Many readers of Guénon's later doctrinal works have longed to hear the tale of his earlier entanglement, and disentanglement, from the luxuriant undergrowth of so-called esoteric societies in late nineteenth-century Paris and elsewhere. The present work documents in excoriating detail Guénon's findings on what did, and did not, lie behind the Theosophical Society founded by Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott in 1875. Much further information has of course come to light since this book was written, but it has never been superseded as a fascinating record of the path of a master metaphysician through this maze. A particularly unusual feature is its extensive treatment of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, which has recently attracted the attention of scholars of the occult.
René Guénon (1886-1951) was a French author and intellectual who remains an influential figure in the domain of sacred science,traditional studies, symbolism and initiation.
Very solid and well referenced, using theosophists' own words, correspondance, books and articles, leaving no room to deny the facts.
"In this study we have wished above all to provide a source of information and to gather for this purpose documentation whose elements up to now have been scattered everywhere; some of it has even been quite difficult of access for all who have not been favored in their research by rather exceptional circumstances. As to the doctrines themselves, if we have not thought it useful to dwell on them longer than we have in fact done because of their only too evident inconsistency, and if here too we have above all given citations, this is because we think, in agreement with another adversary of theirs, that ‘the surest method of refuting [these doctrines] is to state them briefly by letting the masters themselves speak’; (La Nouvelle Théosophie, by the Rev. de Grandmaison, P54.)
"‘Our goal,’ as Mme Blavatsky used to say, ‘is not to restore Hinduism, but to sweep Christianity from the surface of the earth .’" - Declaration made by Alfred Alexander and published in The Medium and Daybreak, London, January 1893, P23.
Very "theosophic" indeed.
"A Theosophist has expressly declared that The Secret Doctrine would not have been published if the theory of evolution had not come to light in the human brain - Les Cycles, by Amaravella, in Lotus Bleu, April 27, 1894, p78); we would say, rather, that without it, it would not have been imagined."
At the seventeenth convention of the Theosophical Society, held at Adyar in December 1891, Colonel Olcott said the following: ‘I helped HPB in the compilation of her Isis Unveiled, while Keightley, with several others, did the same for the Secret Doctrine. Each of us knows full well how far from infallible are parts of these books, owing due to our collaboration, not to mention those parts written by HPB.
Anyone who's interested in studying metaphysics seriously has sadly and annoyingly come across flowery spiritualism, pseudo-religious, vaguely philosophical bullshit in their research. Guenon uses Blavatsky's commencement of the Theosophical Society as a case study of sorts to show how it differs considerably from the rigorous philosophical work of theology and metaphysics. Demonstrating that these types of movements are not only intellectually inferior but also actively detrimental, thereby emphasizing the need to reject and counter them. Considering the influence of Theosophy and the resurgence of New Age aesthetics and ideas, I think this one is pretty interesting to read.
Просто прекратилось чтение около двух-трёх месяцев назад, на 3\4. Название добротное, угнаться бы за оным. "История псевдо-религии" - если задуматься, религия ведь - псевдо-что? Большинство социальных институтов, если не все (и каждый), являются суррогатами, паллиативами, плацебо, симулякрами, копиями копий, мачехами и отчимами (следует указать, довольно безответственными и во многих отношениях бездарными), самыми послушными приёмными детьми. Всякое слово, более того, есть лишь заменой, альтернативой другого, сохраняющим за собой право объятия понятия целиком или части, востребованной предложением (и явлением говорящего). Всякий жест (па) служит намёком на возможный танец, но прелесть в том, что танец этот обречён оставаться непроизошедшим, реализуемый лишь за счёт одного только жеста. Каждый человек - это альтернатива человеку, ставшему прототипом, но потому не достигшему права именоваться окончательным человеком. Что благо, ведь человек подлежит суду времени, как перспектива или ретроспектива, как история, а окончательный человек неизменно мёртв, наделённый буквальной границей реализации. А Рене Генон обсуждается, в том числе и в связи с украинской культурой (конкретнее не упомню) - однако, читать данную работу не рекомендовал бы тем, кто блуждает в поисках адекватной критики прежде, чем ознакомиться с первоисточником (объектом и причиной критики). Вот и всё ревью.
Like many other neo-spiritualist sects, the Theosophical Society has largely been relegated to the history books, although much of its doctrine has managed to survive in the modern consciousness to this very day. Guenon dispels these errors through a comprehensive history of Theosophism, ultimately asserting that the Society was a tool of British imperialism to subvert Hindu culture in the subcontinent. Such an assertion, based on its presentation, is irrefutable and sheds considerable light on the Society's origins and its eventual decline into irrelevance. Apart from the modern conceptions of karma and reincarnation, perhaps there is more to this chapter of history than meets the eye with respect to modern Indian politics. After all, one should easily be able to identify India's 'Congress' Party as having been a Theosophical and Anglophile creation, which still pushes such sentiment across the subcontinent to this day.
Well studied and sober book about Theosophy, a rather sordid subject, but then it offers some instructive insights into how these pseudo-spiritual movements tend to operate.
A propos du livre "Théosophisme", Guénon écrit (1924) : "vous devez bien penser que, si j’ai fait ce travail, ce n’est pas pour le plaisir d’employer la “méthode historique” ; c’est qu’il était rendu nécessaire par les circonstances, et que d’ailleurs, s’il avait été fait autrement, il n’aurait pas produit l’effet voulu. Il y a des gens à qui il faut opposer des documents et des faits précis, sans quoi ils ne se sentiraient pas atteints, parce qu’ils sont incapables de comprendre une discussion d’ordre purement doctrinal." Correspondance avec Di Giorgio - Blois, 17 août 1924