Civic Nationalism and the Linguistic Coup on Western Values

What is Nationalism? Misunderstanding lies often in our confusion of terms and theoretical frame of reference. In the subordination of concepts, “Don’t say Civic (or Ethnic) Nationalism” says Vergilivs Rex. Sympathies with Western tradition are being increasingly identified and repudiated as being indistinct from “white nationalist rhetoric.” Don’t be naive, and further divide by conflating nationalism…

Read More

The Identity of Koot Hoomi of Kashmir, and College and Travels

This post will briefly give independent information about Helena P. Blavatsky’s teacher K.H., apart from her own information. Since we have often quoted “The Mahatma Letters,” and K.H., it may be beneficial to know that we are not quoting some channelled, imagined disembodied spirit, who may or may have not existed. K.H. and Morya was said to…

Read More

When Helena Blavatsky wrote to a close student of Eliphas Levi on the state of the Western traditions, Kabbalism, and Christological influences. The letter highlights something to be taken into important account and not by-pass it as insignificant, or a trifling detail. She states, Eliphas Levi helps us so far, as it helps to compare Western philosophers and theologists with Eastern esotericism. In another case, H.P.B. even compares the tenets and interpretations of Father Eliphas Levi (who later became more conservative in life) accepted by European Occultists, with that of the Eastern esoteric explanations.


Baron J. Spéalieri and Helena Blavatsky Correspondence Letter

Madam, – Since you have published a posthumous letter of my master and beloved friend, the late Éliphas Lévi, I think it would be agreeable to you to publish, if judged suitable, a few extracts of the many manuscripts in my possession, written expressly for, and given to, me by my ever regretted master.

To begin with, I send you “Stray Thoughts on Death and Satan” from his pen.

I cannot close this letter without expressing the deep indignation aroused in me by the base diatribes published in the London Spiritualist against your Society and its members. Every honest heart is irritated at such unfair treatment, especially when proceeding from a man of honour as Mr. Harrison (editor of The Spiritualist) who admits in his journal anonymous contributions that are tantamount to libels.

With the utmost respect, I remain, Madam,’

Yours devotedly,

– (BARON) J. SPÉALIERI
Marseilles, July 29th, 1881

“The late Éliphas Lévi was the most learned Kabalist and Occultist of our age in Europe, and everything from his pen is precious to us, in so far as it helps us to compare notes with the Eastern Occult doctrines and, by the light thrown upon both, to prove to the world of Spiritualists and Mystics, that the two systems – the Eastern Âryan, and the Western or the Chaldæo-Jewish Kabalah – are one in their principal metaphysical tenets. Only, while the Eastern Occultists have never lost the key to their esotericism, and are daily verifying and elaborating their doctrines by personal experiments, and by the additional light of modern science, the Western or Jewish Kabalists, besides having been misled for centuries by the introduction of foreign elements in it such as Christian dogmas, dead-letter interpretations of the Bible, etc., have most undeniably lost the true key to the esoteric meaning of Simeon Ben Iochai’s Kabalah, and are trying to make up for the loss by interpretations emanating from the depths of their imagination and inner consciousness . . . “

— Extract from H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist, Vol. III. No. 1, Oct., 1881.

The Occult Philosophy taught to the Theosophists does not belong to them, but to the Buddhist comrades, that were teachers to HPB. There has been much disrespectful misrepresentation and abuse of that philosophy which has devalued perception of it.

So take this into utmost consideration as a lesson:  

I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be a ‘loving Father and creator of all in heaven’ our philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us — (at any rate) — compromising with, and pandering to public prejudices.” (K.H., The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter no. 54.)


“I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!!

We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous (…) I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be a “loving Father and creator of all in heaven” our philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us — (at any rate) — compromising with, and pandering to public prejudices.

Do you call this “candid” and — honest “from a European standpoint“? Read his letter and judge. The truth is, my dear friend, that notwithstanding the great tidal wave of mysticism that is now sweeping over a portion of the intellectual classes of Europe, the Western people have as yet scarcely learned to recognise that which we term wisdom in its loftiest sense. As yet, he only is esteemed truly wise in his world, who can most cleverly conduct the business of life, so that it may yield the largest amount of material profit — honours or money.

The quality of wisdom, ever was, and will be yet for a long time — to the very close of the fifth race — denied to him who seeks the wealth of the mind for its own sake, and for its own enjoyment and result without the secondary purpose of turning it to account in the attainment of material benefits. By most of your gold worshipping countrymen our facts and theorems would be denominated fancy-flights, the dreams of madmen. Let the Fragments and even your own magnificent letters now published in Light, fall into the hands, and be read by the general public — whether materialists or theists or Christians; and ten to one every average reader will curl his lip with a sneer; and with the remark — “all this may be very profound and learned but of what use is it in practical life?” — dismiss letters and Fragments from his thoughts for ever.” (K.H., The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, Letter no. 54, Received Simla, October, 1882)