.jpeg)
Modern Theosophy represents a pioneering society in the West that emerged in a transitional phase of Modernity and initial contacts with the East. For this reason, the literature of the Theosophical Society still accumulates a series of unsatisfactory issues, by bringing together popular beliefs - which in itself already gives rise to strong suspicion - and mixing myths with science. At the same time, it displays a generic belief in mediums - although the subject is considered controversial - in addition to limiting itself in practice to the search for the development of the Soul and propose a large body of beliefs that are not always universal and well-founded. In other words:
a. The uncritical adoption of popular beliefs.
b. The undue mixture of myth and science.
c. The belief in the sufficiency of mediums.
d. The limited perspective of the Soul.
e. Knowledge as a dogmatic.
The lines of reflection presented here strictly follow the original traditional thought of the Great Masters, Buddhas or Avatars, with their peculiar balance and pragmatism. Considering the importance that the Theosophical Society had for the spirituality of the planet, the present observations naturally also apply to countless other groups that were inspired by this Society. There are many clouds to blow away before the Sun shines again on the humanity.
Let us therefore briefly analyze these points one by one.
a. The uncritical adoption of popular beliefs
The popularization of a belief represents a true inversion of premises, because the objective of spirituality is to distinguish the individual from the masses. In fact, the very popularization of an individual casts suspicion on his person or on what is said about him. Jesus is very popular, but how much of what is said about him is actually true?! In fact, much information is constructed precisely to make things more palatable to the human masses. It is not generally simple indulgent beliefs and generalizations without support for spiritual science and true tradition.

The persistent popularity of the Theosophical Society (at least in some societies on the planet) and its teachings is proof that humanity appreciates myth and mystification. I take as an example or theme two Mahatmas, because it emboras crediting Blavatsky's hierarchical ties, we know that his use is very much what is commonly imagined, or that it does not necessarily represent any vexame because the Fontes em questão were themselves very high.
However, if Theosophy clings too closely to popular themes - among which we can highlight reincarnation, something that is much more subject to controversy than students of Theosophy imagine - it naturally becomes reduced to being just another religion, fostering superstition and fanaticism, instead of advocating true gnosis and practical occultism.
Like many other sects and mystical movements, Theosophists have the firm conviction that they are on a terrain of great light and wisdom, inspired by great Masters and conveyed through important messengers. However, the facts may be somewhat different from this, and for a reason that is also quite common: generalization. It is very difficult for the average seeker to separate the wheat from the chaff, the superior from the inferior, the current from the outdated, and so on. As a result, we have an attempt to generalize - or to standardize - things, which nevertheless goes against the Truth, for which the diversity of possibilities is what counts.
Generalization is a typical attitude of simple or imploring spirits, incapable of seeing the natural complexity of things. The layman tends to want to adjust things to his own interests, instead of transforming himself to do justice to everything that Truth demands of him. Those who have little knowledge actually nurture beliefs and false certainties, which bring fanaticism and arrogance. But those who have a lot of knowledge also know how to harbor doubts and show humility.
Generalization is dogmatic, impersonal and a priori, the famous “ready-made thought” in short, while true knowledge comes in the wake of personal experience and is aposterioristic. Belief brings mental rigidity, it is like a cane or existential crutch. Nevertheless, although it may seem like a lie, illusion can also help us walk.
We could easily say that Krishnamurti counteracted these and other theosophical beliefs, and indeed he did, and even in a radical way. However, in this radicalism we would already have another similar problem, opposite but symmetrical to the uncritical beliefs. Item “e” (“Knowledge as a dogmatic”) at the end may shed more light on this whole issue.
b. The undue mixture of myth and science
Blavatsky starts from a mistaken premise when she mixes mythology and science. The fact that there are analogies between the disciplines does not justify wanting to mix everything as if it were one thing.
Blavatsky really wanted her philosophy to encompass science directly, in fact she wanted to think that esotericism could be included as Natural Sciences in a kind of absolute synthesis of things. Disse ela na sua Doutrina Secreta, Vol. IV: “(...) it is not difficult to demonstrate that Esoteric Cosmogony is inseparably linked to both philosophy and modern Science.” Spirituality can surely be scientific, but it cannot be materialistic because this would be a blatant contradiction. The density of science in the HPB era does not help much in the possible synthesis.
Blavatsky fell into the trap of the symbolic cycles of India. She was suspicious of their symbolism, but could not resist imagining that they were somehow related to the creation of the material universe. She was aware that the Hindus worked with veils, but she was not always clear about where these veils really were.
The Masters are not concerned with offering magnificent cosmologies that solve all the problems of humanity, but rather with organizing things in the world so that they can function for their purposes together with humanity. It is just that traditional cosmologies are effectively treated. A veiled language that employs its good reasons for being, embodies no long suspeitadas for people.
The theoretical mystic may naturally find information that asks for personal or social commitment boring, so he turns his mind to the imaginary and the speculative. He who is completely alien to traditional social thought will never imagine that the true content of cosmologies deals precisely with these questions. From such a social perspective, theosophical thought is in fact completely lay and naive, limiting itself to emulating some worn-out modernist slogans - despite the fact that Theosophy speaks quite frequently about Races and Manus, equally driven and clearly by the materialist imagination.
Ultimately, science is about facts and philosophy about contents. São optimas em seu proprio próprio campo e péssimas quando saem dele. When scientists interpret eles values they create a pseudo philosophy, and when a philosopher pretends to be a scientist he manifests a pseudo science.
c. Belief in the sufficiency of mediums
Another illusion concerns the belief that a medium - or mediator or whatever one wants to call him here - is capable of formulating many objective truths. In principle, a medium could not be a spokesperson for such realities, because he is not accredited to actually replace the original Sources.
.jpeg)
Blavatsky began to be known as a common medium, but at a certain point she changed her opinion about these practices. From then on, Theosophy made an effort to dispel the suspicion that she worked only through mediumship. The Masters' communication began to be shown in the form of letters and notes cast in the air. Blavatsky had no problem with "miracles", since her audience was also eager for such manifestations. However, this only served to open up many more suspicions and accusations of fraud.
Nevertheless, it is known that Blavatsky was a great clairvoyant, which is how she was able to organize much of her work. It began to be said that the Masters were alive and incarnated somewhere in the Himalayas, in order to dispel the suspicion of necromantic mediumship, as if superior Spirits were not alive simply because they were disincarnated, or as if angels could not act because they did not have a physical vehicle...
This media receives also some other knowledge of Theosophy, despite being experimental and confusing. It is not enough to imagine here - and to conclude this topic - that the simple “quality” of the medium is decisive: Lua will never be the Sun no matter how bright and luminous she is; This symbolism is very accurate. Unless it is clear that this medium is also a Master. Nem every medium is Mestre, but every Mestre is a medium.
d. The limited perspective of the Soul
Disciples need to understand that the work of the Soul is insufficient for what is needed in the world. This bridge that is the Soul must be crossed to reach the true eternal fields of the Spirit. The Spirit surpasses the soul and is now more universal, tracing the truth.
In general, occult knowledge was written or represented by initiates, and then collected by mystics and even by laymen, receiving new interpretations and even speculative developments.
.jpeg)
The Bhagavad Gita tends to be interpreted mystically in a subjective way. This is a mistake, for traditional thought there is no separation between the interior and the exterior, for this reason Krishna places such an emphasis on karma yoga in this epic of wisdom. That is to say, there are no differences, this mystical tendency being precisely the object of Krishna's criticism of Arjuna's passive and contemplative inclinations. This subjectivism is strong enough that mystics read and do not understand reality, even though the text is clear, logical and self-explanatory. Such subjectivity is inherent in the mystical spirit, and for this reason it needs Masters to guide it devoutly. Perhaps we can trace this tendency to certain philosophical currents of India itself, not yet endowed with a spirit of synthesis and a portmanteau of true knowledge.
The spiritual, mystical and esoteric environment represents a complete jungle of many levels where superstition often coexists innocently with initiation, and fetishism with enlightenment. It is only on the plane of the Spirit, which demands true focus and discipline, that human selection is truly accomplished.
We often say in this sense that Blavatsky was a reasonable spokesperson for the Mahayana spirit of service and compassion, which is very good, but she was quite flawed when dealing with Vajrayana -which is known to be more advanced and inclusive- or with true occultism.
To consider knowledge of the Soul as some absolute achievement is only refined maya, a spiritual enchantment. It is to confuse the middle path of transition with the liberating, definitive middle path of the enlightened Spirit.
Those who believe that spirituality merely represents an annulment of activity are declaring their impotence before the world, something that all great prophets have always rejected.
This is, however, a highly diffuse tendency in universal culture, since the present is a Second Order Solar System, so that any effort to elevate humanity beyond the level of discipleship tends to produce brief and scarce fruits because it goes against the great current, although this situation will begin to change from now on with the approach of the Third Solar System of Evolution. The struggle of the Masters in the sowing of new worlds is arduous but not inglorious, and their legacies must be kept in the Arks of Wisdom that are the Schools of Initiation.
e. Knowledge as a dogmatic
“Initiatory Science” is a term that many have been using loudly but rarely with true knowledge of the facts. Most of the time, what we see are either formal rites or tons of theories accompanied by crumbs of practices or really useful techniques, which certainly compromises the objective results in an area where didactics are always fundamental.
The body of ideas of esotericism should not be taken as something ready-made, but rather as a thesis to be corroborated individually and as a project to be eventually tested. What is the point, after all, of filling tons of paper with theories and not knowing the practical rules, the ABCs of spiritual realization?
There are two types of spirituality, one positive and practical and the other negative and theoretical. One mature and professional and the other immature and amateur. Useful knowledge is systemic and progressive knowledge, properly structured, supported by experience and Tradition. Tradition naturally means not wanting to reinvent the wheel on one side, but neither does it accept the distortion of things on the other side. Tradition thus has its own effective ways of achieving its individual and collective results, which, moreover, always have their analogies.
The culture of assumptions is misleading and assumes not only that a person has already accumulated achievements and rights for free, but also that he or she can wait comfortably without making any greater effort to advance further. The result of this complacency weighs not only on society but also on personal destiny itself. Therefore, every spokesperson for information has social and existential responsibilities, and must naturally bear the consequences of his or her actions, because otherwise there would be no justice, law and order in the universe. A correct awareness of karma is the first step towards reestablishing cosmic order on the planet.
Beliefs represent assumptions of a speculative nature - or at most a more or less vague subjective certainty - that may or may not have foundations. True knowledge is synonymous with experience and achievement. On the contrary, it is simple theory.
If a belief is at least vividly worshipped, it becomes legitimate and can begin to become a reality, but it is always very risky to try to transfer these benefits to third parties: each person must try to experience and make the contents of their beliefs true through spiritual practices, and increasingly, with wisdom and coherence. Remembering, however, that even if something becomes reality for someone, it does not mean that it will mean the same thing for someone else. The experience may even be reproduced in a very similar way, but for this to happen, the path must be followed. Our certainties are anchors that we throw into the sea of uncertainties that surround us without ever really reaching the bottom.
f. Conclusions
Theosophy has as its motto the exaltation of Truth. However, the Search for Truth is not done without humility and resignation. No one who clings to ideas as if they were dogmas is prepared for this search. In the search for a better world, it is important to overcome empty theory and speculation that arise from the belief in ready-made things and universal law. The argument of seeking Truth cannot be used to promote theories and falsehoods. A theory must be promoted as such, and its foundations duly presented. As Kant would say, if something cannot be demonstrated, it should not be believed.
What leads people today to walk away when they do not agree with something, instead of debating to try to reach the common Truth?! Could it be that they are simply afraid to debate?! Are you afraid that your beliefs will be shaken if at least some issues prove to be fragile? A pity, because the fear of Truth can be much more dangerous than the light that emanates from it.na.

However, we either serve the Truth or we serve our own beliefs. If people would only take their own teachers seriously, this would be a great gain! We are talking, of course, about following in their footsteps, and not merely worshipping their image or repeating their words. It is common for the majority of students to be basically theoreticians, selecting the most elementary practices contained in a body of teachings. This is why they fear the more advanced students who begin to question many things.
Invariably the theosophical acolytes are more papists than the Pope. These so-called defenders of Blavatsky do not imagine that the cult of personality that they practice in their environment is hardly a great service to the very spirit of Theosophy. At many moments Blavatsky declared that her Secret Doutrina was still subject to many véus, and that they would opportunely be raised through new Ensinaments drawn up by the Hierarchy.
It is not difficult for us to see that Theosophy still lives under a binary mindset. The Theses were presented in its first generation and then an Antithesis was accepted (via Krishnamurti) in the following generation. Can we say that someone has already brought a Synthesis of all this?!
It happens that the great Teachings are usually so distorted by their supposed followers, that the Founders of the religions themselves do not reconfirm them, and in truth they would not be admitted, not their seio, because they would be declared "heretics." Unfortunately, this situation is not limited to great religions. Blavatsky would no longer be admitted to the Theosophical Society and Alice A. Bailey would also not be admitted to the Escola Arcana - just because we would trace more profound truths than before. Reflitam on this!
They would want to deepen their studies, to say that they were bringing new keys that were not yet available in their time, and no one would pay them any attention. They would be called “distorters” of the sacred dogmas of the Secret Doctrine and the Treatise on Cosmic Fire.
In other words, those who come to fulfill the prophecies must prepare themselves to be invariably rejected by the followers of those who uttered these same prophecies, which represents a paradox that perfectly reflects the personal and superficial way in which people follow their own masters.

The salvation of students of theosophy and neo-theosophy lies in taking their studies more seriously or in studying with those few who do. What do theosophists in general do, after all, if not repeat and repeat what Blavatsky wrote, without any re-reading, deepening or questioning? However, Blavatsky did not want to create yet another religion or for her ideas to be transformed into dogmas.
Those who really know Blavatsky know that she would much prefer her work to be questioned, criticized and revised in favor of an honest and sincere search for Truth, seeking to truly advance in the direction of the great propositions that she determined in the foundation of the Theosophical Society, instead of continuing to imagine a hypothetical future where things will finally happen. Anyone who really knows HPB knows that she would not hesitate to sign her famous phrase - certainly supported by the immortal words of the Bhagavad Gita: "It is better to err by doing than to pretend to be right without doing anything. For this is after all what she always really did.
Furthermore, it is essential that from now on the world can once again count on professional philosophers. In practice, we are referring to the Masters of Wisdom, but not through mediators, because this mediation is always insufficient to some degree, but rather through the Masters themselves, who would not be as inaccessible as is sometimes claimed. It is only necessary to relearn how to establish relationships with the Hierarchies, since they are always available to humanity in the world, because otherwise the planet would succumb once and for all. The formula has long been given: “When the disciple is ready, the Master appears”. It is therefore necessary to prepare for this great Event.
To know more
2025 and the course correction in the New Era
HPB and LAWS: Spiritual Twins
2025 and the Prophecies
Whart are the Masters
The Fallacy of Extended Kali Yuga
About the Author
Luís A. W. Salvi (LAWS) has been studying the Ancient Mysteries for over 50 years. A specialist in the Philosophies of Time and Practical Esotericism, he also develops works in the areas of Perennialism, Deep Psychology, Esoteric Anthropology, Holistic Sociology and others. He has already published dozens of works through Agartha Publisher, in addition to maintaining the Agartha wTV Channel.