Manasic Light – Blavatskyian Concepts on Satan

© fra Nefastos 2006

Satan is a greatly emphazised object of clarifying research in many of the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, from many different aspects in a variety of her books. Blavatsky’s first book, Isis Unveiled, was written in order to help the followers of both the scientific and the religious world views to understand better the true essence of the ancient mystery tradition and the synchretistic views of occultism. Therefore, in this book Satan is presented mostly as a comical scapegoat of the Christian church, created for to carry away its sins (like the goat of Azazel did in the Pentateuch) and make possible the glorious redeeming at Calvarium – Blavatsky points out that the Devil is not real, save but in the widest allegoric interpretation of the name.

Always faithful to her intelligent, ironic style of writing, Blavatsky responds to a Catholic writer Des Mousseaux: ‘The Catholic clergy and some of the lay champions of the Roman Church fight still more for the existence of Satan and his imps. If Des Mousseaux maintains the objective reality of spiritual phenomena with such an unrelenting ardor, it is because, in his opinion, the latter are the most direct evidence of the Devil at work. (…) “If magic and spiritualism,” he says, “were both but chimeras, we would have to bid an eternal farewell to all the rebellious angels, now troubling the world; for thus, we would have no more demons down here. . . . And if we lost our demons, we would LOSE OUR SAVIOUR likewise. For, from whom did the Saviour come to save us? And then, there would be no more The Redeemer; for from whom or what could the Redeemer redeem us? Hence, there would be no more Christianity!!” Oh, Holy Father of Evil; Sainted Satan! We pray thee do not abandon such pious Christians as the Chevalier des Mousseaux and some Baptist clergymen!!’ ¹

In her later book, Secret Doctrine, which is the Magnum Opus of both Blavatsky and possibly the whole of modern occultism, she explains the real meaning of the myth of Satan or Lucifer, the Bringer if Light. She associates Him with the Manasaputras of the old Eastern mythology, the intelligent souls which descended into the semi-animal, prehistorical men thus giving to them – that is, to us – the flame of the true self-consciousness. Much is left to the reader’s intuition, but still Blavatsky makes clear that this essence or the group of light -bearing and -giving souls is/are certainly not evil.

Still there are problems, and from these problems the symbolic background of “the fall of rebellious angels” becomes clear, and we begin to understand why it is usually related in religions and myths as an evil thing. The blending of animal and angelic fires did not succeed without problems, but created (and was created by) certain very difficult karmic effects. Besides, the much improved intellectual capacity in man did give him not only power and happiness but, as we know, did much to make world’s problems even worse. A keen mind to register pain, a keen mind to create new forms of pain. Reason is a two-edged sword indeed, and because of this man’s greatest treasure, his conscious soul and the light of his reason became allegorically presented as the very source of evil.

The Secret Doctrine Index ² gives 77 different moments for the aspects of Satan, including the following:

SATAN, and his angels as the direct redeemers of the divine man…

– an angel of God II 477
– identified with the anointed one II 234
– became a savior I 193
– the creator of Divine Man I 193
– the door keeper II 233
– the dragon of wisdom miscalled II 94n, 234
– the father of spiritual mankind II 243
– God in the manifested world II 235
– the god of wisdom II 237, 530
– the highest divine spirit II 377
– Jehovah & Satan are one and the same II 387n
– the firstborn brother of Logos II 162
– Lucifer &, is our mind II 513
– made the terrestrial man divine I 198
– pure spirit originally I 413
– the shadow of God II 510
– The Son of God [Job] I 412, 414, 422n; II 376, 378, 477, 489
– the wisest of gods and archangels II 60

These are quite revealing, and help to understand the Trans-Himalayan school – whose pupil Blavatsky was – view on the essence of Satan. One very illuminating point can be found in the commentary of the sixth stanza of the Book of Dzyan: ‘Thus “SATAN,” once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious, dogmatic, unphilosophical spirit of the Churches, grows into the grandiose image of the one who made of a terrestrial a divine MAN; who gave him, throughout the long cycle of Mahâ-kalpa the law of the Spirit of Life, and made him free from the Sin of Ignorance, hence of death.’ ³

Since Blavatsky’s school was an oriental one, many early theosophists adopted Sanskrit names and abandoned Western terminology, hence rejecting names like God and Satan. When they were used in later theosophy, they often returned close to the pre-Blavatskyian concept: “God” is good – “Satan” is evil. Still, even the early theosophical journal edited by Blavatsky, was named Lucifer. When explaining this provocatively-sounding choice, she writes:

‘To object to the title of LUCIFER, only because its “associations are so dreadful,” is pardonable–if it can be pardonable in any case– only in an ignorant American missionary of some dissenting sect, in one whose natural laziness and lack of education led him to prefer ploughing the minds of heathens, as ignorant as he is himself, to the more profitable, but rather more arduous, process of ploughing the fields of his own father’s farm. In the English clergy, however, who receive all a more or less classical education, and are, therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the ins and outs of theological sophistry and casuistry, this kind of opposition is absolutely unpardonable. It not only smacks of hypocrisy and deceit, but places them directly on a lower moral level than him they call the apostate angel. By endeavouring to show the theological Lucifer, fallen through the idea that
⁴

To reign is worth
ambition, though in Hell;
Better to reign in
Hell than to serve in Heaven,

they are virtually putting into practice the supposed crime they would fain accuse him of. They prefer reigning over the spirit of the masses by means of a pernicious dark LIE, productive of many an evil, than serve heaven by serving the TRUTH. Such practices are worthy only of the Jesuits. But their sacred writ is the first to contradict their interpretations and the association of Lucifer, the Morning Star, with Satan. Chapter XXII of Revelation, verse 16th, says: “I, Jesus . . . am the root. . . and the bright and Morning Star” (Phosphoros, “early rising”): hence Eosphoros, or the Latin Lucifer. The or probrium attached to this name is of such a very late date, the Roman Church found itself forced to screen the theological slander behind a two-sided interpretation–as usual. Christ, we are told, is the “Morning Star,” the divine Lucifer; and Satan the usurpator of the Verbum, the “infernal Lucifer.” “The great Archangel Michael, the conqueror of Satan, is identical in paganism with Mercury-Mithra, to whom, after defending the Sun (symbolical of God) from the attacks of Venus-Lucifer, was given the possession of this planet, et datus est ei locus Luciferi. And since the Archangel Michael is the ‘Angel of the Face,’ and ‘the Vicar of the Verbum’ he is now considered in the Roman Church as the regent of that planet Venus which ‘the vanquished fiend had usurped’.” Angelus faciei Dei sedem superbi humilis Obtinuit, says Cornelius à Lapide (in Vol. VI, p. 229).’ ⁵ These same ideas are repeated briefly in Blavatsky’s Theosophical Glossary, under the word “Lucifer.” (“Satan” is not among the words discussed.)

Theosophical movement in the later 1800 century tried to help people to see behind the falseness of the materialistic science, but not less through the same falseness of the anthropomorhic idol of the Christian God, and because of that Blavatsky first wrote of Satan very symbolically. Later that topic was expanded, when attention could be focused more to the true nature of the being and not only on its interpretations and distortions in myths. It seems to be most certain that Blavatsky never abhorred the names of Lucifer or Satan like the modern descendants of the first theosophical movement often do, but instead encouraged serious occultists to try and understand this lofty archetype’s many and grandiose meanings.

’The secret of my “Avatar-hood” is in that I defend rights of every man, be he a Buddhist, a Brahmin, a Hebrew or a Devil worshipper – let him believe and worship as he wants, as long as he is HONEST.’ ⁶

FINIS