William Q. Judge on Dogmatism and Infallible Oracles in Theosophy

“The fundamental question, “What is the criterion of Theosophy?” calls for an answer. Has Theosophy the power of growth, progress, and advancement in line with all new expositions of truth? In the minds of many the writings of H.P.B. are regarded as the infallible oracles of Theosophy. But in time criticism is sure to do Continue reading William Q. Judge on Dogmatism and Infallible Oracles in Theosophy

It is not that Deity geometrizes with numbers, but in relation to numbers—and the numerical phases of cosmogenesis.


“Thus, on the very showing of the defenders of this system the Jewish Deity is proved to be, at best, only the manifested duad, never the One absolute ALL. Geometrically demonstrated, he is a number; symbolically, an euhemerized Priapus…this can hardly satisfy a mankind thirsting after the demonstration of real spiritual truths, and the possession of a god with a divine, not anthropomorphic, nature. (…) This may have satisfied the practical Semite mind, but the Eastern Occultist has to decline the offer of such a God; indeed, a Deity, a Being, “having a mind like that of man, only infinitely more powerful,” is no God…He has nought to do with the ideal conception of the eternal universe. He is, at best, one of the creative subordinate powers, the Totality of which is called the “Sephiroth,” the “Heavenly Man,” and Adam Kadmon, the second logos of the Platonists.” (Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, p. 544, 1888)

“The old world, consistent in its symbolism with its pantheistic intuitions, uniting the visible and the invisible Infinitudes into one, represented Deity and its outward VEIL alike — by a circle. This merging of the two into a unity, and the name theos given indifferently to both, is explained, and becomes thereby still more scientific and philosophical. Plato’s etymological definition of the word theos has been shown elsewhere. He derives it from the verb [[theein]] (see Cratylus), “to move,” as suggested by the motion of the heavenly bodies which he connects with deity. According to the Esoteric philosophy, this Deity is during its “nights” and its “days” (i.e., cycles of rest or activity) “the eternal perpetual motion,” “the EVER-BECOMING, as well as the ever universally present, and the ever Existing.” The latter is the root-abstraction, the former — the only possible conception in human mind, if it disconnects this deity from any shape or form. It is a perpetual, never-ceasing evolution, circling back in its incessant progress through aeons of duration into its original status — ABSOLUTE UNITY.” (Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, p. 545, 1888.)

“Plato and his school never understood the Deity otherwise, many epithets of his applied to the “God over all” ([[ho epi pasi theos]]) notwithstanding. Plato having been initiated, could not believe in a personal God — a gigantic Shadow of Man. His epithets of “monarch” and “Law-giver of the Universe” bear an abstract meaning well understood by every Occultist, who, no less than any Christian, believes in the One Law that governs the Universe, recognizing it at the same time as immutable.

“Beyond all finite existences,” he says, “and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is an INTELLIGENCE or MIND ([[nous]]), the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded . . . the ultimate substance from which all things derive their being and essence, the first and efficient cause of all the order, and harmony, and beauty and excellency, and goodness, which pervades the Universe” — who is called, by way of preeminence and excellence, the Supreme** good “the god” ([[Theos]]), and “the god over all.” These words apply, as Plato himself shows, neither to the “Creator” nor to the “Father” of our modern Monotheist, but to the ideal and abstract cause. (…) Is it Plato, the greatest pupil of the archaic Sages, a sage himself, for whom there was but a single object of attainment in this life — REAL KNOWLEDGE — who would have ever believed in a deity that curses and damns men for ever, on the slightest provocation? Not he, who considered only those to be genuine philosophers and students of truth who possessed the knowledge of the really existing in opposition to mere seeming.” (Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, p. 554-55, 1888)

The Tragedy of Pan the Great: From Primordial Deity to Rustic Sex-Craving God

Ofelia: “My name is Ofelia. Who are you?” Pan: “Me? I’ve had so many names. Old names that only the wind and the trees can pronounce. I am the mountain, the forest and the earth. I am… I am a faun. Your most humble servant, Your Highness.” (Pan’s Labyrinth, film) Pan was once depicted as Continue reading The Tragedy of Pan the Great: From Primordial Deity to Rustic Sex-Craving God

Pro and Con Sources on Controversies about the Theosophical Society

Pro and Con Sources Dr. James Santucci, a scholar of comparative religion, and editor of Theosophical History wrote: “All too often, this subject [Theosophy & Blavatsky], when it is discussed in scholarly circles, is presented in a most unscholarly fashion. Falsehoods are perpetuated and original research is not actively pursued.”  Why Take Blavatsky Seriously? by Continue reading Pro and Con Sources on Controversies about the Theosophical Society

The Truth about the Future Maitreya Buddha in Theosophical Writings

Russian-Ukrainian Buddhist, Helena P. Blavatsky held to traditional and Theravada Position on Maitreya in Tuṣita. H.P.B. did not advocate or emphasize any millenarian element, or messianism in Theosophy, or its movement’s mission. The crux of many distorted perceptions about Theosophy and attacks from Christians are based on this Maitreya-Christ issue, which the occult view, as much Continue reading The Truth about the Future Maitreya Buddha in Theosophical Writings

Sam Harris dishonesty about Helena Blavatsky in “Waking Up”

Sam Harris mentions Helena P. Blavatsky in the first chapter of Waking Up: Guide on Spirituality without Religion (2014), and he committed a poor mistake, with a very inaccurate, and incompetent account. It is rare for such an author to even mention Blavatsky, but it is unfortunate again, as always, that it is a slight, Continue reading Sam Harris dishonesty about Helena Blavatsky in “Waking Up”

Anagarika Dharmapala and Gandhi Distrusted Charles Leadbeater and Besant

Anagarika Dharmapala was a Buddhist revivalist from Sri Lanka, who founded the Maha Bodhi Society May, 31, 1891. He was also an active member of the Theosophical Society. Dharmapala provides his insight into the controversies in the history of the organization known as the Theosophical Society. Upon reading about the Masters from Alfred P. Sinnet’s Continue reading Anagarika Dharmapala and Gandhi Distrusted Charles Leadbeater and Besant

Did Helena Blavatsky Study with the Druzes of Lebanon?

Did Helena P. Blavatsky study with the Druzes of Lebanon, or is this letter 110, one of the accused number of libelous and “forged letters” of Vsevolod Solovyof and Eleanor Sidgwick in The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky? H.P.B asserted, that the Druze and Yazdani (particularly the Yezidi) are among the last surviving remnants, especially concerning Continue reading Did Helena Blavatsky Study with the Druzes of Lebanon?

The Mission of Ammonius Saccas and the New Platonists of Alexandria

The aim of Ammonious Saccas, Greek philosopher from Alexandria and founder of the New Platonic Eclectic School, was to reconcile the plethora of sects in Egypt and Palestine at the time; and perhaps all sects, peoples, and nations under one common cause and faith. The central object was faith in one immutable, nameless, inexorable Divine Continue reading The Mission of Ammonius Saccas and the New Platonists of Alexandria