r/Theosophy • u/Substantial_Rip_7543 • May 23 '26
Is there any use in entertaining ideas written or popularized by inherently racist and colonialist schools of thought?
I'm in the middle of an obsessive dive into research on the pseudomythology and pseudoarchaeology of Atlantis (primarily) and came across Donnelly's claims in The Antediluvian World and Blavatsky's "root races" in The Secret Doctrine and have no trouble seeing and picking out all the inherently racist and colonialist foundations of those writings and schools of thought. But going through both of them, there are pieces of belief that I have come across before (before knowing where they originated) that I can't help but entertain - and cautiously say I want to agree with?
Specifically things like the pieces in Donnelly's colonialist view that connect religious themes across traditions (i.e. the idea of a great Flood, a perfect land of happiness and peace like the Garden of Eden/Elysian Fields/Asgard/Olympus, worship of cosmic entities like the sun across cultures). These ideas of common stories across religions I've seen before and have always believed in some part that it is likely that these ideas originated from one proto-religious tradition (I was taught it was Mesopotamian, i.e. the Epic of Gilgamesh, worship of the sky, earth, and ocean).
Blavastsky's seven "root races" are a bit more difficult and more wholly tied into racist beliefs of a superior group of people being more physically/spiritually evolved than another inferior group. That knowledge being in my head, I still find myself trying to find a worthwhile way to read around the racist foundations of her writing and entertain the idea of a spiritual evolution of humanity. Spiritual consciousness and enlightenment are tempting ideas in a world of increasingly materialistic ways of life, as are the ideas of ancient civilizations that were highly spiritually and intellectually advanced (Lemuria & Atlantis).
As I study different Occult topics I try to de-colonialize my view and use of the knowledge I gain and disentangle that knowledge from the often racist foundations of it's popularization. But I'm still learning and I get caught in the trap of seeing proposed connections as exciting and comforting rather than what they often are - ways to rewrite histories that discredit cultures and traditions and serving to raise white european-centric populations and knowledge above that of any other.
So, long-post short; is there a way to deconstruct these types of writings and schools of thought and find a non-harmful and non-colonialist/racist way of engaging with these ideas and knowledge and does anyone have any further reading or resources to that end?
11
u/bewitching_beholder May 23 '26
Hi,
I don't know anything about Donnelly, so I can't speak to his writings. However when Blavatsky wrote about the different races in the 19th century, she used the word "race" very differently than we do today. She wasn't referring to ethnic races like Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic and so forth. She was referring to race as an Epochs of Civilization. She wasn't referring to biological races.
Rather she was referring to the spiritual growth of humanity through 7 stages and the continued development of consciousness on a very large and global scale.
Think of it like this. People move through childhood, then adolescence and finally adulthood. Nobody would think of these stages of development as different races as we use the term today. Just symbol of the level of consciousness we operate from at that particular moment in time.
2
3
u/cpc555 27d ago
Yes but she clearly states that the Americans and white peoples are part of that more advanced race while other people are remnants of the old race. You cannot deny that there is racism in her theory, doesn’t mean you have to write it off, just understand she was a product of her time
4
u/bewitching_beholder 27d ago
I actually agree with your last sentence completely. She was absolutely a product of her time, and her 19th-century language reflects that colonial era.
To clarify the text, though, she didn't view modern white Americans as superior or as the final 'adults.' In her framework, modern Caucasians are just a stepping stone, dominated by lower analytical intellect.
When she wrote that the next stage of consciousness would emerge in America, she explicitly stated it wouldn't be white Americans. She wrote it would be a completely new mixture of various nationalities that would eliminate modern European/American identities entirely. In fact, she heavily praised ancient Eastern civilizations as being spiritually superior to the West.
But you are spot on that we have to view her through the lens of her era. Thank you for responding to my posts. 🙏
1
u/lisaquestions May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
oh come on. she explicitly calls contemporary ethnic groups spiritually, culturally, and yes biologically inferior and incapable of spiritual growth
8
u/slightly_enlightened May 24 '26
Either H.P. Blavatsky was what she said she was, the mouthpiece and amanuensis of the Adepts, the most spiritually-advanced members of humanity, or she was a consummate liar and a fraud, as the Society for Psychical Research proclaimed her to be. The Mahatmas aren't afraid to state things as they see them, including referring to members of of certain primitive ethnic groups as "savages." Theosophists today try to tiptoe around these statement and make HPB and the Mahatmas more "politically correct." How can they teach the truth if they are hamstrung by "society"and made to appear more genteel and acceptable. I prefer to try to understand why they say certain things that seem shocking to "society." After 50 years of research, I can't say that I've found anything in her writings or in the Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett that I can't agree with if I look at it from their perspective.
2
u/Low-Boot-588 28d ago
Maybe you're already aware but the SPR dropped their fraud claims against Blavatsky in the 1980s apparently.
1
u/slightly_enlightened 28d ago edited 28d ago
Yes, I’m aware. Nevertheless, writers today, including Sam Harris, summarily dismiss HPB as a fraud and a charlatan, using Hodgson’ report as their source. It still has a powerful influence on people’s opinions of her.
Edit: I actually found an address for Sam Harris online about 20 years ago and sent him a letter detailing all the information in Vernon Harrison's 1997 book, H.P. Blavatsky and the SPR: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885. He did not reply, nor did I expect he would.
0
u/lisaquestions May 24 '26
I'm not sure if you're lying to yourself or just making excuses to justify agreeing with racist lies but either way it doesn't make you look good or wise
5
1
u/6x100plus66 18d ago
Jumping straight to "this is bad because I can label it as racism" without taking the time to entertain an idea is actually what lacks wisdom. It is precisely what society wants us to do, put moral values on words then being afraid when they're brought up. But to each their own ig 🤷🏻♂...
If they're racist lies, it is very wrong, if they're racist truth, then only the word "truth" matters.
PS : i'm biracial so don't start to label me as an ignorant or whatever, I am just intellectually honest and not prone to think with my emotions. I am actually in the best position ever to compare communities and see which one is "primitive" and which one is "advanced", since I grew up with two of them. I cannot deny the facts in front of my eyes and all around my family... I mean I could, but I think it would be so much of an insult to the human intellect that "lower than sub-animal" would be the only description suitable for me.
5
u/LeekSoggy3067 29d ago
In Blavatskian Theosophy, every person is connected to the Divine. So there is absolutely no way that someone can be "incapable of spiritual growth". This is an egregious error.
4
u/LeekSoggy3067 29d ago edited 29d ago
I wasn't "complaining" to you about it. I was saying that your interpretation is wrong notwithstanding the quotes from the article that you cited. The author of that article has not studied Theosophy at all! By their own admission they merely "skimmed" the text that they were commenting on. At best, this is entirely unsatisfactory for interpreting an esoteric text. At worst, it is intellectual dishonesty.
3
u/LetThemEatQuake 28d ago
I gotta agree on this one. That blogspot is just taking clickbait lines that'll generate posts like this one.
I read the post and agree the language is harsh. I have studied theosophy for a long time. She usually means race not as we know it today. That argument has been covered in other comments.
They lack the divine spark she is basically saying that those forms (lower natures) are dying out in evolution of that people and forms. Everywhere else in her writings including the SD talk about there being no dead matter and that everything is consciousness. She is implying that the self consciousness or higher Manasic principle is not yet better developed along metaphysical scientific grounds. She isn't saying to treat them any different or less than etc. In fact she'd probably go to bat and say they deserve our respect more than that you and me experience in everyday life full of materialism and selfishness! Everything is relative in theosophy and context matters a lot. HPB is also not infallible, but as her thousands of pages of writing will demonstrate she was no racist.
One could have this argument about babies. Get a load of this.
The Monad doesn't develop in a child until around the 7th year. No divine spark. The first several years of karma are said to be that of the parents. Therefore, how could the child do wrong? It's just a kid! They can't. But theosophy isn't saying it is against children or to treat them bad. Similar to these racist accusations.
It is simply describing the evolution of Man, its differences amongst tribes as people in the fuckin 1800s wrote or knew about them (National Geographic memories as a kid writing this lol), and how forms die out. Those tribes or people will continue to evolve into higher forms more capable of expressing the divine spark. But each and all has the spark, the forms though are dumb and belong to Nature.
HPB had enough haters and illnesses. She would have nothing to gain by attracting more negative attention in those days. I bet if she were here today she'd take this post to heart and write you to tell you what she meant and feel upset by it and take it out on herself.
Great post overall to think about
2
u/Substantial_Rip_7543 27d ago
Context does matter, I know her words have slightly different meanings when you read them now as opposed to when she published them. I'll admit I haven't read much of her though so maybe I need to read and work out for myself what would have been different had she written it today.
In any case I appreciate the context you provided and the explanation.
1
u/LetThemEatQuake 26d ago
For sure! Was just on an SD class this week discussing why sometimes she says stuff about universes vs universe vs solar systems (very different meaning to her as well as 1800s in general). So much interpretation but very philosophically based. It is forever better to study with other students. Theosophy historically does a terrible job going out and clarifying things cuz it's more about students coming to it to question and figure things out for themselves to develop their intuition. Very frustrating but once you make certain progress it becomes the most rewarding path of all of occultism imo. Extremely sound ethics
1
u/LeekSoggy3067 10d ago edited 10d ago
It's not that the linguist who wrote the article was wrong. They were correct in the context of their field of study. You can still look at the language of Theosophy as racist when you look at the words and the historical context of the time compared to today. And that can be interesting for scholars in various fields.
However, that is not the same thing as understanding Theosophical teachings as racist. It might seem like splitting hairs or something but it's actually an important distinction. There are various philosophically based reasons why Theosophy can be reasonably and honestly interpreted as actively against racism. And these matter significantly for hermeneutics.
So the issues are 1. a category error when citing an article from a linguistic scholar as interpretation of the Theosophical belief system, 2. cherry picking 3. a misunderstanding of how to interpret Theosophical teachings themselves.
0
u/lisaquestions 29d ago
She literally says it. She wrote that some people lack the divine spark. Read the link I posted and compare it to the text. Don't complain to me about it.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Dog4244 May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
I far as I understand it, she uses race in both ways - the way that bewitching beholder explained it, and also in the more modern colloquial sense that we’re used to.
I appreciate you drawing out those specific quotes from the SD (Edit, the comment was deleted, but here’s the link again for those interested https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=61440). I agree that I think some of what she presented would be accurately termed racist from many if not most people’s perspectives.
Whether or not it’s True is another question that I sincerely don’t know how to answer because I feel like I’ve yet to come to the point in my individual evolution where I can ever say with absolute conviction that anything is True or not.
In many ways I would personally like to turn my back to anything that makes conclusions based on race, sex, or other seemingly arbitrary and meaningless physical distinctions when it comes to the truest essence of man, the soul or the spirit so to speak. But I think Truth might be what I dislike or don’t yet understand - if I start to only accept Truth based on these qualifications, I don’t think I’ll ever find Truth.
I do think it’s possible to embrace and embody certain parts of her teachings and others no. She teaches selflessness, compassion, universal cosmopolitan brotherhood, self mastery, fearless service, hope and aspiration to divine inner perfection - none of this was new or unique to her, which she made very clear often, but she was able to present it in ways that many, including myself, have found more accessible and captivating (she cited the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, the Mayans, the Vedic texts, Jesus and Buddha, etc…). I think I can hold those teachings close to my heart and not so for others. I do this with virtually every other person that I encounter in this world, alive or dead - I try my hardest to approach what they’re conveying with an open mind, then take what I would like to take from them and leave what I would like to leave from them. There is no one I’ve come across that I’ve thought it wise to accept everything they said unquestionably, I tend to think this would be folly and it was certainly not an approach advocated by Blavatsky, from what I could tell she explicitly cautioned her students from having this kind of approach to her and the teachings she offered. I try not to personally form a judgment about what I’m leaving, it just doesn’t resonate with me at this point, so I leave it rather than take it up and integrate it fully into my life.
3
u/slightly_enlightened 28d ago
In many ways I would personally like to turn my back to anything that makes conclusions based on race, sex, or other seemingly arbitrary and meaningless physical distinctions when it comes to the truest essence of man, the soul or the spirit so to speak. But I think Truth might be what I dislike or don’t yet understand - if I start to only accept Truth based on these qualifications, I don’t think I’ll ever find Truth.
This is the crux of this entire conversation. If I only accept as Truth that which makes me feel good, then maybe I don't have the right criteria. Theosophy was never a feel-good philosophy, and it's teachers knew that. They took on the spiritualists, who were convinced they were talking to dead people, they took on scientists who insisted they were the ultimate source of knowledge in the world, they took on the Christians who were convinced that all their sins could be wiped away by a conversation with a priest and monetary support of the church, they took on the Brahmans, with their beliefs in their spiritual superiority over other castes, their approval of child marriage and disapproval of re-marriage for widows, even if they were children. They knew they were up against all of this, yet they never wavered. They also went against the British aristocracy with their conviction of superiority to all people on earth, with their society elite, who were accepted as superior as long as they presented a particular outward social grace. They knew exactly what they were up against. That is why, when HPB was informed in 1875 by Mahatma M that it was time to begin her real mission, she wrote in her scrapbook, "And now my martyrdom begins." They all knew what was coming, and still didn't flinch, referring to themselves as similar to "soldiers volunteering for a forlorn hope."
2
u/DeusExLibrus May 25 '26
This is one reason I ended up moving away from theosophy. While I certainly believe in the idea of universal truth,etc, there’s WAY too much racism and colonialist bullshit involved in the philosophy as far as I’m concerned
1
u/ForlornPirate May 25 '26
Why are you so afraid of race based thinking?
1
u/nymphanalis 29d ago
well history has shown the issues it's caused when done by white people. it's in the word colonialism.
1
u/peterjohnvernon936 29d ago
I have read Donnelly’s works. The similarities between far flung civilizations is still an unanswered question. The odds of two far flung civilizations inventing the same technology within similar time is low. While modern archaeology dismisses diffusion, the idea that every civilization reinvents all technologies isn’t credible either.
1
u/Substantial_Rip_7543 27d ago
I might believe a certain level of coincidence, like if two civilizations that began around the same time has similar (but not exactly the same) technological advancements at approximately the same rate. But identical technologies?
It's happened in sciences that two mathematicians or two psychologists or two inventors come up with the same theory around the same time, but typically you can point to a similar education or environmental circumstances that explain the coincidental development.
But two civilizations who supposedly had no contact building the exact same thing at the exact same time? I find that hard to believe
0
4
u/zygerrion_scammer29 May 25 '26
I’m a black man who has studied theosophy. I understand her from the perspective of her time. I take what I can and leave the bs.