The Apex of Magic and Science Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society’s Practice and View of

Astral Projection

Erik A. Karlström

Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies

M.A. Degree 30 credits

History of Religions

Master’s Course (30 credits) Autumn term 2020

Supervisor: Egil Asprem

The Apex of Magic and Science

Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society’s Practice and View of Astral Projection

Erik A. Karlström

Abstract The rise of spiritualism in the late nineteenth century raised new ways to perceive the dead. A new

possibility to communicate with the deceased attributed novel characteristics to the human soul.

Building upon this spiritualist discourse, the prominent theory-crafter of the Theosophical Society,

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), thought the spirit of the dead, which she differentiated from

the soul, to be a separate but connected component of the physical body. As such, this component

should be separable from the physical body before death. Blavatsky developed the theory into an

ontology (theory of what there is), cosmogony (the origin of the universe), physiology (the

constitution of the human body), and soteriology (a doctrine of salvation). The separation possible

before death became known as astral projection and it was a way to liberate the ‘astral body’ from its

physical sheath, enabling the individual to travel spatially and temporally. Astral projection was

regarded the apex of magic and a highly valued goal, actively pursued. Unlike previous studies, this

thesis aims to explain the phenomenon of astral projection, how it was perceived and constructed,

from both an emic as well as etic perspective. Using discourse analysis, this thesis aims to explore and

discuss how Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society diachronically constructed their understanding of

the practice and the mechanisms enabling it. In addition, this thesis also aims to trace the evolution of

astral projection in the Theosophical Society from its founding in 1875 to Blavatsky’s death in 1891 as

well as what functions the practice filled. This is achieved in two sections, through three steps, split

between the ‘early’ and the ‘later’ Theosophical Society; this thesis examines the physiology

presented, followed by the second step of surveying the ontology represented, which lastly explores

how these are used to explain the phenomenon of astral projection.

Keywords Blavatsky, Astral Projection, Discourse Analysis, the Theosophical Society, Magic and Science, Soul

Separation, Spiritualism, Esotericism, Occultism.

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................ 3 Methodology ........................................................................................... 4

Discourse Analysis ............................................................................................. 5 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 8

Spirits, Spiritualism, and Separations of the Soul in the Late Nineteenth-Century ................................................................................................. 10 Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society ................................................ 17

The Earlier Period of Theosophical Thought .......................................................... 23 Blavatsky’s Metaphysics ................................................................................. 24 The Phenomenon of Astral Projection ............................................................... 33

The Later Period of Theosophical Philosophy ........................................................ 43 Blavatsky’s Physiology and Ontology ............................................................... 44 The ‘New’ Astral Projection ............................................................................. 50

Comparing the Theosophical Societies ................................................................ 54 Blavatskyan Astral Projection ............................................................... 60 References ............................................................................................ 65

1

Introduction

We stand upon the brink of a precipice. We peer into the abyss – we grow sick and dizzy. Our first

impulse is to shrink from the danger. Unaccountably we remain.1

There is an allure in the unknown and the unseen. Contemplating, perceiving or even visiting

alternatives to our mundane, corporeal world has been of interest since archaic times. To transcend the

boundaries of our physical, opaque world and experience what is beyond was attempted in Ancient

Greece and some mysteries probably had their origin in Neolithic practices.2 Narratives in which the

soul travels, either by a descent into the underworld, an ascent into the heavens, a pre-mortem journey

in which the soul strives to rendezvous with the body, or a post-mortem travel through the beyond,

were so common in the Mediterranean world of antiquity that they have been treated as a genre of

their own.3

Narratives alone did not constitute the entirety of ancient soul travels. The idea of a soul, as an

entity separate from the physical body, was presented by many philosophers. Pythagoras (c. 570-495

B.C.E.) believed in metempsychosis, the transmigration of the soul, leading him to preach to animals

in order to help their spiritual development.4 Plato (c. 428-384 B.C.E.) continued Pythagoras’

influence and determined that the soul was an entity different from, and shackled by, the body: divine,

immortal and indestructible.5 Developing Plato’s idea, Plotinus (205-270 C.E.) connected the soul

with its divine and eternal reservoir with which a unification was possible.6 His disciple Porphyry

(234- c. 305 C.E.) pushed these theories even further, claiming that the transcended soul could not be

spatially located but was everywhere and nowhere.7 Some thought this diverted too far from Plato, one

of them being Iamblichus (c. 240-325 C.E.). He emphasized the idea of a materialized soul, mortal and

disconnected from the divine soul and divinity. However, with the aid of the gods and certain physical

1 Edgar Allan Poe: The Imp of the Perverse. 2 Stein, (2016), p. 3 3 DeConick, (2017), p. 82 4 Russel, (1946), pp. 41, 45 5 Russel, (1946), p.135, Burkert, (1985), p. 322 6 Shaw, (2006), p. 834 7 Plaisance, (2016), p. 390

2

actions and objects the soul could come close to the divine.8

Plato was being translated into English in the nineteenth century and became “a hot commodity”

in America at the same time as Spiritualism began to come into vogue.9 The main subject of this

thesis, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (née von Hahn, 1831-1891), names all of the philosophers above as

individuals who had overcome the limitations of the physical body and achieved a new level of

existence. They had, according to Blavatsky, achieved a form of immortality.10 These claims were not

completely taken out of thin air. Blavatsky produced copious amounts of texts outlining an ontology

revealed to her by the Mahatmas, spiritually advanced adepts altruistically working in secret to

progress mankind. She, and the Theosophical Society, also had a custom to invoke the teachings of

Neoplatonists as being the same teachings as theirs. To build credibility, they claimed a clear

continuity between the teachings.11 Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society interpreted the ancient

teachings through contemporary advances in science. However, the science they employed consisted

of statements and terminology. Science was not a method of inquiry; it was just a system of belief like

any other.12 In this manner Theosophy created a synthesis of all, to them relevant, available

knowledge, a style of syncretization Blavatsky would sustain throughout “as the only possible key to

the Absolute in science and theology.”13 Blavatsky constructed a remarkable ontology which claimed

unperceivable aspects of nature enabling living humans to project a concomitant body, the astral body.

Astral projection, as this practice became known as, enabled the projector to read minds, travel great

distances in seconds, relive history, and ultimately conquer death. This practice is the main focus of

this thesis.

Blavatsky also founded the journal Lucifer. It aimed to “bring light ‘to the hidden things of

darkness’”14 and she choose that name because it meant “light-bringer”.15 Helena, in turn, means “the

bright, shining one” or “the torch.”16 Many regarded her as a bringer of intellectual and spiritual light

in a dark, materialistic world. What she illuminated and how it was done, however, is another question

entirely.

8 Shaw, (2006), p. 835. A practice also known as theurgy. 9 Gutierrez, (2009), p.8. Of additional interest is the fact that the new English translations of Plato sparked

reading groups which allowed both men and women to partake. However, it is worth remembering that just as Platonists and Neo-Platonists expressed their discourse, their basic ontological premises are in this case located within another context through which they must be understood.

10 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:159, see also Chajes, (2019), pp. 128-129. 11 Plaisance, (2016), pp. 389-390 12 Hammer, (2001), p. 204 13 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:vii 14 Blavatsky, (1887), p. 1 15 Blavatsky, (1887), p. 3 16 Carlson, (1993), p. 43

3

Purpose and Research Questions

The aim of this thesis is to chart the practice of astral projection as practiced and theorized by

Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society during her lifetime. This is done by analyzing their context

and how they express their discourse, allowing for a greater understanding of how they would have

understood the practice based upon their own premises. Shedding a light on how astral projection was

developed by Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society illuminates how the practice evolved; after all,

it is part of the future developments of astral projection as a practice, made more famous by the

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley, but also by the publications of the Society

of Psychical Research.

To fulfill this purpose, this thesis seeks to answer the following questions:

• How was astral projection, and the mechanics that made it possible, explained?

• Why was astral projection a desirable practice?

• What function did astral projection fill in the Theosophical Society?

As will become apparent, answering these questions inevitably lead to a final question:

• How did astral projection change and why were these changes necessary?

However, to answer these questions in this limited space some limitations have been required. The

most extensive constraint has been the number of individuals prominently featured. The space required

to trace, explore and analyze different individuals’ contributions has simply not been available.

Therefore, the focus is upon a single individual, Blavatsky, due to her prominent position in and

influence over the Theosophical Society. The result can therefore in no way be a panoptic picture of

this phenomenon, neither is it a complete picture of astral projection in the theoretical panoply of the

Theosophical Society in the late nineteenth century.

4

Methodology

Say, it’s only a paper moon, Sailing over a cardboard sea

But it wouldn’t be make-believe, if you believed in me.17

To study a practice located in a distant time, in differing geographical spaces, and with a host of

assumptions and forms of knowledge varying greatly from one’s own, it is not enough to simply

infuse one’s own time, space and assumptions into the practice to study it. The basic understanding of

our existence can alter drastically; we can believe that the sky is held up by a titan; we can believe we

live on a fixed disc with celestial bodies circulating around us; and we can believe everything we

experience is only a computer simulation and nothing is real. In short, the understanding of our

surroundings can alter dramatically. The foundational assumptions we use to interpret the world differ.

Because of this the most rudimentary suppositions can be subjected to scrutiny, done most commonly

from outside the sphere where the assumption is widely accepted. In the case of the Theosophical

Society this is certainly true. The Theosophical ontology is based upon assumptions which escapes

common sensory investigation and eludes materialist premises. In order to explain the emic

understanding of astral projection from an etic perspective, the method used will be that of discourse

analysis. This choice is due to the structure that discourse analysis provides as well as the

comprehensive understanding it enables. It aids in understanding the concomitant ontology of astral

projection, which is twofold. Firstly, the ontology is the agents’ frame of reference– their own way of

understanding – and secondly, it is the epistemological structures of the agents’ environment – how

the discourse position itself in relation to other discourses in the surrounding society. We will soon

dive deeper into the theoretical parts of discourse analysis.

We will begin with a presentation of discourse analysis followed by a short summary of relevant

ideas existing in the time our study takes place, the late nineteenth-century. Then we proceed to an

introduction of Blavatsky, the relation she had to her work and the Theosophical Society, as these are

things which would impact the development of the practice of astral projection. As the Theosophical

Society lay as a backdrop to the social sphere Blavatsky was located in, it will be looked at in more

than passing. We will focus on exploring the ontology and physiology presented by Blavatsky, to then

continue to how astral projection was perceived to function and the reason it was a desirable practice.

Following this is a further look on how the ontology and physiology of Blavatsky changed in her late

17 Chorus from “It’s only a paper moon” written by Harold Arlen, Yip Harburg, & Billy Rose in 1933.

5

writings and what effects this had on astral projection as a practice and how this altered the function of

astral projection. This will inevitably lead us to attempt to explain why these changes were necessary.

As such, a main focus of this thesis is the discourse Blavatsky created and maintained.

Discourse Analysis

The idea of discourses has an underlaying, common foundation which is to be found in social

constructionist epistemology. The starting point of this is the idea that we, through our language,

“create representations of reality that are never mere reflections of a pre-existing reality but contribute

to constructing reality.”18 In our society we have structures which define words and can ascribe them

different meanings dependent on where the structure is contextually located. If we were to only

converse in a context where everyone believes the exact same thing, our social interactions, such as

conversations, writing books or publishing periodicals, would need no explanation or clarification and

everybody would propose the same actions to be possible responses to that interaction. This is

obviously not the case. As we express our understanding of our environment, we display the strategies

we employ in order to retain our discursive understanding of the world. Our language does not simply

reflect the world as it is, but how we perceive it to be and how we communicate our beliefs to others –

both those who agree with us, as well as those who disagree with us.19 As an example, one group can

know that an environmental disaster is the result of global warming, another can know the same

disaster is a punishment from a god, while a third group knows it is a natural occurring phenomenon.

Each explanation relays how we categorize and interact our surroundings.

As hinted at above, the basic premises of discourse analysis come from social constructionism.

Even though social constructionism as an umbrella term hardly is a coherent theorem, it too has some

common characteristics. Four basic notions which are things “you would absolutely have to believe in

order to be a social constructionist”20 are as follow:

• A critical stance toward taken-for-granted knowledge.21 The world is not directly mediated from

being ‘out there’ to a complete mental understanding of it. We understand the world through

categorizing the objects and phenomena in it. ‘To know’ is a product of categorization which can

yield multiple interpretations.22

18 Jørgensen & Phillips, (2002), pp. 8–9 19 Gergen, (2015), pp. 1–3 20 Burr, (2003), p. 2 21 Burr, (2003), pp. 2–3 22 Jørgensen & Phillips, (2002), pp. 8-9

6

• Historical and cultural specificity.23 The creation of meaning is contingent on social context, and

each social context is a field for a possible construction of reality.24 Therefore, each social context

must be placed in relation to the other social contexts as part of the construction of reality.25

• Knowledge is sustained by social process.26 Knowledge is created through social interactions and the

understanding of this knowledge is consensual.27 I.e. knowledge is created and maintained through

communication.28 Social interactions help maintain what knowledge is right and what knowledge is

wrong.

• Knowledge and social action go together.29 Constructed knowledge generate, within its sphere of

influence, different acceptable actions while making others unthinkable.30

The version of discourse analysis I will employ is based upon Norman Fairclough’s critical

discourse analysis (CDA). Critical discourse analysis is both a term for a larger type of discourse

analysis and a more specific form, located within the larger type. Basically, this approach means that

language is considered to be expressions of a discourse while simultaneously contribute to maintain

the discourse itself. Discourse is constituted by language while language is constitutive and forms the

discourse. As language is used within the discourse it should always be seen in its context. Different

contexts have different ability to infer change or affect the larger discourse. In other words, people

located in the discourse are part of different contexts which share the discourse and because of the

differing contexts these people have different amount of power to change the larger discourse

according to their beliefs. Therefore, expressions of a discourse are also expressions of power – those

able to change the discourse according to their beliefs have a larger impact on the discourse and thus

more power (e.g. a poor black trans woman have less of an ability to infer change to a discourse than a

rich white man). In addition, the discourse of the researcher must also be considered as this agent

infuse the studied discourse with the researcher’s own discourse (i.e. the researcher is not only an

objective observer simply perceiving the world as it is. The researcher is an active agent choosing

what to see, how to understand it, and why it is worth noting).31

As expressions of a discourse are in general hard to perceive one must look closely to find them.

This is easier when looking at a discourse separated from oneself, such as a social context practicing

23 Burr, (2003), pp. 3-4, 24 Moberg, (2013), p. 8 25 Jørgensen & Phillips, (2002), p. 5 26 Burr, (2003), pp. 4-5, 27 Moberg, (2013), p. 8 28 Granholm, (2013), p. 47 29 Burr, (2003), p. 5 30 Jørgensen & Phillips, (2002), p. 6 31 Jørgensen & Phillips, (2002), pp. 60-64

7

magic more than 100 years ago. However, a strategy to find clear expressions of discourse is to find

where things have gone wrong. This Fairclough terms ‘cruces’ or ‘moments of crisis’.32 The reason

this strategy is effective and will be deployed in this thesis is because in these moments the dominant

discourse generally strives to maintain hegemony. When someone expresses ideas that are ‘wrong’ a

need to correct this arises. A clear example of this, which we will return to more in depth later, is an

article Blavatsky and Mabel Collins (1851-1927) wrote in 1888 entitled “Dialogue Between the Two

Editors”. The first two sentences explain three crucial points. Firstly, it explains what some people

believe, secondly that this belief is wrong, and lastly, that this belief will be corrected as it is not the

same belief as in the dominant discourse.

A discourse is, in practice, never singular and always exists in relation to other discourses.

Abstruse as these interactions are, we need a way to structure them. One way, presented by Kennet

Granholm, is to think of a discourse as a constitutive element of a ‘discursive complex’.33 The singular

discourse is part of a greater conjunction of a plurality of discourses – a discursive complex. In this

way a discourse can be situated with other discourses in an amalgam: every discourse is part of the

complex which in itself creates the larger context for the singular discourse.34 A discourse can be part

of different complexes and thus be understood with different ancillary frameworks. However, a

discursive complex should, in this theoretical manner, be considered to be “the ideal type.”35

Discourses are fluid and fluctuating as they jockey for position and strive for hegemony. They are

affected by both the discourses in the discursive complex but also by ancillary discourses. Ancillary

discourses include, but are not limited to, the social, political, religious, and economic societal roles

surrounding the discourse and discursive complex studied.36 However, discursive complexes and their

constituting discourses are ways to look at the larger structure surrounding an individual or group of

individuals. In addition to this, we need to apply to perspective of the individual acting, constituting

and disseminating the discourse.

Pivotal to the construction of a discourse is its dependence upon individuals who can internalize

and relay the structures of understanding. Crucial to the production of discourse is the individual. For

the individual to in turn reproduce the discourse and disseminate it further, the individual needs to

identify with the discourse. The individual is part of a larger context, a community. In fact, the

individual is usually part of several communities at the same time in the same geographical location.

This confers that the individual is part of several discursive complexes. In the present study

Theosophy can be seen as a discursive complex which has a heavy epistemological weight. The

knowledge of Theosophy is not primarily knowledge of empirical studies, physical experience, or

32 Fairclough, (1992a), p. 230 33 See Granholm (2013) for a more elaborate explanation and contextualization of this term. 34 Granholm, (2013), pp. 51-53 35 Granholm, (2013), p. 52 36 Granholm, (2013), p. 54. For a similar argument, see Von Stuckrad, (2005), p. 6.

8

memories of sensory stimulation. The Theosophical knowledge is conveyed through the group of

individuals who identify as Theosophists and who subscribe to the ontology Theosophy supplies.37

Therefore, a significant point to understand the Theosophical ontology (which we will delve deeper

into below) is to emphasize that the ontology is a tool of identification in which individuals interact to

strengthen and negotiate the communal knowledge they possess.38 In other words, their knowledge of

the discourse is both constituting the discourse and functions as a constitutive aid – a reason making it

desirable to maintain it as a singular discourse in which Blavatsky’s writings generally constitutes the

hegemonic position. However, the understanding of the Theosophical discourse is dependent upon the

individuals constituting the discourse. These individuals originate from different discourses with

different ontologies which is their basis of understanding. These ontologies consist of both their

previous esoteric discourses, but also of ancillary discourses. Therefor it is important to remember that

it is individuals who constitute the collective and these individuals, in turn, interpret the collective

differently.

Limitations

In order to have a functional framework in my analysis, some aspects of the discourse analysis have

had to be withdrawn or remain in the background. One such aspect is the reception(s) of texts. This is

part in due to the amount of work required to give this aspect the attention it deserves, but also because

similar notions are dealt with when contextualizing the production of the texts. Therefor I will present

how the texts are situated in their context, but not how the context (other social actors) reacts to the

texts. This includes a wider reception of the texts, spanning over time as well.39

In addition, this thesis relies solely upon textual sources. This is not in denial of the efficacy or

historic use of other mediums of communication but because these are in large, for obvious reasons,

not available to us. However, as the textual sources are reflective of their context and the discourse in

which they are produced, the textual sources should be seen as reflective of the discourse rather than

an anomaly of ditto.

It should be remembered that all the practitioners’ accounts of experiences will be treated as

37 Theosophy itself is not a singular ontology, but a system of underlaying ideas. However, in the

Theosophical context there are limiting factors making certain ontological claims impossible and limits the scope of possible ontologies that can be considered as ’Theosophical’.

38 For further discussion on epistemological agents as elements in wider domains, see Nelson (1993), pp. 46-48.

39 The sources Blavatsky draws upon can be included in the category of ’Western Learned Magic’ and despite Blavatsky’s impact on later productions in this category these will also be omitted. See Otto, (2016) for more on western learned magic.

9

expressions of a discourse. As such the veracity of the statements is not the object of inquiry. These

accounts will be seen as accurately displaying the believes and ideas of those expressing them.

Therefore, statements later retracted by the individuals as incorrect or only partial correct will be seen

as expressions of a later discourse and used to examine how the concepts expressed has shifted over

time – as will be seen when we examine Blavatsky’s explanation of astral projection.

Lastly, this thesis focuses on Blavatsky’s portrayal of astral projection. Her position in the

Theosophical Society allowed her to become the source of legitimacy in doctrinal questions.

Therefore, the discourse of the Theosophical Society in large reflected her position in matters of

theory even if the society in large also affected her theorizing.

10

Spirits, Spiritualism, and

Separations of the Soul in the

Late Nineteenth-Century

“Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”40

Conjuring and communicating with spirits is not a phenomenon new to the spiritualism of the 19th

century, just as the existence of spirits as the disembodied soul of people is not a novel idea. In the

quote above Saul asks a non-Israelite, ‘the witch of Endor’, to raise the spirit of Samuel. A practice

deemed impossible by some biblical commentators for the first time around the 11th century.41

The spiritualism birthed in the nineteenth century was dependent upon the biblical notions of a

soul but also relied on more contemporary thinkers. One early influence on the later spiritualism was

the Swedish clairvoyant, Extraordinary Assessor to the Board of Mines and prophet proclaiming the

second coming of Christ, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772).42 Swedenborg taught that humans

originally dwelled together with God and were able to see the spiritual reality in nature. Swedenborg

was to reintroduce this ability to humanity. The compositional duality of the world would become a

prominent notion of spiritualism. Swedenborgianism developed in England and gained official

principles of faith and congregationalism in 1810. It continued to spread throughout the British empire

and arrived in North America in 1784.43

With a slightly different approach, Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) presented his theories on

animal magnetism in 1779, which proved an enduring influence. This despite Mesmer himself

rejecting a mystical interpretation of his ideas, stating that “all effects are due to modifications of

matter and movement.”44 Contrary to his intention, animal magnetism was promoted by, amongst

40 Samuel 1:8, The Bible, New International Version. 41 Bohak, (2008), p. 38 42 Williams-Hogan, (2016), pp. 211-212, 214-216 43 Williams-Hogan, (2016), p. 221. The total number of Swedenborgians in 2014 was estimated to be

around 50.000. Ibid, p. 222. 44 Mesmer, (1799), p.68 quoted in Crabtree, (2016), p. 229, emphasis in original.

11

others, the Swedenborgian society of Stockholm. They meant the efficacy of Mesmer’s theories were

dependent upon a spiritual agency consistent with Swedenborg’s theories.45 However, to Mesmer

animal magnetism was a healing method which influenced the “magnetic fluid” of his patients through

the ‘magnet’ which was the physicians’ own body, altering an invisible fluid pervading the universe.46

This was soon expanded upon by others, such as Armand Marie Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de

Puységur (1751-1825). Puységur applied Mesmer’s techniques and theories on workers on his estate.

He soon concluded that the personality of his patients altered drastically between their normal state

and that of the somnambulism they displayed during the procedure. Continued experiments lead

Puységur to conclude that his patient during treatment could exercise a sixth sense and react to his

thoughts, although they had no recollection of the procedure themselves.47 Puységur contributed to

keep Mesmer’s practice popular, both medically and paranormally, despite official commissions

proclaiming their conclusion that animal magnetism was “judged devoid of scientific merit.”48

Blavatsky claimed “[t]he wonders of mesmerism /…/ defy tricksters, skepticism, stern science, and

dishonest mediums; the cataleptic state it is impossible to feign.”49

Another influence upon the theories of Blavatsky was the works of a French socialist, neo-

Catholic, and later occultist, under the nom de plume Eliphas Lévi (Alphonse-Louis Constant, 1810-

1875).50 Lévi’s books on magic are considered to be among the founding works of occultism.51 He was

fascinated by Mesmer and magnetism and his works reflect this interest and the context surrounding

him. Lévi’s occult writings were even published by the most influential German medical publishing

house on spiritualistic magnetists, who advertised his writings as “magnetistic studies.”52 Magic was to

Lévi no obscure, transcendent or clandestine operation. Magic was “a science universelle”.53 A key

idea was that there is an essential truth at the base of all the religions and that this truth is the same as

scientific truth. Miracles and the supernatural was merely this truth in action, performed by a

magician.54 Much like Mesmer, Lévi saw miracles and magic as alterations and manipulations of the

45 Crabtree, (2016), p. 232 46 Crabtree, (2016), pp. 223–224, Godwin, (1994), p. 151 47 Crabtree, (2016), pp. 226–227 48 Crabtree, (2016), p. 224 49 Blavatsky, (1877), p.1:166, emphasis in original. 50 McIntosh, (2015), p. 223. The penname was intended to be a Hebrew version of his Christian names. 51 Strube, (2016b), p. 373 52 Strube, (2016b), pp. 372, 375–376. Lévi was well known in the French socialist circles, although there

under his profane name Constant and his socialist publications even landed him in prison on multiple occasions. It was in the socialist discourse Lévi started to develop his occult theories. For more on this, see Strube, 2016b.

53 Strube, (2016b), p. 374, emphasis in original. 54 McIntosh, (2015), p. 225

12

invisible component of nature. To Lévi, the medium enabling miracles was the astral light.55 All thing

living leave traces in the astral light and the astral light can be operated through imagination, will and

intelligence.56 The astral light followed immutable laws, controlled by the “volonté” (will) of the

magician.57 This idea will experience a resurgence with Blavatsky. Further connecting Blavatsky and

Lévi is their social life, for instance; both Lévi and Blavatsky lived with the Gebhard family in

Germany, first pupils of Lévi and later keen Theosophists.58 This shows the enduring allure of grand,

universal theories of metaphysics in certain groups and contexts and that some expanded their

understanding of occultism and adopted new influences into their ontological understanding.

A movement drawing from the theories of Mesmer and Lévi was a movement our protagonist

Blavatsky became heavily involved with before the start of Theosophy: the spiritualist movement. In

1848 the Fox sisters59 enjoyed massive publicity through their spirit communications in Hydesville.

Communications which, after the discovery of human remains in the basement, gained credibility and

immense popularity. It even became the subject for researcher to scientifically establish how these

communications with the deceased functioned.60 Not only the scientific community were interested in

the phenomenon. Interest in spiritualism became so widespread that a writer even called it an

“invasion of spirit people”.61 Even in American politics spiritualism entered in a grandiose way when

Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927), a medium and psychic healer, ran for president in 1872 on a partially

spiritualistic platform.62 While placing the birth of modern spiritualism at the time of the Fox sisters is

a clear artificial separation from earlier, similar theories, it is correct to point to this time as the time

spiritualism formed as a movement and could serve to identify and self-identify its members.63

The central aspect of modern spiritualism as it arose in America can be framed quite easily: “the

living could communicate with those across the threshold of death.”64 Spirits of the dead lingered in

the world of the living and could be contacted and communicated with through mediums in seances.65

Seances were held outdoors, in theaters or in auditoriums as public events and could attract thousands

55 Which Lévi connected closely to magnetism – something he explicitly equated with magic. Strube,

(2016b), p. 375. 56 McIntosh, (2015), pp. 226–227 57 Strube, (2016a), p. 65 58 Lévi lived with them in 1871 and Blavatsky in the 1880’s. McIntosh, (2015), p. 224. 59 I.e. Leah Fox Fish (1814–1890), Margaret Fox (1833–1893), and Catherine Fox (1839–1892). 60 Godwin, (1994), pp. 187-188 61 Lachman, (2015), p. 612 62 Lachman, (2015), p. 612. Woodhull was the first woman to run for president. A candidate for the Equal

Rights Party with focus on spiritualism, free love, feminism and socialism. She was at the time of the election in prison awaiting trial for distributing ‘indecent’ literature, a charge that was dropped soon after the election.

63 Gutierrez, (2016), p. 328 64 Gutierrez, (2016), p. 237 65 Oppenheim, (1985), p. 165

13

of spectators. The spirits could be relatives of spectators or prominent figures such as William

Shakespeare or Benjamin Franklin.66 Less prominent figures were also popular; the buccaneer John

King was a well-known pirate appearing in seances on both sides of the Atlantic.67 The source for

these operations were a particular view of the human constitution. The occult human constitution

emphasized the interior faculties of man and refuted the notion of human constitution as strictly

material. In this view, the human consciousness was not simply a product of brain activity, it was

spiritual and possibly even a spark of divinity.68 This spark became with spiritualism present in there

here and now, rather than just the ‘beyond’. While communing with the dead had previously had an

aura of sepulchral connotations. The new spiritualism evolved from religious revival, democracy,

optimism and social experimentation.69 A novelty to the movement was its democratic roots and the

ability to invoke spirits became possible to everyone.70 As a democratic movement, the developments

and practices were public property. The democratic spirit also enabled access to a large variety of

apparitions as the spirits were deemed to be present in the realm of the living.

While some channeled spirits of the dead, others made even further claims: the possibility to

‘project the spirit’ of a living individual and to communicate with others at great distance.71 The main

protagonist of this paper, Blavatsky, was in contact with the idea of ‘projecting the spirit’ as early as

1854. During this time, she did also function as a catalyst to channel spirits. The French magnetizer

Victor Michal (1824-1889) theorized that an ‘aromal body’ occupies the area between the physical

body and the soul. The ‘aromal body’ can travel through corporeal bodies and be physically

transported, even without one’s knowledge.72 Michal is said to have magnetized Blavatsky, finding her

to be an excellent subject taking on a completely alien character while entranced. Whether Blavatsky

enjoyed this practice or not I will leave unsaid, but their cooperation ended due to Blavatsky’s

“frightful attacks of anger” upon returning to her normal self.73 However, for the ‘aromal body’ to be

transported the subject to be transported had to be magnetized, a stark differentiation from Blavatsky’s

later astral projection.

Magnetizers and mediums were not the only parties interested in the new phenomenon of

Spiritualism. As briefly mentioned, there was a scientific interest in the ideas of spiritualism and many

journals started to discuss these questions. One was the British Spiritual Telegraph, in which phrases

66 Gutierrez, (2016), p. 238 67 Godwin, (1994), p. 291 68 Owen, (2004), p. 114 69 Owen, (1989), pp. 4-5 70 Owen, (1989), p. 5 71 Godwin, (1994), pp. 194, 133-134 72 Godwin, (1994), p. 281. Similar themes can be discerned later in the Theosophical Society as well. 73 Godwin, (1989), p. 6

14

like “[m]an is a sprit while he is in the body, as truly as when he is out of it”74 was not uncommon.

Perhaps this emphasizes the Christian context of Spiritualism more than anything. One famous

spiritualist during this time was Emma Hardinge Britten (1823-1899). She published articles on the

subject, with titles as “Spirits of the Living”, published in the Spiritual Telegraph,75 and “On Living

Spirits and Dying Spiritualism” in the Banner of Light.76 One of her early contributions of special

interest in this paper was her emphasis on the spirit as a new part of human physiology. Some even

regard this tenet to be the most fundamental assumption of Spiritualism.77 However, she did introduce

another idea.

Britten’s article in the Spiritual Telegraph describes an event in which she channeled a female

spirit ‘accompanying’ an acquaintance. Despite her attempts at describing the spirit, her acquaintance

does not recognize who the spirit might be. A few weeks later the acquaintance wrote Britten and they

decided to rendezvous. As they met, the acquaintance presented a letter in which relatives of the spirit

announced her passing. However, her death had occurred in the week after Britten’s channeling of the

spirit. This meant that the spirits did not require the death of the person’s body to receive new abilities:

the post-death abilities could be accessible while the person was still alive. In addition, Britten also

expressed ideas of her time and in addition to articles she edited books.78 In these she presented,

amongst other things, a theory claiming an innate potential of all humans that could be developed, an

innate psychic or magic power which had given rise to all religion.79 Notice the similarity to Lévi’s

science universelle and the idea that magic was the origin to miracles which in turn spawned

religion.80

Spiritualism contributed to more than just communications with spirits. Women were deemed to be

both more pious than men and more prone to suffer from psychological illness due to their ‘sensitive

nerves’.81 The sensitivity in combination with devoutness made women excellent mediums and created

a forum for women to speak, and be listened to, in public. In other religious contexts, such as in

church, it was completely out of the question to allow a woman to speak to the congregation.

However, while men spoke of spiritualism in their normal state, women spoke of spiritualism in

74 Morrell, (1859) p. 212. However, the foundation of this idea is heavily reliant upon Christianity and the

“scriptural facts /…/ [of] the plain, substantial texts of scripture, that that [sic] [the] church builds many of its dogmas.” Ibid, p. 221

75 Hardinge Britten, (1860a), p. 469 76 Hardinge Britten, (1860b), p. 2 77 Deveney, (2015), p. 120 78 Britten was ”a vehicle for the ideas of ‘Chevalier Louis de B_’ a member of the Orphic Circle /…/ who

was probably Ernest van Bunsen.” Godwin, (2013), p. 19. This betrays the fact that several societies and organizations was formed to study and theorize about the spiritualist phenomena.

79 Godwin, (2013), p. 19 80 Strube, (2016b), p. 374 81 Braude, (2001), pp. 82-83

15

trance. A woman was required to be in trance since this meant the woman’s voice was not her own,

but that of a spirit.82 The passive state of trance led to new problems, such as the accountability of a

medium acting indecent. A new preference evolved: the medium should be in a state of active trance.

Her voice was that of a spirit, but she was aware of what she was doing and could hear herself.83 The

importance of remaining in an active state was also stressed by those around Blavatsky. Both Henry

Steel Olcott (1832-1907), cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and Alfred Percy Sinnett (1840-

1921) emphasized that she received Isis Unveiled without a state of passive trance.84 However,

Blavatsky’s account of writing Isis Unveiled also states that she was shown and told the things she

wrote down, closely mimicking the ideal of conscious reception of messages from agents other than

that of the receiving individual.85

In this manner, Blavatsky followed closely a pattern of female mediums who gained fame and

reputation for their abilities. A woman was generally considered unable to hold public lectures

unaided.86 “The honest portion of any community”, a writer in the Banner of Light tells us, will know

“the fact that it is well known they have never been able, nor even attempted, as far as we know, to

give such lectures in their normal state.”87 Another went even further on the topic of female trance-

speakers, claiming “the discourse to which he had just listened as little short of a miracle”.88 In other

words, the veracity of a medium was judged based upon “whether she seemed to be able to come up

with these messages in her own right; if the answer was no, then surely this was the work of the spirit

realm.”89

Just as the spirit realm was being used to provide wisdom, it was also a subject of scientific

inquiry. The British Society for Psychical Research (SPR), or “Spookical Research Society” as

Blavatsky pejoratively called them,90 was founded in 1882. It boasted members such as a Prime

Minister of Great Britain, Arthur Balfour, Cambridge philosophers, and even Nobel laureates J.J.

Thomson and Lord Rayleigh.91 Although their involvement ranged from holding a presidency to

82 Braude, (2001), p. 85 83 Braude, (2001), pp. 88-89 84 Hanegraaff, (2017), p. 5, 17. 85 Sinnett, (1886/2011), p. 303. ”"I am very busy on ' Secret D.' The thing at New York [meaning the

circumstances under which 'Isis Unveiled' was written] is repeated— only far clearer and better. I begin to think it shall vindicate us. Such pictures, panoramas, scenes, antediluvian dramas, with all that! Never saw or heard better."” The clarification of “The thing at New York” is in the original.

86 Braude, (2001), p. 85 87 The Banner of Light, 3:1 (1858), p. 5, emphasis in original. Notice the use of ”honest” to create a

criteria for who may comment on the veracity of the statement, a criteria easily disqualifying any dissident.

88 Christian Spiritualist, 1:36 (1855). Emphasis in original. 89 Gutierrez, (2009), p. 5 90 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 330 91 Asprem, (2015a), p. 268, Asprem (2011), p. 145.

16

simply appearing on the membership lists, the SPR could boast a high scientific capacity which aided

the credibility and supplied legitimacy to spiritualist phenomena. The SPR also worked diligently to

debunk frauds in relation to different types of phenomena. In Theosophy the ‘Hodgson report’ is quite

infamous. It states that their investigator, Richard Hodgson (1855-1905), perceived Blavatsky “as one

of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters in history.”92 A Theosophist wrote, a

few years later, a response in a Theosophical journal:

It is Theosophy in which we are interested, and this would remain an immovable rock of strength and

comfort /…/ even if it were possible, which it is not, conclusively to prove that H. P. Blavatsky was the

cleverest trickster and most consummate charlatan of the ages.93

Theosophy, somewhat ironically, mirrored much the scientific sentiment of the SPR. We will return to

the Theosophical Society in more depth below.

Disregarding the discussions of authenticity, we can conclude that spiritualism did not introduce

the idea of communicating with the spirits of the dead or paranormal activities. The novelty of

spiritualism laid in changing the perception of the dead, from departed into another realm, to present in

our everyday lives. It was an old order, irrevocably passing and a new mystical revival, somewhat

apocalyptic in tone, dawning.94 The metaphysical aspect of everyday life became present in a new way

and merged with the contemporary discourse, emphasizing the scientific aspects of the metaphysical.

This is a short survey of the discourse, of the stage, where this study plays out. It is in no manner

conclusive, but it outlines some of the overarching themes the reader should be aware of.

92 Hodgson (1885, p. 317), here quoted in Gomes, (2016), p. 252 93 Mead, (1904), p. 131, emphasis in original. 94 Owen, (2004), pp. 22-24

17

Blavatsky and the Theosophical

Society

It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between

the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge.95

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was born on the 12th of August 1831 in Ekaterinoslav, in current day

Ukraine.96 She was one of three children of an army colonel and minor German noble, von Hahn, and

his Russian aristocratic novelist wife, de Fadeev. Blavatsky gained her famous name after marrying a

vice-governor whom she left soon after to travel on and off quite extensively for the next 25 years.97 In

1871 Blavatsky survived the shipwreck of the Eumonia en route to Egypt, a disaster which in its time

were as famous as the later Titanic.98 Well in Egypt she was taken in by Emma Coulomb (?-1904),

who would later prove a disaster to Blavatsky, and started her first society, the Société Spirite, to

investigate spiritual phenomena.99 However, Blavatsky soon left Egypt and travelled through Europe

to North America, arriving in New York in 1873. The Theosophical Society was founded together

with a total of 15 others in 1875 and it started out as a society with similar aims as Blavatsky’s first

society.100 Drawing mainly from spiritualist circles, the society grew. However, after 1875 Blavatsky

started to denounce “the “crude theories” of modern spiritualists” and broke off from the spiritualist

movement.101

Despite this chapter’s title, one must bear in mind that Blavatsky and her teachings were, despite

her name as author, influenced by the social circle around her. Not only in developing ideas, but also

when these would appear to be relevant. She had the support of secretaries, co-editors and editors

95 From Rod Serling’s introductory monologue to the TV-series The Twilight Zone, season 1, from 1959. 96 Santucci, (2006), p. 177. According to the Julian calendar, which where the current calendar in Russia

at the time, she was born on July 31st. 97 Godwin, (1994), p. 277 98 Lachman, (2015), p. 612 99 Godwin, (1994), p. 279 100 Chajes, (2019), p. 23 101 Oppenheim, (1985), p. 164

18

editing and ‘Englishing’ her work.102 We know for instance that Blavatsky “regularly passed on to Mr.

[George Robert Stow] Mead the articles she wrote for her magazine, for him to correct and revise the

manuscripts before sending them to the printer”.103 G. R. S. Mead (1863-1933) himself wrote that “for

the last three years of her life [1888-1891], I had Englished [sic], corrected or edited everything H.P.B.

wrote for publication”.104 Despite this obvious show of trust between the two there were, again

according to Mead, frequent moments when they disagreed and “in such cases of difference of

opinion, I was always overwhelmed with a torrent of picturesque, not to say abusive, eloquence.”105

Olcott would also edit Blavatsky’s writings, “Englishing [sic] them verbally as he went on, dictating to

me from my almost undecipherable MSS.”106 Obviously Blavatsky was not an absolute authoritarian

author, she employed the aid and influence of others. This shows that while they shared much of the

same ideas circulating within the Theosophical discourse they also disagreed. Many of the

Theosophical Society’s members were inclined to indulge themselves in academic pursuits. However,

while these studies yielded different results, these results were always placed within the Theosophical

discourse. The newly developed theories were harmonized with the existing theories of the

Theosophical Society and new ideas were syncretized to fit the existing mold. Blavatsky was, of

course, part of this academic discourse. She was also the matriarch of the society and decided to a

large extent what theories stayed, and which were discarded. Mead later criticized the use of the

“mantra ‘H.P.B. says,’ as the universal panacea for every ill and solvent to every problem.”107

Considering the Theosophical Society as a discourse, it would never have been what it was (and is)

without Blavatsky, just as ‘madame Blavatsky’ would never have been what she was without the

society. Focusing on Blavatsky also displays the dominant currents in the society as she would have

had to interact with them, either affirming or denying the theories presented.

Despite her literary prowess, Blavatsky would frequently claim that her eloquence was limited.

She is said to have learned English from a governess and never studied it, nor hardly even spoken

colloquially more than a few times before arriving in New York. Despite this, a friend of hers,

Alexander Wilder, wrote that she did speak English perfectly well, something attested in many letters

and other writings.108 This is a factor that could impact the wordings, editing, and nuances of presented

102 Hanegraaff (2017, especially pp. 14-17) names 5 different individuals involved in the editorial process

of Isis Unveiled as well as 3 heavily involved with The Secret Doctrine. He also emphasizes that Blavatsky sometime after Isis Unveiled thought that book was a literary catastrophe. However, what he fails to mention is that his source (Blavatsky 1891) is partly written in defense against allegations of plagiarism: reasons making it desirable to emphasize the chaotic aspects of, and different people involved in, the literary process.

103 Pryse, (1926), p. 125 104 Mead, (1927), p. 320 105 Mead, (1927), p. 320 106 Blavatsky, (1891), p. 244. The manuscript in question was Isis Unveiled. 107 Mead, (1904), p. 131 108 Chajes, (2019), p. 20

19

theories as exactly what was edited and by whom may present Blavatsky’s ideas differently than she

would herself.

It is also important to remember the “syncretistic, synonymizing tendency of theosophical

speculation”.109 The theosophical speculation was “not merely a recycling of given images and

concepts, but an active development and continuation of a genre”110 and in addition, the character of

Blavatsky’s work was also an implementation of other genres (such as science, other religions,

fictional novels etc.). One such, very famous, instance is the attempt to synthesize the occult milieu of

the 1870s’ in Isis Unveiled.111 The subsequent The Secret Doctrine, initially intended to be a reworked

Isis Unveiled, continued the theme of unveiling the secret truths of all religion and all philosophy.112

Blavatsky parted with the contemporary ideas in many regards. One important separation is that she

distanced herself from the mediumistic tendency of spiritualist trance or somnambulism. Her visions

were produced by being present in the world ‘here and now’ by fully present mental faculties.113 This

aspect emphasizes that Blavatsky was shown and could see panoramas of history as a willed,

conscious action. The adepts, claimed to be an altruistic brotherhood working in abstruse, secret ways

for the development of mankind, would later be described in the same manner to give creed to both the

abilities of the adepts but also to Blavatsky as their mouthpiece. With this claim Blavatsky express a

form of rhetoric identifiable in later esoteric currents as well: “a rhetoric centered on the revelation of

secret knowledge, rather than the outright existence of inaccessible or elite knowledge.”114 It should

also be noted that Blavatsky, like many Theosophists, had a habit of claiming absolute truth in, what

we would call, dubious sources at best. Fiction is incorporated into the doctrine and treated as any

other source, making a grand valley of literature available for syncretization.

One contextual import from spiritualism (and perhaps the socialist Lévi) was the theoretical

egalitarian ethos proclaimed by Theosophists. Blavatsky praised religious founders, such as Jesus and

Buddha, but was scornful toward religious authorities.115 Blavatsky also insisted upon the androgyny

of the adepts and that they, like all, eventually would evolve into a state of sexlessness.116 These

109 Asprem, (2011), p. 142 110 Ferentinou, (2013), p. 106 111 Hammer, (2001), p. 61. The book was very much a product of its time. It was not even supposed to be

named Isis Unveiled. The original name was intended to be The Veil of Isis, but this became impossible as there already was a book with that name on the market. (Hanegraaff, (2017), p. 5n5.) Despite this attempted novelty, at least 5 other authors had set out to ‘unveil’ Isis before Blavatsky. (Godwin, (1994), pp. 32, 187.)

112 Owen, (2004), p. 33 113 Hanegraaff, (2017), pp. 3-7 114 Granholm, (2013), p. 50 115 Oppenheim, (1985), p. 167 116 Kraft, (2013), p. 368. Blavatsky claimed the sixth root race would be hermaphrodites, and that the

feminine would merge with the masculine (again, considering the directionality of the merger, masculinity was the assumed norm).

20

egalitarian ideas did not persist. Colored by her context, Theosophy developed into a hierarchical

society which standardized the masculine. The doctrinal authority was spatially dislocated and

dependent upon unknown masters, or mahatmas as they later came to be called.117 Blavatsky refers to

the masters, the adepts, as the authors of Isis Unveiled. The idea of secret chiefs and a secret

brotherhood was an innovation collected from Rosicrucian literature. The secret adepts were, in

addition to anonymous, concealed geographically and they were not necessarily material.118 Blavatsky

defined an adept as “one who has nothing more to learn.”119 Blavatsky calls Moses an adept,120 Jesus

and Pythagoras are adepts,121 and Buddha is an adept.122 In other words, Blavatsky opened up the

foundation to her theories to the established religious communities. However, while she allowed the

religious teachings of established religions, they were only accepted upon one criterion: if they could

be harmonized with the Theosophical teachings. Blavatsky theoretically opened the doctrine up to a

more democratic process, but in practice the teachings were regulated by a small number of central

figures with Blavatsky herself being the most prominent one.

Blavatsky’s prominence was not solely reliant upon the doctrinal structures she conveyed, or

channeled as she probably would put it. Channeling the doctrines meant that Blavatsky was not the

source of the teachings. She was simply conveying a message from spiritually exalted masters who (if

believed in) had a far greater base for legitimizing the claims put forth. This would circumvent

possible allegations or criticism brought forth based upon the gender of the author (as many thought it

impossible for a woman to display aptitude for theoretical and logically coherent ideas). Blavatsky

could then simply refer to the adepts as the true authors, she was just the messenger. However, part of

Blavatsky’s prominence was also due to her personality. She was “a one-woman bohemia unleashed

on America” who scandalously shared an apartment with a married man, sometimes received “mixed

company” while still in bed, were completely void of skill in the domestic arts, and generally “went

against the grain of civilized morality and taste”.123 She had an aversion of feminine ideals but still

managed to be an accepted public figure. In fact, her most frequent types of visitors during her stay in

117 Goodrick-Clarke, (2010), pp. 135-136 118 Asprem, (2015b), p. 648. Olcott also echoed the sentiment of a hidden order. However, while he

claimed that the order might rely upon unseen agents the order had its (physical) existence on earth. Deveney, (1997), pp. 3-4

119 New York World, (1877a/1991), p. 175 120 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:551 121 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:150 122 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:297. Additionally, Gautama-Buddha is, according to Blavatsky, proven to be the

same person as Jesus, another clear example of the syncretistic tendencies. 123 Tumber, (2002), pp. 142-144. For instance, ”’she swore like the Army in Flanders.’ Her conversation

was nearly always ‘witty and amusing, some unnecessarily violent.’” And she “claimed that to boil eggs one should place them directly on live coals.” See also Chajes, (2019), p. 22, Braude, (2001), p. 191.

21

New York were journalists.124

The Theosophical Society drew its name from an earlier tradition. However, the use of the

previous tradition was merely in name, and not in meaning. The name ‘Theosophy’ was suggested by

Charles Sotherand,125 but Blavatsky did not subscribe to its historical meaning of ‘divine wisdom’. To

her it was “an eternal universal wisdom” – the source of all religion and the truth in all science.126 The

Society’s motto was ‘there is no religion higher than the truth’.127 Therefore, all religious ideas and all

advancements in science should be coherent with Theosophy, as Theosophy is the truth. Those who

failed to be coherent were simply wrong.128 Truth could be part of any publication of ideas, be it

fictional novels, religious dogmas or scientific theories. Blavatsky believed that the occidental

scientific laws of nature did not reflect the real laws of nature. Therefore, phenomena unexplained by

science were not only a possibility but a fact.129

There is another important distinction to be made before we look at the phenomenon of liberating

the double. Godwin states that Blavatsky’s public life of occultism could be divided into two, and both

Tillett and Deveney express the same notion of the society in toto, albeit with different categorization

of what the two periods should be.130 While I agree that there is a possibility to discern two different

periods, Theosophy as a whole is a multitude of ideas. Because of the multitude of instances of

Theosophical currents, the society should not be view as a singular entity but as a collection of

discourses in a larger complex. Here we will focus mainly on Blavatsky as the instigator and reflector

of this complex, which eases the problem of distinguishing between the periods. The division,

however, is in my regard somewhat arbitrary as there is no distinct breaking point between the early

and late period; they are intended to indicate the results of a gradual shift in focus rather than an exact

break in the doctrine. My division should only be seen as a constructed categorization designed to

simplify and add clarity to the presentation of ideas.131

At the time of the society’s creation and for some years after, the focus was devoted to practical

occultism.132 One such practical power was astral projection, liberating the true essence of a person

124 Tumber, (2002), p. 144. Previously Victoria Woodhull had been a beacon of feminism, but she had

fallen from public grace due to, amongst other things, her distribution of ’indecent’ literature (see above).

125 Godwin, (1994), pp. 283-284 126 Rudbøg, (2010), pp. 163-164 127 Asprem, (2013), p. 407 128 Rudbøg, (2010), pp. 164-165 129 New York World (1877b/1991), p. 224 130 Godwin, (1994), pp. 277–278, Tillett, (2012), p. 19, Deveney, (2016), pp. 93–94. 131 While the categories reflect observable changes among the practitioners, there is nothing in the emic

material which indicates a corresponding perception or division as presented here. 132 Deveney, (2016), p. 93

22

from its physical sheath. Something Blavatsky described as the apex of magic.133 The origin of ancient

wisdom was to be found in the archaic, spiritually superior India; an idea clearly identifiable in the

early period.134 There was an exotification of “the east” familiar to later currents of esotericism as

well.135 The esoteric lore of the east was crucial and was thought to be the oldest still in existence.136

This was emphasized by the idea of secluded adepts possessing paranormal powers, through which

they could communicate and aid the development of man, to be incorporated into Theosophy.137

Blavatsky did also, prior to the publication of Isis Unveiled, place heavy emphasis on practice. She

even stated that “book-learning /…/ will always prove insufficient even to the analytical mind /…/

unless supported by personal experience and practice.”138 Like other parts of Blavatsky’s teachings in

this earlier period, the liberation of the double could be used to gain immortality.139 However, astral

travel was also used in a far more colloquial manner as Blavatsky had a habit of employing it at times

when serious, personal conflicts arose.140

Just as practice was of main concern in the early period, philosophy and theory were of greater

importance in the later period. Blavatsky even stated in 1888 that one should not become involved

with occultism, nor even touch it, before one knows their own powers perfectly. Otherwise a fall into

black magic would inevitable ensue.141 If black magic, which generated bad karma and was

catastrophic for future reincarnations was not enough of a repellent: practical occultism was

detrimental to the person here and now as well; Insanity or death were possible consequences.142

Before we deal with the practical and theoretical subject of astral projection there are some other

aspects which needs to be clarified. In order to understand how astral projection occurs, why it is a

desirable practice and how this came to be, one must have an understanding of how the human body

and the world is construed by Blavatsky. Because of this each section below regarding the early period

and the later period will include a survey of the ontological assumptions dominant in each period. This

ontology will also touch upon the physiology of the human body and continue to explain astral

projection through the ontology and physiology presented. Following these sections, we will compare

the two periods and their perspective on astral projection.

133 Deveney, (1997), p. 17 134 A search for a ’origin’ were a common intellectual trope in the nineteenth century. Rudbøg, (2012),

p.447 135 Granholm, (2014), p. 31 136 Lubelsky, (2016), p. 73 137 Baier, (2016), pp. 318-322 138 Blavatsky, (1875), p. 217 139 Deveney, (1997), p. 72n179. Additionally, Kabbalah could also be used to gain immortality and

metempsychosis. 140 Tumber, (2002), p. 145 141 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 333 142 Deveney, (1997), p. 41

23

The Earlier Period of Theosophical Thought

In a time when spiritualism was in vogue, the Theosophical Society was still able to be the odd one

out. The Theosophical Society was, in its infancy, a society of secrecy, demanding absolute secrecy

regarding its activities.143 Blavatsky meant that her spiritualism differed from that of contemporary

America, born out of the Hydesville rappings of 1848. Her spiritualism originated from ancient

wisdom, relying on the same sources as Pico della Mirandola, Agrippa von Nettesheim, and Robert

Fludd. It was a philosophia perennis, a string of ancient knowledge protected from degeneration,

passed on through the generations, ancient wisdom which would weave all knowledge together.144

Astral projection, or the liberation of the double, was in the early days one of the goals of the

society. As previously mentioned, mastering the practice of astral projection was the highest

achievable form of magic. In these early days it was even said that the astral form was hindered by

neither space nor time.145 This wonderous idea was built upon an ontological foundation which differ

from a view of matter and time as two distinct separate conceptions. One of the cornerstones of this

alternative ontology was the notion of a parallel but connected sphere of existence, often referred to as

the astral plane. The astral plane was thought to be a physical and material, but normally intangible,

dimension. The astral plane is the most relevant supranatural sphere to us in the terrestrial sphere, but

this is not the only sphere adjacent our corporeal, opaque dimension.146

Closely connected, and sometimes used synonymously, to the astral plane is the astral light.

Blavatsky was an early recipient of Lévi’s notion of astral light.147 To Blavatsky the astral light is,

when active, identical with the Hindu akasa, “the occult electricity … the universal solvent, the same

anima mundi as the astral light” and when it is in its latent state “it tallies exactly with our idea of the

universal ether”.148 As the astral light was everywhere, it was affected by, and could effect, everything.

143 Deveney, (1997), p.49. In practice the society was quite forgiving against those who did not observe

this rule. It remained a part of the society and was annulled as late as in December 1885. Deveney, (2016), p. 96.

144 Santucci, (2006), pp. 179-180. If Blavatsky herself considered her teachings in the terms of a philosophia perennis is, however, not proven, see Rudbøg, (2012), pp.177.

145 Deveney, (1997), p. 29 146 Blavatsky, (1882b), p. 288 147 Strube, (2016a), p. 64 148 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxvii, emphasis in original.

24

In addition, the astral light in its latent state was also thought to capture all events and all actions, that

has happened or is happening.149 The captured events can be accessed without hinderance of space or

time as the astral light exists physically, but in another state of physicality, on “another plane of

objective existence”.150 In scholarly literature it is common to separate the astral light from the astral

plane, which is, in a Theosophical context, unfortunate.151 However, Blavatsky’s ideas of ‘another

plane of objective existence’ and the astral plane are questions we will return to. For now, it is

sufficient to say that they are closely connected but are not synonyms, that Blavatsky’s view of the

astral light was heavily influenced by Lévi, and that the idea of a secondary physicality is heavily

influential in Blavatsky’s thought.

Blavatsky’s Metaphysics

Blavatsky’s metaphysics was built upon a layered ontology and anatomy. Human access to another

plane, such as the astral plane, depends upon the constitution of the human body. Blavatsky would

later revise this description to harmonize it with the move towards an increasingly theoretical

Theosophy, but as it was stated in Isis Unveiled differs from the version that came later. Throughout,

the body was separated into three distinct divisions, with a total of 7 parts. This is most clearly

depicted in an edition of The Theosophist from 1882, as it is intended to clarify a ‘misconception’ that

Isis Unveiled would contradict itself regarding the doctrine of reincarnation (and therefore

fundamental questions relating to the soul and the body). Another contribution of confusion was

Alfred Sinnett’s The Occult World (1881). He denied reincarnation while other Theosophists, such as

Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland, maintained it.152 However, Kingsford and Maitland focused

heavily upon the ‘western’ and primarily Christian elements of Theosophy, adding to the doctrinal

confusion.153 Competing with these doctrinal challengers, Blavatsky strove to clarify this issue and

149 Exactly as Lévi thought the astral light could. 150 Hanegraaff, (2017), pp. 29, 6 151 See for example; Owen, (2004), p. 286n39: “Blavatsky also referred to the Astral Light, but the term

should not be confused with the ‘astral plane’ of the Theosophists, which refers simply to one occult dimension close to that of the physical.” While I do not agree with the astral plane as a simple occult dimension juxtaposed the physical it does echo a stereotypical differentiation many make between these two phenomena.

152 Godwin, (2006), p. 553 153 This did not only result in an immediate clash of doctrine, but later Kingsford and Maitland both left the

Theosophical Society to create their parallel ‘Hermetic Order’. Good faith was kept between the two societies; Olcott spoke at the inauguration of Kingsford as president of the newly founded society and the naming of the society circumvented the Theosophical rule that no member may be part of more than one Lodge, allowing members to be part of both groups if they so desired.

25

stated in her article that a contradiction would be impossible, since the teachings originate from the

same source: “the ADEPT BROTHERS.”154 This is a clear example of Fairclough’s ‘cruces’ or ‘

moments of crisis’: there are several similar theories to explain, and thus make sense of, an aspect of

the world. As a foundational frame is being attacked as failing to explain the aspect, new meanings

emerge. In other words, there is a competing, alternative discourse attempting to become the

prominent one, and Blavatsky delivers a decisive counterattack to maintain her hegemony over the

discourse.

The adepts, members of a secret brotherhood guiding man, is a central aspect of the Theosophical

discourse. If viewed strictly as a social construct, these adepts create a point of reference and the

Theosophical Society provides a social context in which that reference is dominant. In this manner the

adepts are components of the larger discourse. One can view them as a constituting element of

Blavatsky’s Theosophy while others may revise their position as others may be in closer contact to

other discourses. In this way, the individuals constituting the discourse express additional affiliation

with other discursive complexes. The discourse surrounding the adepts are not an intricate part of, as

an example, the Kingsford and Maitland discourse of Theosophy. Thus, an alternative to their

involvement and position is required. In the Kingsford-Maitland doctrine Christianity supplied that

role. This is also a symptom of the academic discourse of Theosophy.155 In the search for truth

different pursuits yielded different results and different members presented competing theories.

Therefor it might be more accurate to discuss Theosophical Societies in plural than the Theosophical

Society as a singular, monolithic collective. The focus for this thesis, however, is Blavatsky and the

‘Blavatskyan’ Theosophy.

Total hegemony was never fully achieved by Blavatsky. She did however attain a mystic aura

which she gladly bolstered through her general demeanor. A charismatic individual with a mystical

past, combined with claimed communication with spiritual masters and an exotic doctrine was to

many an intriguing concoction, undoubtedly contributing to the success of the Theosophical Society

and Blavatsky’s teachings. Attributing her doctrine to the adepts displays an additional interesting

reoccurring phenomenon in occultism: “the propensity to gloss over or be unaware of the fact that

processes of reinterpretation have taken place.”156 Despite influential thinkers such as Max Müller157

and Vladimir Solovyov158 criticizing Blavatsky’s ideas as misinterpretations of Buddhism with

154 Blavatsky, (1882a), p. 226, emphasis in original. 155 Academic should here be understood as a (somewhat) systematic syncretization of available

knowledge. 156 Hammer, (2001), p. 180. This is what Hammer calls ‘source-amnesia’. 157 Oppenheim, (1985), p. 163 158 Carlson, (1993), pp. 46–47. Solovyov’s critique of Blavatsky was conclusive and total and swayed the

Russian public away from the Theosophical Society.

26

contradictory, mutually exclusive elements as fundamental points. Blavatsky’s source-amnesia is one

of the basic premises for her ontology as it will be presented below.

Blavatsky’s Human: Constitution of the Individual

According to Blavatsky the human body consists of seven separate parts, divided into three groups.

The groups range from ultimately transcendent to physical and the seven parts are the core of different

human abilities. Blavatsky’s division is of matter, soul, and spirit.159

Of the three divisions, the spiritually highest tier is the Spiritual Monad. It consists of Atman

(‘pure spirit’) and Buddhi (‘spiritual soul’ or ‘intelligence’). The Spiritual Monad is also called ‘spirit’

and ‘individuality’. This is the true self. Synchronizing borrowed elements, such as atman, is part of

the Theosophical discourse, done sometimes despite, as Godwin points out, the source from which it is

attain might differ. The source of the Theosophical Atman is the ‘Adept Brothers,’ Buddhist masters

who should doctrinally subscribe to the notion of anatta (denying the existence of atman).160 The

Spiritual Monad is immortal, eternal and indestructible. It is after death of the physical individual not

reincarnated but transmigrates to higher forms of existence.161

The second tier is the Astral Monad. This is, despite the name, not where the astral body resides.

This is the division which is most continuously consistent in Blavatsky’s writings as it retains both the

names, but also their meaning (for the most part) into the later period. The Astral Monad consists of

manas (‘mind’ or ‘animal soul’) and Kama-rupa (‘body of desire’). Other names are ‘personal Ego’

159 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:428 160 Godwin, (1994), p. 341 161 Chajes, (2019), p. 29. This depends upon a criterion of spiritual development.

Figure 1.

Blavatsky's

diagram (from

'The

Theosophist',

3:35, August

1882, p. 289)

showing the

constitution of

man.

27

and ‘Soul’. Both manas and Kama-rupa are beyond material and opaque but still able to effect matter,

much akin to energies or forces. This part of man is generally not reincarnated. There are however

instances when this part can be returned into existence. These are cases when “nature’s original design

to produce a perfect human being has been interrupted.”162

It should be noted that metempsychosis of the Spiritual Monad differs from the Astral Monad’s

reincarnation or return to this world. As to the cases when “nature’s original design” has been

interrupted the Astral Monad attempts anew. Blavatsky highlights the difference by calling the

progress of the Spiritual Monad metempsychosis and not reincarnation.163

The third tier is the physical. The physical body is divided into three: linga-sarira (the astral-, or

vital body), jiva (‘life-principle’), and Stool-sarira (the physical body).164 Just as we have control over

our physical body, Stool-sarira, we can learn to control our astral body, linga-sarira. Man can learn to

separate their astral body from the physical, gaining control over the two bodies. This is the liberation

of the double mentioned in the beginning of this section. The two bodies are undoubtedly connected

even though they can be separated and while the astral body is projected the physical is in a state of

abeyance.165 The Stool-sarira and the linga-sarira are the two most prominent bodies featured in astral

projection.

The three divisions of the body were not only separable through astral projection. After the death

of the physical body, the Astral Monad, the soul, could be joined with the Spiritual Monad, the spirit,

if a certain level of spiritual progression had been made during life. This combination of soul and spirit

would then be immortal and could transmigrate to higher spheres of existence; the individual entity

had achieved apotheosis, maintained its individuality and consciousness. If the spiritual progression

had not been made the soul would stay in the material world, slowly disintegrating until complete

annihilation.166 A decaying soul Blavatsky call a ‘shell.’ The shell is a soul (astral monad) in its early

stages of decay, when it still retains some of its physical intelligence and faculties.167

162 Blavatsky, (1882b), p. 288. The explicit cases are abortion, infant death and “congenial and incurable

idiocy”. 163 Blavatsky, (1882b), p. 288. See also Chajes (2019), pp. 3-4. 164 Jiva is not further explained in the article. However, Blavatsky describes it in Isis Unveiled as “a blind

force obeying a controlling influence.” p. 1:140 165 Blavatsky, (1895), p. 299 166 Chajes, (2019), pp. 45-47, Deveney, (2016), p. 95 167 Blavatsky, (1882a), p. 226. In this instance Blavatsky actually calls the shell a ‘spirit’, and not a soul,

but she clarifies that it is the ‘personal Ego’ i.e. the soul which constitutes the shell. The terminological confusion is likely due to her attempt to present the distinction in a spiritualistic context where ‘spirit’ would have a different meaning.

28

Metaphysical Ontology: Syncretistic Science and the Occult

The projectable double is an intricate part of the physical human anatomy. It mirrors the physical

body, existing through an alternative ontology. Just as the human body exists as a triune – body, soul,

and spirit – nature exists as a triune. The tripartite existence of nature mimics that of the human body

in structure. It consists of material and visible elements, an invisible vital principle duplicating the

physical exactly, and lastly a spirit, a source of all force, which is indestructible. Blavatsky also claims

that there are laws of nature which has been forgotten, but which she now could transmit with the help

of the adepts.168 In other words, she created space for her claim that all recent gains in science only

confirmed what the esoteric philosophy always had known.169 This method deserves further discussion

before we delve deeper into the idea of astral light and the astral plane.

With this tactic, science is not a method. Instead it is “the body of statements, the terminology

and/or the technical applications of science.”170 Utilizing such a position makes science rhetorical and

equates it with another system of belief like any other. The metaphorical descriptions used by the

scientific community was taken as literal descriptions. Thus, metaphorical descriptions of an invisible

world responsible for all kind of different forces were interpreted as being de facto descriptions of how

the world is. Spiritualist phenomena, such as mediums, apparitions, and ghosts could then be linked to

these descriptions. This led to Blavatsky’s claims becoming defendable in two different discourses

both struggling to be the dominant one in describing the world. It emphasizes the natural aspect of the

transcendent astral; it is not simply an occult teaching, but also a scientific one. The goal of

discovering the hidden faculties of man and the invisible world became located in the world here and

now, just as the spirit of man had become a constant part and not only a transformation after death.

According to Blavatsky, this is what the burgeoning sciences would eventually prove. Thus, the

ancient wisdom would be the same as the modern science. She constructed, as part of her

macrohistory, a sort of “cosmic U-curve”.171 The U-shaped idea of wisdom over time is part of a

‘redemptive narrative’, as Olav Hammer calls it,172 a narrative Blavatsky utilizes through stating an

abundance of instances from the zenith of ancient wisdom with which Christianity had reached its

nadir and which Blavatsky would return to a new zenith. The knowledge is in the form of prisca

theologia, a lost knowledge which is now to be restored.173 It is through this synthesis we have to look

168 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:587 169 Asprem, (2011), p. 143 170 Hammer, (2001), p. 204 171 Trompf, (2011), p. 47 172 Hammer, (2001), p. 167 173 Worth noting about this knowledge is that it is not a strict prisca theologia. There are instances in

history in which these perennial teachings have resurfaced in (according to Blavatsky) correct ways, but never in their totality or with their correct context.

29

at the astral light.

The syncretistic motor of Theosophy was also a limiting factor in the synthesis of science and

religion. For instance, Blavatsky claimed that the spiritualistic idea of the same soul returning to a new

body (i.e. reincarnation) was incorrect because it contradicted a specific idea of evolution subscribed

to by Blavatsky. This was Ernst Haeckel’s ‘biogenetic law’ which stated that the soul evolved prior to

being born through stages of previous existences; first as a mineral, then as flora, followed by fauna,

and ending with being born as a human.174 As the claims of science and spiritualism is seen as the

body of statements presented, Blavatsky is able to pick and mix which elements are coherent to her

ontology. Through this process the U-shaped development contains nuggets of truth, even at its nadir.

Blavatsky’s rhetoric aims at unearthing these nuggets, implementing parts of other discourses while

simultaneously being able to deny their veracity in toto. Science becomes a rhetoric and dissidents are

not only wrong in metaphysical questions but also in scientific ones, they are less scientific.

One scientific fact, according to Blavatsky, is the astral light, one name for a reoccurring

phenomenon in history. Blavatsky names around three dozen instances on a single page.175 To

Blavatsky this phenomenon has been known to religious characters in history and is becoming known

to her contemporary scientists. Blavatsky’s source Lévi had made attempts at creating an equilibrium

between religion, politics and science. Blavatsky adapted some of Lévi’s theories, such as that of astral

light. The syncretization of science and magic was another notion Blavatsky subscribed to. In fact,

Theosophy was to be understood as a higher form of science.176 However, the Astral Light is only a

part of this knowledge, not the whole knowledge. We gain a more comprehensive understanding when

Blavatsky proclaims the Astral Light as an “all-pervading, subtile [sic] principle which has recently

been baptized THE UNIVERSAL ETHER.”177 Blavatsky even has a chapter in Isis Unveiled named

“The Ether, or ‘Astral Light’”. She equated the esoteric notion of astral light with the ’scientific’

ether.178 Luminiferous ether had as early as the 1830’s gain influence as the medium for propagating

light which soon evolved into a number of ethers, used to explain a wide range of different

phenomena.179 To science, ether was thought of as a sort of ‘catch-all’ medium. It was used to explain

everything from the propagation of light waves, to electricity, and magnetism.180 This displays an

influence from juxtaposed discourses; Blavatsky’s discursive complex does not in itself produce the

notion of ether but imports a discursive understanding of it from adjacent discursive complexes. After

174 Chajes, (2019), pp. 50-52 175 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:125. A clear example of the syncretistic tendencies of the Theosophical

teachings. 176 Hammer, (2001), pp. 219-220 177 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:128, emphasis in original. 178 Blavatsky, (1877), pp. 1:125-162; Asprem, (2011), p. 142 179 Asprem, (2011), p. 134 180 Asprem, (2011), pp. 135-136

30

it has been imported, it is reinterpreted to align with the new discursive complex it has been relocated

to. The later, ubiquitous ether was a convenient explanation for the Astral Light, especially as some

scientists even went as far as calling matter an epiphenomenon of etheric motion.181 Blavatsky adopted

this idea in Isis Unveiled stating “[e]soteric philosophers held that everything in nature is but a

materialization of spirit. /…/ Spirit begat force, and force matter.”182 Recall the triune division (spirit,

soul and body) of man: matching these two ideas becomes an elegant, coherent ontology. This is an

excellent example of Blavatsky’s synchronic, syncretic system, incorporating figurative explanations

as literal descriptions.183 She was not alone in this, others also thought ether to be an omnipresent

medium responsible for spiritualistic phenomena and scientific theories.184 Neither was she alone to

feel a necessity of proving spirit with matter. Visual evidence was near-essential in some types of

séances coming into vogue in the 1870s.185

Equating Ether with the Astral Light means that the Astral Light constitutes more than the

‘immutable law’ controlled by the will of the magician proposed by Lévi. Just as the Astral Light is

beyond the material, this astral medium is beyond the corporeal, opaque material. This type of matter

exists somewhere “in the boundless realm of the unseen universe”, referring to a juxtaposed reality

beyond the physical.186 At this time Blavatsky did not have a singular name for the unseen universe

but as others started to discuss it, some terms were syncretized into the teaching.187 Christopher

Plaisance correctly points out that she came to employ the term ‘astral plane’ only after Alfred Percy

Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism was published in 1883 and she did not write anything about a ‘higher

plane’.188 However, while this terminology is not explicitly used, there are instances which clearly

implies higher planes:

[Even after death some] may retain their third and higher principle, and so on, though slowly and painfully,

yet ascend sphere after sphere, casting off at each transition the previous heavier garments…189

In addition, she would later criticize the alterations of the proof-readers. She gives three concrete

examples of the most profound faults, of which two had been consistently changed to the word

181 Asprem, (2011), p. 141 182 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:428 183 Blavatsky is not alone in taking metaphorical descriptions as literal, see especially Asprem (2011), pp.

132-33 & 141-142, and Hammer (2001), p. 269. 184 Asprem, (2011), pp. 143-144 185 Lowry, (2012), p. 222 186 Blavatsky, (1877), pp. 2:58-59 187 This juxtaposed plane was later termed ’the astral plane’. This was just one of the many parallel planes

and spheres of existence. For now, it should be seen as a concomitant existence slightly out of reach for most people.

188 Plaisance, (2016), p. 397 189 Blavatsky, (1878), p. 69, my emphasis.

31

‘planet’; plane and cycle (referring to reincarnation in different cycles which implies different planes

or spheres in which the soul could be).190 In the New York World from 26th of March 1877 Blavatsky

states while discussing astral projection:

We live in one of the lowest of the spheres, but as we progress in successive lives from one sphere to

another our astral body becomes purged of its imperfections and grossness, and becomes more and more

nearly omnipotent and omniscient.191

The physical sphere is ‘one of the lowest’ and the metempsychosis of the astral body is from

sphere to sphere. Blavatsky would mostly likely have a Christian idea of the place of God as a ‘higher’

existence; she was brought up as a Russian orthodox192 and though she despised Christianity in general

she writes to her sister “when I read about the spread of Russian orthodoxy in Japan, my heart

rejoices.”193 This is a clear example of Blavatsky both expressing and syncretizing the discourse of her

surroundings.

Returning to the ‘unseen universe,’ while the astral light is a force, the astral plane is a juxtaposed

plane. However, what Blavatsky stresses in regard to the body is that the astral- and physical body

occupies the same space. This is not explicitly carried over and applied to the astral- and physical

planes. The imprints of actions and events in the astral light is stored spatially, which is the reason any

event can be retrieved. This also means that the astral light can move beyond the boundaries of the

physical as a medium while still pertaining its status as a force working beyond the physical.

It is perhaps easier to discuss the astral plane through how the physical sphere is related to it,

rather than the other way around. In criticizing materialists, Blavatsky boldly states: “they [will]

discover that it is not spirit that dwells in matter, but matter which clings temporarily to spirit; and that

the later alone is an eternal, imperishable abode for all things visible and invisible.”194 Blavatsky was

not alone to claim this, her contemporary, Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), founder of Christian

Science in 1875, even claimed that people did not even have bodies to begin with.195 Blavatsky viewed

190 Blavatsky, (1891), p. 241. The third explicit case was Manas which had been changed to “Monas”. In an

ironic twist, when Blavatsky actually writes “astral planet” in Isis Unveiled she means “planet” and nothing else. For this, see Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:330.

191 New York World, (1877a/1991), p. 176, my emphasis. 192 See Rudbøg, (2012), pp. 215–218 for more on Blavatsky and her relation to the Russian Orthodox

Church. 193 Chajes, (2019), pp. 20-21. She continues to state that she despises the rituals and dogmas of

Christianity, but that she feels quite different regarding the Russian church. “Such is my silly inconsistent nature.” (ibid.) It could be argued that the notion of ‘higher’ could come from Neoplatonist ideas as Blavatsky frequently refers to Neoplatonists when discussing the truth of her theories (i.e. claiming Neoplatonists to have ‘cracked the code’ so to speak and having the true understanding of the nature of the universe – the same truth as Blavatsky’s truth).

194 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:428, emphasis in original. 195 Braude, (2001), p. 184

32

the spiritual component as the ‘true’ part of the world, or as the part which is constant. Chajes

summarizes how the spiritual component of man in Isis Unveiled is the key to immortality:

Blavatsky presented immortality as achievable in this lifetime through the unification of two inner spiritual

elements, the spirit (a fragment of the Divine) and the soul (the seat of the personality). This unification was

to be attained through occult practice such as astral travel and the development of one’s moral faculties.196

The two examples presented are two non-material developments. After death, the combination of

soul and spirit would undergo metempsychosis, wandering from sphere to sphere, constantly evolving

until the highest achievable sphere was reached. Far from everyone could achieve this. In order to

evolve spiritually the individual had to become closer to the divine through a strict code of conduct,

provided by Blavatsky. As part of this development, members were to develop their latent powers and

study “the laws of magnetism, electricity, and all other forms of force, whether from the seen or

unseen universes.”197 Again, the primary way and goal of development is focused upon non-material

existences. By evolving the latent powers, the practitioner would be able to evolve. This would come

into fruition after death. “[W]hen man dies out of the world of gross matter, he is born into one more

ethereal; so on from sphere to sphere /…/ at each birth a new and more perfect astral body is

evolved”.198 The post-life evolution was achieved by those who became spiritually evolved during

their time as humans on earth.

As far as discourses go, this is an incredibly effective way to isolate the perceived truth. Blavatsky

managed to create an ontology which, if you adhered to it, could only be confirmed by delving deeper

into it. This would cause the adherent to commit more and more heavily to the discourse and establish

the ontology of Blavatsky more firmly in the adherent. By subscribing to the metaphysical ontology,

one would gain some knowledge of the physical, opaque world. In order to gain a comprehensive

understanding more elaborate theories need to be internalized by the individual. This becomes a tool

for the individuals within the discourse for self-identification as they need to internalize the ontology

to a greater and greater degree as the doctrine becomes more and more metaphysical: the discourse

makes metaphysical claims based upon a host of different materials and the connection between that

material is supplied through Blavatsky’s teachings. The macro-narratives explain the true composition

of the universe through a number of sub-narratives. For example, to understand human desire, one

needs to understand the human body. To understand the human body, one needs to understand the

multitude of matter(s) it is composed of. Suddenly the discourse does explain the original question,

196 Chajes, (2019), p. 28 197 Olcott, (1895), p. 400 198 Chajes, (2019), p. 57. The original letter can be found in The Spiritualist 8:10, (1876, p. 117) although

at this point no real names were used; Blavatsky was referred to as “a very learned Occultist” by C.C. Massey, who submitted the correspondence and placed the signature “An English Member of the Theosophical Society”.

33

e.g. human desire in this case, but only if the greater narrative is adhered to and the discourse

internalized. The questioner has gained a discursive understanding of a metaphysical ontology in

addition to the original query: to answer questions of everyday life one needs to submerge oneself

deeper into the doctrine, which in turn strengthens the legitimacy and belief in the answer itself.

The Phenomenon of Astral Projection

The idea of astral projection as a singular practice is quite simple, however, the use of it is nestled into

a complicated web of individual practitioners, each contributing to alter the discursive beliefs within

the discursive complex. So far, we have discussed Blavatsky’s ontology but now we need to embed it

with the practice itself. This is because of the different possible feats enabled by astral projection. In

some regards the practice limits itself to physical excursions. In others it attempts to ascend the fabric

of nature. Even the physical uses (such as projecting the double to another location) become muddied

when we consider the spatiality of the astral light and the bygone events placed there. In this part we

will first look at the context in which astral projection is a possible action, then we will look at the

action from the perspective of the practitioner.

Practice, Phenomenon, and Perception

As mentioned above, John Patrick Deveney has identified four different modes of liberating the

double, or astral projection, in the Theosophical context. These four are, in short, the evocation of

another’s double, accidental projection, willed projection, and to enter and cohabitate another’s

(physical) body.199 Of these four it is the willed projection that is our primary focus here. This is

because, to Blavatsky, willed projection is the highest achievable form of desirable magic. To enter

another’s body and cohabitate it was condemned as ‘vampirism’, leading to living corpses.200 The

evocation of another’s double is a mostly peripheral practice and accidental projection is deemed

inferior to willed projection as it is uncontrolled. Accidental projection will however reappear in a

more significant manner in the later period. To the early Theosophical Society willed projection is the

main form of separation of the self. Before the release of Isis Unveiled Blavatsky even claimed that the

199 Deveney, (1997), p. 2 200 Deveney, (1997), p. 30

34

astral body, when separated from the physical, becomes “almost omnipotent”.201

In short, projecting the astral body was a separation of the self. The projection focused upon

separating the majority of the individual from the physical body. The majority of the individual was

conceived to be a combination of spirit and soul; spirit was the ultimate divine and the soul was two

forces in union. The act intended to enable the practitioner to make this separation willingly and

consciously. When this was achieved a true understanding of the world became possible. It was

evolving the human race forward (or human races).202 Blavatsky claimed this practice to be

commonplace among Indian fakirs and Tibetan monks, with few adepts (but many novices) living in

the occident.203

There are descriptions of Theosophists’ projection of the double. Blavatsky describes William

Judge and tells of how he leaves his body and sees visions, flies and even “roams infinite space.”204

Olcott’s double was seen by Blavatsky as it entered her apartment and added a few lines to her

manuscript. Blavatsky herself visited her sister in Tiflis and found out she had financial issues, all

while physically staying in New York.205 What they have in common is that they are characterized as

achieving an ability to transgress normal, physical boundaries. However, as the astral body transcends

the physical boundaries it is also described as physical, i.e. material. Olcott’s double manipulated

matter by picking up a pen and writing, while Blavatsky’s double disregarded material obstacles to

travel across the world. These are achievements tied to mastering the body within the theosophical

context. In a way, the achievements are successfully in transcending the world, but only within and

constrained by the Theosophical discourse. In addition, astral projection is used as a value assigned to

the higher echelons of the Theosophical Society. The claims of successful projection assigned to

individuals such as Blavatsky and Olcott furthered their legitimacy and isolated the privilege to invent

and change the discourse.

The theosophical discourse is constituting a backdrop to which these achievements are possible

actions, sustained by social interaction. It would be hard to imagine that Blavatsky and Olcott

independent of each other developed their understanding of the world and placed astral projection as a

possible action. We must rather remember the social context and how their interaction with each other

construed the basic premises of their ontology. The examples mentioned above were all in close

201 Deveney, (1997), p. 17 202 Blavatsky did differentiate, amongst others, between the “white-skinned people” in which the

“European blood is fitted” coming from “Civilized nations” and the so called “Easterns” [sic] who by inheritance have “an intuitive perception of the possibilities of occult natural forces”. Blavatsky, (1877), pp. 2:635-636

203 See especially Deveney (1997), and New York World (1877a/1991), p. 178 204 Deveney, (1997), p. 21 205 Deveney, (1997), pp. 24, 21: “[L]earnt that parcel was just received finally, and that Mme. Zhelihovsky

[Blavatsky’s sister] had sold her bird for 30 rubles! She must have been starving.”

35

proximity socially, temporally and geographically.206 They embody the narrative of the early

Theosophical Society. More specifically, they embody the heavy focus upon performance and the

individual’s occult practice. Small details emphasize this even more than the previous example, for

instance: the double is always called the double, or astral body, and not the term linga-sarira despite

this being its ‘correct’ name. The previously established terminology and theory becomes peripheral

when applied to practice.

The physical nature of the astral body when projected is a reoccurring theme. To the reporters of

the New York World Blavatsky explains the occurrence of a ‘shadow’ – to which they could find no

other explanation – as an astral visit from an adept. “He comes here frequently, and generally appears

inside the room. I don’t know why he did not come in here to-night unless it was because you were

here. I went into the other room and spoke with him.”207 The adepts projected astral body is treated as

any material body. It can, theoretically, appear anywhere but chooses the same room. It is also aware

of the guests and decides to avoid them and Blavatsky must go into the room where the projected

double appeared to communicate with it. The astral body of the adept is treated, in its contact with

other physical bodies, as just another physical body. In the case of the adept, it is the subject who is

present with the astral body i.e. the adept is present when the adept’s astral body is. When Blavatsky

describes her astral projection, it is the astral body which becomes present which is not necessarily

perceivable by those in its presence.

The astral body’s connection to materiality is bolstered by a “thread” connecting the physical

body with the projected double.208 The thread is a way to connect the removed bodies to the physical

body. As the practitioner’s body consists of seven parts and astral projection dislocates the ‘higher’

bodies, the thread bridges the possible anomaly of living practitioners having dislocated astral bodies

roaming about without a physical body. In the case of adepts, the thread is not emphasized, or possible

not even considered a factor, as adepts have the possibility to invade physical bodies and claim them

as a new home.209

The thread can be seen as part of the need of material proof of spiritualistic phenomena. The

nonphysical body requires a perceivable counterpart to be regarded as a fact. After the Civil War in the

United States of America there was an “increased pressure on mediums to produce visual evidence of

spirits in part because of the industrial revolution’s emphasis on material proof”.210 A need to

legitimize spirit with matter arose. The thread could then work as a form of an anchor both in practice

206 The example with Judge is from 1875, both other are from 1877; they all were founding members of

the Theosophical Society; all three examples are from New York. Olcott lived in an apartment above Blavatsky on 8th avenue and Judge lived in Brooklyn.

207 New York World, (1877a/1991), p. 177 208 Blavatsky, (1895), p. 299 209 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:589 210 Lowry, (2012), p. 222

36

and theory: in practice the thread keeps the astral and physical body connected, in theory it provides

the materialistic counterpart required to substantiate the claims of a nonphysical body, as the

nonphysical body in large was a copy of the physical body. Nonphysical bodies were generally

accepted in spiritualism the late nineteenth century and spiritualism was widespread. According to the

spiritualists, the spirits of the deceased had previously had a physical body and they could therefore be

accepted as being a new form of a human being. Blavatsky could use this to explain both spiritualist

phenomena, on spiritualist terms, but also attempted to supply the materialists with an acceptable

explanation through her theories. In many regards the connection between the physical and the

nonphysical reflect the relationship between ether and matter, which we know Blavatsky was

influenced by.211 Much in the same vein as those who suggested matter to be an epiphenomenon of

etheric motion, Blavatsky suggested spirits to be the origin of physical bodies: “it is not spirit that

dwells in matter, but matter which clings temporarily to spirit; and that the later alone is the eternal,

imperishable abode for all things visible and invisible.”212 Spirits would be perceived by Blavatsky as

a material instantiation of spirit which is in itself not a separate entity. Just as matter is an instantiation

of ether, the body is an instantiation of spirit. She continues to legitimize this stance by citing, amongst

others, Plato who was in vogue in America where Blavatsky lived at the time and for some time prior

to the publication of Isis Unveiled.213

Astral Projection: Science and Magic

Astral projection was not only the apex of magic, it was a claim of esoteric knowledge as superior to

conventional science. Theosophists articulated their teachings against a backdrop of evolution.

Assimilating esoteric knowledge was seen to be the next natural stage of science.214 As we have

already seen, Blavatsky claimed that esoteric science could explain natural laws undiscovered by

modern science and thus explain the cruces between her theories and those of science. The

metaphysical aspects of human physiology and nature was the key to these esoteric, unknown laws.

The laws “which were so familiar to the Chaldeans and Egyptians”215 gained legitimization through

211 Blavatsky, (1877), p.1:128, see above. 212 Blavatsky, (1877) p. 1:428, emphasis in original. 213 Gutierrez, (2009), p.8. Worth mentioning again in this context is that the reading groups sparked by

the new translations of Plato allowed for ‘mixed’ companies (i.e. they did not only allow men to partake). 214 Hammer, (2001), p. 225 215 Deveney, (1997), p. ii

37

relating them to ancient history. The rediscovered laws were magic, of which astral projection was the

highest achievable form. Blavatsky explains her view on magic, both as science and as an art:

Magic, as a science, is the knowledge of these principles, and of the way by which the omniscience and

omnipotence of the spirit and its control over nature’s forces may be acquired by the individual while still

in the body. Magic, as an art, is the application of this knowledge in practice.216

So magic was not simply ‘magic’ as an action. Magic was the foundational principles of religion

and science; a clear example of how Blavatsky has adopted the previous esoteric discourse on

magic.217 Through astral projection the inherent powers of man could be harnessed to attain almost any

knowledge. Here one major points already mentioned needs to be emphasized. That is the idea that the

astral body is a natural part of human physiology and to the wonderous claims of an inherent power in

mankind, simply dwelling within each individual, Blavatsky laid a surprisingly prosaic foundation in

some respects. One clear example is that astral projection made it possible to travel in the astral light

to whatever imprint ever recorded. The astral body could gain access to the latent astral light and reach

a sphere of the world which was non-material. Again, much like the relationship between ether and

matter, the ethereal astral body would have access to dimensions unreachable by and inaccessible to

the physical body. The astral body would enable humanity, here and now, to reexperience history.

Central to this is, of course, the natural astral body, the linga-sarira. The surprisingly prosaic notion is

that this would function in the same way as our memories do. Blavatsky explains our ability to

remember: “memories are but glimpses that we catch of the reflections of this [i.e. the] past in the

currents of the astral light”.218 In other words: we retrieve our memories naturally from the astral light.

Memories are not information stored by an individual’s brain. Memories are, just like matter,

accessible to everyone. In an egalitarian ontology where matter ultimately is the product of spirit and

spirit is inherent in every individual, time travel and mind reading are performable by everyone.

However, with our memories, it is the reflections of the astral light we access on a day to day basis.

Astral projection is a refined way to gain access to the astral light. For the adept, Blavatsky tells us, it

“is only necessary for him to master the principles of knowledge, and he can learn the details of

whatever he chooses.”219 Our memories are the details, astral projection is the principle. Through this

principle, the esoteric science would be superior to conventional science.220 Through the method of

216 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:588 217 The singular discourse is here the relation to science, it is not an implication that I perceive the

discourse of magic as a singular discourse. 218 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:184 219 The New York World, (1877a/1991), p. 175 220 Since conventional science is just another body of statements, if the body of statements could be

proven incorrect or contradictory somehow, it became possible to challenge the authority of the sciences. Rudbøg, (2012), pp. 274-276.

38

astral projection, knowledge could be gained in a previously unprecedented way. It was because of this

that magic is superior to science.

The method is dependent upon manipulations of the astral light which is a causal force and a

medium. As a causal force it can inflict changes upon the world according to the will of a magician.221

As a medium it works to bridge a gap between this sphere of existence and the juxtaposed spheres

consisting of force and spirit. The latter function is crucial in order to connect mankind to the ‘unseen

universes.’ While the constitution of the universe(s) is mimicked by human anatomy, both categories

of triunes are constantly present everywhere with a need for a connecting factor. The connecting factor

is the astral light.

Connecting the astral body to the physical body when projected is a thread. While the astral body

is gone the physical body goes into a state of abeyance, or “a harmless idiot.”222 It comes alive again

as “the temple would get illuminated by the presence of the Deity.” 223 This only occurred if “the

thread between the two were not broken. If you shriek like mad it may get torn; then Amen to my

existence: I should die instantly.”224 While a human body normally is a union of the seven bodies,

during astral projection the physical body (the Linga-sarira) goes into a state of abeyance as the higher

tiers of the body is absent. In this description, the Stool-sarira (physical body) and jiva (the ‘life-

force’) is depicted as left behind by the manas and Kama-rupa, and presumably also the Boddhi and

Atma (as the divine ‘deity’ is absent). Without the higher bodies the physical body would die. But the

higher bodies are not totally absent from the physical body due to the thread connecting them. The

premise changes when applied to an adept. Adepts, when astrally projected, maintain their cognitive

functions albeit appears “as though in a fit of abstraction”.225 This is especially interesting because of

its implications. When an ordinary person projects themselves astrally the mental faculties

accompanies the astral body. When an adept projects astrally, the mental faculties are divided between

the opaque- and the astral body. Both bodies maintain the mental faculties dependent on the manas

(and Kama-rupa to some extent).

The evolved, adept version of astral projection might, despite the perceived superiority, be the

same as the astral projection of a novice. According to Blavatsky, those skilled in occult science (i.e.

magic) can make their astral body visible or give it “protean appearances.”226 The result of an achieved

liberated double is made visible by “mesmeric hallucination of the senses of all witnesses,

221 Just like the volonté of Lévi, see above. 222 Blavatsky, (1895), p. 299 223 Blavatsky, (1895), p. 299 224 Blavatsky, (1895), p. 299. Blavatsky urged her sister not to become frightened if she were to visit in

her astral body. 225 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:588 226 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:588. Blavatsky also calls the non-adept magician a ‘thaumaturgist’.

39

simultaneously brought on.”227 Pivotal to achieve this is an intimate knowledge of both magnetism and

electricity. Nature is a “servant of the magician” which is “controllable by the perfected human

will.”228 The reason it works is because will “is force, and force produces matter.”229 Through the

application of force the material world changes. It should be emphasized that the ‘mesmeric

hallucination’ is here considered to be a manipulation of mesmeric force. Reinterpreting Mesmer’s

idea of an omnipresent, invisible fluid combined with the theories of Lévi, Blavatsky syncretizes the

previous occult sciences. She also draws upon Swedenborg and “arcane science” which “teaches that

the abandonment of the living body frequently occurs”.230 It is not relevant if the occult sciences

achieved recognition as correct by an established scientific community. Their relevance lies in

enabling Blavatsky to refer to previous thinkers to emphasize the continuance of ‘truth’, ideas which

show similarity and agreeance with her theories.

Just as the influences were many, the different practical applications of astral projection could be

many. It could be used to send or receive messages. It could be used to experience history first-hand.

The liberated double could even, in some cases, carry physical parcels.231 Even more exotic, astral

projection could be used to gain a type of conditional immortality. This type of immortality would

enable the individual to exist independently of the physical body and survive its death.232 It was the

product of an arcane, enigmatic, potential lethal, and highly desirable insight of how the world really

operates. Achieving immortality through astral projection later became a peripheric practice as

‘westerners’ were deemed unfit, lacking the spiritual development required.

If Theosophists could confirm astral projection, in the astral light or in the material world, it

would support the ontology Blavatsky had constructed. The practice of astral projection was therefore

not only a way to gain otherwise hidden knowledge or attaining immortality, it was also a point of

legitimization for the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky was so sure to eventually be proven right she

boldly claimed that scientists would, within a year (in 1878 at the latest), be able to separate the astral

body of animals from their physical body.233 She also claimed the reason science did not admit to the

existence of invisible worlds was because scientists “are probing the insecure ground of materialism,

and, feeling it trembling under their feet, are preparing for a less dishonorable surrender of arms in

case of defeat.”234 Through the practices of Theosophy Blavatsky aimed to gain credibility and

227 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:588 228 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:590 229 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:140, emphasis in original. 230 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:589 231 Deveney, (1997), p. 23. The double carrying a parcel was described as “most curious” as it was also

seen in broad daylight in a crowd of people. 232 Deveney, (2016), p. 95 233 Deveney, (1997), p. 17, New York World, (1877a/1991), p. 176 234 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:185

40

generate an increased interest in Theosophy and its practices. The portrayal of astral projection aimed

to be perceived as magic in occult circles (i.e. manipulation of natural forces through human abilities)

and as a revolutionary new method in science, all to beguile a large audience. The theory of

Theosophy also mixed the two together and attempted to bring science to paranormal phenomena and

explain paranormal phenomena with science.

Astral Projection in the Early Period: Some Concluding Remarks

Blavatsky naturalizes magic and gives it an air of scientism; like mathematics or chemistry, an

intimate and extensive knowledge is required to enable the practitioner practical applications of the

theoretical assumptions. While astral projection could be employed to gain immorality, it remained

publicly a largely hypothetical achievement. The soteriological elements gave way for profane

practices aimed at obtaining knowledge of the present or past, and communicating with other

individuals present in the physical world. Magic, the occult science, was even applied to alley

mundane curiosities such as revealing personal affairs or secret thoughts.235 This is an exciting blend

in attempting to understand the discourse of Blavatsky. While her metaphysical ontology can be

employed as a soteriological narrative, it can also be employed as tools for extracting gossip.

The apex of magic was dependent upon occult knowledge and manipulation of the forces of the

physical world. Very much like Lévi, Blavatsky claimed this to be possible through the will and

imagination of the magician. Much like Mesmer, she claimed an invisible, omnipresent agent active in

the profane life. And like Swedenborg, she advocated the possibility of spiritual, temporary

abandonment of the physical body. Blavatsky drew heavily from a wide variety of sources and she

constructed a discursive complex from that wide variety. Because of this, her theories contain

references to multiple different kind of sources expressing a wide range of discourses synthesized into

a singularity. Of course, this also implies that the discourse constructed by Blavatsky was not her own

invention. She appropriates earlier discursive narratives but reinterprets them through her own

apparatus of understanding. In this manner, the narrative reflects previously established esoteric (and

profane) knowledge. As she relies on established knowledge, albeit her own interpretation of it, it

becomes a potent narrative.236 In addition to the scientism, Blavatsky also attempts at overcoming

possible ‘cruces’ before they have a chance to create discord. She does this through repetition and

restates the accepted knowledge from previous contexts, but reforms that knowledge to better reflect

235 Tumber, (2002), p. 144 236 Fairclough, (1992b), pp. 203-204

41

her ontology.237 As statements, treated as any other statements, constitutes science, the personal

experience becomes a rhetorical strategy.238 The claimed personal experience of Blavatsky is treated as

equal to the findings of science. Blavatsky was neither alone nor the inventor of this design. Hardinge-

Britten’s article in the Spiritual Telegraph, mentioned above, employs the same rhetorical function. In

it, Hardinge-Britten uses her experience in one situation in connection to a separate situation to prove

a new theory. Had the second situation not occurred, the first situation had simply been another proof

of that occurrence.239 Through this strategy the esoteric complex Blavatsky constructs appropriates and

validates the personal experience of others, if they were to adhere to her ideas and are elements in her

discursive complex.240

The physiological and ontological cornerstones of astral projection are dependent upon a parallel

existence of matter which is not the normal, opaque matter. Matter is closely connected to force and

force to spirit; “everything in nature is but a materialization of spirit. /…/ Spirit begat force, and force

matter.”241 The spirit is the truly transcendent. The astral light is a force. However, the astral light is

also matter. Astral projection is the liberation of the astral body, made of the same matter as astral

light. The physiology and ontology mirrors each other in their constitution and Blavatsky supplies the

individual with the tools to transcend the common boundaries of the physical. This is to Blavatsky not

a transcendent ability. Just like some lack the ability to see or hear, most lack the ability to perceive

the world as it really is, according to Blavatsky. In turn this new ability could be used to reach

transcendent spheres and follow the ‘unknown laws of nature’. Phenomena unable to be explained by

science was a fact.242

To summarize the basic ideas discussed above: astral projection was a practice for the spiritually

advanced with a wide variety of uses. The practice was heavily dependent upon an ontology which

divided the physical into different types of matter, in addition to the different forces and spiritual

components of the universe. The human anatomy mimicked this composition and the human body was

portrayed as being a coalescent multitude of bodies occupying the same space. A style of scientism is

employed to spread the doctrine:

237 Repetition in the production in texts or in other communicative events Fairclough calls ”exceptional

disfluencies”. Fairclough, (1992a), p. 230 238 Fairclough, (1992b), p. 204 239 Hardinge-Britten, (1860a), p. 469. Another situation in which this same strategy is employed is the

Theosophical perception of imagination. Hardinge-Britten claimed as early as 1868 that the imagination does not exist as a creative power but strictly as a reproductive one, i.e. the imagination is response and the recreation of external stimuli. Lévi did the same in 1856 and Blavatsky express on several occasion a similar sentiment. Hanegraaff, (2017), pp. 27-28, 11-14

240 This is a strategy Olav Hammer refers to as ”narratives of experience” which can be resorted to when “[t]raditions may be spurious, the scientific underpinning weak.” Hammer (2001), pp. 331, 331-334.

241 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:428 242 New York World (1877b/1991), p. 224

42

the active positioning of one’s own claims in relation to the manifestation of any academic scientific

discipline /…/ without, however, the use of methods generally approved within the scientific community,

and without subsequent social acceptance of these manifestations by the mainstream of the scientific

community…243

This specific type of scientism treats scientific advances as only a body of statements, to which a

rhetoric of personal experience, perceived as equally objective, is added. In this way Blavatsky aims to

overcome any possible cruces before they become problems and strengthen her discursive ontological

claims.

243 Hammer, (2001), p. 206

43

The Later Period of Theosophical Philosophy

The second magnum opus of Blavatsky was The Secret Doctrine. In her view this was the work that

would correct the mistakes, misunderstandings and confusion of Isis Unveiled. After she read Isis

Unveiled from cover to cover for the first time in 1881, she realized it needed to be re-written. She

later wrote that Isis Unveiled

[w]ith its hideous metamorphoses of one word into another, thereby entirely transforming the meaning, with

its misprints and wrong quotation-marks, has given me more anxiety and trouble than anything else during

a long life-time which has ever been more full of thorns than of roses.244

While Blavatsky maintained that theories brought forth in Isis Unveiled was correct, she

introduced new elements and altered parts to fit with the new introductions to the ontology. One part,

which we will see below, was slight changes in the human physiology. However, this shows that the

‘new’ Theosophy was part of an evolving discourse which learned by trial and error. The same method

of trial and error was used throughout the Theosophical Society’s history, much more than adherents

would later admit.245

A point of major focus in The Secret Doctrine is evolution. Blavatsky did not deny the merit of

Darwin’s ideas, rather, she argued that they should be understood in the light of Theosophical

discourse and the term ‘evolution’ is referred to more than to nearly any other word.246 Her

understanding of evolution was dependent upon a repeating progression, the individual-to-be would

evolve through stages: from a stone or mineral to a plant, from a plant to an animal, and from an

animal to a human.247 To strengthen this claim Blavatsky did as she previously done and harmonized

this theory with other theories to create a coherent, elegant ontology based upon statements, regardless

of their origin.248

244 Blavatsky, (1891), p. 241. As mentioned above, this source is written partly in defense against

allegations of plagiarism and while she admits that Isis Unveiled was a literary disaster, she still defends the teachings brought forth in large as true and correct.

245 Deveney, (1997), p. 81 246 Hammer, (2001), p. 257 247 Chajes, (2019), p. 52 248 Scientific statements, narratives of personal experience, fictional works, or metaphysical theories are all

treated as a product of same truth-value. More on this below.

44

Blavatsky’s Physiology and Ontology

The human anatomy continues to be a cornerstone of astral projection and the different dimensions

reachable by the human constitution maintain their relevance into the later period as well. Although

still part of the foundation of astral projection, the human body underwent some alterations which

becomes prevalent in The Secret Doctrine and especially in an article from the Theosophical

periodical Lucifer. In the article in Lucifer, which we soon will return to, the two editors, Blavatsky

and Mabel Collins, discuss the subtler bodies of man in an attempt to dispute claims of contradictions

between Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. The alterations of the human body reveal a slight shift

in both rhetoric and theory. In the following section we will first look at how Blavatsky portrayed the

human body in the late 1880’s, followed by a dive into the ontology accompanying the anatomy,

ending with a closer look at astral projection in this period.

The Human Bodies

In the 1888 December edition of the magazine Lucifer, Blavatsky and Mabel Collins wrote an article

titled “Dialogue Between the Two Editors. I. On Astral Bodies, or Doppelgangers” which is of extra

interest.249 The article discusses the composition of man. It is of extra interest because it is an

exceptionally clear example of Fairclough’s ‘cruces’ – a moment in a discourse when something has

gone wrong and a need for correction arises. This causes the author to highlight the differences in the

understanding of a phenomenon and clarify what is meant when discussing the phenomenon. It does

not only show what otherwise might be embedded in other ideas, in this case it also shows a clear

change from Blavatsky’s earlier portrayal of her ontology. In short, these changes are in quite sharp

contrast to Isis Unveiled and even the slightly later works, such as the articles in The Theosophist from

1882.250 An additional point to be made is the shift in what type of text this is. Both Isis Unveiled and

The Secret Doctrine are written in the same style: the writer conveys knowledge she possesses to those

unaware of it. The text in Lucifer is different and it is the only one I have found which displays this

characteristic; it is in the style of a dictated conversation.251 This displays not only a clarification of

249 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), pp.328-333. This is supposedly followed up by a second dialogue (II. On

the Constitution of the Inner Man and its Divisions in Lucifer V3, N17, January 1889), however that dialogue does not refer to Blavatsky (nor Mabel Collins) by name but is written to be simply between “M.” (perhaps short for Mabel?) and “X.”

250 Blavatsky, (1882a), pp. 225-226, & idem, (1882b), pp. 288-289 251 There are only two exceptions I know of. The first would be the second dialogue, mentioned in a

footnote just above. However, even that ’dialogue’ is not in the form of a conversation but rather a kind of ’set-up and answer’ to clarify different concepts. The second is The Key to Theosophy (1889). It presents the same form and function (although it claims to be “a clear exposition, in the form of

45

doctrine in a ‘moment of crisis’ but also an adaptation of the style in which the clarification is

delivered. This is in itself an attempt to harmonize the discord.252 The text also displays changes from

Blavatsky’s earlier writings, much following the identity change of the Theosophical Society, moving

from practical to theoretical.253

The setup for the relevance of the text in its context is presented extremely straight forward by

Collins:

Great confusion exists in the minds of people about the various kinds of apparitions, wraiths, ghosts or

spirits. Ought we not to explain once for all the meaning of these terms? You say there are various kinds of

“doubles”— what are they?254

There are three kinds of doubles “to use the word in its widest sense.”255 The doubles are still different

aspects of man, three different divisions of existence which all unite in the triune being of man. A

slight change is that implicitly the physical body of man is not included in any of these doubles or

division but is rather thought of as the norm. In addition, the third ‘double’ i.e. division of the body,

corresponds to the spiritual monad above. However, Blavatsky seems to glance over this part of man

as beyond the present sphere of existence and does not attribute it any greater relevance in relation to

astral projection. Because of this we will not delve deeper into that part of man, but it is included in

figure 2 below.

The first double is the double Blavatsky calls the “shadow”, “Plastic Body”, “’Astral’ or Protean

Body” or “lingasarira”.256 Seen from a strictly physical perspective this is man’s vital double during

life and after death only the gases given off from the decaying physical body. The astral body,

lingasarira, is the model around which the physical body, “the fætus – the future man – is built.”257

This body can be seen, during certain atmospheric conditions, as a luminous figure over the grave of

the diseased – a form of astral detritus. The astral body has become strictly physical and as it is

separated from the physical body it starts to disintegrate. The astral body is now seen physically; it

becomes the gas emanating from a corpse, and it is visible, in the correct conditions, to anyone who

questions and answer”), but on a theoretically larger scale: it attempts to clarify Theosophy in a comprehensive and concise form. See Blavatsky, (1889).

252 Fairclough, (1992a), p. 230 253 Deveney, (2016), p. 93 254 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328 255 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328 256 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328 257 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328. An unexpected connection to Lévi can be seen here; Lévi talks

about “how the astral light operates in the formation of a child in the womb.” Mcintosh, (2015), p. 226

46

happen to be adjacent to the corpse during these conditions.258

The second double is twofold; during life it is Mayavi-rupa, and after death it transforms to

Kama-rupa. This is the combination which previously was named ‘soul’ or Astral Monad. During life

the Mayavi-rupa is dual, it is manas (mind)259 and Kama (desire). After death the manas merges with

the Ego, while the Kama, saturated with desires collected throughout life and filled the desire to live,

forms the Kama-rupa. The Kama-rupa lingers in the world without a consciousness of its own,

although it is detectable by a medium.260 An interesting thing to note is that Blavatsky’s spelling of the

borrowed names differs from earlier, just as the function of the bodies have been adjusted.261 The

changes of the characterization of the body is explained as simply a ‘correction’ of previous

misconceptions. I believe this is how Blavatsky would understand the discrepancies; she has always

conveyed the concepts correctly, but others have misunderstood them, or they have become altered in

editorial processes along the way. Therefor there is no change in theory, there is only right or wrong

understanding of it. The cruces are only on the part of the receiver. However, despite some obvious

alterations, she does maintain that the human body is a tripartite being. The general function and

structure of each part of the triune also remains the same.

The different divisions cooperate in creating manifestations of the self, separated from the body.

258 Note that this is a reference to personal experience: it is stated as a common fact which places heavy

importance on personal perception. 259 The manas is in turn divided into the ’higher manas’ and lower manas’. The separation seems to only

be relevant when a living person dies. 260 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 329 261 A possible explanation of provided by a French Theosophist, Papus, who claimed to have proven that

Blavatsky knew neither Sanskrit nor Hebrew. Godwin, (1989), p. 25. Chajes also mentions unequivocal evidence that Blavatsky knew Sanskrit is lacking. Chajes, (2019), p. 20.

Figure 2. My imitation and redrawing of previous figure based upon Blavatsky's later description on the

constitution of man found in Lucifer (3:16, December 1888, pp. 328-333). The use of captal letters

reflects Blavatsky’s continuous use throughout the article.

47

Apparitions of a friend or acquaintance is visually a reproduction of the physical- and astral body

(lingasarira). However, it is not the astral body which is the cause of the apparition. The second

double, the Mayavi-rupa, and primarily the manas (mind) is the original cause. In addition, it requires

intense thought focused upon a loved one or upon the desire to see someone. Science, Blavatsky

explains, has established ‘the fact’ that thought is an energy.262 Therefore, it requires but a second of

intense thought (which Mayavi-rupa, and primarily manas, is the source of) for the ‘objectivization’ of

the thinker’s personality to manifest upon ‘the astral waves’. This is the basis for apparitions,

appearances of phantoms and visions of astral bodies. However, we must not neglect the context;

because the apparition is also dependent on a ‘wire of sympathy’ between two individuals. This is not

to be confused with ‘the thread’ discussed in the sections above. In practice the wire of sympathy

means that the one seeing the apparition must subscribe to the basic premises of these theories. In

other words, the apparition will only be seen by those who believe they there are such things as

apparitions. The wire of sympathy is seen as a connection of psychical energy. Blavatsky also states

that in addition to the wire of sympathy, an apparition must have a reason to be directed to the specific

person it appears to.263

Once again Blavatsky refers to the scientific dimensions of her claims. Using terms such as

‘objectivization’ refers to a phenomenon disconnected from a subject. The scientism is bolstered by

such terms. Additionally, Blavatsky points to the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) and uses their

term “telepathic impact”. But she makes a difference between the research of SPR and the SPR

itself.264 She phrases the SPR in a pejorative manner, calling it “the ‘Spookical’ [sic] Research

Society”.265 This is probably due to the previous interactions between the two.266 Despite this

Blavatsky incorporate their scientific language, another example of disconnecting the knowledge or

theories of scientific endeavors from the process of its creation. Through this process she can relocate

the scientific discourse to her discursive complex and claim scientific support for her theories.

The kama-rupa, the body of desire which prior to death was fused with the mayavi-rupa becomes

its own after death. The kama-rupa is slightly different from the kama in itself. The kama-rupa also

contains the ‘lower’ manas. This means that the mayavi-rupa is not simply consisting of ‘desire’ but

also a degree of ‘mind’. In other words, it retains memories and thoughts as well as desires and can be

channeled by mediums. The ‘lower’ manas is not explained in any detail, but it is stated that it is

262 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 332 263 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 331 264 Remember, science is simply another system of belief like any other. Scientific claims are treated as

disconnected from the source; the claims are constituted by the statements alone. 265 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 330 266 See above. In short: in 1885 an investigation, caused by Emma Coulomb (whom Blavatsky met in 1871

after surviving the shipwreck of the Eumonia), conducted by the SPR, concluded that the Mahatmas was pure fiction and went on to call Blavatsky “one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters in history.” Godwin, (1994), p. 347, Gomes, (2016), p. 252.

48

uncapable of independent though. It possesses life “but hardly any consciousness”.267 The division

between the ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ manas is probably due to Blavatsky’s view of matter and spirit. “The

Occult doctrine teaches that while the monad is cycling on downward into matter /…/ [the monads]

are evolving pari passu with it [matter] on a higher and more spiritual plane”.268 The monads are a

spiritual entity which are, like the majority of the world(s), invisible to our perception. Because of this,

the dual manas can be explained by both coming from a ‘higher’ state but also evolving from a ‘lower’

state.269

A Modern Theosophical World

Advancing the emphasis on natural, occult laws determining how the double can appear is part of the

move towards a theoretical ontology. Blavatsky shifted the apparition of doubles from the material

sphere and the linga-sarira to the more intermediary part of man: the mayavi-rupa consisting of the

manas and kama. This removes the double from the material sphere of existence and places astral

projection on a more metaphysical level. This level adopts a stance in which astral projection is

possible, but only under certain conditions in accord with general laws. The move from the physical

sphere to a more metaphysical sphere increased the amount of theory needed to explain astral

projection. Previously, when the astral body was seen as physical, it primarily followed the same rules

as normal physicality. Now that the physical no longer is the source of astral projection, a more

metaphysical approach is needed.

Although Blavatsky divided man into three major divisions, there is a need to slightly revise this

picture as the synchronistic tendencies of the early Theosophical Society have not disappeared.

Blavatsky combines, amongst other things, Indian philosophy with evolution and science. In her

ontology, the current man is the fifth ‘root race’ of evolution. With every new ‘root race’ new

attributes and new senses would evolve. Evolution meant that the spirit and soul is continuously

reborn and remains the same, but new attributes were attached to them. For example, the first root race

was completely ethereal, and the second root was not material enough to leave any physical imprints.

It was only when the third root race entered history that it became solid matter. Mental faculties were

given to the evolving humans with the fourth root race, who unfortunately fell into materiality and

267 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 329 268 Blavatsky, (1888a), p. 1:247, emphasis in original. 269 It should be stated, however it is with some uncertainty, that Blavatsky retained the theory of seven

bodies of man until at least six months before her death stating the seven bodies as, from ’lowest’ to ’highest’; sthula-sarira (the physical body), linga-sarira (the astral body), prana, kama, Kama-Manas, Higher Manas, and Buddhi. Spierenburg [ed.], (1995), p.4.

49

immorality.270 The more spiritual specimens of the fourth root race became the fifth root race and the

sixth root race would become spiritual enough to shed the bonds of matter.271

In Blavatsky’s ontology the secret adepts were guiding man’s evolution. She incorporated the

theory of evolution with the Rosicrucian idea of a benevolent, secret brotherhood of adepts aiding

man.272 Blavatsky also claimed that a sixth race was dawning somewhere in America.273 Blavatsky’s

great narrative is a form of macrohistory, a term denoting “the envisaging and representation of the

human past in a vast panorama, great movements of human activity held ‘in the eye’ or in unitary

vision.”274 She was in no way the first to employ such a strategy.275 According to Blavatsky, man, just

like matter, have evolved over time and a sixth sense and a sixth characteristic of matter would follow.

The sixth sense was clairvoyance.276 However, the sixth sense of man is already present in some

individuals. These individuals think “even upon ordinary matters on that higher plane.”277 ‘Higher’ is

here understood as ‘more spiritual’ and ‘less material’. Those with the capacity to think on this higher

plane are “beyond, if not above, the average of human kind [sic].”278 Perceiving the double is thusly

dependent of the characteristics of the individual. It is not simply the result of honed abilities, but

entirely dependent upon “the idiosyncracy [sic] of the person /…/ the faculties of a preceding life, and

sometimes the heredity of the physical.”279 Evolution and reincarnation is the main contributing

factors. Clairvoyance had become an attribute, rather than an ability.280 The context of evolution

weighs heavily. To many, humanity was exempt from the theory of evolution. It was impossible to

consider humans as simply material animals like any other and different strand of new thoughts, such

as Theosophy, gained popularity in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.281 This places the

Theosophical Society’s teachings closer to the ‘center’ of the discourse of society in large, rather than

being just a peripheral society without any strong links to the social milieu of its context.

270 Chajes, (2019), pp. 73–74. Staying true to her synthesis of esoteric theory and science, Blavatsky

explained that from the third root race apes evolved, or rather devolved (due to immorality). So according to Blavatsky scientists had understood human evolution backwards from what she considered to be correct.

271 Chajes, (2019), pp. 75-77. 272 Asprem, (2015b), p. 648 273 Gomez, (2016), p. 255 274 Trompf, (2011), p. 43 275 See Hanegraaff, (2012), pp. 5–12. 276 Blavatsky, (1888), pp. 1:250-252, the new characteristic of matter would be ‘permeability’ –

corresponding with the new sixth sense: “Normal Clairvoyance”. 277 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 331, emphasis in original. 278 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 331, emphasis in original. 279 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 331 280 Interestingly enough, although new attributes of matter would appear it is, from what I have found,

unclear if this would mean the development of new human bodies. It is clear that the physical body would eventually dissipate, but not if new bodies consisting of the new attributes would take their place.

281 Trompf, (2011), p. 49

50

Viewing the use of that which is considered ‘beyond’ through Blavatsky’s syncretistic

tendencies leads us to the incorporation of science into the occult teachings. She incorporates, and

adapts, much of her earlier theories – such as astral light – while implementing new ideas. The astral

light she earlier equated with ether, the medium in which all events ever occurred, and all actions

presently occurring, is imprinted. The astral light now “is not the container of all things but only the

reflector, at best”.282 She describes it with Lévi’s term “grand Agent Magique”.283 Perhaps is this a

reconstruction of Blavatsky’s earlier differentiation between active and latent astral light. Matching

this new theme is Blavatsky’s differentiation between astral light and Akâsa (‘primordial light’) in

which the astral light becomes expatriated to an finite existence, a possible source for illusions and

deception.284 Perhaps because of this, the astral light is only the operator for black, malignant, and

psychic magic, called into action by the animal soul (kama, ‘desire’).285 This is seemingly part of

Blavatsky’s rhetoric against ‘practical occultism’, as she now called it. White, benevolent, and

spiritual magic, which at its apex is “DIVINE MAGIC”, is only possible for those whose desire solely

is to aid others.286 It should be remembered that the kama is construed as a primitive cumulation of

life’s desires with an innate will to live, which hardly would qualify as purely altruistic in character

and intent.

The ‘New’ Astral Projection

Blavatsky relinquished the privileged position of practical magic in favor of natural phenomena. This

shows the transformation to a form of astral projection in which different forces can be employed.

Blavatsky has left the transcendent man behind and placed him in a world, surrounded by forces,

spirits, and matter – of which much is concealed. The practical operations are not simply due to the

inherent powers of mankind but also to manipulation of qualities in the surrounding world(s). A case

in point is the work of mediums. The medium’s channeled spirit is a form of evocation of another

person’s lingasarira (‘protean-’ or ‘astral body’). And, as mentioned above, the lingasarira is

incapable of separating itself at any greater length from the physical body. It is, “during life, man’s

282 Blavatsky, (1888a), p. 1:255 283 Blavatsky, (1888a), p. 1:254 284 Hanegraaff, (2017), pp. 31-32 285 Blavatsky, (1888b), p. 151 286 Blavatsky, (1888b), p. 151, emphasis in original.

51

vital double”.287 It is, however, a body capable of transformation. It is also called the protean body

“because it can assume all forms”.288 So, the assigned definition of the lingasarira is that of

transformation. Manipulating the lingasarira is manipulating natural forces, rather than the expulsion

of a physical secondary body. The Mayavi-rupa and primarily the manas is now explained to be the

source of the apparition of individuals. The previously responsible astral body, lingasarira, is now not

even mentioned in this regard. It is however mentioned in another regard. The lingasarira has shifted

from being primarily the astral body, a physical vehicle unlimited by normal physicality, to be

primarily understood as the “’Protean” or “Plastic Body.’”289 It can assume all forms, but is connected

to the physical body and cannot move far away from it during life. This is, according to Blavatsky, the

reason why “materialized grandmothers and ‘John Kings’” cannot leave the immediate presence of a

channeling medium, whether in trance or not.290 In other words, spiritualist mediums channeling

spirits of the deceased is a projection of the medium’s astral body, and not an autonomous spirit. The

lingasarira which previously could function as an autonomous body only connected by a simple

“thread” has now became heavily dependent on its connection to the physical body.

Blavatsky’s explanation of spiritualist phenomena is perhaps not surprising. Spiritualism

antedated the Theosophical Society, which capitalized upon the pre-existing discourse, and recruited

heavily from spiritualist ranks before Blavatsky started to condemn the spiritualist theories.291 If she

were to deny the spiritualist discourse, she had to produce a contender. Blavatsky provides an

alternative explanation to the same, widely popular, phenomenon. She does not only present her

theories as the correct explanation; she uses the spiritualist phenomena to dismiss the spiritualists

explanation and simultaneously use their basic assumptions to strengthen her own claims against their

mutual enemy, the materialists. By pointing to the experience of others, and the quantity of individuals

with these experiences, Blavatsky asserts that their truth-value must be the same, or greater, than

scientific claims. Science continues to be void of method; it is only seen as the statements it produces.

In addition, Blavatsky places her theories within the spiritualist discourse, a competing, parallel

discourse, in order to realign it with her discourse. This indicates one of the challenges of the

Theosophical Society: a struggle to achieve hegemony in an environment of spirituality. Blavatsky

places her theories within the competing discourse and attempts a re-negotiation of the existing

knowledge to align it to her ‘superior’ discourse. This is also an expression of the Theosophical

287 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328. An indication that jiva (the ‘life-principle’ which were part of the

physical human only six years earlier, see above) has been incorporated into the lingasarira. Emphasis in original.

288 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328 289 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328 290 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 238. ‘John Kings’ refers to a well-known spirit appearing on both sides

of the Atlantic, usually portrayed as a pirate. However, Blavatsky did also present to Olcott the idea that John King masked one of the living adepts. Godwin, (1994), p. 291

291 Oppenheim, (1985), p. 164

52

syncretism. Blavatsky portrays occult sciences as being superior to the “bigoted and contradictory

beliefs of materialistic scientists”.292 She also states that occult sciences can explain things ‘material

science’ cannot. However, “[t]here can be no possible conflict between the teachings of occult and so-

called exact science, where the conclusions of the latter are grounded on a substratum of unassailable

facts.”293 Because it is “grounded on a substratum” it cannot “unveil the mystery of the universe

around us.”294 Theosophy is superior to both spiritualism and science while drawing heavily upon

both.

Blavatsky explain apparitions of loved ones as apparitions of the mayavi-rupa. As mentioned

above, the mayavi-rupa consists of manas and kama. Kama, ‘desire’, is imprinted with “astral vitality”

and all the acts of the physical body.295 Recall the astral light; our thoughts and actions are imprinted

on an external medium and this medium is here portrayed as following the kama, even after death. The

apparitions of the mayavi-rupa is now portrayed as a kind of sublime force.296 Blavatsky uses the

example of apparitions of a loved one shortly after their passing, as well as apparitions of a loved one

their time of death. The desire and thoughts of a dying person, “[i]f he thinks very intently at the

moment of death of the person he either is very anxious to see, or loved ones, he may appear to that

person.”297 The reason this is, Blavatsky continues, is because “[t]he thought becomes objective”.298

The apparition appears in the same clothes and with the same facial expression as the dying person.

This is explained through appropriating ‘material’ science, since this type of science has proved that

thought is an energy, man’s double becomes an instantiation of thought-energy.299 The assumption of

an objective thought-energy is strengthened by the fact that the apparition of the dying is perceived in

the clothing and facial expression the source of the apparition currently possesses. I.e. the source for

the apparition does not need to be aware of their own facial expression to be able to project it to

another. This is similar to one of the four of Deveney’s identified forms of astral projection in the

292 Hammer, (2001), p. 266 293 Blavatsky, (1888), p. 1:477 294 Blavatsky, (1888), p. 1:477 295 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 329 296 Much like the ’active’ astral light in the prior section. 297 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 330 298 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 330 299 The objectivity of thought is also used to explain how one can gain knowledge of history through astral

projection. All thought is energy which can be accessed by the astral body. Therefor everything that has ever happened is recreated as energy. This archive is known as the akashic records. Because of this, the astral body can be used to gain knowledge of what people experienced at any time in the past: ”the (to us) invisible tablets of the Astral Light, ‘the great picture-gallery of eternity’ — a faithful record of every act, and even thought, of man, of all that was, is, or ever will be, in the phenomenal Universe.” Blavatsky, (1888), 1:104

53

early Theosophical Society, namely the “unwilled or accidental projection of the double”.300 This was

previously deemed inferior to the willed projection but is now presented as the norm. The energy is

interpreted by the perceiver as the exact same energy sent, resulting in the same physical appearance.

The, in many cases synonymous, connection between matter and energy is still present.

As we briefly touched upon above, this energy is directed through a ‘wire of sympathy’ linking

the apparition to the perceiver. As the perceiver obviously believe apparitions to be a theoretical

possibility, the person appearing must be closely connected to the perceiver. As this theory is based

inside a certain discourse it dictates that it is highly likely that both individuals adhere to the

Theosophical discourse and believe in the possibility of apparitions. This would be needed to provide

an acceptable explanation to the phenomenon. The perceiver needs to believe in the possibility through

the foundational frame of thoughts as energy. This does not infer that the perceiver needs to subscribe

to all Theosophical ideas. It is sufficient that the perceiver agrees with certain aspects of the

Theosophical discourse. The ancillary discourses may differ or even the majority of the discourses in

the discursive complex in which the perceiver is located can differ. And this is worth pointing out.

Many deemed the prospects of a woman disseminating a coherent ontology impossible without aid.

Blavatsky leaned heavily upon her theoretical predecessors to weave a doctrine from a wide variety of

sources, allowing individuals to more easily adhere to at least part of the discourse. However, as long

as the person adheres to some aspects of the Theosophical discourse the individual may reproduce the

discourse.

To summarize: The astral and physical exists pari passu and affect each other. These are not

transcendent, ‘magical’ entities separate from the physical world. Instead, the nonphysical elements of

Blavatsky’s theories are presented as scientifically supported facts, functioning through occult laws of

nature. Theosophy is an intellectual endeavor to convey these laws and how they function. Theosophy

does not deny the results of profane science (generally). Instead, they accept the findings of science

but relocated the foundational ontological premises to a new context in order to explain the findings

with a new terminology, in support of an alternate world view.

300 Deveney, (1997), p. 2. Note the similarity to Blavatsky’s acquaintance Victor Michal’s idea of an ‘aromal

body’ which can be physically transported unbeknownst to the projector from as early as 1854. Godwin, (1994), p. 281

54

Comparing the Theosophical Societies

Building a foundation upon practice can be a lucrative endeavor. In the case of the Theosophical

Society it had mixed results. From the Society’s formation as an occult, practical and secretive order,

it developed into a theoretical ‘Universal Brotherhood’ aimed at explaining the esoteric aspects of

existence.301 Noticeably, it did not only alter its course, it seemingly proceeded in the opposite

direction – condemning practical work aimed at developing occult development as selfish.302 The

practice of astral projection was to be limited to a handful of individuals. These extraordinary claims

did without a doubt attract people to the society who saw a match between their ontology and the

discursive complex the Theosophical Society provided.303 However, in constructing such a discourse,

the extraordinary claims needed to be strengthened. Having someone else claiming the ability to leave

their body at will is not enough to those who join the society because of these claims. Damning to the

legitimacy of Blavatsky’s spiritual panoply was the report published by the Society for Psychical

Research in 1884.304 Damning as the report were to the practical aspects of the Theosophical Society,

the report caused Blavatsky to equivocate and speak contemptuously of her miracles, calling them

“vain expenditure of vital force” and “non-sensical manifestations”.305

The whole question lies precisely in the phenomena. It was with their help that H.P. Blavatsky founded her

Theosophical Society, they were her panoply when she appeared in Europe to disseminate her doctrine, by

them she advertised herself and gathered about her those who for one purpose or another wished to see them.

It was these phenomena only which interested and brought into her circles of acquaintances /…/ the English

savants who had established the London Society for Psychical Research.306

It seems that the understanding of the practices remained the same within the circles close to

Blavatsky.307 However, to the majority of the society a secondary public position was taken: a sort of

301 Crow, (2012), p. 693 302 Deveney, (2016), p. 93 303 For examples of ‘miracles’ and extraordinary events used promotionally, see Oppenheim, (1985) pp.

172-174. 304 Godwin, (2013), p. 25 305 Solovyov, (1895/2011), p. 9 306 Solovyov, (1895/2011), p. 7, emphasis in original. 307 Solovyov claims that both Colonel Olcott and Madame Jelihovsky (i.e. Blavatsky’s younger sister) were

strong proponents of the importance of practical applications of Theosophy and Blavatsky’s produced spiritual phenomena. Solovyov, (1895/2011), p. 7

55

dual discursive stance distancing the practical from the public. This position emphasized the dangers

inherent to astral projection. The practice was framed as no longer framed as simply difficult, it was

now dangerous if not a clear hindrance to spiritual development.308 This move to keep astral projection

to a limited number of individuals claimed, at first, a requirement of high spiritual development and

knowledge bestowed by the adepts, to later recommend it to be avoided in its totality. Although the

tactic shifts, this is a continuation of how the practice was perceived as both strategies aim to retain the

knowledge and restrict it to a small group. By keeping the esoteric practice limited, it became

insulated from critique, and limited to a small circle around Blavatsky. This move also distanced

practice from possible cruces as the group who could misunderstand the teaching was in close

proximity to Blavatsky. The shift toward astral projection as a dangerous and possibly inhibiting

practice was undertaken in the early 1880’s. It was at this point that ‘westerners’ were deemed unfit

for practices such as astral projection.309 However, this was not a satisfactory answer for many and the

Esoteric Section, a ‘inner’ circle of the society, devoted to practical occultism was later founded.310 By

restricting the teaching to a group meeting Blavatsky in person, Blavatsky gained a stronger position

to use her authority to maintain hegemony over the theory.

An interesting aspect of the way the Theosophical Society viewed the separation of the self is the

lack of a transcendent being within which we can interact with to achieve this. We can interact with

beings that are beyond the physical, but they are not transcendent, they are merely physical in other

ways. Our ‘common’ physical matter is an attribute of matter just as astral matter is an attribute of

matter. In allegory one can think of it as two different attributes characterizing a person. A person can

be both tall and have dark hair, both attributes are part of that person. In the same manner physical

reality have the attributes of corporeal matter and astral matter. There are in addition types of matter

which are more ambiguous, such as forces and spirits. While spirit is transcendent, it is the origin of

force. Force in turn is an active agent in many of the ontological and physiological theories of the

Theosophical Society. Both force and spirit are imminent in everything, constituting dimensions of

existence juxtaposed and intermixed with the physical existence.

The bridge between the types of matter is the astral light. However, the astral light is not a

singular phenomenon. Blavatsky separates between active and latent astral light and we depend highly

upon both in order to affect our surroundings.311 In Isis Unveiled Blavatsky equates the latent astral

light with the Victorian notion of ether. This astral light is thought to permeate everything in a static

308 Deveney, (1997), p. 3 309 Deveney, (2016), p. 96 310 Howe, (1972), p. 55. 311 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxvii:.”The astral light is identical with the Hindu akâsa /…/ In its latent state it

tallies exactly with our idea of the universal ether; in its active state it became the Akâsa, the all-directing and omnipotent god.” Emphasis in original.

56

way simply enabling physical motion and different forces.312 The active astral light, on the other hand,

is “the source of life, the reservoir of all energy, and the propeller of every change of matter.”313 This

astral light is not only physical, but also metaphysical.314 This is another example of Blavatsky

syncretizing and importing knowledge produced by other discourses to prove the truth of her ontology

in her discursive complex. However, she does present modern science as being correct but drawing the

wrong conclusions from their findings and, in contrast, the spiritual findings (i.e. the astral light as the

source of life and reservoir of all energies) as correct, eternal truths preserved through the ages.

Blavatsky attempts to correct what she considers to be incorrect knowledge by syncretizing it into her

ontological understanding.

The distinction in active and astral light above is primarily from Isis Unveiled. Hanegraaff notes

that Blavatsky in 1889 differentiate between Akâsa and the astral light. This differentiation is sharper

in character than the previously discussed from 1877. Here Hanegraaff writes, and this will be quoted

in some length:

Blavatsky described the actual “Akâsa, or primordial Light” as “the universal and divine mind,” and defined

it more specifically as “the undifferentiated noumenal and abstract Space which will be occupied by

Chidakasam, the field of primordial consciousness.” It was now differentiated sharply from the lower level

known as the Astral Light, which merely mirrored (“reflected and reversed”) the “prototype of ideas of

things” existing in this superior, unconditioned and infinite plane of “Divine eternal consciousness.” Since

the Astral light was finite and conditioned, it could in fact be called “illusion” …315

Hanegraaff describes Akâsa as being a higher form of astral light (i.e. more spiritual). However,

Blavatsky, already in 1877, describes the active astral light as the Akâsa, “occult electricity”, and “the

alkahest of the alchemists”.316 What has happened is that the active astral light has become more

transcendent than it previously was. The latent astral light which simply mirrors things, much like the

Akashic records,317 is more immanent. In the later period Blavatsky devalued the more immanent

esoteric notions. Following this line of reasoning, astral projection in the early period was an

immanent esoteric notion. Much like the latent, physical astral light, astral projection is immixed with

the physical astral body. The astral body traversed the world physically. The medium it used for astral

projection – the physical, latent astral light – can in the later period be called “illusion”. Blavatsky

312 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxv 313 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxvii 314 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxv 315 Hanegraaff, (2017), pp. 31-32 316 Blavatsky, (1877), p. 1:xxvii, emphasis in original. 317 Blavatsky, (1888), 1:104: ”[T]he (to us) invisible tablets of the Astral Light, ‘the great picture-gallery

of eternity’ — a faithful record of every act, and even thought, of man, of all that was, is, or ever will be, in the phenomenal Universe.”

57

made a move away from practical magic, and with it, the immanent effects of the practice followed.

The projected astral body lost its status as a strict part of the individual and became less ‘real’ in a

material sense. The devalued status of astral projection contributed to make it an undesirable practice

for the masses. If attempted the results could not retain the same status as in the earlier period, i.e. as

absolute truth. Through this transformation the function of astral projection changed from a tool to

perceive the world correctly, to a correct perception of the world.

Active astral light is still a physical force in the later period and the projected individual was

considered to be an instantiation of energy, and not a transcendent force. Blavatsky equates the active

astral light with electricity but adds that it is an ‘occult electricity’. In other words, it is a force which

can cause change in the world without being strictly material and can be manipulated by the

individual. In this regard Blavatsky maintains Lévi’s understanding of astral light and the volonté of

the magician as tools to infer change.318 Much in the same manner Blavatsky explains the apparition of

a loved one, recently deceased. She speaks of a “wire of sympathy” connecting two individuals. She

also states that thoughts are scientifically proven to be energy. Apparitions of the astral body are

manipulations of energy. The same thought-force explained apparitions of connected individuals in

extreme situations, such as a dear friend drowning. The drowning apparitions is explained through an

‘objectivization’ of intense thought. This closely resembles the earlier days version of unintentional or

accidental astral projection which occurs in trauma, stress or dreams.319 The accidental projection

would work as the ‘objectivization’ with a minor alteration. The alteration is the wire of sympathy

linking two individuals, enabling one to appear to the other. The cause is similar, but in theory the

wire of sympathy limits the possible instances an apparition can appear in. The unintentional

projection is uncontrolled, and it can, theoretically, appear anywhere. However, we would end up with

the same result of the projection. Just as the wire of sympathy enables one practitioner to perceive of

another practitioner, non-adherents to the theory would be extremely unlikely to claim or acknowledge

having any experience of an apparition. The function of astral projection moves from an instantiation

of practice available in a small group to a natural phenomenon widely available, which is incorporated

into the discursive complex from adjacent ancillary discourses. Thus, when unwilled projection is

confirmed it is within the context and discourse of the believers. As it is confirmed by practitioners

and adherents to the theory, it becomes isolated from outside critique (the critique can be blamed upon

prejudice against Theosophists, personal conflicts etc.):

318 Strube, (2016a), p. 65 319 For the different types of astral projection, see Deveney, (1997), p. 2, for unwilled projection see

Blavatsky, (1877), p. 2:589

58

The Theosophists were correct in their often repeated lament that their critics did not understand Theosophy

/…/ To them it seemed that non-Theosophists willfully conspired to misunderstand the fundamental

premises of Theosophy and to confuse it with vulgar occultism of the basest sort.320

In regard to the arguments of an invisible, omnipresent agent both the arguments of Lévi and

Mesmer can be discerned. To Mesmer, animal magnetism used the body to influence the “magnetic

fluid”, altering an invisible fluid pervading the universe.321 In the same manner, Blavatsky’s active

astral light can be the medium inferring change by the instrument of the human body. And Blavatsky

follows Lévi’s writings on magnetism which claiming both to be of scientific merit and a method of

incurring change through will and imagination. Although this displays the continuity of these ideas

and concepts within an esoteric discourse, these concepts are adapted to their context and altered to fit

the new discourse. It is in no manner static ideas which are simply reproduced as a philosophia

perennis. It is an active strategy claiming older theories as their own, adapting them in the process.

The emphasis on high spiritual development to be able to do practical magic synergizes with the

idea of apparitions as the manipulation of energies. The astral projection of the later period, though

heavily discouraged, can be explained as being similar to the apparitions; it is an energy thus making

the latent astral light a source for laypersons – such as mediums – to conjure spirits. The medium’s

channeled spirit is only an undeveloped use of the medium’s own protean body, the astral body,

creating an illusion of a spirit by employing the ‘lower,’ latent astral light. Briefly touched upon

above, but worth repeating, Blavatsky employs the knowledge and findings of spiritualism to explain

her doctrine while simultaneously discrediting the spiritualist ontology. Here she salvages the

spiritualist mediums visible conjuration of spirits.322 She also uses testimonies in which individuals

express their conviction of spiritualist phenomena. From this, the personal experience is extracted to

display a high quantity of individuals who adhere to these ideas. These are correct displays and

testimonies, although the explanation spiritualists provided is, according to Blavatsky, incorrect.

Highlighting the different contexts which express the same types of personal experience is treated as

being statements equally potent to those made by the scientific community.323

Another sustained theme is the connection between the projection and the projector. It is the same

connection as that between the channeling medium and the appearance of the medium’s astral body.

The connection is, in the early period, described as a thread and severing the connecting thread results

in the immediate death of the projector. The connection is a way to establish continuity and a strong

320 Carlson, (1993), p. 137 321 Crabtree, (2016), pp. 223–224, Godwin, (1994), p. 151 322 The visible conjuration of spirits, such as “materialized grandmothers and “John Kings”” which cannot

leave the immediate presence of a channeling medium, is an excellent example of how the visible aspects is emphasized. Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 238.

323 For one good example, see Blavatsky (1877), p. 1:xxxvi: That spiritualists ”call them materialized spirits is inadmissible, for they are not spirits but animated portrait statues.”

59

relationship between the material, opaque body and the astral and higher bodies. The material body is

the body encountered on a continuous basis and the implication of other bodies leads to the physical

actions of the physical body to be emphasized. The higher bodies are more highly dependent upon a

theoretical framework to be relevant. Since the higher bodies are an absent feature of day to day life,

the relevance of the physical body is a prominent feature which has a greater impact on the

understanding of the higher bodies. Even as astral projection became disconnected from the immediate

bodies and moved to a category of energy manipulation, a connecting factor between the projector and

the perceiver is sustained. However, the later periods connection is also between bodies although the

connection itself is in the form of energy.

In summary we can conclude that the Theosophical Society, in the later period, placed a heavy

emphasis on the theoretical framework. Occult phenomena were not due to esoteric abilities inherent

to mankind. Astral projection and the nonphysical aspects of the discourse came to be naturalized as

forces of nature to a new extent. The teachings of the Theosophical Society could now be used to

explain all occult, spiritual and esoteric phenomena and functioned now as less of a practice and more

of a reductionistic theoretical panacea to all ailments of Theosophical teachings. This came into

discord with the teachings of the earlier period. The earlier period saw astral projection as an alteration

of the inferior material world in accordance to the projector’s will. Because of the inherent powers of

mankind, astral projection could supply the practitioner the status of immortality and a way to defeat

the physical world. Astral projection underwent a transformation; it moved from being the apex of

magic to becoming the apex of science.

60

Blavatskyan Astral Projection

I am well aware of the fact that one must first experience conscious astral projection before he can believe

in it, and I confess that I should not accept it as true myself, perhaps, had I not experienced it and know it

to be true.324

The reservoir of Theosophical knowledge had safeguards. Hidden, esoteric knowledge was under the

surface of Blavatsky’s teachings and esoteric truths “ceased to be esoteric from the moment they were

made public”.325 The adepts were able to pass on new esoteric knowledge to those who were worthy of

receiving it. Blavatsky, their mouthpiece, conveyed the practice of astral projection as, at first, a

practice used to “gain the principles of knowledge”326 so that one may learn whatever one chooses and

a way to achieve metempsychosis.327 People in general were not ready to receive all the knowledge

Blavatsky had available (according to herself), after all “no man of science will accept, even as

hypothesis, let alone as a theory or axiom, the facts imparted.”328 Similar sentiments were expressed

by other high-ranking Theosophists, one of whom was W. Q. Judge. Echoing Blavatsky’s position, he

wrote in an article:

There are mysteries for all of us; but that which is a mystery to one is for another plain. The people should

know that while, truly, secrets exists among certain theosophists, those secrets are only given to members

who can in the first place keep a secret, and in second place do not permit themselves to give out that they

know such a thing.329

Astral projection was one of the secrets that was not to be divulged. Limiting the number of

individuals able to speak of the phenomenon creates a closed theory-chamber. When someone speaks

of the phenomenon outside the chamber their claims need to be legitimized against the backdrop of

another discourse. As this ‘other discourse’ does not subscribe to the physiology or ontology of the

324 Muldoon, (2011), p. v, emphasis in original. 325 Blavatsky, (1888a), p. 1:xvii 326 The New York World, (1877/1991), p. 175 327 Chajes, (2019), p. 46 328 Blavatsky, (1888a), p. 1:306 329 Judge, (1886), p. 6

61

Theosophical Society the claims are most likely to be dismissed, as there is no social understanding of

the ontology in this new context. One discursive technique is employed by Blavatsky above: esoteric

teachings stop being esoteric when they are submitted to the public. Blavatsky explains that the true

teachings would never be exposed to an unbelieving world. She was a teacher of revelatory knowledge

in a context which deemed women incapable of holding coherent public lectures which deemed them,

if they did so, not voice their own thoughts, but simply enabling the spirits to speak in the material

world.330 In this manner, Blavatsky followed the rules and discourse of the society in large. She

reproduced the social action in which she was the medium of an external influence to gain knowledge,

a practice which was standard in her context. She reproduced the discourse of the society when she

challenged the taken-for-granted knowledge.

While she reproduced the discourse of the society, she also challenged it. Like Victoria Woodhull,

Blavatsky rebelled against the accepted norms of her contemporary society. It “is clear that as many

women [as men] were drawn to [the] Lamasery.”331 However, since the Woodhull scandal, few were

willing to openly support Blavatsky but many expressed “earnest regard for her ‘philosophical

system.’”332 Perhaps a link between religious practice and decency worked as an inhibitor for the

Theosophical ontology. Morality and decency lie in following the established rules. Practices violating

these rules, such as astral projection, becomes acts of rebellion (however small) and must therefore

also, to some extent, adhere to the rules of the majority. And, as we have seen, the explanatory modus

operandi of astral projection changed.333

One way to explain the possibility of astral projection was with new human characteristics. The

novelty of these new characteristic is a transformation of the human mental faculties. With this I want

to emphasize that the faculties were considered to escape the Cartesian dichotomy; the workings of the

mind are the same as the workings of the body. Wouter Hanegraaff presents a similar idea, restricted

to the human imagination, in which he claims that some Theosophists considered that which is

imagined to be response to external stimuli (high profile Theosophists such as Blavatsky and

Hardinge-Britten subscribed to this idea; an idea also present in the works of Lévi in the form of

diaphane, ‘the personal imagination’).334 It is in this way the human mental faculties are transformed;

they are not obscure inner workings of the mind. Instead they become just like our ability to see or

330 Braude, (2001), p. 85 331 Tumber, (2002), p. 145. The New York apartment inhabited by Blavatsky and Olcott was called ’The

Lamasery’. 332 Tumber, (2002), p. 145 333 This also produces a geographical factor in the evolution of Blavatsky’s astral projection. The move to

India from New York in 1879 must have been a contributing factor to the developments of the practice and the doctrines of the Theosophical Society. However, the material on this focus primarily on the interactions and exchanges between Theosophy and its Indian context (see Baier, (2016), Partridge (2013)).

334 Hanegraaff (2017), pp. 27-29. For more on Blavatsky’s imagination see ibid, pp. 11-14.

62

hear, and just as some lack these abilities, some lack the ability to perceive the world presented by

Blavatsky:

Because the plastic power335 of the imagination is much stronger in some persons than in others. The mind

is dual in its potentiality: it is physical and metaphysical. /…/ There are persons who never think with the

higher faculties of their mind at all; those who do so are the minority and are thus, in a way, beyond, if not

above, the average human kind [sic]. These will think even upon ordinary matters on the higher plane.336

Because of the nature of astral projection, it was, to Blavatsky, a practice in which human

attributes were given a new, possible return to their antediluvian status – a rediscovery of the ancient

mysteries. The physical, opaque body enjoyed new characteristics transcending the strictly material.

This was not imagined to be a simple extension of a material ontology; it was rather the correct

ontology of the material world’s constitution. Astral projection was, in short, a way to experience the

world as it should be experienced. Astral projection accepted the abstruse as immanent which could

evolve humankind in the direction of its intended destination.

The basic assumptions are the fundament of the discourse. The ontology was the basis for astral

projection, creating a demand for the practice – which in turn were to strengthen the ontology. The

practice of astral projection continued, and it was without a doubt an important practice throughout

Blavatsky’s time in the Theosophical Society. To the individual, this desirable practice was to be

“physically immortal and capable of existing independently of the physical body and of surviving its

death, venturing into the cosmic hierarchies as a godling.”337 Humans are not automatically immortal

through the soul; immortality needs to be achieved. Astral projection enabled the individual to escape

death. In the early period, this escape would infer the highest tier of man, the Spiritual Monad,338 to

transcend to higher, spiritual dimensions of reality and become more and more refined.339 In the

society, the practice functioned as a way to sanction the theories of certain individuals, ascribing them

status and legitimacy based upon their presumed success in performing the action. Similarly, in the

later period, the human body is in danger of being dispersed upon death unless having achieved some

spiritual development.340 However, just as the human anatomy changed so did the meaning of

immortality. Immortality in the early period meant metempsychosis, the transmigration of the soul, or

continuous rebirths through higher and higher dimensions. Immortality in the later period meant

335 A reference to the corresponding ”’Protean’ or ‘Plastic Body’”, also known as lingasarira, or astral body.

See Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 328. 336 Blavatsky & Collins, (1888), p. 331, emphasis is original. 337 Deveney, (2016), p. 95 338 See ”Blavatsky’s Human: Constitution of the Individual” above. 339 Chajes, (2019), p. 57 340 Deveney, (2016), p. 100

63

rebirths of the Karmic body (the highest tier of the body in the later period),341 in the physical, opaque

world, until dissolving into a ‘beyond’.342 Astral projection as a form of soteriology retained its

meaning. The understanding remained hinged upon some core concepts of ontology and physiology.

While the concepts used remained the same, the content and understanding of those concepts shifted.

The discourse developed, but the status as a legitimizing theory retained its potency.343

Some of the roles and functions of astral projection in the Theosophical Society were constant

through Blavatsky’s time in it. Astral projection functioned as a social practice in which the

practitioners capable of successfully performing it all were high ranking Theosophists.344 Through

attributing success only to the ‘elite’ Blavatsky and the society could retain the doctrinal weight of a

chosen few, working to gain hegemony in the Theosophical discourse. This meant that those

‘politically’ active in the society could not contribute to doctrine through their status in the society,

instead spiritual development became the main factor. In this way the actors capable of astral

projection also found themselves in the political echelon on the society, furthering the potency of the

dominant discourse. So, a process of instating people who identified closely to the Theosophical

discourse was maintained. Through this process potential discord, with their following cruces, were

avoided. The egalitarian ethos of the early society was in large an influence of the surrounding

discursive complexes; an influence which came to be replaced by an aristocratic system, which used

astral projection as its criteria.

The heavy, doctrinal work of Blavatsky did not end with her enormous writings. It continued to be

evolved resulting in the Esoteric Section, devoted to practical occultism, to be founded on the 9th of

October 1888.345 The turbulence in the Theosophical Society during Blavatsky’s final years after The

Secret Doctrine was not limited to the creation of the Esoteric Section. Blavatsky had come to call the

society “a dead failure” and a “soulless corpse.”346 The works of Blavatsky created a new esoteric

ideal and her teachings did, without a doubt, create a new discourse of esotericism which continued to

influence other groups coming after.347 Not only by the presented theories, but the entire discourse of

how esoteric knowledge is produced. Relying upon contemporary science, referencing esteemed

philosophy and religious writings with a mix of belles-lettres and fiction enabled Blavatsky to extract

341 See ”The Human Bodies” above. 342 Chajes, (2019), p. 4. For a more elaborate explanation of Blavatsky’s metempsychosis contra

reincarnation, see Chajes (2919). 343 In addition, the goal of self-deification and unlocking the individual’s power is a theme which have

survived in contemporary esotericism, such as left-hand path groups. Granholm, (2013), p. 56 344 Deveney (1997), pp. 21, 24. Blavatsky describes herself, Olcott and Judge as people who successfully

managed to perform astral projection. 345 Howe, (1972), p. 55 346 Gomes, (2016), p. 252 347 Amongst others, one of the founding fathers of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, William Wynn

Westcott, joined the Esoteric Section as an “endeavor to cast oil on troubled waters and to be a bond of union and peace between the two societies”. Gilbert, (1987), p. 8

64

the body of statements which corresponded with her experience to legitimize her ontology. The

method was not new, but the ontology it built is, without a doubt, a unique surreal reality which

developed astral projection as the apex of both magic and science.

65

References

Asprem, Egil (2011): “Pondering Imponderables: Occultism in the Mirror of Late Classical Physics” in Aries

11:2, pp. 129-165.

, (2013): “Theosophical Attitudes Towards Science: Past and Present” in Hammer, Olav &

Rothstein, Mikael [eds.]: Handbook of the Theosophical

Current, Leiden: Brill, pp. 405-427.

, (2015a): “The Society for Psychical Research” in Partridge, Christopher [ed.]: The Occult World,

New York: Routledge, pp. 266-274.

, (2015b): “Intermediary Beings” in Partridge, Christopher [ed.]: The Occult World, New York:

Routledge, pp. 646-658.

Baier, Karl (2016): “Theosophical Orientalism and the Structures of Intercultural Transfer: Annotations on the

Appropriation of the Chakras in Early Theosophy” in Chajes, Julies & Huss, Boaz [eds.]: Theosophical

Appropriations: Esotericism, Kabbalah, and the Transformation of Tradition, Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev Press, pp. 309-354.

Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1875): “A Few Questions to the Hiraf” in Spiritual Scientist, 2:19, pp. 217-218,

224.

, (1877): Isis Unveiled, New York: Cambridge University Press, digitally printed edition (2012).

, (1878): “Madame Blavatsky on the Views of the Theosophists” in The Spiritualist, 12:6, pp. 68-

69.

, (1882a): “Seeming ‘Discrepancies.’ To the Editor of the ‘Theosophist.’” in The Theosophist, 3:33,

pp. 225-226.

, (1882b): “’Isis Unveiled’ and the ‘Theosophist’ on Reincarnation” in The Theosophist, 3:35, pp.

288-289.

, (1888a): The Secret Doctrine, Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, unabridged verbatim

edition (2019).

, (1888b): “Practical Occultism” in Lucifer, 2:8, pp. 150-154.

, (1889): The Key to Theosophy, London: The Theosophical Publishing Company, Limited.

, (1891): “My Books.” in Lucifer, 8:45, pp. 241-244.

, (1895): “Letters of H.P. Blavatsky” in The Path, 9:10, pp. 297-302, submitted by W.Q. Judge.

Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna, & Collins, Mabel (1888): “Dialogue Between the Two Editors. I. On Astral Bodies,

or Doppelgangers” in Lucifer, 3:16, pp. 328-333.

Bohak, Gideon (2008): Ancient Jewish Magic: A History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paperback

Edition [2011].

Braude, Ann (2001): Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Right in Nineteenth-Century America,

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, second edition.

66

Burkert, Walter (1985): Greek Religion, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Burr, Vivian (2003): Social Constructionism, London: Tylor & Francis Group.

Chajes, Julie (2019): Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky’s Theosophy, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Christian Spiritualist (1855): “Miss E. Jay.”, 1:36, 13th of January.

Crabtree, Adam (2016): “Mesmer and Animal Magnetism” in Magee, Glenn Alexander [ed.], The Cambridge

Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–234.

Crow, John L. (2012): “Taming the Astral Body: The Theosophical Society’s Ongoing Problem of Emotion and

Control” in Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80:3, pp. 691-717.

DeConick, April D. (2017): “Soul Flights: Cognitive Ratcheting and the Problem of Comparison” in Aries, 17,

pp. 81-118.

Deveney, John Patrick (1997): “Astral Projection or Liberation of the Double and the Work of the Early

Theosophical Society” in Santucci, James, A. [ed.], Theosophical History Occasional Papers.

, (2015): “Man is a Spirit Here and Now: The Two Faces of Nineteenth-Century Spiritualism and

the Creation of the Magical Occult Theosophical Spiritualist New Thought Amalgam” in Gutierrez, Cathy

[ed.]: Handbook of Spiritualism and Channeling, Leiden: Brill, pp. 119-151.

, (2016): “The Two Theosophical Societies: Prolonged Life, Conditional Immortality, and the

Individualized Immortal Monad” in Chajes, Julies & Huss, Boaz [eds.]: Theosophical Appropriations:

Esotericism, Kabbalah, and the Transformation of Tradition, Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Press, pp. 93-114.

Fairclough, Norman (1992a): Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity.

, (1992b): “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis” in

Discourse and Society, 3:2, pp. 193-217.

Ferentinou, Victoria (2013): “Surrealism, Occulture and Gender: Women Artists, Power and Occultism” in

Aries, 13, pp. 103-130.

Gergen, Kenneth (2015): An Invitation to Social Construction (Third Edition), London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Godwin, Joscelyn (1989): The Beginnings of Theosophy in France, London: Theosophical History Centre.

, (1994): The Theosophical Enlightenment, Albany: State University of New York Press.

, (2006): “The Kingsford-Maitland Hermetic Society (1884-1887)” in Hanegraaff, Wouter J. et al

[eds.], Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill, pp. 552-555.

, (2013): “Blavatsky and the First Generation of Theosophy” in Hammer, Olav & Rothstein, Mikael,

Handbook of the Theosophical Current, Leiden: Brill, pp. 15-32.

Gomes, Michael (2016): “H.P. Blavatsky and Theosophy” in Magee, Glenn Alexander [ed.], The Cambridge

Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248-259.

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (2010): “The Coming of the Masters: The Evolutionary Reformation of Spiritual

Intermediaries in Modern Theosophy” in Kilcher, Andreas [ed.], Constructing Tradition: Means and Myths of

Transmission in Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill, pp. 113-160.

67

Gilbert, Robert A. (1987): The Golden Dawn and the Esoteric Section, London: Theosophical History Centre.

Granholm, Kennet (2013): “Esoteric currents as discursive complexes”, in Religion, 43:1, pp. 46-69.

, (2014): “Locating the West: Problematizing the Western in Western Esotericism and Occultism” in

Bogdan, Henrik & Djurdjevic, Gordan [eds.]: Occultism in a Global Perspective, New York: Routledge, pp.

17-36.

Gutierrez, Cathy (2009): Plato’s Ghost: Spiritualism in the American Renaissance, New York: Oxford

University Press.

, (2016): “Spiritualism” in Magee, Glenn Alexander [ed.], The Cambridge Handbook of Western

Mysticism and Esotericism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-247.

Hammer, Olav (2001): Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age,

Leiden: Brill.

Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2012): Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

, (2017): “The Theosophical Imagination” in Correspondences, 5, pp. 3-39.

Hardinge-Britten, Emma (1860a): “Spirits of the living”, in Spiritual Telegraph, 8:40, January 28th, pp. 469-470.

, (1860b): “On Living Spirits and Dying Spiritualism”, in Banner of Light, 7:18, July 28th, p. 2.

Howe, Ellic (1972): The magicians of the Golden Dawn: a documentary history of a magical order 1887-1923,

London: Routledge.

Jørgensen, Marianne & Phillips, Louise (2002): Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Judge, William Quan (1886): “Is Theosophy Only for Select Souls?”, in The Religio-Philosophical Journal,

40:14, May 1886, p. 6.

Kraft, Siv Ellen (2013): “Theosophy, Gender, and the “New Woman”” in Hammer, Olav & Rothstein, Mikael

[eds.], Handbook of the Theosophical Current, Leiden: Brill, pp. 357-374.

Lachman, Gary (2015): “New Age Fin De Siècle” in Michael Saler [ed.]: The Fin-de-Siècle World, London &

New York: Routledge Tylor and Francis Group, pp. 611-622.

Lowry, Elizabeth (2012): “Gendered haunts: The Rhetorical and Material Culture of the Late Nineteenth-

Century Spirit Cabinet” in Aries, 12:2, pp. 221-235.

Lubelsky, Isaac (2016): “Friedrich Max Müller vs. Madame Blavatsky: A Chronicle of a (Very) Strange

Relationship” in Chajes, Julies & Huss, Boaz [eds.]: Theosophical Appropriations: Esotericism, Kabbalah,

and the Transformation of Tradition, Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, pp. 73-92.

McIntosh, Christopher (2015): “Eliphas Lévi” in Partridge, Christopher [ed.]: The Occult World, New York:

Routledge, pp. 220–230.

Mead, George Robert Stow (1904): “Concerning H. P. B.” in The Theosophical Review, 34:200 (April), pp. 130-

144.

, (1927): “Facts about “The Secret Doctrine”” in The Occult Review, 45:5, pp. 319-324.

68

Moberg, Marcus (2013):” First-, Second-, and Third-level Discourse Analytic Approaches in the Study of

Religion: Moving from Meta-Theoretical Reflection to Implementation in Practice” in Religion, 43:1, pp. 4-

25.

Morrell, Benjamin (1859): “A Few Words on The Controversy Betwixt The Rev. E. White, And William Howitt

Esq.” British Spiritual Telegraph 3:10, Supplement, April 15th 1859, pp. 209-221.

Muldoon, Sylvan J. (2011): Projection of the Astral Body, Read Books Ltd., foreword by Hereward Carrington.

Nelson, Lynn Hankinson (1993): “Who Knows? What Can They Know? And When?” in Reason Papers 18, pp.

45-56.

New York World (1877a): “A Lamasery in New York. Practicing Magical Rites in a Prosaic Eight Avenue

House. An Astonishing Conversation with the Presiding Genius of the Place” 26th of March, reprinted in

Santucci, James [ed.], Theosophical History, 3:6, pp. 174-178, (1991).

, (1877b): “The New York School of Magic. A Disciple of the Adept Lady Tells of Levitations. The

Scin Lecca and How it and Other Wonders Accord with Natural Law” 28th of March, reprinted in Santucci,

James [ed.], Theosophical History, 3:7-8, pp. 224-226, (1991).

Olcott, Henry Steel (1895): Old Diary Leaves, London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Oppenheim, Janet (1985): The Other World – Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1914,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Otto, Bernd-Christian (2016): “Historicising ‘Western Learned Magic’: Preliminary Remarks” in Aries, 16:1, pp.

161-240.

Owen, Alex (1989): The Darkened Room – Women, Power, and Spiritualism in Late Victorian England,

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, paperback edition (2004).

, (2004): The Place of Enchantment – British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern, Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Partridge, Christopher (2013): “Lost Horizon: H.P. Blavatsky and Theosophical Orientalism” in Hammer, Olav

& Rothstein, Mikael [eds.], Handbook of the Theosophical Current, Leiden: Brill, pp. 309-334.

Plaisance, Christopher A. (2016): “Occult Spheres, Planes, and Dimensions: Geometric Terminology and

Analogy in Modern Esoteric Discourse” in Journal of Religious History, 40:3, pp. 385-404.

Pryse, J.M. (1926): “An Important Statement by Mr. J.M. Pryse” in The Messenger, 14:6, p. 125.

Rudbøg, Tim (2010): “Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s Esoteric Tradition” in Kilcher, Andreas [ed.], Constructing

Tradition: Means and Myths of Transmission in Western Esotericism, Brill Academic Publishers.

, (2012): H.P. Blavatsky’s Theosophy in Context: The Construction of Meaning in Modern Western

Esotericism, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exeter.

Russel, Bertrand (1946): History of Western Philosophy, New York: Routledge, reprinted as ‘Routledge

Classics’ (2004).

Santucci, James A. (2006): “Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna” in Hanegraaff, Wouter J. et al [eds.], Dictionary of

Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill, pp.177-185.

69

Shaw, Gregory (2006): “Neoplatonism I: Antiquity” in Hanegraaff, Wouter J. et al [eds.], Dictionary of Gnosis

and Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill, pp. 834-837.

Sinnett, Alfred Percy (1886/2011): Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Solovyov, Vladimir Sergeyevich (1895/2011): Modern Priestess of Isis, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Edited and Translated by Walter Leaf.

Spierenburg, Henk J. [ed.] (1995): The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky, San Diego: Point Loma

Publications, Inc.

Stein, Charles (2016): “Ancient Mysteries” in Magee, Glenn Alexander [ed.], The Cambridge Handbook of

Western Mysticism and Esotericism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-12.

Strube, Julian (2016a): “The ‘Baphomet’ of Eliphas Lévi: Its Meaning and Historical Context.”

Correspondences, 4, pp. 37-79.

, (2016b): “Socialist Religion and the Emergence of Occultism: A Genealogical Approach to

Socialism and Secularization in 19th-Century France”, Religion, 46:3, pp. 359-388

The Banner of Light (1858): “Miss Rosa T. Amedy in Salem.”, 3:1, 3rd of April.

Tillett, Gregory (2012): “Modern Western Magic and Theosophy” in Aries, 12:1, pp. 17-51.

Trompf, Garry W. (2011): “Imagining Macrohistory? Madame Blavatsky from Isis Unveiled (1877) to The

Secret Doctrine (1888)” in Literature & Aesthetics, 21:1, pp. 43-71.

Tumber, Catherine (2002): American Feminism and the Birth of New Age Spirituality: Searching for the Higher

Self, 1875-1915, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Von Stuckrad, Kocku (2005): Western Esotericism – A brief History of Secret Knowledge, London: Equinox

Publishing Ltd., translated by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.

Williams-Hogan, Jane (2016): “Swedenborg and Swedenborgianism” in Magee, Glenn Alexander [ed.], The

Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.

211-222.

Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

Phone: 08 – 16 20 00

www.su.se