ‘Because from the beginning, all sentient creatures have confused the truth, and embraced the false; therefore has there come into existence a hidden knowledge called Alaya Vijnāna.’ ‘Who is in the possession of the true hidden knowledge?’ ‘The great teachers of the Snowy Mountain’ (…)”

Helena Blavatsky, Tibetan Teachings, Oct. 1894

This trans-Himalayan brotherhood was a secret Buddhist School, and this “Aryan-Arhat” esoteric system is a surviving remnant of a truly primordial esoteric lineage.

From the outside, scholars see Theosophy as “borrowing” from Hinduism, Buddhism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and so on, but it isn’t. All these traditions descend from the same ancient source, so Theosophy is not combining Tibetan esotericism, Hinduism and ancient pre-Islamic Iranian systems, but attempts to restore their common root. The clandestine masters involved in the early history of the Theosophical Movement represent the living custodians of that root, and this root is the inheritance of the Proto‑Indo‑Iranian (Ārya) peoples.

Both this history of the Aryan (or peoples of Iran and Central Asia, including ancient Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Sogdians and others) and the Indo-Aryans (peoples and cultures of South Asia, especially those associated with early Vedic civilization) share a common Proto‑Indo‑Iranian origin. They developed into distinct civilizations with different languages, religions and mythologies, hence the emphasis that the real esotericism is pre-Vedic and survives.

These are the hindrances of the movement of this spiritual truth: literalism (the “dead-letter”), priestcraft, dogma, exclusivism and the supremacy of faith. The chief source of moral and theological decline in the world has been caused by dogmatic systems and priestly powers, not atheists, “pagans,” and “disbelievers.” Christianity and Islam indeed contain genuine spiritual truths, especially in their mystical branches, but they remain deeply flawed, distorted by dogma, literalism, legalistic and institutional power.

Theosophy does not claim that the Indo‑Aryan system is the only ancient esoteric lineage — only that it is the one the adepts that were involved in the early Theosophical Movement belonged to, thus African traditional religions (such as Yoruba, Kongo, Akan, Nilotic, or ancient Egyptian) are not outside of this history but are parallel surviving remnants of the same prehistoric esoteric world. African initiatory systems involving Egyptian priestly traditions, Cushite and Ethiopian esoteric lore, and Nubian and Sudanese magical sciences all preserved authentic fragments of an ageless Wisdom. In this view, Egyptian and Ethiopian esotericism influenced early Greek philosophy, which then means African traditions were sources, not recipients.

Now, whether we consider the Egyptian, Chaldean and African or the Persian, Greek, Indian — if Theosophy is a surviving remnant of the Proto‑Indo‑Aryan esoteric lineage, then African traditional religions are surviving remnants of other primordial lineages, equally all ancient branches of the Wisdom‑Religion, Perennial Tradition or Ageless Wisdom. African traditional religions are not derivative, but expressions of humanity’s earliest spiritual consciousness and holders of symbolic and ritual knowledge that has become lost.

We could say that African traditional religions preserve truths about the astral, elemental, and ancestral planes that Indo‑Aryan systems often abstract away. Indo‑Aryan systems preserve metaphysical and cosmological structures that African systems convert symbolically, and that both are fragments of a single prehistoric world fractured in diverging human migrations. When we understand this within the context of the practice of analogy, eclecticism, etc., we find that each system preserves different aspects of the original whole: India preserved metaphysics and cosmology, Tibet preserved initiatory psychology and discipline, Iran preserved ethical dualism and fire‑mysticism, Egypt preserved ritual theurgy and sacred kingship, Chaldea preserved astral science and symbolic numerology, and Greece preserved philosophical abstraction and dialectic. Then each possess an aspect of and in each. African and pre‑Aryan traditions have deep theurgic, symbolic and ecological knowledge through living ritual practice of elemental beings, nature spirits, ancestral presences (or memories), the lower astral world and magical operations tied to land and lineage.