Jump to content

Talk:Helena Blavatsky/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Sources on mother

In Sylvia Cranston's huge book on HPB she lists in her notes a work "Helena Andreevna Hahn" by Bobritsky. No author named Bobritsky however appears in her subsequent bibliography, and I cannot find a book by this name or an author named this who work a book on her mother either. Very frustrating! If anyone recognizes this work, can you give a full citation? Thanks. Wjhonson 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

grandmother's name

In her book "Priestess of the Occult", Gertrude Marvin Williams does a very fine and very well researched (in my opinion) biography of Helena's early years. Although the book is antagonistic to Helena's alledged powers, there is no reason in my mind why Gertrude would mis-state her ancestry. In this book, Gertrude, states the name of the grandmother was "Pricess Helene Dolgoruki" and the grandfather "Andrez Mikhailovich Fadeev, Privy Councillor of the Caucasus". I'm assuming from this, that the grandmother retained her family name, in spite of being married.

If someone has a SOURCE which states overwise, please put it here so we can review it. Wjhonson 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to grammar of the Russian language, Russian female names in most cases have different endings, thus the name of the grandmother should be Helena Andreyevna Fadeyeva. The exception made for Helena Blavatskaya is probably determined by the fact she became famous abroad. Anyway to be sure check a guide on how to write Russian names. 7even 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As I stated she is not called the Pricess Fadeyeva but rather the Princess Dolgoruki. Do you have any source for giving her the other surname? Wjhonson 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

mini bio

Blavatsky, Helena Paulovna (1831-1891), Russian theosophist, was born at Ekaterinoslav, Russia, 31st July (O.S.) 1831. She is stated to have been the daughter of Peter Hahn, a Russian officer. An unruly girl, she sought emancipation from family ties by marrying in her 17th year (7th July 1848) Nicephore Blavatsky, a Russian official in Caucasia, from whom she was separated after a few months of stormy conjugal life. In later days, when seeking to invest herself with a halo of virginity, she described the marriage as a nominal one, and her bridegroom as “a plumeless raven nearer seventy than sixty.” If this statement were true, M. Blavatsky, who was reported as still living in 1895, would then have been considerably over 110 years of age. During the twenty years that followed the separation from her husband, Mme. Blavatsky travelled and probably gained experience as a spiritualistic medium in large cities, among which it is believed that she visited Paris, Cairo, New Orleans, Tokio, and Calcutta. The period 1848-58 was alluded to subsequently as the veiled period of her life, and she spoke vaguely of a seven years’ sojourn in “Little and Great Tibet” or preferably of a “Himalayan retreat.” In 1858 she revisited Russia, where she created a considerable sensation as a spiritualistic medium. Early in the 'seventies she acquired prominence among the spiritualists of the United States, and was mixed up in the Eddy Brothers and Katie King frauds. Her leisure was occupied with the study of occult and cabalistic literature, to which was soon to be added that of the sacred writings of India, though these had to be approached through the medium of translations. In 1875 she conceived the plan of combining the spiritualistic “control” with the Buddhistic legends about Tibetan sages or wonder-working adepts. Henceforth she determined to exclude all control save that of two Tibetan adepts or “mahatmas,” called respectively Koot Hoomi and Morya. The mahatmas exhibited their “astral bodies” to her, “precipitated” messages which reached her from the confines of Tibet in an instant of time, supplied her with sound doctrine, and incited her to perform tricks for the conversion of sceptics. At New York, in October 1875, with the aid of Colonel Olcott, she definitely launched the “Theosophical Society,” which was formed out of a group of disillusioned spiritualists, and had for its avowed objects to put down spiritualism, to convert the materialists, and to prove the existence of the Tibetan brothers. The Brahmanic and Buddhistic literatures supplied the society with a technical vocabulary, and its doctrines were a curious amalgam of Egyptian, cabalistic, occultist, Indian, and modern spiritualistic ideas and formulas. The two leading text-books, Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888), both compiled by Madame Blavatsky, are a mosaic of unacknowledged quotations from well-known works, as Mackenzie’s Masonic Cyclopaedia, King’s Gnostics, Zeller’s Plato, the works on magic by Dunlop, Salverte, Ennemoser, and Des Mousseaux, but above all from the mystical writings of Eliphas Levi. She took great pains with A Glossary of Theosophical Terms (1890-92), compiled for the benefit of the “flap-doodles,” as in moments of candour she called her disciples. But the appearance of Home’s Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism (1877) had a prejudicial effect upon the propaganda, and Heliona P. Blavatsky (as she began to style herself) sought temporary obscurity in India. Thence she contributed some clever papers, “From the Cave and Jungles of Hindostan,” to the Russky Vyestnik. Defeated in her object of obtaining employment in the Russian secret service, she resumed her efforts to gain converts to theosophy. For this purpose the exhibition of “physical phenomena” was found necessary. The jugglery which she practised was cleverly conceived, but carelessly executed, and on three distinct occasions the elaborate system of trickery to which she resorted was exposed in the most conclusive manner. Nevertheless, Madame Blavatsky’s extraordinary cleverness, volubility, energy, and will power enabled her to maintain her ground, and when she died on 8th May 1891 (White Lotus Day), at the Theosophical headquarters in Avenue Road, Regent’s Park, London, she was the acknowledged head of a community numbering not far short of 100,000, with journals in London, Paris, New York, and Madras. Much information respecting her will be found in Solovyoff’s Modern Priestess of Isis, translated b Walter Leaf (1895), in Arthur Lillie’s Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophy (1895), and in the report made to the Society for Psychical Research by the Cambridge graduate despatched to investigate her doings in India. In personal appearance the “old one,” as Madame was familiarly called by her following, has been described as globular in shape, with a dull gray complexion, a far from attractive physiognomy, and eyes like discolored turquoises. Yet she certainly fascinated those who came in contact with her, even those of her colleagues whom her “fibs” and indiscretions kept in a continual state of uneasiness.

[Reprinted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1902 edition. ]

HPB -> Helena Petrovna Blavatsky?

This article is currently redirected to from HPB. Unfortunately, the same acronym is linked to elsewhere as meaning "High Ping Bastards" (see the second paragraph of Quake#QuakeWorld.) Should there be some sort of disambiguation page? --Ciaran H 10:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Piet Mondriaan is an Author? What did he write?

This "influences" section seems to be held together with conjecture, I don't know how one would cite sources on this. Original research? Theory? Zosodada 9 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)


Spiritualism or spiritism?

Quote:

In 1874, Helena met Henry Steel Olcott; he was a lawyer, agricultural expert, and journalist who covered the Spiritualist phenomena.

Was it really spiritualism and not spiritism he covered? Nixdorf 22:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gertrude Marvin Williams, in her book "Priestess of the Occult" uses the word spiritualism. If you check the page of spiritism it mentions the Fox sisters but not the Eddy brothers. That is confusing to me. I'm not at all sure the two pages themselves are not confused as to who is what and which is where. Wjhonson 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Works / Books about her / "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon"

Under "Works", "Books about her", regarding the book "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon". I have changed the description of the link from "Review" to "Rebuttal/Review". The article is hardly unbiased, certainly not just a review, and the description of the article on that page even describes it as "not so much a book review as a remedial essay."

Before removing the link to Amazon please post your reference for "we don't link to bookstores". This is the first time I've seen this statment and I challenge it's validity. In my experience, wiki links to anywhere it feels like linking. Thanks.Wjhonson 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has erased many portions from this article; It aint as it was one month back ; somebody help. --RM

Madame Blavatsky in Ostend

She lived for 10 months in Ostend and wrote the biggest part of the Secret Doctrine at the hotel Villa Nova, Van Iseghemlaan 10 and in the Weststraat where she moved in August. This house was newly contructed as the Van Iseghemlaan was build in the 1870's but the Villa does not exist anymore. Then she went to Weststraat 17 (now Adolf Buylstraat), one of the main shopping streets of Ostend. In the newspaper 'La Saison d'Ostende' whe find her name back in the list of strangers on the 15th July 1886: Blavatsky H., rent. St Petersbourg, Villa Nova. She had her revelation to finish the book at the Weststraat (and so not to die) where the doctor and the laywer came, ten days before her departure for London 1 May 1887. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel leermans (talk • contribs) 17:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Blavatskian theosophy

During the course of working on the Theosophy main page, it was decided that the theosophy presented by Blavatsky should be located here, just as the philosophy of Plato, for instance, is located under Plato and not under Philosophy. Therefor, I have moved much of what was found under theosophy to here. See Talk:Theosophy#Proposed outline for the history of this decision.

I have left several subsections under Theosophy empty; they are in need of material. What we really need here is a faithful and sincere (and impartial) outline of Blavatsky's theosophy, and my hope is that we can slowly work towards that. Existing sections need to be reviewed and any information not specifically related to Blavatsky's writings needs to be removed (i.e. what her followers said belongs under their own pages, not under the theosophy of Blavatsky - just as Aristotle's ideas are not muddled in with Plato's ideas on Plato's page). It is of benefit to separately describe Blavatsky's theosophy here, then describe other theosophists ideas elsewhere - this will give the inquirer a clear picture of the theosophy of various theosophers, just as a student of philosophy is able to get a clear picture of the philosophy of various philosophers.

Lastly, the section titled "Main Creative Period" needs to be scrapped and replaced with a more accurate biographical section on Blavatsky during the days of the Theosophical Society (1875-1891) (with links to the main Theosophical Society page and it's history). JFergus (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Structuring articles

Hi JEMead and Sunray. Just catching up on your conversation. Sunray: I disagree that the description of Blavatsky's theosophy may not belong on her page, so I'll try to give a good explanation why I see it that way. I've mentioned Plato a few times in order to provide an example. See the Plato article for how it's laid-out and compare to what we're trying to do with Blavatsky's page. The main problem here is that there is a misunderstanding of what Theosophy is. Theosophy is not the doctrine of Blavatsky. Theosophy is a discipline, just as philosophy is. Within that discipline there are various ideas presented by various individuals, just as in philosophy, and never are any two presentations the same, just as in philosophy. So, what needs to be done, imho, is for various theosophies to be located under the theosopher who gave them, just as various philosophies are located with the philosophers. This step is important in getting wikipedia away from presenting theosophy as a dogmatic new religion, as has thus far been done. Nobody would stand for having one, single individual's ideas presented as "philosophy", as though that is all philosophy is, and the exact same thing goes here. Currently, the description of Theosophy is a muddling of several individual's ideas on certain fundamental questions that theosophers ask, and is presented as dogma, as though this is what all theosopher think. It would be as though someone muddled together the ideas of Plato, Socrates, Kant and Wittgenstein and supplied that as the definition of philosophy. There are already pages for several theosophers, and within each of those pages can be a section on their specific ideas (which will not match one another and thus shouldn't be mixed).

Your note that Blavatsky was not the only one who developed this version of theosophy is valid, but easily compared and clarified as well: neither was Plato the only one to have developed the philosophies of the Platonic Academy, but his philosophy is still located under his page, Aristotle's under his, and the other ancient Greek philosophers under theirs. The comparison is identical to our situation here: Blavatsky, Sinnett, W Judge, Besant and many others were all part of the same 'academy' of theosophy (the TS), just as the Greek philosophers were part of the same academy of philosophy. It does not mean they all thought the same way or presented the same ideas in their writings. The parallels between the Theosophical Society and the Academy are many. If we can approach our current situation in the same way as one would approach writing the sections on the Academy and its philosophers/philosophies, we'll be on the right track, imho.

I hope these illustrations help in understanding the grandeur of the problem we're trying to work through here (it's more than just moving a few things around). This is why there needs to be an effort to re-categorize theosophy away from religion (it is not a religion). Also, the current 'series' called 'Theosophy' (based on the category) should be renamed to a series on "the theosophical society", as it is the society that is the common factor there. It is evident that this series is based on the Theosophical Society, as the first thing mentioned are the "founders of the TS" and everything after is from Theosophical Society members and writings. See this page (right hand side) for the series in question: Gottfried de Purucker.

These are my views, anyway, for consideration. JFergus (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Plato is a good example, IMO. When an individual has been been very influential in a particular field, it is often best to summarize their thought in their biography. There seem to me to be two limiting factors. When someone's thought is important and voluminous, it is often best to use summary style and create a new article, or articles, for their contribution to a particular field. The Plato article does this to a limited extent, however, at 97+ Kb, it will probably need more subarticles before it can advance in rating beyond "C" class. Another example is Aristotle. The article makes extensive use of subarticles. It is 86 kb and is rated "B" class.
The Blavatsky article doubled in length when the material from the former Theosophy article was added. At 98 Kb, it is somewhat large as articles go (she is, after all, not as important as Plato or Aristotle). Another concern I have is that her thought was added to, and developed, by others (Leadbeater, Besant), so that to cover that brand of Theosophy one needs to explain the contributions of several people. Biographies usually avoid this. I should add that much of her thought was taken from other sources (i.e., Vedanta—see the discussion about her having used several sources in The Theosophical Glossary) and, along with other issues, this needs to be discussed in any article about her thought—all of which add up to a very long article if the material is left in the "Helena Blavatsky" article.
I agree with you that there is a major re-categorizing effort here. We need to re-think the content for several articles. I will start a new section for that discussion. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
— Talk:Theosophy 2011-12-29T20:55:46

Sunray, I've copied over our conversation from the Talk:Theosophy page, to continue it here, as it's specifically applicable to this article.
Seems that we're on the same page here overall. It's just a matter of working out the layout details. For the Blavatsky article, I would propose:

  • We create a "Blavatsky (Biography)" subarticle (or perhaps "Blavatsky Lineage" would be better), in order to dump much of what is there now into a subarticle. The biography part of her page is far too voluminous, and hardly even touches on her most well known years! It's really an account of lineage, and not a biography at all. What I'd like to see is either:
  1. A Biography summary, with a link to a full article, or
  2. A full biography here with a link to a lineage article, or
  3. A summary biography with link to full article, and a lineage summary with a link to full article
Note: I'm attempting to locate an expert on Blavatsky, to come here and help with the biography material.
  • The "Theosophical Society" subsection on Blavatsky page should give only a summary account of her specific relationship to the Society, and then link to the main Theosophical Society article.
  • The section "Theosophy" should remain, with each subsection providing a brief summary and link to full articles (when required). You're right, Aristotle's article is a good example of use of subarticles. There we find subarticles such as "Politics (Aristotle)", "Metaphysics (Aristotle)", "Aristotelean Ethics", etc. I could easily see the Blavatsky page going in a similar direction. So, I see two alternatives here:
  1. Theosophy subarticles with summaries and links to topic pages that include the ideas of various theosophers. For instance: "Karma/Reincarnation (Theosophy)" could be one subarticle, "Cosmic Evolution (Theosophy)" could be another (not sure how this would fit within Wiki's guidelines for naming, etc.). In this case, I would propose that we write each subarticle in an internally sequential manner (i.e. historical basis (brief note on sources from Vedanta, Buddhism, etc. that influenced theosopher's ideas), then Blavatsky said such-and-such, then so-and-so added this idea, then so-and-so added that idea, etc.). This would demonstrate a sort of evolution of the idea, which, imho, would accurately reflect the reality of this movement of theosophical thought. In this way, we could link to these subarticles from Blavatsky's page, from William Judge's page, from Besant's page, from Leadbeaters page, etc., as each of them would be represented there as supplying part of the evolution of the idea. Or,
  2. Theosophy subarticles with summaries and links to topic pages restricted to Blavatsky's ideas, as we see with Aristotle (i.e. Karma/Reincarnation (Blavatsky), Cosmic Evolution (Blavatsky), etc.).
What is the preference between these two options? Or are there other options we should explore?

Also, I have recruited two (possibly three or four) experts on Theosophy who are interested in helping out with the section on Theosophy. I've sent an email to them asking for each to give what they think to be an appropriate outline of the Theosophy section (i.e. what are the subsections needed, etc., including which subarticles to include, in which order, etc.). From there, we can attempt to come up with one outline, and from there we can begin writing/editing the various sections. I think we'll be able to sort out the overall use/need of subarticles as we go along. Thoughts? JFergus (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I admit I arrived at these comments after depleting myself on the comments above, so I read these quickly but they seem to make sense. I agree with the sentiment that some of this article is (unnecessarily) bloated biography.
The article is about Blavatsky and a wikipedia article on that should answer all the main questions that people are looking for about Blavatsky...in brief. Those who want more can turn to book or other references. The key then to writing a good article is to anticipate what a variety of partially informed people would hear about Ms. Blavatsky and to respond--as best one can in limited space--to that list. An Encyclopedia article cannot cater to experts or settle lengthy disputes. For example, it seems to me that much of the talk above about her influence on Hitler (or lack of it) can and should be resolved by the simple expediency of "Mme Blavatsky is thought in some circles to have influenced Hitler and the Nazis. Whether she had a direct influence is still being debated." (or suchlike).
The grammar is in need of immediate help. --174.7.29.185 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lemurian subcontinent Madasgar? Was Darwin Right?

I noticed Madagascar shifted a couple of times in the southern ocean, so its a perfect example of isolated nature. It has at least 5 water marks on the Antarctic floor from its origin in the Indian Lemuria. It broke off from Lemuria when it was a part of the Pacific Ocean dwipa, then settled in the Atlantic. It helped form the southern tip of Africa. Then it went to its position it is now in. This continent seems to have moved quit a bit. A valid cause for the human species or third race maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Controversies vs. the rest of her life

Dear Editors,
I would like to get it to your notice the observation that why does this article carry so much of controversies as against the rest of the biography and the article? Wikipedia cannot be a page of fight between Illuminati and the Christian or between Christian Dogmas and Pagan Beliefs. It has to be edited with due respect to the person and the life. If Blavatsky's life was worth of only controversies why should the article, at first place, be written as a wikipedia biographical article? We can as well remove it. The reason for Blavatsky getting such a high fame and attention is because of her contribution to theosophy. We respect Blavatsky for her contribution and revival of Eastern Esoteric wisdom. She was a historian, contemporary philosopher and miracle worker. It is a shame that people are using Wikipedia to make their whims and fancies shadow the biographical notes. Please do ponder on these thoughts without any bias.
Thank you. Sailpra (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this former statement. The general tone of the article is purely negative and the reader gets no inkling about why theosophy was so important in spiritual research. It looks like an article about the Vatican that would dedicate half of its content to the problem of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy. It ascribes more importance to the reception of Blavatsky work than to her work properly. --Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think your analogy with the Vatican is a valid one. Less than 1 percent of catholic priests are pedophile, while Blavatsky is a single person and many reliable sources describe many of her works and claims as fraudulent. WP:DUE weight must be given to those sources inside the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone inline with her idea's and beliefs wrote this article, and they defending it from having any type of NPOV. This isn't a Biography, it's cheer-leading pamphlet, an after the fact rationalization of history, a debate swayed towards the views of the supporters, and a total mockery of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. The Talk page, and ton of other research show tons of criticism, debunking, disproving, case of out right bigotry, fraud, and racism in the concepts this woman wrote about. But all of that goes unmentioned, deleted, or debate and withheld in this article. Believers in her concepts and philosophy are using that article to rewrite and misguide History. The Neutrality of the dominate contributing editors of this Article is in Question. 98.203.36.3 (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It needs severe pruning and the addition of more skeptical material, from sources such as Madame Blavatsky's Baboon.. William Avery (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In need of attention!

This page needs some critical attention. I've tried to remove some of the worst POV-pushing from the racial theories section, but the article still reads like it was written by partisans of theosophy. There are quite a few critical works on Blavatsky and theosophy available, so there isn't really an excuse for such blatant POV. Elrith (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially the "Criticism" section seems to be completely POV. Elrith (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely thrown out and rewritten by someone who:
  1. Speaks English.
  2. Doesn't have a genealogy fetish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDetweiler (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that unattributed content with unreferenced citation numbers was added in this 2011 edit by Deodarvostok; and, I see that those unreferenced citation numbers were removed in this 2011 edit. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Influencer of

Ariosophy

I'll add the following important fact to the end of the paragraph "Ariosophy" when no one wish to oppose:

The central importance of "Aryan" racism in Ariosophy, albeit compounded by occult notions deriving from theosophy, may be traced to the racial concerns of Social Darwinism in Germany.[1]

[1] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism, New York University Press, Washington, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-3054-X, p.14

--Teutobald (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Madame Pokipsi (character)

Paul Fusco the voice and chief puppeteer of ALF had a character on the animated series on NBC named Madame Pokipsi, a fairly blatant parody of Blavatsky, should we include him in the influenced category as well? Also many cultural references to the gypsy fortuneteller are allusions to Blavatsky, especially in speaking, since she would most likely have spoken with a fairly noticeable Slavic accent. Sochwa 2007-01-06T18:36:26

You need to source this. See Wikipedia:Attribution, SqueakBox 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New Age spiritual leader?

In the article about New Age it is written that "The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century". Blavatsky passed away much earlier - in 1891, so it is not precise to categorize her in "New Age spiritual leaders". I suggest to move her into a new category - "New Age precursors" or "New Age predecessors", where Swedenborg, Vivekananda and others can also be placed. --174.3.242.51 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Other predecessors also included. --Hrisantius (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Illusionist (2006 film)

Is the movie The Illusionist based off of Blavatsky? Pg. 16 - 19 of The Esoteric World of Helena Blavatsky, is a witness account of her 'weighing a coffee table down,' much like the sword scene. Also, Blavatsky's brother is named Leonid (whom was there during this alleged incident, and a devout skeptic until then), and the antagonist of the movie is Leopold. Huffstuff (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:The Illusionist (2006 film)#historical relevance.3F for other discussion about this. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The List of Seven

Blavatsky also appears as a character in Mark Frost's The List of Seven wherein her work is influential to his main character - Arthur Conan Doyle - creating a work of fiction that leads to a Sherlockian supernatural adventure. Doyle's manuscript in a novel supposedly lifts much "straight out of Blavatsky." In Chapter 7 of the novel, Blavatsky and Doyle meet and discuss her work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.93.244 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes from the occult murder mystery include "he borrowed not only the title of his book but his villains' motives from the woolliest works of Madame Blavatsky. Who would have thought his petty larceny would come so hideously to roost?" "he'd more or less cribbed 'The Dark Brotherhood' from Blavatsky. Which begged the question, if they were after him because of his book, how close to the truth of what they were up to had the lunatic Russian wandered?" I looked through the eBook (Frost, Mark (1994) [©1993]. The list of seven (eBook). New York: Avon Books. ISBN 0062127349 – via Content Reserve. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)) which didn't include print page numbers, so no page numbers are cited. I'm not going to look for a print copy or finish reading the ebook because I don't like reading murder mysteries. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Rm'vd Plant and Page from "Influences"

Robert Plant has rarely, if ever, expressed any particular spiritual stance; the best you might say is that he's influenced by Norse mythology. Page, on the other hand, has stated publicly many times (and it's otherwise well-documented) that he has been inspired by Aleister Crowley; I'm not aware of him ever mentioning Blavatsky as an influence. So, I removed them both from the "Influences" section. If anything, you might consider adding Jon Anderson and Yes (band) (read the lyrics of Close to the Edge and Tales from Topographic Oceans in particular). But then, that would be OR, too, I reckon. Eaglizard 04:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NB:Dang, I thought for sure there'd be some disagreement with this. I guess I've just been editing Alice Bailey for too long, I see edit-wars everywhere I go now. lol Eaglizard 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with Close to the Edge and Tales from Topographic Oceans, and you are blowing smoke, talking out the back of your neck and talking through your hat. I prefer to listen to the LPs and commune with my Tokemaster. Blavatsky also had a well-known fondness for some good 'shish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.238 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Un-did Removal of Influences Section

Whoever removed the Influences section is clearly trying to cover-up the important discussion about the influence of Blavatsky.
It is a well known fact that the Nazi's modeled much of the Nazi culture and government after the Hindu caste system.
The question as to whether Blavatsky influenced the Nazi's is an important debate, to claim otherwise, is just insane bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.181.62 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a "well known fact" then you'll presumably have no difficulty in providing reliable sources to verify it. As you have been asked to do repeatedly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Swastika

The swastika was not "Indian," but an ancient Aryan symbol that passed to India when the Aryans invaded the local Dravidian population. Hitler used the Swastika as part of his Aryan symbology, claiming that the Germans are an Aryan race with ancient and powerful roots, and that the German people again be elevated to that level and beyond. The Swastika was just another part of the Aryan theme that the Nazi movement revolved around, as were the other various ancient Roman, Norse, Teutonic, and Iranian symbols employed by the Nazi Party.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the swastika was a popular symbol in occultism. They called it "The Wheel of Mithra", and it was a symbol for good luck. Mithra is an an ancient Iranian sun god (and son god) whose worship spread through the Roman Empire (imported to the West by Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia) until Mithraism became Rome's official religion in the centuries before it was replaced by Christianity. WingedEarth 11:34, 21 August 2007

The reasons why are that the use of the swastika and colors of the Nazi flag are an undeniable link to the works of Madame Blavatsky.
That is like comparing the Nazi use of the Swastika to the older Hindu Symbolism behind it. Attributing Blavatsky to the Swastika in the use of Nazism and Hitler, rather than in the context which she as a Buddhist and Theosophist considered it, is completely out of context and misleading to the reader. To quote the Swastika article:
"(Red, white, and black were the colors of the flag of the old German Empire.)
The use of the swastika was associated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders. It was also widely believed that the Indian caste system had originated as a means to avoid racial mixing. The concept of Racial purity was an ideology central to Nazism though it is now considered unscientific. For Rosenberg, the Aryans of India were both a model to be imitated and a warning of the dangers of the spiritual and racial "confusion" that, he believed, arose from the close proximity of races."
You can see that if anything, Hitler determined his use of the Swastika from a misunderstanding of Vedic Tradition - Not from Blavatsky. (I also added a subheading to deal with the Hodgson Report, Under Criticisms.) - Misoshiru 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Misoshiru
Note that the Theosophical Seal also contains a much larger Star of David! Actually both are used as ancient Indian symbols and have nothing to do with either Nazism or Judaism. Given the many available sources for the swastika, to attribute the Nazi use of it without any real evidence to Theosophy seems unfair. (The Theosophical Society in Germany was never large, and was suppressed when the Nazis came to power.)
The same goes for the race ideas. It must be recognized that in the 19th century the word Aryan was very widely used to mean what is now meant by Indo-European, including in many German books much more linked to German nationalism than Blavatsky, who wrote mainly in English, ever was. Moreover, in the 19th century "race" was often used in a more in the way we would use nationality or even culture than in a strictly biological sense. Thinking of it as a culture, the technology of the fifth root race has indeed swept across the world, for better or worse. But it should also be noted that Blavatsky did not absolutize any of the "races" -- she writes of their rise and fall, their all falling into decadence, and in one place delights in observing that one day the now-despised African races may well "form the bulk of the civilized nations" (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 425.). One does not find such ideas in Nazi writings. For that matter, if one take the trouble to compare The Secret Doctrine with Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century in any detail, one will find despite the unfortunate words race and Aryan the concept, and the outline of racial history, is quite different.
Re Judaism one also has to look at the whole picture. Her use of the Kabbalah as a philosophical mainstay is certainly a tribute. In Isis Unveiled she expresses deep sympathy for the Jews in their persecutions and wanderings, I suspect somewhat identifying with them in her own life as an oft-abused wanderer. Olcott in Old Diary leaves ch 1 tells of her repeated expressions of appreciation to an elderly Jew her gave her employment when she arrived virtually penniless in New York (a Russian noblewoman working for a New York Jew!), and says another learned Jew talk with her for hours about the Kabbalah and was amazed by her knowledge of it.—This is part of a comment by S Ellwood (of 12:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
"It seem important to be aware of that H. P. Blavatsky's references on inferiority among cultural groups was related to a groups spiritual level of development and not its genetic outfit as assumed by some superficial readers of her teachings." i do not understand this to be relevant in criticisms of Ms. Blavatsky. being that she was a mystic and not a biologist i think it is somewhat evident that any theory she had would have been on a spiritual level not a physical one, most importantly can some one explain why it would be in any way less bigoted to believe any particular race as spiritually inferior as opposed to physically inferior. if any thing it only strikes me as more offensive as this does not only minimize there humanity on a mere intellectual or technological level but calls there very souls indeed the essence of what makes them human into question. 68.5.18.29 2010-05-01T13:28:38
As for Satan, it needs to be understood in those isolated passages she is just expounding the Gnostic package; no doubt she sympathized with it, but it was only one metaphor she used for her worldview. See my book, Ellwood, Robert S. (1986). a modern expression of the wisdom of the ages. Quest book. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House. ISBN 0835606074. S Ellwood 2006-10-24T12:24:12 and 2006-10-24T12:25:27
"Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, is the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind (Brooke, Harvest House Publishers, 1989, pg 175-176)." I put that quote into the main bio and had it deleted several times. When I first read Blavatsky's bio, it read more like a fanpage. I felt that it was only fair to present an alternative. The way it read, there was nary a negative piece of information. I never inserted name-calling into the bio. I simply referenced a quote from her writings to add to discussion.
As for my additions to the list of those influenced by Blavatsky: I did add Adolf Hitler, Alfred Kinsey, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, and deleted Van Morrison. The reasons why are that the use of the swastika and colors of the Nazi flag are an undeniable link to the works of Blavatsky. I added Kinsey because Blavatsky heavily influenced Aleister Crowley's writings on sex, which in turn influenced Kinsey. Plant and Page were added because one only need look to their body of musical work to see the influences of the occult and religious relativism. I removed Morrison because he often pronounces his faith in God during concerts, so it seemed pointless to have Morrison on the list when there is no real discussion in Morrison's page on his religious beliefs. 67.185.88.176 2006-05-29T13:16:40
But, even if that sentence is written in the book, are you sure it is the core of the Theosophical Society? It says nothing about satan in the Theosophical Society's page, nor does it seem to be of that importance to that that society. 84.108.57.189 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason why the quote was referenced is to give the reader an idea of what influenced Blavatsky's thinking. She clearly derived many of her ideas from her belief that Satan was the superior god. Whether the Theosophical Society promotes Satan directly is not the point -- the point was to simply provide evidence of what influenced her line of thinking. 207.62.186.233 2006-10-17T13:24:35
(Going to delete claims of Satan; This is most certainly not a key principle of Theosophy and will be taken in the wrong light out of context and without citation by the passing reader with no previous knowledge. 82.35.160.115 2006-06-20T16:10:29

Also reference to Hitler will be deleted. 'Aryan' in Theosophical terms refers to the Fifth root race, rather than to the 'White race' as popularized by Nazism.82.35.160.115 2006-06-20T16:14:31

The fact is, Blavatsky popularized and glorified the Aryan race and clearly used the Swastika in Theosophy. You cannot deny that her works influenced Adolf Hitler. If you think that Hitler twisted her work than DISCUSS that rather than hide from DISCUSSION. I have read The Secret Doctrine, and was horrified by the use of the term "mud people." 67.185.57.48 2006-06-24T01:43:00
Merely the fact that they had a few similar concepts is not sufficient evidence for "influence". You are free to do more research on this idea and come up with something more clear-cut however. We can say that Gandhi was influenced, because he actually stated that he went to Theosophy meetings. Those were his own words. Here you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. The Swastika was a very old symbol, Blavatsky didn't come up with it. Wjhonson 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the reference to Hitler will be removed; Hitler has in no way used Theoosphical principles in his forming of Nazism, and the Swastika indeed was used previously by Hindu and Buddhist symbolism. Hitlers definition of 'Aryan' to be a 'Superior white race' in the vain of extremism does not hold in common the Theosophical view that the 'Ayran' fifth root race is merely the most recent wave of man kind, and that some pure races in Africa can be traced back to the 4th root race which are not Ayran. (But not prejudiced or racist or anything in the sense that Hitler propagated.) 80.195.178.107 2006-06-24T18:13:53
Much of Blavatsky's writing contained strong racial themes. She regularly contrasts "Aryan" with "Semitic" culture, to the detriment of the latter, asserting that Semitic (e.g. Jewish) peoples are an offshoot of Aryans who have become "degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality" (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 200.). Blavatsy also sorted the races of the world by their relation to the "Fifth Race" (the Atlanteans) putting the Aryans on the top and describing Native Australians and Tazmanians as "semi-animal creatures." RomoCop 2006-10-10T13:41:21
Alexis Dolgorukii wrote in What is "Theosophy", a process or a religion? at the Wayback Machine (archived July 3, 2006) that,

[...] a television documentary [...] implied a connection between Blavatsky and Hitler. [... It] is not the only source of this rumor, there are a number of books, [... that] echo the charge. [... I] conclude that while there is no direct connection between [... Blavatsky] and Totalitarian Philosophy, [...] she may have influenced [...] Fascist philosophers [...] and there is a [...] direct connection between The theosophical Society [...] and [...] contemporary totalitarian elements such as National Socialism in Germany, and the Fascist Movement in Italy as well as with continuing totalitarian and hierarchical elements in society today. My research indicates that the primary [...] connection between National Socialism and Theosophy was Charles Webster Leadbeater and his various closest associates and followers. - Nunh-huh 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Quote trimmed by BoBoMisiu 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The author is Alexis Dolgorukii. Who is he? — goethean ॐ 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As he states in that very paragraph, Blavatsky's cousin, and one who is predisposed to believe only good about her, but nonetheless is forced to concede the connection between Theosophy and National Socialism.- Nunh-huh 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Riddle me This

If the use of "Aryan" is not enough to prove that Blavatsky influenced Hitler (directly or indirectly), then riddle me this -- how did Hitler get the word "Aryan?" RomoCop 2006-10-26T16:31:52

Aryan is the terminology of self description, that certain Iranian minority groups, use to delineate themselves from the majority population of that particular nation state. Sochwa 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Aryan is the historical and majority population of Iran, not a minority.WingedEarth 11:22, 21 August 2007
Aryan was a well known word at the time describing a racial/linguistic group having originated in the Caucausus and Iran region. Iranian and Aryan are synonymous, but in the early 19th century, linguists and comparative religion scholars from Europe began to understand the connections between Iranians with Indians and Europeans. The ancient Aryans practiced a religion which split into the later Vedas (Hindu) and Avesta (Iranian) religious authorities. The language of the ancient Aryans is not known precisely, but it's descendants include Old Persian and Sanskrit, as well as Latin, German, and Russian, from which modern European languages (including English) descended. Hitler didn't have to discover the word "Aryan" from an obscure source, because it was well known. However, many of Hitler's associates (Dietrich Eckhart, Alfred Rosenberg, etc.), including the founders of the NSDAP, were interested in occultism, and particularly Aryan-based occultism (typically via ancient Roman, Norse, Teutonic, and Iranian religion), and pretty much every Western occultist of the early 20th century was influenced by Blavatsky, who was a pioneer in the field. WingedEarth 11:20, 21 August 2007
Also, it is a well known fact that Adolf Eichmann based much of the Nazi organizational structure on Hinduism. To suggest that because because Blavatsky was referring to Indian cultures, and that the Nazi's were not influenced by Blavatsky is utter nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.181.62 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC) and 2009-11-10T03:00:39
I have heard these accusations before however unable to verify them I thought I might contact the Theosophical Society to hear their view on the matter to begin with.
"Hitler seems to have been familiar with some of Blavatsky's writings, but did not study them in depth as far as we know. He may very well have based some of his concepts of races on a warped interpretation of Blavatsky's views of the "root races, " which is completely different from the term "races" that we use commonly. The Theosophical Society was not in any way connected to the Nazi Movement. The Society was persecuted by the Nazis, and Theosophists from the Netherlands, Greece, and Java were interned in concentration camps during World War II. Headquarters buildings of the European sections of the Society were closed during the war, and their records and libraries were looted by the Germans."
This response comes from the e-mail at archives@theosophical.org and the e-mail itself is dated at Mon, January 25, 2010 1:41:38 PM. Here is the file for download for anyone to view. Though the e-mail states at the very beginning that "these are my own interpretations, intended to assist you in your research, and should not be treated as bearing any special authority." I just thought this information could be helpful to determine as to whether or not this would be of any importance to find out if this claim was true. Voiceofreason467 5:49pm August 1, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC).
I cannot help but recommend the excellent book The Occult Roots of Nazism. The influence of Blavatsky on Heinrich Himmler and the ideology of the SS is discussed in a clear way. −81.65.159.132 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The influenced are not a reflection of the influencer

The fact that Adolf Hitler may have read the works of Blavatsky, or may in some way have been influenced by her, is not a reflection on Blavatsky. Hitler also listed to Bach and studied the paintings of the Renaissance Masters. They are not, for that reason, responsible for the Third Reich. Blavatsky must be understood in her own terms. --66.81.100.246 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fools in the dark never see the light

I recently attempted to address an issue in which I was maliciously attacked for merely presenting a real controversy about the work of Blavatsky--in one case, I merely cited her work. That controversy being whether Blavatsky influenced Hitler and the Nazi Party. The defenders make excuses that basically amount to, "No, that's not true, because we say so."

I for one believe that the symbol of Theosophy is offensive. The symbolism suggests that Egyptian heritage should be at the center of Jewish heritage (and whom enslaved the Jews?), and above both is the heritage of the Swastika, whether the swastika used by Blavatsky intended to refer to Indian or Chinese culture is uncertain, but the geometric design is similar to the Chinese design. Either Blavatsky influenced the future, or by strange coincidence, the symbol of Theosophy incorporates Judaism and their two biggest enemies in history (Egyptians and Nazi's). 67.185.181.62 2009-11-10T03:00:39

The Egyptians certainly didn't enslave 'the Jews'. The whole thing is a legend, only supported in the Torah and the Bible. And you're seeing a 'conspiracy', are you? Your logic here is very odd! 124.170.252.20 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way the talk page cannot be a place for our interpretations of Theosophical Society's symbols or who are Jew's enemies. Please stop such nonsense in this talk page. Sailpra (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that Hitler was influenced by Theosophy, because any honest researcher will say that the Nazi party incorporated many elements of different religions, as did Blavatsky. And the fact is, Blavatsky promoted an Aryan race as superior. Hitler used a swastika to represent Aryanism and the Nazi Party, and the swastika is not rooted in Europe. Moreover, Blavatsky believed that the Aryan race originated in Atlantis, which would suggest that her idea of Aryan was not just India and the Far East. 67.185.181.62 2009-11-10T03:00:39

Hitler's ideas were not original, and beg the question as to whether Hitler took from Blavatsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.181.62 (talk • contribs)

"Beg the question" does not mean "raise the question." "Beg the question" means "presuppose" or "assume beforehand." --Lestrade (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has said any such thing, and it is irrelevant whether you or anyone else finds the symbol of Theosophy "offensive". Your opinions and beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia article; if you believe that Hitler was influenced by Theosophy—bearing in mind this is an article about Blavatsky, not Theosophy—then you must find reliable sources to support your view. If you further believe that being asked to provide reliable sources amounts to a "malicious attack", then I'm afraid it's likely that there's no place for you in wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has said such thing -- I just did fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.142 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Published sources exist claiming Nazi adoption of these beliefs though they are the usual sort of poorly sourced fringe writers. For example:
Someone may care to include such sources, as the article already relies heavily on badly written books from self-publicists, it can hardly make the content any less encyclopedic.—Ash (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because the article's poorly sourced now doesn't mean that we should add even more dubious sources. If the claim about Nazi influence is true then it ought to be able to be sourced to reliable sources. If it can't be, then it shouldn't be included. But this is an article about Blavatsky anyway, not about Theosophy. This claim, if it can be substantiated, would be relevant in the Theosophy article, but the question here is did Blavatsky have any on the Nazism? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I classed the sources as poorly sourced, I made no claim that they fail to meet WP:RS. Looking at the how David Icke's book is cross-referenced in Google Scholar, I would expect that it would be a suitable source for evidence that such a theory exists. Perhaps you have specific grounds to class these as unreliable sources? Perhaps you could find grounds to dismiss these other published books that make the same claim that various Nazis specifically adopted Blavatsky's ideas (rather than just Theosophy in general):
—Ash (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Levenda book seems like a reasonable source to support the notion that Theosophy was influential in pre-war German secret occult societies, and likely in the occult aspects of Nazism, and that should be reflected in the Theosophy article of course. This, however, is a biography of Blavatsky, not an account of Theosophy. If you're going to make the claim that specific Nazis, rather than Nazism in general, were influenced by Blavatsky's ideas, rather than by Theosophy, then that's a whole different ball game. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be making the assumption that Levenda links Nazi beliefs with Theosophy rather than Blavatsky. Looking at page 40 he specifically mentions Blavatsky 8 times, stating that the beliefs in question (in particular the spiritual struggle between races) originated in Blavatsky's publications. I'm not that interested in re-writing the article but the sources seem clear and specific enough not to dismiss these claims out of hand and the later influence of Blavatsky's publications would seem quite relevant to a biographic article (c.f. Isaac Newton which has a lengthy section about the influence of his work after his death).—Ash (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am making no assumptions whatsoever, I am simply guided by what is actually said in Levanda's book. The fundamental point is that no evidence has yet been brought forth to support the notion that Hitler or other leading Nazis were influenced by Blavatsky, as opposed to Theosophy. I quote from page 362: "Indeed, both directly and indirectly, that fabulous creation of Madame Blavatsky—her Theosophical Society—can be found at the root of virtually all of the occult societies that gave rise to the Thule Gesellschaft and, eventually, to the Third Reich itself." I see no support for the claim that Hitler was influenced by Blavatsky, but if such a claim can be reliably sourced, then of course it should be reintroduced into the article, properly cited. It would probably be relatively easy to make a credible case that the occult aspects of Nazism were influenced by Theosophy, but by Blavatsky herself? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hitler and the Nazis were opposed to Masonry because it was associated with the left-wing politically. I know Blavatsky wasn't a Mason, but a lot of her associates were, and her views were influenced by Masonic philosophy. So I find it hard to believe that the Nazis were influenced by her. --198.51.130.244 (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do know though that Blavatsky wrote a chapter in Isis Unveiled attacking Masonry so maybe what I said is wrong. --198.51.130.244 (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Blavatsky had never criticized or was against Masonry, her point was that in the current age none of the so called Free masons have the actual knowledge about the ancient civilizations for that matter the actual design and secrets behind Solomon's temple etc compared to the actual founders of masonry. Sailpra (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Book review on a blog

A book review on a blog questioned the scholarship of books which repeated a legend, that evolved from speculation that Albert Einstein had read a Blavatsky book into speculation that Einstein had kept a Blavatsky book on his desk, to Einstein's non-existant niece. More so, that objectivity is bad or, in the words of the book reviewer, Jason Colavito, an "argument that science and scholarship are bad because they don't assume the reality of a spiritual dimension of gods and monsters" is a premise that some writers about Blavatsky exploit. Colavito, cited the sources of this legend and questioned the authenticity and intentions of the authors. The citation was removed with this 2013 edit by XercesBlue1991. Colavito identified what he called "a psychic post office in Blavatsky's lacquered cabinet, materializing letters to her from the ether on demand" and her other "parlor tricks" and concluded that, this "implies nothing about the correctness of her spiritual beliefs" so "to rehabilitate Blavatsky as a spiritual guide would involve proving the validity of her claims in Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, a tall order given their reliance on assumptions that cannot be provide [sic] and outdated sources long since proved false."[1] Identifying logical fallacies, as Colavito seems to have done (that a person's ability to perform stage magician tricks does not cause that same person's written beliefs to be true) is a valid argument, and, in my opinion, should be integrated into the section on Blavatskian Theosophy.

Colavito points out the fact that "Western interest in Eastern faiths did not originate with Blavatsky and had been a popular subject of study in the West for a century before her." He identifies Pope Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors as "good evidence for the widespread nature of the beliefs" such as pantheism and indifferentism ("that reason guides each individual to God through any number of equally valid religious paths"). Colavito believes that the Syllabus of Errors "is strong evidence that Blavatsky was a result not an originator of the religious and spiritual changes of the nineteenth century" as some books about her presume.[1] Colavito cites The Greeks and the Irrational by E. R. Dodds as an example of works which examine ancient esoteric ideas.[2]

A search for "blavatsky" on jasoncolavito.com, Colavito's blog, reveals that it contains several skeptical posts about her.

References

  1. ^ a b Colavito, Jason (2013-05-25). "Gary Lachman, Albert Einstein, and the Rehabilitation of Helena Blavatsky". jasoncolavito.com (personal blog). Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Dodds, Eric Robertson (1951). The Greeks and the irrational. Sather classical lectures. Vol. 25. Berkeley: University of California Press. LCCN 51013756.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lacking in objectivity

This article misleads the reader. Compare its content to Campbell, Bruce F. (1980). Ancient wisdom revived: a history of the Theosophical movement. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520039688. Wiki readers would appreciate Campbell's objectivity that clearly contradicts much of this article.

I have noticed that the Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy articles are edited or written to remove or downplay negative information. In the Blavatsky article, the fraud perpetrated by Blavatsky and that of her immediate followers is sadly missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhilliard (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Just a few more references that dispute Blavatsky's story:
I admit that some of these are fairly partisan, but certainly not more partisan than the theosophical literature so frequently referred to in the article.--Redjsteel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh hats off to your objective thinking! Just because many people have written or claimed Blavatsky as Fraud does not make her Fraud. These are in times of 1890s and we know which organizations have been falsely safe guarding their vested interests against true esoteric wisdom. No wonder that they were able to create such a organized attempt against Blavatsky. What do we know of the circumstances then? Did we have media then? No? The media was under the control of "these organizations" (it can be understood) and how can we trust the claims made by such media and committees formed by them. When we criticize someone just know that you are criticizing a human being. We may have the right to criticize someone, if we are 100% sure that she has committed such Frauds and we have experienced and seen her performing those Frauds. None of these authors fall under these categories, then how can we call them Objective Thinkers? Especially we have to learn to respect and have dignity for human beings and their efforts and especially women when we speak against them. Sailpra (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Our duty in Wikipedia is not to judge whether or not reliable sources are saying the truth, as per WP:NOTTRUTH. Our duty is to say what reliable sources said. If there are academic books describing frauds within the Theosophical movement, then I think our duty is to speak about them in the article, in the same proportion as reliable sources do. This article is unbalanced and highly biased from the point of view of a believer of theosophy's doctrine. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

theos-talk.com

Footnotes 10, 11, and 12 go to anonymous postings to theos-talk.com, the archive of a Theosophical email list. These are not reliable sources. They should be removed. Additionally, the linked text only make allegations of plagiarism, it doesn't provide any evidence for the allegations in the form of quotations from Blavatsky. — goethean ॐ 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They were removed in this 2007 edit by goethean
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helena_Blavatsky/Archive_1&oldid=1253732514"