JOYFUL GNOSIS:
Gnostic Light on Blavatsky's Wisdom
An exploration of H. P. Blavatsky's teachings in the light of the embodiement of the Ancient Wisdom known as Gnosticism.
Dr. Stephan A. Hoeller is a national lecturer of The Theosophical Society
in America, who also lectured for The Theosophical Society in Australia,
New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden and Germany. 
He is retired Professor of Religious Studies at the College of Oriental Studies in Los Angeles. He is also author of five books, including The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead and his latest, Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing.
Extract: On Destiny
When Confucius was asked about death, he replied: "Why do you ask me about death when you do not know how to live?" This answer might easily have been given by a Gnostic. To a similar question posed in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, divine reality from which they have originated, and whither they will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still embodied on earth.
---------------------------------
Inasmuch as it would not be feasible to
present a comparative analysis of the Gnostic and the modern Theosophical
traditions here, we shall have to be content with highlighting some of
the most important similarities and differences of each.
According to the noted scholar Gilles Quispel, Gnosticism expresses a
specific mystical or religious experience, which it generally turns into
myth. Mainstream religions of the kind of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
also partake of experiences of certain kinds of gnosis, but they almost
inevitably turn them into belief and commandment. This is where the Gnostic
with his mythic approach departs radically from his orthodox counterparts.
Myth, when originating in mystical realization and expressed in fervent
poetic imagery, leads to an amplification and assimilation of the original
experience. Faith understood as belief, and ethical maxims expressed as
commandments offer no such amplification of experience and allow for little
assimilation of its import into the personality. The Gnostic's way of
dealing with myth allowed him or her to once again approach the experience
wherein the myth originated and enter the mystical experience again and
again. Carried aloft on the zephyr winds of poetry and imagination, and
aided by the winged thought of inspired myth, the soul of the Gnostic
could be regenerated repeatedly by the experience of gnosis.
Turning to H.P. Blavatsky's teachings, we find that their fundamental
postulates are virtually identical with those just mentioned in connection
with Gnosticism. The pneuma of the Gnostics was no stranger to
Blavatsky. Like the Gnostics before her, she endorsed the division of
the psycho-physical organism of the human being into body, soul, and spirit,
the last of which she regarded as the true source of all theosophia (wisdom
of the gods). In her Key to Theosophy (pp. 90-92 of the 1889 edition)
she refers explicitly to the spirit (pneuma) as a portion of the divine,
the "immortal principle," the source of all "heavenly wisdom."
When it comes to her attitude toward myth, there can be little doubt that
the author of The Secret Doctrine is a magnificent myth-maker and
that all of her works possess a mythic power and impact
independent of and more valuable than their factual content. Prof. Robert
Ellwood, a man of most eminent academic as well as theosophical insight
has this to say:
"The Secret Doctrine is a book not easily forgotten, even by those who despise it or who, like many outside the theosophical orbit, find it almost impossible to read ... To understand what it has to offer, one must learn how to read it. The Secret Doctrine is not a textbook, but is like an ocean with waves and currents and eddies and whirlpools and quiet caves. It calls for suspending one's normal mode of conceptual progress until one has discovered where the tides and techniques of this new medium will carry him. Water is, to man, a distorting element, and probably whatever he sees in it will not be seen as it really is. The ecstatic surges in his body as he rides the swells will not be forgotten after he has found his feet once again on the sand. Like riding the waves, or like listening to great music, this book wafts one to where he can perceive reality in new configurations that unite the subjective and the objective. It does not so much convey specific fact as arrange science, myth, philosophy, and poetic narrative in peculiar combinations which can generate remarkable experiences - or so it has been with Theosophists." [1]
What may one call such an arrangement of various motifs 'in peculiar
combinations which can generate remarkable experiences' but a myth as
employed in the Gnostic manner? Certainly the writings of such Gnostic
teachers as Valentinus or Basilides could be described in very similar
words. The additional comments made by Ellwood merely reinforce this impression:
"As one grows into the world of The Secret Doctrine, one understands
more and more that it presents a psychological model of the cosmos. The
more its vision is comprehended and interiorised, the more the reader
shares the workings of universal consciousness. ..." [2]
Every occultist worth his or her salt is a romantic, be they aware of
this or not. Whether they be called William Blake, Eliphas Levi, or Mme.
Blavatsky, and before them Valentinus, Basilides, and Ammonius Saccus,
all such persons were primarily concerned not with passing on factual
information but with engendering that majestic sense of wonder that one
glimpses to a minor degree in sunsets, grand landscapes, fairy tales,
and hoary legends, and to a major degree in great art and in the experience
of the 'wholly other' in ecstasies of the spirit.
Mystics and Gnostics speak the language of myth, not of cold logic or
scientific fact. Yet it must be remembered that some such persons have
the misfortune to live in an age that has an inadequate appreciation of
myth. The author of The Secret Doctrine belonged in this category.
There was no word in the dictionary of nineteenth century intellectuals
for 'psychological model of the cosmos'; C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and
their fellows had not come upon the scene yet to rehabilitate myth and
symbol. What was H.P. Blavatsky to do?
According to all available evidence, she did the best she could. In her work Isis Unveiled she wrote:
Myth was the favourite and universal method of teaching in archaic times. [3]
Fairy tales do not exclusively belong to nurseries; all mankind - except those few who in all ages have comprehended their hidden meaning, and tried to open the eyes of the superstitious - have listened to such tales in one shape or other, and after transforming them into sacred symbols, called the product Religion. [4]
There are few myths in any religious system but have an historical as well as a scientific foundation. Myths ... are now found to be fables just in proportion as we misunderstand them; truths, in proportion as they were once understood. [5]
It is in words such as these that Blavatsky tried to point to the transformative value of myth. In The Secret Doctrine she went farther, and came close to asserting that the mythic and symbolic (which in the terminology of her day she calls "allegorical") element plays a crucial role in all esoteric material:
"To some extent, it is admitted that even the Esoteric Teaching is allegorical. To make the latter comprehensible to the average intelligence, the use of symbols cast in an intelligible form is needed. Hence the allegorical and semi-mythical narratives in the Esoteric, and the only semi-metaphysical and objective representations in the exoteric Teachings. For the purely transcendentally spiritual conceptions are adapted only to the perceptions of those who "see without eyes, hear without ears and sense without organs." [6]
There is very little doubt then that the enunciator of the modern Theosophical mythic system was an expert myth-maker herself, who in spite of the unsympathetic intellectual climate of her day recognized the Gnostic function and value of myth, and who gently introduced her readers and followers to the controversial concept of the possible mythic and symbolic character of her teachings.
Let us now look at some other features of Gnosticism in the light of
their relationship to various teachings in The Secret Doctrine,
Isis Unveiled, and other works of Blavatsky. The world view of
the Gnostics declares that the rigid monotheism of mainstream Judeo-Christian-Islamic
orthodoxy amounts to a gross oversimplification. The personal, well-nigh
anthropomorphic God, envisioned as the creator, lawgiver, and judge of
his universe is not the only and true God.
H. P. Blavatsky went to infinite pains to state over and over again that
the true Godhead is not the personal god of the Bible, but rather an Infinite
Reality that exists beyond the out-flowings of manifestation. She gathered
numerous cognate terms from various traditions to apply to this Infinite
Reality; from Hinduism she adopted Parabrahman, from Buddhism Adhi-Budha,
and from the Kabbalah Ain-Sof-Aur. All of these, as she well knew
and stated, are cognate terms for the Gnostic pleroma, or transcendental
Fullness of Being. The dislike she appears to have felt for the personal
God of the Bible was probably only equalled by the more uncompromising
of gnostics in the early centuries of the Christian era. In The Secret
Doctrine she not only calls Jehovah the bad names the Gnostics were
wont to apply to him, but in a fashion reminiscent of Cathar teachings
she equates Jehovah with Satan. Here is but a small example of her lore
concerning Jehovah-Satan. He is, she writes "a proud, ambitious,
and impure Spirit who has abused his power by usurping the place of the
Highest God, though he was no better, and in some respects far worse than
his brother Elohim; the latter representing the all-embracing, manifest
Deity." [7]
At another place in the same work she declares boldly: "The appellation
Sa'tan, in Hebrew Satan. ..belongs by right to the
first and cruelest 'Adversary' of all the other Gods -Jehovah." [8]
Very much like the Gnostics, H. P. Blavatsky gives little credence to
the orthodox version of the temptation myth in Genesis, and regards the
serpent as a spirit of wisdom, dispensing sage and liberating advice.
The Sophia myth, so dear to many Gnostics, also finds endorsement on
the part of our author, especially in Isis Unveiled. The wise daughter
of the Fullness, who is called Sophia (wisdom), is in reality the mother
of the blind and rebellious Jehovah-Satan, called here lalda-Baoth, who
in defiance of his mother has bungled the job of creation and merely fashioned
a flawed world in the image of his own flaws. Humans, however, unlike
the monstrous abortions whereby Jehovah peopled the earth, have within
them the spark of the divine light, which allows them to communicate with
Sophia and through her with the Infinite Light. This continuous seeking
of human souls for their true source enrages Jehovah and impels him to
attempt to destroy humanity in great disasters of cosmic proportions.
All of this is recounted in complete agreement by Blavatsky. [9]
Arising from these considerations we find another perhaps even weightier
consideration. Many theosophists have opted for a certain kind of Neo-Platonic
optimism which delights in a beautiful world, filled with evolving life
and governed by laws of perfect justice and harmony. Some literature written
for popular consumption by writers following in the footsteps of Blavatsky
may be cited in support of such a rosy world-view. But the author of The
Secret Doctrine seems to have adhered to a much darker view, quite
similar in fact to that held by the Gnostics. Far from being a good world
created by a good God (even if he be renamed Solar Logos ), this world
is a dark place - weird, flawed, even monstrous at times. Fashioned and
managed by flawed beings who are themselves radically alienated from the
supreme source. Here is a relevant passage from The Secret Doctrine:
The One is infinite and unconditioned. It cannot create, for It can have no relation to the finite and conditioned. If everything we see, from the glorious suns and planets down to the blades of grass and specks of dust, had been created by the Absolute perfection and were the direct work of even the First Energy that proceeds from It, then every such thing would have been perfect, and unconditioned, like its author. The millions upon millions of imperfect works found in Nature testify loudly that they are the products of finite, conditioned beings - though the latter were and are Dhyan Chohans, Archangels, or whatever else they may be named. In short, these imperfect works are the unfinished production of evolution, under the guidance of imperfect Gods. [10]
The implications of such passages (for this is not the only one) are
significant. Not only do they make mincemeat of the cheap sentimentality
and heedless cheerfulness that is rampant in most 'New Age' circles and
is not absent from theosophical groups. More importantly, such passages
give one pause when reflecting over the rampant evil present in the world
and in human history at any given time.
The frequent and at times all-too glib approach to such evil declares
that it is all connected with laws that rule the world, among which karma
is most prominent, all of which are in the nature of perfect justice,
and therefore essentially good. The time may at last have come when, following
the lead of Blavatsky the Gnostic, we may begin to look beyond such facile
attempts to evade the existential darkness and flawed character of the
world and earthly life. An excellent step was in fact taken in this direction
by the above-quoted Robert Ellwood, who in his excellent basic work on
Theosophy dared to ask and answer these fundamental questions on the basis
of these very teachings of Blavatsky:
Whether one thinks of such propositions as literal or only allegorically
true, they can meet an 'existential' need dealing with evil which goes
beyond just attributing it to various 'laws'. Such explanations do not
entirely satisfy the rage and despair the world's sufferings evoke ...
One answer is that the God of this world is, at best imperfect, and, at
worst, a vindictive incompetent blunderer into whose world we, whose true
home is in halls of light far and above his sway, are entrapped until
by following the slow path of evolution and initiation, we free ourselves
from his grasp. [11]
Another important teaching we must concern ourselves with is the one concerning
salvation or more properly named, liberation. We noted earlier that Gnostic
teaching affirms the crucial role in this regard of salvific figures,
at times known as messengers of light, among whom a special role appertains
to the Founder of the Christian religion.
Blavatsky's position regarding salvation and particularly concerning the Christian saviour is far from clear. At times she seemed inclined toward the position of docetism, a minority Gnostic position which denied the physical incarnation of Jesus altogether. (She most clearly expressed this view in her long essay, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels. ) At other times, she reverently referred to Jesus as an initiate of signal purity and holiness, which is hard to reconcile with his presumed total lack of physicality at any time. Most importantly, perhaps, she presented a highly concentrated but brilliant reconciliation of these and other positions when discussing the meaning of such terms as Chrestos, Chrestes, and Christos in her Theosophical Glossary. While greatly emphasizing the concept of an indwelling or mystic Christ, which is a universal principle rather than a person, (she states "Every good individual. ..may find Christ in his 'Inner Man' as Paul expresses it [Eph. 3:16,17], whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu or Christian" [12] she also acknowledges the great spiritual and indeed cosmic role of the saviour figure represented in Gnosticism.
Among the most learned and insightful statements ever to come forth from Blavatsky's pen in relation to Gnosticism are her volumonous commentaries on the scripture Pistis Sophia published in 1890-91 in Lucifer. These appeared in conjunction with the very first English translation of this noted Gnostic work by her pupil, G. R. S. Mead. In addition to their great erudition these commentaries show several significant aspects of her views of matters Gnostic.
First, her aforementioned understanding and approval of the Gnostic approach
to the mystery of Christ is quite evident. Second she anticipates the
subsequent discoveries in regard to Mary Magdalen whom she calls "the
most intuitive (pneumatic), and the most prominent interlocutor of all
the disciples." Third, she comments most approvingly on the now completely
restored passage from the Gospel According to Thomas (Logion 22)
wherein the union of the opposites and the androgynation of human nature
are held up by Jesus as the desirable qualities accompanying the "entry
into the kingdom." This latter passage is interpreted by Blavatsky
as (1) pertaining to the union of the opposites within the individual
human being, as a sign of pneumatic gnosis, and (2) as the cosmic androgyny
which according to her is to prevail in the distant history of the human
race, when the separation of the sexes as known today shall have ceased.
[13]
Let us briefly summarize now our findings outlined above:
1. The frequently reiterated opinion of academics, concerning the intimate connection of Blavatsky and the Gnostics may be considered valid. H. P. B. indeed qualifies as a modern Gnostic not only because of her personal intuitive knowledge, or gnosis, but also on account of her intimate acquaintance with and profound sympathy for the Gnostic tradition.
2. In regard to the normative Gnostic method of employing myth rather
than dogma and commandment to express gnosis, she occupies a position
much closer to that of the Gnostics than one might suspect. Were she alive
today, it is highly likely that she would enthusiastically join such pioneers
as Jung, Eliade, and Joseph Campbell in endorsing myth as the way par
excellence to esoteric truth.
3. Blavatsky endorsed the Gnostic concept of deity as the totally transcendent
Fullness, to which she juxtaposed the equally Gnostic concept of limited
intermediary beings, sometimes called demiurgoi and archontes, and at
times represented as lacking in both wisdom and goodness.
4. Like the Gnostics before her, the great enunciator of Theosophy held that the manifest cosmos is flawed, and the creation of flawed and unregenerate cosmic beings, and she appears to have held this view as a metaphysical certainty rather than as an allegory.
5. As to Gnostic soteriology (teaching of salvation), she held to a universal concept of messianic impulse, but recognized the complex and mysterious image of Jesus Christ as presented by the Gnostics as of truthful and salvific relevance.
6. With the Gnostic Jesus whose utterance to this effect is recorded in The Gospel According to Thomas, H. P. B. recognized the need for the reconciliation of opposites in human nature as a hallmark of spiritual liberation along Gnostic lines. This paves the way to recognitions which might lead one into the symbolism of Alchemy, and into the experiential field of spiritual initiation, as exemplified by the two supreme Gnostic Sacraments, the Redemption and the Bride-Chamber.
Such are some of the signal convergences which set H. P. Blavatsky apart not only as the great torchbearer of Theosophy, but also as a true modern Gnostic, who restated and confirmed the wisdom of the knowers of old - those whose contribution, like the stone rejected by the builders, still awaits its reincorporation into the fabric of Western spirituality and culture.
We would be greatly remiss if in this context we would not give honorable and prominent mention to a very fine work, H. P. Blavatsky On The Gnostics, edited by Henk J. Spierenburg and published in 1994 by Point Loma Publications in San Diego, California, U. S. A. In this volume the editor compiled the overwhelming majority of H. P. B.'s statements concerning Gnosticism. The result is most impressive indeed. Not only do we find a large number of well-informed and utterly sympathetic pronouncements about the Gnostics and their teachings, but we also find that H. P. B. was far more interested in the Gnostics than in Hermeticists and the Essenes. Out of the 300 pages of this book only 50 pages concern these two other movements, all the rest being devoted to the Gnostics!
At the near-conclusion of this lecture we may wish to ask one portentous question: Whence does the great similarity of Gnosticism and modern Theosophy derive? The frequently voiced notion that there exists a historical link between the two is not entirely convincing. It is no doubt true that H. P. B. postulated the existence of a 'Secret Doctrine' or even 'Secret Tradition' originating in very ancient times and descending through the ages. If we accept this proposition then we might affirm that the two schools of thought are part of the same primordial and perennial transmission and that this accounts for their similarity.
Another possibility is that the similarities are rootcd not primarily in a clearly defined historical connection but rather in a commonality of psycho-spiritual experience. Gnosticism and modern Theosophy may thus be related not because they are linked progressively through history, but because they are linked inherently as the result of the interior realizations and extraordinary states of consciousness experienced by their founders and prophetic leaders. Of the two I am inclined to favour the latter possibility.
These considerations bring us to the issue of joy, as noted in the title of this lecture, reflecting the theme of the Summer School meeting where it was delivered. Are Theosophy and/or Gnosticism truly in the nature of Joyful forms of Wisdom? No doubt there are many kinds of joy in human experience, and they are related to a large number of causes. Among the many varieties of joy and happiness that one may experience there is one particularly worth considering and striving for. I refer to the joy bestowed by freedom or even the promise of freedom. Theosophy and Gnosticism both acknowledge that without spiritual enlightenment or Gnosis, humans are not free. Without a certain liberating consciousness we are slaves of a world wherein unconsciousness, greed, hatred and all manner of wrong-headedness rule. The world views of both Theosophy and Gnosticism declare that humans have within themselves certain powerful resources that may enable them to attain to such liberating Gnosis. The two traditions also assure us that we have not been left forsaken in our present inadequate existential condition: Messengers of Light, Seers and Sages, Masters of Wisdom are present and ready to assist us and lead us to the greater light and life and freedom of the Spirit. Gnostic and Theosophist both have the assurance of their tradition that they are capable of a direct and liberating encounter with a higher level of being. Can there be a greater joy than this?
And certainly one of the finest teachers who brought us such joyous wisdom
was none other than our very own Gnostic lady, H. P. B.
As one whose religious commitment in this life has joined to the Gnostic tradition, the present writer takes great pleasure in saluting Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. May her noble soul journey gloriously in the aeons of light, and may her fiery spirit be united with the Fullness of the Great Flame from whence it once came into this darkened sphere, to bring gnosis to the light-sparks in the sea of forgetfulness!
Bibliography
[1] Robert Ellwood, Religious and Spiritual Groups in
Modern America (Eaglewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1973) p 93
[2] Ibid, pp 93-94
[3] H. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled p 493
[4] Ibid, p.406
[5] Ibid, p.431
[6] Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, (Adyar Theosophical Publishing House,
1938), vol II, pp. 90-91
[7] Ibid, p.388
[8] Ibid. p.386
[9] Blavatsky. Isis, vol II, p.184ff.
[10] Blavatsky. Secret Doctrine, vol. V, pp. 213-214
[11] Robert Ellwood, Theosophy: A Modern Expression of the Wisdom of the
Ages (Wheaton Theosophical Publishing House, 1986), p. 163.
[12] Blavatsky, The Theosophical Glossary (Krotona, Hollywood,
Los Angeles: Theosophical Publishing House, 1918; reprint of the 1892
edition), p. 78.
[13] Blavatsky, Collected Writings (Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House,
1982), vol. XIII pp. 1-82.
An complete version of the preceding
essay is reproduced in a 26 page booklet, JOYFUL GNOSIS available
for £2.00 from the Book Department at 50 Gloucester Place, London
W1U 8EA
Postage is free to members residing within the UK. Those living elsewhere
should add 50 pence. All payment is to be in £ sterling.