Madame Blavatsky

 

The writings of Madame Blavatsky confront the interested student of mysticism with a number of disheartening questions. Let me state them and let me try to answer them at the same time.

• Is mysticism a Secret Doctrine that has been hidden through the ages (but is revealed gratia M. Blavatsky)?
• Is mysticism an occult science?
• Was there in the beginning of time a universal and mystic religion, out of which all the world religions sprang?

The book of Blavatsky answers these question positively. Accordingly she has done mysticism a lot of harm. This is not a small allegation, so I'll take the time to expound it.

There is in the book of Blavatsky a lot of learning, though she doesn't state her sources very often and seldom in detail. So sometimes the suspicion creeps up that she has invented a lot. The book unfortunately hasn't that scientific rigour, which gives the reader the trust needed, dealing with such delicate questions of the intellect. The book is too fanciful to give credit. It promises too much and on this promise the whole attraction of the book rests. The reader constantly thinks : 'This madame is going to give me the answer to the riddle of life. She is the only one in the whole universe to know the (secret) truth. All the books in the whole world about the inner core of mysticism were hidden or lost in the fires of celebrated libraries or sank away in the sands of vast deserts. But now this madame has risen and she is going to speak! The reading of the book will cost me a lifetime, but it's worthwhile, because she knows and the rest of the world has lived for ages in ignorance.'

But the promise is never granted. The book dies in vagueness about such a lucid topic as mysticism. For evermore all kinds of prejudices are again confirmed. Mysticism according to this book is the same as ET's, UFO's and abnormal occult powers. For that's the vulgar opinion about mysticism, that it has something to do with science fiction, witchcraft, spiritism and occultism. For most people that is the attraction of mysticism. For others it's the reason they don't want to get involved with it. It often is a playground for adults, full of bedtime stories and fairy tales.

But mysticism is not occult. It is a science, which nowadays is corroborated by all kinds of scientific investigations. It's my strong conviction that one day all the findings of mysticism will be scientifically measurable, because, though in the first place metaphysical, the source of mysticism is not at the least physical, since mind and matter are one. All the so called powers, that have been acquired by mystics and are called occult by laymen, have fundamentally a physical basis. These powers are now called occult because the common man is at the moment not capable of using them, but one day man will be capable of doing things that are at the moment inconceivable. It simply is like the invention of telephone or the use of computers. In the last century people would have called using a telephone an occult power. So no use in mystifying. No use in bewildering and in upsetting people who are for the first time taking up mysticism as a serious study. It is better to reassure these people by telling them that mysticism has nothing funny about it or by stressing the fact that it is not a bunch of old wives tales. Their interest in mysticism is fully legitimate and their subject of study deserves the utmost seriousness as befits grown up men.

Unfortunately Madame Blavatsky does not free the reader of this prejudices against mysticism at the unset. I'm afraid that most readers with a fair amount of common sense will discard the tenets of the book right from the first introduction (if they come so far in reading). And that's a pity, because the subject really is worth the study. And also because there are good chapters in the book, especially when Blavatsky is discussing the theorems of Indian philosophy. She is capable of giving clear elucidations of mystical traditions and that's why the book has something of value for students of mysticism. As long as she doesn't confound the reader with her humbug of a timeless conspiracy against mysticism (why on earth do a lot of people in this branch of study think that there is a conspiracy going on?).

In the writings of Blavatsky there is (if you skip aside all the humbug) also really a truly sincere mystic voice to be heard. As when she writes about 'the Karana (Brahman), the Causeless Cause of all causes, should have its shrine and altar on the holy and ever untrodden ground of our heart', which is well put and in the mystic vein. She also is well trained in the mystic tradition and lavishly quotes from that source. From the Indian masters to the Church fathers, from Hermes Trismegistos to Mediaeval Alchemy, she quotes them all. So the Secret Doctrine is a valuable source book.

But given these praises, we are dealing here with the question whether mysticism is an occult, a hidden science. Is the mystic experience only for those few select saints, who have resource to very secret, yea ante diluvian, manuscripts? Is this knowledge of the force (the god/Brahman) a hidden knowledge, not accessible to all? Was there no way of knowing the force accept by intercession of Madame Blavatsky? Were all those mystics of the Middle Ages, all those mystics in the Buddhist tradition or in any other post diluvian religion wrong, because they had no sacred books to their command wherein was stated the Sacred Doctrine of Madame Blavatsky? No.

And why no? Because mysticism is not a Secret Doctrine. It is a universal knowledge open to all. It comes naturally with the steady routine of doing spiritual exercises. It is the natural end of a spiritual quest. It dawns on a man sua sponte once he has embarked on his spiritual journey home. It is a knowledge which is reported by thousands of different mystics in thousands of different ages, always in different words, according to the cultural paradigm wherein the words were uttered, but always with the same meaning, which doesn't need a code to translate.

In all these age old reports there is a lot of superfluous mythology, because the sages of history lived in an age of mythology and could only be understood by there fellow men if they talked in familiar (ie. mythological) images. That's why you read about Angels, who created the world as helpers of the Divine Being, or about Astral Bodies, about Isvara, the Lord of our universe etc., but it's our duty (and this Site wants to be helpful in this respect) to translate this old mythological world view into our modern scientific paradigm. The world of the Upanishads and the Veda's, being thousands of years old, is completely different from our world. To take the words of this old Indian (or any other) lore to the letter would result in bewildering meaninglessness for modern man. What makes these ancient writings so impressive is their inner implicit and intrinsic truth and beauty. They are right despite their mythology (which can be said of any mythology as the great work of the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss shows).

The book of Madame Blavatsky takes the old mythology of the Indians far too literal. Even a sage as Sankara, who still lived in the mythological era, didn't take the lore of his precessors that literal. Surely in his Basja's (commentaries) on the Sutra's and the Upanishads he presents the old mythological world view with no substantial criticism (he probably saw only the pearls between the pebbles), but in his beautiful summary of Vedanta philosophy, the Viveka Chudamani, there is not a trace of Isvara or Hiranjagarba usw. found. He probably didn't find mythology essential to mysticism.

Sign our guestbook!