H.P. Blavatsky Works

[Sebomai]

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the works of H.P. Blavatsky. As fra. Fomalhaut and I are both currently reading Isis Unveiled, I thought we could begin the discussion here focusing on that book. Please feel free to comment any thoughts on it you may have or questions, and hopefully if you have questions that he or I cannot answer, someone else who is more familiar with her works can help out. Whether you are intimately acquainted with her work, or a beginner like myself, let's talk about it.

[Fomalhaut]

The discoveries of modern science do not disagree with the oldest traditions which claim an incredible antiquity for our race. Within the last few years geology, which previously had only conceded that man could be traced as far back as the tertiary period, has found unanswerable proofs that human existence antedates the last glaciation of Europe--over 250,000 years! A hard nut, this, for Patristic Theology to crack; but an accepted fact with the ancient philosophers.


Moreover, fossil implements have been exhumed together with human remains, which show that man hunted in those remote times, and knew how to build a fire. But the forward step has not yet been taken in this search for the origin of the race; science comes to a dead stop, and waits for future proofs. Unfortunately, anthropology and psychology possess no Cuvier; neither geologists nor archaeologists are able to construct, from the fragmentary bits hitherto discovered, the perfect skeleton of the triple man--physical, intellectual, and spiritual. Because the fossil implements of man are found to become more rough and uncouth as geology penetrates deeper into the bowels of the earth, it seems a proof to science that the closer we come to the origin of man, the more savage and brute-like he must be. Strange logic! Does the finding of the remains in the cave of Devon prove that there were no contemporary races then who were highly civilized? When the present population of the earth have disappeared, and some archaeologist belonging to the "coming race" of the distant future shall excavate the domestic implements of one of our Indian or Andaman Island tribes, will he be justified in concluding that mankind in the nineteenth century was "just emerging from the Stone Age"?

It has lately been the fashion to speak of "the untenable conceptions of an uncultivated past." As though it were possible to hide behind an epigram the intellectual quarries out of which the reputations of so many modern philosophers have been carved! Just as Tyndall is ever ready to disparage ancient philosophers--for a dressing-up of whose ideas more than one distinguished scientist has derived honor and credit--so the geologists seem more and more inclined to take for granted that all of the archaic races were contemporaneously in a state of dense barbarism. But not all of our best authorities agree in this opinion. Some of the most eminent maintain exactly the reverse. Max Muller, for instance, says: "Many things are still unintelligible to us, and the hieroglyphic language of antiquity records but half of the mind's unconscious intentions. Yet more and more the image of man, in whatever clime we meet him, rises before us, noble and pure from the very beginning; even his errors we learn to understand, even his dreams we begin to interpret. As far as we can trace back the footsteps of man, even on the lowest strata of history, we see the divine gift of a sound and sober intellect belonging to him from the very first, and the idea of a humanity emerging slowly from the depths of an animal brutality can never be maintained again." *

As it is claimed to be unphilosophical to inquire into first causes, scientists now occupy themselves with considering their physical effects. The field of scientific investigation is therefore bounded by physical nature. When once its limits are reached, enquiry must stop, and their work be recommenced. With all due respect to our learned men, they are like the squirrel upon its revolving wheel, for they are doomed to turn their "matter" over and over again. Science is a mighty potency, and it is not for us pigmies to question her. But the "scientists" are not themselves science embodied any more than the men of our planet are the planet itself. We have neither the right to demand, nor power to compel our "modern-day philosopher" to accept without challenge a geographical description of the dark side of the moon. But, if in some lunar cataclysm one of her inhabitants should be hurled thence into the attraction of our atmosphere, and land, safe and sound, at Dr. Carpenter's door, he would be indictable as recreant to professional duty if he should fail to set the physical problem at rest.

There had already been discussion about Science at forum before but as the first part of the book is called "Science" and I agree with all these lines written above by H.P. Blavatsky, it would be a good starter in my opinion. Any thoughts?

[Sebomai]

This brings up a lot of thoughts for me. I have read this here as well as in the progress I've made in the book itself. Let me go to the part you underline, however, for the most important thoughts I have on this passage:

"Because the fossil implements of man are found to become more rough and uncouth as geology penetrates deeper into the bowels of the earth, it seems a proof to science that the closer we come to the origin of man, the more savage and brute-like he must be. Strange logic! Does the finding of the remains in the cave of Devon prove that there were no contemporary races then who were highly civilized? When the present population of the earth have disappeared, and some archaeologist belonging to the "coming race" of the distant future shall excavate the domestic implements of one of our Indian or Andaman Island tribes, will he be justified in concluding that mankind in the nineteenth century was "just emerging from the Stone Age"?"

My main thought on this relates to this in that many of these "primitive cultures," even though less advanced in terms of intellectual accomplishments and scientifici knowledge, are rich in the much more important area of being connected to a spiritual center. The wisdom and vision of oneness that permeates many of the, now sadly vanishing form our world, Aboriginal societies, is profound, deep, and intense, filtering through these people's entire lives, not set aside for one Church Sunday.

So, I honestly do not know if we will ever find a super technologically advanced ancient civilization. But what about a super advanced spiritual one? Could't all this talk of Stone Ages and things like that refer to deciding who is primitive by spiritual standards as opposed to earthly ones? Metaphorical language, not meant to be understood by all? The same with the talk elsewhere about winged peoples? If that not also possibly a metaphor for inner elevation and ascension rather than physical?

Sadly, if we did stumble upon the remains of one of these civilizations as I'm describing them, would we even know? Would we just see their "primitive" pottery or dwellings in ruins and write them off as an interesting but ultimately unimportant tiny stepping stone on the road to modern mankind's "evolution?" I don't know. I fear that might be the case, that we might have already discovered a spiritual Atlantis right here in the surface world, and already done that because we can't SEE and TOUCH evidence of spiritual attainment, only material attainment, so we don't look for other signs that might point to such things. Any other thoughts anybody?

[Fomalhaut]

My main thought on this relates to this in that many of these "primitive cultures," even though less advanced in terms of intellectual accomplishments and scientifici knowledge, are rich in the much more important area of being connected to a spiritual center. The wisdom and vision of oneness that permeates many of the, now sadly vanishing form our world, Aboriginal societies, is profound, deep, and intense, filtering through these people's entire lives, not set aside for one Church Sunday.

This is exactly how I approach the subject. However, modern science is the dogma of our times. Everything that science tells is absolutely true and not discussable for the majority of the population of our modern world. It is a bit contradictive because for being able to accept the absolute truth, there should be understanding of the absolute. How can something can be the absolute truth through when its very core essence is totally denied? It is nothing but absolute hypocrisy.

[Fomalhaut]

THERE has been an infinite confusion of names to express one and the same thing.

The chaos of the ancients; the Zoroastrian sacred fire, or the Antusbyrum of the Parsees; the Hermes-fire; the Elmes-fire of the ancient Germans; the lightning of Cybele; the burning torch of Apollo; the flame on the altar of Pan; the inextinguishable fire in the temple on the Acropolis, and in that of Vesta; the fire-flame of Pluto's helm; the brilliant sparks on the hats of the Dioscuri, on the Gorgon head, the helm of Pallas, and the staff of Mercury; the πυρ ασβεστον the Egyptian Phtha, or Ra; the Grecian Zeus Cataibates (the descending); * the pentecostal fire-tongues; the burning bush of Moses; the pillar of fire of the Exodus, and the "burning lamp" of Abram; the eternal fire of the "bottomless pit"; the Delphic oracular vapors; the Sidereal light of the Rosicrucians; the AKASA of the Hindu adepts; the Astral light of Eliphas Levi; the nerve-aura and the fluid of the magnetists; the od of Reichenbach; the fire-globe, or meteor-cat of Babinet; the Psychod and ectenic force of Thury; the psychic force of Sergeant Cox and Mr. Crookes; the atmospheric magnetism of some naturalists; galvanism; and finally, electricity, are but various names for many different manifestations, or effects of the same mysterious, all-pervading cause--the Greek Archeus, or Αρχαιοσ.

Short question: is this related to the Unseen Fire?

[Insanus]

Short question: is this related to the Unseen Fire?

Certainly. In my opinion, the fire of the bottomless pit is also of the gateless gate.
It could be talked about as "unseen fire" easily. There is no (spoon ;D) fire.

"The term in the Bible is limited to three uses in Leviticus 16, where two he-goats were sacrificed to God and one of two he-goats got a lot, reading לַעֲזָאזֵל la-aza'zeyl; either "for absolute removal" or "for Azazel" ."

-Wikipedia

[Nefastos]

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the works of H.P. Blavatsky. As fra. Fomalhaut and I are both currently reading Isis Unveiled, I thought we could begin the discussion here focusing on that book.

When reading Blavatsky's books, I'd keep in mind how they were written: in several texts edited together to form a book. Isis Unveiled in particular is such a scrap-book like work, very chaotic in nature. (Blavatsky herself admitted freely that it should be written anew.) I don't say it shouldn't be read with thought, but I say we shouldn't be afraid to read it in short scraps which it consists of. There are many books which simply do not open if read here and there in parts, but to Isis that seems to suit well. So, if you feel unable to focus through those hundreds of pages of (ingenious) occult ramble that changes its style every now and then, do not leave the book in the shelf in order to read it in full at the later date; rather, follow your intuition & start reading the parts which interest you the most, & widen those circles step by step.

Concerning the Secret Doctrine - which is much better book in all aspects - I'd suggest reading the core parts first, those which form the commentary to the Book of Dzyan. That is, book 1:1 & 2:1. Books 1:2 & 2:2 are more in a vein of Isis, being like a serious of articles put together in a quite confused manner. (It seems that Blavatsky's intellect was so much more into the creative side of intelligence - manas - that she was often terrible in the editorial side, the side of detailed order - kâma manas.)

Also remember to read that quite short book of Esoteric Instructions, especially letters I-III, which form the basis of the original esoterical theosophy. But while reading, I'd remain open to scepticism regarding Blavatsky's extremely gnostic - that is, negative - approach to body & sexuality. When underlined, that view can easily bring about more problems than it solves. That apart, the Instructions are brilliant.

And one other thing. If one is new to Blavatsky, perhaps the best way to start with her readings is often to begin with the shorter essays (presented for example here).