A rough idea I'm working on: that the Theosophical Society of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the organization which made the first great attempt to render the newborn Aquarian consciousness of the time into a religion. The central idea was to syncretize all major Eastern schools of spirituality with Western esoteric teachings (Platonic/Hermetic) into a one single cohesive whole; with of course a small circle of Western "experts" acting in the intellectual leadership role. The whole thing was spearheaded and led by the charlatan-guru Helena P. Blavatsky. The Theosophical project was basically a boiling stew of: Faustian (Western) utopian globalism, Western paternalism toward foreign cultures, Victorian Orientalism, and the typical hubris-ridden, hyper-individualist, anti-guru modern Western attitude toward spirituality in general. The hubris mainly resides in the idea that a scholarly knowitall can freely cheery pick parts of foreign spiritual traditions while foregoing actual initiation (much less attainment) within those traditions. In other words, the Western expert knows better than the actual native guru; this noxious attitude doesn't really need to be explained much further.
Theosophy failed mainly because it was too overburdened with the psychological baggage of Faustian "Second Religiousness" (see: Spengler). And, because the general populace of the Western world at the time was, depending on each person's respective ideological orientation, either unwilling to abandon their age-old Judeo-Christian religiosity, or if of a more liberal mindset, attracted to secularism and materialism. Finally, let us not forget the fraud and charlatanism problems that infected Theosophy from the getgo. These same issues plagued the late 19th and early 20th century Western occult and esoteric scene as a whole. These groups always degenerated into the usual self-destructive behaviors, culminating in a petty battle of egos that would eventually dissolve the organization in question. In my own view, much of this could simply be attributable to the rising subconcsious Aquarian energies still being in a very early child-like stage. We see this behavioral pattern with Western liberalism in general. Early Aquarian consciousness manifested as a great ego high --- we were now blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with this fiery now toy called individualism; there are countless more ways to abuse this gift than use it cautiously and responsibly. Think of Prometheus stealing the fires of the gods; in this current manifestation, it's arrogant hyper-individualists attempting to overturn nature itself (see: the insane idea that we can pretend biological sex is no longer real). But I digress.
So now it seems in the early 21st century we are (well, some of us) finally starting to learn our lesson in this area. Now more mature "Aquarian intellectuals" and thinkers have come onto the scene and are urging us to, "whoah..whoah there Tiger, slow down a bit and think about these new energies and attitudes, long and hard." I'm particularly thinking of scholars like Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson, among many others of a like mind found among the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web."
So now we've entered the introspective, slow-down phase of our entry into Aquarius. The old Piscean religions have further weakened (a good thing, IMHO), but now we're realizing that new expressions of spiritual seeking must come into play. The old God of Pisces might be dead, but we need a new God to replace him, lest we sink further into nihilism and collective insanity. Paglia, an atheist, very recently
opined on this very topic:As I repeatedly argue in Provocations, comparative religion is the true multiculturalism and should be installed as the core curriculum in every undergraduate program. From my perspective as an atheist as well as a career college teacher, secular humanism has been a disastrous failure. Too many young people raised in affluent liberal homes are arriving at elite colleges and universities with skittish, unformed personalities and shockingly narrow views of human existence, confined to inflammatory and divisive identity politics.
The cover of Provocations, Camille Paglia’s new collection of essays
Interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was everywhere in the 1960s counterculture, but it gradually dissipated partly because those most drawn to ‘cosmic consciousness’ either disabled themselves by excess drug use or shunned the academic ladder of graduate school. I contend that every educated person should be conversant with the sacred texts, rituals, and symbol systems of the great world religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam — and that true global understanding is impossible without such knowledge.
Not least, the juxtaposition of historically evolving spiritual codes tutors the young in ethical reasoning and the creation of meaning. Right now, the campus religion remains nihilist, meaning-destroying post-structuralism, whose pilfering god, the one-note Foucault, had near-zero scholarly knowledge of anything before or beyond the European Enlightenment. (His sparse writing on classical antiquity is risible.) Out with the false idols and in with the true!
Geez, Paglia is almost sounding like Traditionalist there ;) Anyway, I'm glad to see we're entering this careful and methodical new intellectual environment, even if the wailing banshee chorus of Faustian hangers-on (in this case, SJWs and reactionary "liberals") tries everything it possibly can to stymie (or even shut down) this new course-correction. For once, I'm actually optimistic about the future and see this developing paradigm-shift as a great new opportunity for thought leaders to formulate a true body of religious and spiritual forms for the "New Age" we are now stumbling into.
Addendum #1: For an intellectually-rigorous argument against Theosophy, see the Traditionalist scholar Rene Guenon's book
Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion. I will say that I don't exactly endorse Guenon's rather rigid (and in my view, Archonic) opinion on what exactly constitutes a legitimate "Tradition." But nonetheless I find his general grasp on metaphysics to be quite impeccable; he's certainly one of the great minds of the early 20th century. And for a substantial refutation of Guenon's position on Theosophy,
see this. In my view, there's much merit to be found within both positions.
Addendum #2: I have nothing but great respect for many Theosophical thinkers and personages who associated with the Theosophical Society at some point in their lives. Having said that, I don't believe the Theosophy project in its entirety is greater than the sum of its parts.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
