An inquiry into
G. W. F. Hegel’s and H. P.
Blavatsky’s
Theories regarding an Evolving
Religion and a Primeval Religion;
a discussion of their contrasts and
similarities.
By
Tim Rudbøg
2004
©
Table
of Contents
1.
Introduction 1
2.
Hegel’s Theory of Evolution and History 4
3.
Blavatsky’s Theory of Evolution and History 9
4.
Comparison of Hegel’s and Blavatsky’s Evolutionary Systems 16
5.
Hegel’s and Blavatsky’s definitions of Religion 17
6.
Hegel’s view on the development of Religion 25
7.
Blavatsky’s view on the development of Religion 30
8.
Conclusion 38
9.
Bibliography 42
Looking back on the
intellectual climate of the 18th and 19th centuries, one
finds a world awakened to the light of Reason, but also the separatism of empiricism,
the life- and purposelessness of mechanics, the stiff transcendentalism of
deism and the immoral greed of industry and capitalism in the view of those
more spiritually inclined. In reaction to these “lifeless formalisms” one consequently
finds the emergence of a “spiritual revolution” which can be perceived to both
include romanticism and occultism[1].
In this article I will concentrate on two comprehensive systems which can be
seen as a part of this “spiritual revolution”, characterised by a distinctive
spiritual and synthetic composition; namely the “Organic Science” of G. W.
Hegel (1770-1831) and the “Theosophy” of H. P. Blavatsky[2]
(1831-1891)[3].
Hegel’s organic system
was thus, among other endeavours, an attempt to synthesize philosophy,
religion, fine art, science, politics, and history into one comprehensive and
interrelated whole dominated by a natural, but spiritual, teleological activity[4].
This was undertaken through an understanding of the necessary unitary
systematic evolution and development of reason or spirit itself through (or as)
world history.
HPB’s agenda was equally
an attempt to synthesize ‘science, religion, and philosophy’, this being the
sub-title of her magnum opus, ‘The Secret Doctrine’ (1888); to break down the “crystallized
dogmas” of 19th century science and religion - one of the purposes
of her first monumental work, ‘Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteries of
Ancient and Modern Science and Theology’ (1877) - and thereby restore what she
believed to be the once true unity of knowledge known as the ancient ‘wisdom-religion’[5].
All this was undertaken by an attempt to show how most of the “new” discoveries
of science merely was “old wine in new bottles,” dogmatized into the form of
materialism[6]
and how all the religions of the world originally was one “wisdom-religion”
based on esoteric and spiritual principles[7].
The object of this
article is, however, as the title implies not a discussion of the similarities
and contrasts of the two systems as a whole, but more specifically of the
concepts “religion” and “evolution”, as they were used and understood within
the two systems. When approaching this object one is struck by a
seemingly paradoxical similarity; paradoxical, because, on the one hand both
systems display an all comprehensive “grand theory” of the purposive evolutionary
development of world history and on the other hand one system claims that
religion reaches a continually higher stage of development throughout history,
while the other theory apparently claims that a primeval religion or a
historically first religion was the highest in the sense of purity and truth[8].
Both concepts were thus central to both “grand theories” but were used
differently in their attempt to solve the old problem of truth and its relation
history.
Hegel for example states
in his ‘Philosophy of History’ that it is a fiction to believe that there once
in early history is supposed to have existed men who possessed a complete
wisdom about all natural laws, and that Divine Truth was completely revealed at
this early time; slowly obscured, however, by human error[9].
He at the same time criticises the idea that this “original wisdom” can be
traced in the world mythologies[10].
These statements, directed against Fr. Von Schlegel’s ‘Philosophy of History’ and
beliefs of Hegel’s time, can be seen as a general attitude against a Prisca Theologia,
or a Philosophia Perennis, which later was the view adopted by HPB[11].
HPB thus on the other
hand conclusively writes in ‘Isis Unveiled’ that:
Our
examination of the multitudinous religious faiths that mankind, early and late,
have professed, most assuredly indicates that they have all been derived from
one primitive source[12].
This ‘primitive source’
is according to HPB the ‘one eternal truth’[13],
which still can be traced in the mythology and symbolism of the world[14].
From the above apparent disagreement
between Hegel’s and Blavatsky’s conceptions of religion and its relation to
evolution the purpose of this article is set into effect i.e. to explore how
these concepts “religion” and “evolution” were used both similarly and differently
in the two spiritually oriented systems?
The ideas preceding Hegel,
such as the focus on “reason” and “consciousness” during the centuries of
modern philosophy (1600-1900) and the enlightenment; Kant’s philosophical
formalism and critique, the romantic notion of the absolute as immediate as
well as the newly dawning of “historical consciousness”, form vital contextual
elements necessary for an understanding of Hegel’s evolutionary and historical theories
and thus for his theory of an evolving religion. During this time, especially
in Germany (1780-1820), the universities were transformed: Reason was the
centre of activity and history became a new discipline; together they formed
the philosophy of history[15].
Vico, who is often called the founder of the philosophy of history due to his
work, ‘Principles of a New Science of the common Nature of Peoples’ (1725),
argues that ‘all peoples pass through a divine, a heroic and a human stage,
progressively developing from sensory thought to abstract thought, from the heroic
ethic to MORALITY, and from privilege to equality of rights’[16].
With Voltaire the expression “philosophie de L’histoire” saw the first light of
day. Voltaire regards history, in his Essay on the ‘Customs and Spirit of
Nations’ (1756), as humanity’s ‘struggle for culture and progress’[17].
Herder thought of human history as a progress towards “humanity”. Nature progresses
by natural laws and continues as the progress towards “humanity” which equally
develops by natural laws. Herder further understood these natural laws and the
order they create displayed through world history and its progress as the world’s
expression of God’s immanent reason. Immanuel Kant similarly wrote that, ‘despite
free will, human actions are determined by universal laws and at least in the
large may display to the historian a regular pattern’[18];
Lessing and Fichte equally saw history ‘as the realization of divine
Providence, of God’s plan for the education of the human race, which will
ultimately result in its perfection’[19].
Esoteric trends which viewed history as a symbol of divine processes consisting
of phases displaying extra-historical archetypes such as creation, fall and
reintegration also played a role in the formation of Hegel’s theories[20].
Romanticism was in fact according to Hanegraaff founded on esoteric trends[21].
From the above we see how
“historical consciousness” entered the scene of knowledge. Out of the new “historical
consciousness” and the emphasis on “universal principles” during the
enlightenment two general directions emerged: 1. Historism, the emergence of a
relativism due to the observable constant and contingent evolution of “the new”
through history on behalf of the universal and permanent truths of the
enlightenment, 2. Historicism, a synthesis of the universal principles of the
enlightenment with the constant change and the development of history, related
to reason and the unfoldment of a rational or divine plan[22];
a view Hegel asserted and HPB later reasserted, as we shall see.
Hegel’s philosophy can be
seen as a synthesis of his time in which everything in the world is perceived of
as a rational, unitary evolving process. Hegel brings back to life Heraclitus’
notion that everything in nature is in constant flux, movement and change;
nothing ever remains the same in the world of phenomena[23]
or as HPB similarly formulates it: ‘That which is motionless cannot be Divine.
But then there is nothing in fact and reality absolutely motionless within the
universal soul’[24].
To this Hegel adds Aristotle’s notion “entelechia”:
that everything in nature is guided by an inherent purpose, which means that the
change of an entity is moving according to a purposeful plan and pattern. The
uniqueness of Hegel’s philosophy is not only his synthesis of many former
philosophical ideas into one systematic whole, but also his application of
these principles to the history of the world at large, respectively called
universal history, macro-history, philosophy of history. In Hegel’s own
philosophy of history, he writes ‘Reason is the Sovereign of the World; …the
history of the world therefore, presents us with a rational process’[25].
In the ‘Phenomenology of
Mind’ (1807), originally intended as an introduction to his system, Hegel
unfolds the general scheme of this development from the perspective of
consciousness or spirit; the movement and change from potentiality to actuality
and then back into potentiality on a higher turn of the spiral, which also can be
correlated with what HPB calls the oscillation between rest and activity (Sk.[26] pralaya
and Sk. manvantara). This cyclic movement is viewed as a process consisting of
various stages technically called “moments”. In the foreword to the ‘Phenomenology’
Hegel describes the stages or “moments” by an analogy of the various stages a
plant undergoes in its life-development[27].
The bud of the plant blossoms and finally it bears fruit. According to Hegel,
each of these stages in the plant’s life is a “moment” of the plant as a whole
or as idea. Each of these “moments” become more advanced/complex and seem to
more fully actualize or realize the potentiality of the plant. This to some
extend is true, but the more advanced stage is neither more important than the
previous stages nor more fully the plant, since the plant as a living organic idea
(notion) is all the stages as a whole simultaneously. All stages or “moments”
are necessary developments, in time and space, to the plant as a whole; it is
the process, which defines and determines the idea (notion). No one of the
stages is the full realization of the plant, only all the stages realized as a
unity is the plant as a whole. All entities follow this general organic scheme
of development even history itself. The goal, and thus truth, of any
development is, paradoxically, not the end result or final stage of that
development. Truth and the absolute are not static and motionless but dynamic.
The purpose itself is the process of becoming, thus each stage in the becoming
is a truth in itself at that stage, however, the transformational process from
one moment to the next, in time and space, is the process of death and pain
known as “negation”. The old moment is subsumed into the new and thus “dies” or
is negated in the new/next “moment”. This is part of the dialectical process and
has been used by Hegel both in connection with the development of world history,
as well as the history of the individual. This principle is actually at the
basis of Hegel’s “science”, as he calls it. It is, however, not a “science”, as
we understand science today, but a philosophical science in a “systematic form”.
The systematic aspect shows itself in the way that it is not only the aim of
science, according to Hegel, to show that there are various stages in a
development but also to show that these stages are related and what their
purpose is - to systematise a development into an organic whole. This is done
by showing that each of the stages implies the previous stage, because if this
was not so, then the given stage could not exist in itself.
The general developmental
system of the “absolute idea” as found in Hegel’s ‘Encyclopaedia of the
Philosophical Sciences’ is as follows:
1) Logic: To begin with,
the absolute (spirit) exists as an abstract system of concepts prior to the
concrete or actual world.
2) Philosophy of Nature: Next,
this absolute precipitates or reveals itself at the level of nature and the
unconscious.
3) Philosophy of Mind: The
absolute then further actualizes itself and is awakened as consciousness
through the lower stages of cognition to the higher stages as in: sensation, perception,
and intellect through self-consciousness - in the human being.
3a) It actualizes its own
contents as social institution.
3b) Finally, it enriches
itself in art, religion and philosophy and thus returns to itself as the
completely actualized and articulated absolute (spirit).
Hegel’s evolutionary
theory thus presents an all comprehensive solution to the historically pressing
dichotomy during the “enlightenment” between evolution and universal principles
by showing that universal principles are in fact dynamically (spiritually), philosophically
(dialectically) and historically unfolding organic wholes; a view which
naturally affects his idea of truth and religion as I will show in part 5.
HPB, who was born when
Hegel died, (1831) came into a world even more mechanical, industrial and
dogmatic both on the part of the church and on the part of scientism led by the
materialistic natural sciences.
By
the middle of the nineteenth century, there had emerged that special outcrop of
developmentalist thinking we call “evolutionism”, first in Britain with
Spencer, Darwin and Huxley, and then on the Continent with Haeckel[28].
History was now described
from mere mechanical, autonomous principles[29],
thus taking a general shift away from the teleological historicism of
romanticism and German idealism which Hegel, among others, was one of the main
founders of[30]
and in which HPB’s theosophical evolutionary theories came to be rooted.[31] Consequently, as Trompf writes: ‘With a “naturalist
evolutionism” the apparent danger was that there was no Plan of God for the
world – and thus no ultimate, meaning to (macro) history’[32].
This “demystification” of nature during HPB’s lifetime not only provoked many
esotericists to reinforce spiritual and purposeful or teleological ideas of
nature, but also stimulated a need for alternative theories of nature among the
general public[33].
Many spiritual reactions thus arose in contrast to this naturalism;[34]
however, one of the most comprehensive was that of HPB’s[35]
being a direct answer and spiritual alternative to Darwinian and Haeckelian
materialism[36].
As an occult[37]
reaction to these ‘dis-godded’ but ‘influential secular accounts of time and
history’[38] HPB expounded a synthesis of both modern and ancient
esoteric, occult, scientific, philosophical and religious evolutionary
theories. She adds and discusses the evolutionary principles of Darwinism, now
central to her time, with the vast chronological systems of the ancient Hindus,
made known through orientalism, and emanation theories associated with
Gnostics, Hermeticists, Kabbalists and Platonists. Ideas from these trends are
integrated into a unified whole.[39] HPB in fact argues that the theory of evolution is not
new but an ancient idea to be found among the religions and philosophies of the
ancient world building on “natural principles” thus working according to
specific natural laws, which have always been known, to initiates.[40]
Hanegraaff thus writes that ‘In Blavatsky’s synthesis, progressive evolution
functions as the great Law of Nature’[41].
Nature and thus natural principles are, however, not autonomous and contingent,
but, an interplay of karma (cause and effect) and the will of intelligent
beings or hosts of beings working out the divine plan, the prototype and ideal
goal of the natural evolutionary process, as it is found within the divine mind[42].
HPB as an occultist does therefore,
as we can see from the above, not primarily examine how evolution proceeds in
cosmos in a materialistic sense only, but also in the sense of spirit and its
interplay with matter; even though the two, spirit and matter in an abstract
sense are perceived to be one unity in the Absolute, as they are only seemingly
separate in their cycle of becoming[43].
An obvious distinction
between Hegel and HPB is clearly seen from the above on the ground that HPB as
an esotericist/occultist explains the operations of evolution and nature with
reference to metaphysical beings and a hierarchically structured universe
whereas Hegel relies on dialectical processes of the Mind within a
philosophical framework. However, the concept of the (divine) Mind became a
meeting place for the two as I will show in section 4.
HPB’s evolutionary theory
is, because of its response to and integration of Darwinism et al. of her time,
generally more concerned with biological, cosmological and natural evolution
than Hegel was. HPB’s use of evolution thus displays a gigantic panorama or
narrative of evolutionary processes where literally everything in cosmos from
atoms to universes undergoes an unceasingly “involving” and “evolving” process
towards ever higher life expressions[44].
HPB writes,
The
whole order of nature evinces a progressive march towards a higher life. There
is design in the action of the seemingly blindest forces. The whole
process of evolution with its endless adaptations is a proof of this[45].
Hanegraaff thus
conclusively writes that
Since
everything (both visible and invisible) is seen as part of Nature and
subjective to its universal laws, the theory of evolution emerges as
fundamental to all aspects of Blavatsky’s thought, whether pertaining to the
“physical” or the spiritual domains[46].
As in the system of Hegel
everything is thus in ceaseless motion, called “the Great Breath” in HPB, SD,
being an aspect of the Absolute, itself[47].
Both atoms and universes oscillate between rest (Sk. pralaya) and activity (Sk.
manvantara) also called the law of ebb and flow as in night and day; concepts
borrowed from the east[48].
Periods of activity are innovatively, in an occult manner, divided into sevenfold
divisions of hierarchical quantitative sizes such as: universes, solar systems,
planetary systems, chains, rounds, globes, continents, root races, branch
races, family races etc. each specifying a period of activity[49].
In between each of the seven lesser periods of activity in a lager period of
activity are periods of rest[50].
Furthermore, each of the sevenfold divisions above constitutes one unity in a
larger whole, ad infinitum, i.e. seven continents for example constitutes a globe
and seven globes a round. Furthermore each lager whole is the embodiment of a
larger being which through its period of activity evolves a specific quality in
the lesser beings embodying it[51].
Evolution is thus incorporated into a hierarchical, but organic occult conception
or “grand narrative” of the cosmos.
The above is a general
outline of the “form” or quantitative aspect of HPB’s system including aspects
which Hegel obviously did not discuss in his lifetime, but HPB also takes into
consideration the aspect of spirit. In order for us to understand this, the
evolution of Spirit in HPB’ thought, we must, as mentioned, understand reality as
not only physical, but multileveled; whereof seven ontological levels
especially refer to the evolution of spirit as we know it. The one Life or
Spirit is, however, in the manifested universe (which includes all levels of
reality) not a unitary being as such, but compounded into individual “monads”, drawing
from the Philosophy of Leibniz and the neoplatonists, which exist on the highest
ontological planes. They are life-unites, which must undergo an evolution in
form. In order for them to do this they descend via vehicles (Sk. uphadis) into
lower levels of reality (higher density of matter), embodying one of the forms
mentioned above, in order to experience. This descending into matter is called
spiritual involution meaning ‘involvement with’ as opposed to evolution meaning
‘unfoldment’[52].
Through the law of
reincarnation, which in Hanegraaff’s interpretation of HPB is synonymous with
spiritual evolution,[53]
the individual monad “(re)incarnates” many times in each of the kingdoms of
nature in order to become educated in all the various experiences offered in the
physical forms of these kingdoms. There is thus first a descending or
involution from the relatively highest plane of existence to the mineral
kingdom, the first dense physical plane and then an ascending, known as
evolution, back to the original point from whence the whole process began. In succeeding
evolutionary processes the monad will take on the embodiment of ever lager
quantities as described above.
The history of
civilizations undergoes a parallel evolutionary process as does the rest of
cosmos.[54] Trompf thus writes, ‘The combination of the Leitmotive
of cosmic ascent/descent and the macro-cyclicism is the key to Blavatsky’s
thought’[55].
Olav Hammer also states, ‘Evolution is the closest one comes to an Esoteric key
symbol in Sherry Ortner’s sense’[56].
Hegel’s use of
“evolution“, is as we have seen not as concerned with evolution in the kingdoms
of nature, but primarily with the development of spirit/mind through structures
of mind as in the sciences and arts which Blavatsky hardly touched upon. Hegel
also does not treat spirit as differentiated into monads, but generally more as
a unitary movement of the one absolute spirit thus HPB’s concept of evolution
is mainly the evolution of spirit/consciousness/monads through structures of
nature rather than structures of mind.
On an “emic” level the
evolutionary system set forth by HPB in her ‘SD’ generally shares more
similarities than contraries with the evolutionary idea found in the system of
Hegel. HPB affirms this when she writes:
The
fine philosophical remarks of Hegel are found to have their application in the
teachings of Occult Science, which shows nature ever acting with a given
purpose’ and further ‘No metaphysician or theosophist could demur to these
truths [Hegel’s system], which are all embodied in esoteric teachings[57].
Hanegraaff on an etic
level also seems to find this similarity when he writes: ‘Her [HPB’s]
fundamental belief system was an occultist version of romantic evolutionism
from beginning to end’[58];
Olav Hammer also agrees that the esoteric tradition including HPB’s
evolutionary theory is more ‘compatible with pre-Darwinian, idealistic theories
of evolution, e.g. the Hegelian view whereby there is a pre-existing plan
immanent in history’[59].
It is, however, to be
mentioned that HPB, criticizes Hegel and other German idealists for attributing
‘thinking’, ‘unconsciousness’ and the ‘hope for self consciousness’ to the Absolute
since these are purely human terms which cannot be applied to the unspeakable Absolute.
HPB thus argues that the absolute or spirit, which Hegel in his philosophy
speaks of as undergoing evolution and development, is actually what she and the
occultists call (Sk.) mahat, or as HPB writes,
the
Occultist would say that it [Hegel’s spirit or absolute] applies perfectly to
the awakened MAHAT, the Universal Mind already projected into the phenomenal
world as the first aspect of the changeless ABSOLUTE, but never to the latter’[60].
We here find a
philosophical discrepancy. HPB’s “true” Absolute is thus regarded as changeless
and beyond Mind and the world process whereas Hegel’s absolute is the world-process/becoming
as a unity constituting the Absolute Spirit or Mind. HPB thus agrees with
Hegel’s theory, but situates it, within her own system, as the process of the
divine mind (Sk. mahat) and not as the Absolute.
The main philosophical differences
between these two evolutionary systems (besides being two different “forms of
thought”) is thus in a sense mainly that HPB relies on what I would call a changeless
Platonic Absolute and Hegel on a more Aristotelian historical absolute and this
naturally effect their theories of religion as we shall see below.
In ‘The Phenomenology of
Mind’ Hegel situates religion within the phenomenological development of spirit
(Geist) and defines it as ‘the self-consciousness of absolute spirit as
portrayed by finite spirit’[61].
In his ‘Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion’ he generally develops the
concept religion as a movement from the finite to the infinite and further as
the consciousness of God or the divine subject[62].
HPB defines religion on a
particular level and on a universal level: 1. ‘A Religion in the true and only
correct sense, is a bond uniting men together—not a particular set of dogmas
and beliefs’[63].
2. ‘Now Religion, per se, in its widest meaning is that which binds not only
all MEN, but also all BEINGS and all things in the entire Universe into one
grand whole’[64].
From these definitions of
religion the seeming contradiction begins to emerge.
In Hegel’s ‘The Phenomenology
of Mind’ religion is viewed as a “moment” in the becoming of (absolute) spirit;
religion is thus an experience, or more specifically, the experience of ‘the
self-consciousness of absolute spirit as it is portrayed by finite spirit’[65]
and in Hegel’s ‘Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion’, where he continues to
develop his ideas on ‘the concept religion’, religion becomes a dialectical
relationship between God and finite spirit or human consciousness. This relationship
takes place in thought and can thus be called “religious consciousness”.
Hegel’s “philosophy of religion” is therefore a specific thought-process or
movement of thought whose special concern is the distinction between the finite
self and the “divine other” or God. The result of this dialectic relationship is
that finite spirit becomes elevated to the infinite; consequently religion is viewed
by Hegel as a movement from finite to infinite[66].
This elevation of finite spirit is actually, on a “macrocosmic level”, a part
of the overall development of absolute spirit as the divine subject; therefore in
Hegel’s more speculative understanding religion becomes, not only “religious
consciousness“, but actually “the consciousness of God”. Hegel writes: ‘This is
the concept of religion, that God knows God self in spirit and that spirit
knows itself in God’[67].
In this sense religion on a “macrocosmic level” became the gradual manifestation
of God in and through finite consciousness, thus not only an elevation of the
finite into the infinite, but also the gradual manifestation of the infinite in
the finite or as Schlitt writes
‘it
was the movement from initial infinite, God, othering God self in the finite
and, then, as enriched return taking up the finite into the infinite. This
latter or true infinite grounded and made possible the movement of religion as
an elevation of finite spirit to the absolute, namely to God as absolute
subjectivity’[68].
Hegel thus viewed
religion as a “universal” or a circulatory “totality” which develops from a self-motivated
(spiritual) impulse through “othering itself” in a natural dialectics of spirit
relating itself to itself (both as infinite and finite). On a “microcosmic
level” the “philosophy of religion” can thus be viewed as the thinking through
of the notion God[69]
as inclusive divine subjectivity[70],
but on a “macrocosmic level” Religion in relation to the concept God becomes
the “self-positing concept of God” or god’s own dialectical process.
With HPB religion is
rather that which binds entities together in unity both on a particular and
universal level. This uniting bond seems to be nothing other than the ‘one
eternal truth’[71].
Religion as truth is thus that which binds the universe together as a unity on
the “universal level” and that which binds men together on the “particular level”.
This can perhaps also be understood in relation to the Theosophical “motto”
which states that: ‘There is no religion higher than Truth’[72].
With HPB religion in its
universal nature as Truth appears to be given an ontological status which is
independent of and beyond finite human consciousness, whereas, with Hegel the
ontological status of religion is not independent of (collective human)
consciousness or absolute spirit, but is an inherent potential form of the
absolute spirit manifested and actualised, thus producing a specific reflective
experience, within the absolute spirit, of itself. Religion is thus, with Hegel,
not beyond consciousness or absolute spirit, but resides within consciousness
as a part of consciousness itself; and when actualised it displays a “moment”
of the development or the becoming of consciousness. It is the stage, in the
development of (absolute) spirit, in which it becomes conscious of itself as
absolute spirit. We thus have HPB arguing for religion in its universal sense
to be ‘one eternal truth’ residing beyond what she calls finite consciousness[73]
and Hegel arguing that religion is a form of consciousness or of absolute
spirit.
The problem in this
apparent disagreement seems to be one of perspective, since it seems that HPB generally
discusses a transcendental nature of religion in relation to a finite
consciousness, and Hegel is discussing religion in relation to what he calls
absolute spirit.
The absolute spirit of
Hegel is, however, obviously not equivalent to what HPB calls finite
consciousness. Hegel’s term absolute spirit is infinite and is actually the
self-consciousness of God[74].
To HPB finite consciousness is what she calls the lower quaternary in ‘the
constitution of man’[75],
here especially lower mind (Sk. manas). Lower mind can never grasp the infinite
and is limited within time and space. The ‘one eternal truth’, and thus the
essence of true religion, is beyond this aspect of man, residing within the universal
mind (Sk. mahat). In this relation, HPB discriminates between relative truth
and Absolute Truth which naturally affects a split in her concept of religion.
Relative truth is truth as the limited aspect of human consciousness, often
called ‘the animal part of man’, perceives it and is thus often seen in
pluralis as truths, since finite human conceptions are as varied as are humans.
Relative truth is thus a product of ‘finite human consciousness’ and is
therefore changeable, where Absolute Truth on the other hand is One, immovable,[76]
divine, eternal and beyond the world of phenomena, limitation and (Sk.) maya[77].
Absolute Truth cannot be grasped by any finite consciousness[78],
but there is a divine and infinite aspect in man which man can embody if he
wills it, through self effort and by transforming and conquering his limited
‘animal soul’[79].
This divine part of man can grasp the eternal Truth, because this divine part
of man is one with ‘UNIVERSAL MIND’ in which Truth resides[80].
This epistemology is highly Platonic in its Plotinian or neoplatonic form; one
easily perceives the demarcation between doxa and episteme, phenomenal and
ideal, and the role Nous plays as the perceiver of Truth.
This discrimination
between Absolute and relative truth(s) affects HPB’s concept of religion in the
way that there is an aspect of religion which is Absolute Truth and an aspect
of religion which is relative truth. The aspect of Absolute Truth she calls ‘esoteric’,
‘theosophy’, ‘wisdom-religion’ or the primeval religion and the aspect of
relative truth(s) she calls ‘exoteric’, ‘dogmatic’, or the many religions, etc.
To HPB esoteric religion is thus an ontological entity. It is “sui generis”,
Universal Truth beyond finite reason and physicality whereas exoteric religion
consists of a system of finite conceptions (religious dogmas) produced by
finite consciousness in its attempt to grasp and formulate the One Truth[81].
To Hegel truth in the absolute
sense is (also) “One”; it is God from the religious standpoint, the absolute
from the philosophical standpoint, absolute knowledge in the ‘Phenomenology’, the
absolute idea in the ‘Science of Logic’, and absolute spirit in the ‘Philosophy
of Mind’.
But, in Hegel’s view, the
absolute (truth) is not static, it is not the beginning and it is not
transcendent and apart from phenomenal existence and finite consciousness,
since these are a part of the whole (the absolute) even though they cannot
express the absolute in its fullness.
The contradiction seems to be related to the fact that
the absolute as well as notions in Hegel’s system evolve or unfold through a
self-positing dialectical process making religion itself evolve as part of the absolute;
whereas HPB’s Truth, inclusive of religion, seems to be more of a Platonic
nature i.e. a static archetype that consciousness slowly seeks to approximate
or imitate until it (be-)comes into a complete identity with it. In HPB’s view,
it is not the Absolute, but finite consciousness that moves through higher and
higher forms. Hegel’s theory is more of an Aristotelian nature in which form
and matter, ideas and phenomena cannot be separated.
There is, however, a paradox within HPB’s thought because
in certain places it seems as if entities (religion for example) evolve in the
same manner as in Hegel’s theory. When for example HPB discusses the nature of
time in the ‘SD’ she writes that a real entity or thing
does not consist
solely of what is seen at any particular moment, but is composed of the sum of
all its various and changing conditions from its appearance in the material
form to its disappearance from earth. It is these “sum totals” that exist from
eternity in the “future,” and pass by degrees through matter, to exist for
eternity in the “past”[82].
This quote seems very Hegelian, however, from another
passage (below) it seems clear that these “sum totals” do not really evolve
themselves, but only appear to do so to ‘finite consciousness’.
The
first lesson taught in Esoteric Philosophy is, that the incognizable Cause does
not put forth evolution, whether consciously or unconsciously, but only
exhibits periodically different aspects of itself to the perception of finite
Minds[83].
From these statements, it seems that HPB views
evolution as the fragmented perception or presentation of the real by or to
finite minds. Since finite minds are not able to perceive the whole (Truth) at
once they perceive bits of it, each successive bit being an evolution in or of
finite consciousness. Hegel views this, the process in consciousness, as an
important part of the epistemological development of consciousness towards the absolute,
whereas from HPB’s perspective the finite perceptions become incomplete and
distorted pictures of the Truth and thus not really a significant evolutionary
process of truth itself.
In HPB’s system it is thus only consciousness that
evolves and not the universals inclusive of religion, whereas with Hegel it is
also the universals, truth and religion, that evolves as part of the
dialectical interplay of absolute consciousness with itself as object
(universals). HPB’s religion thus becomes a non-historical and transcendent
religion in its “true” (esoteric) sense whereas Hegel’s religion is historical
and immanent.
In Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology
of Mind’ we thus find religion itself as a necessary “moment” in the
development of absolute spirit placed at a specific location in the larger developmental
or evolutionary scheme; religion is preceded by the grander moments 1.
Consciousness 2. Self consciousness 3. Reason 4. Spirit. After religion, the
fifth, we find the sixth stage which is absolute knowledge or absolute philosophy.
Religion is subdivided in accordance with the way the moments of religion phenomenologicaly
display the absolute. Generally, there are three forms or “moments” of religion
according to Hegel’s “Phenomenology”. I will list these three here for the sake
of reference:
1. Natural Religion (found
mainly in India and Egypt) is the religion in which the absolute is perceived
in nature and natural objects[84].
2. Religion of Arts
(Greek and Roman) is the religions in which the absolute is perceived in art(s)[85].
3. Religion of Revelation
(Christianity) in which the absolute is perceived in the true form of spirit[86].
This “romantic”
classification is a scheme meant to explain the development of spirit through
“representation”. Spirit perceives itself in various religious forms as spiritual,
but these are still just “representations” of itself and not itself as its own
concept. Therefore even though the religion of revelation is the highest form
of religion, absolute spirit is not comprehended in its primordial form.
Absolute spirit has not returned to its own absolute self-consciousness, by negating
all its objectivities from itself. This is attained in (absolute) philosophy[87].
In his ‘Lectures on the
Philosophy of Religion’ Hegel elaborates on the concept of religion and its
development as it is found in the ‘Phenomenology’ (as described above)[88].
In part 2 of these
lectures what Hegel calls ‘determinate religion’ becomes the history of
religions other than Christianity; the historical and metaphysical realization
of the concept religion itself. This realization occurs as a dialectically
progressing movement of finite religions, one following phenomenologicaly after
another, each being a momentary totality in the movement of spirit. As Schlitt
writes,
‘For
Hegel the historical development of these religions [determinate religion(s)]
was the path by and through which spirit progressed toward the consummate
religion’[89].
This development is also
viewed by Hegel as a structured movement from substance to subject[90].
The divine subject or God is not only substance but subject as well. Determinate
religion displays the general development from substance to subject or a
gradual elevation of spirit over nature in religious consciousness[91].
In the 1831 lectures this process is described as the gradual freedom of
spirit, the whole movement of determinate religion can be seen as the winning
of freedom and subjectivity[92].
This movement beyond nature is one with the history of religions[93]
or as Schlitt writes: ‘The major emphasis is clearly on the religions themselves
as forms or levels in the movement of determinate religion, and on the
transitions from one religion to the next’[94].
The immediate religions also
called the nature religions are the Chinese religion(s), Buddhism, and Hinduism.
Thereafter we find the religions of transition such as the Persian and Egyptian
and finally the religions of beauty and sublimity or the Greek and Jewish
religions[95].
Historically, Hegel classifies
these religions successively according to the abstract ways in which God is
known, and in how the practical relationship to god is found in the “cult”[96].
All these religions, the religions of immediacy, sublimity and beauty, leads up
to the religion of expediency or Roman religion which unites the religions of
beauty and sublimity. Finally the roman leads to or is united with the highest
religion, the religion of Christianity[97].
In trend with Hegel’s
philosophy and the analogy of the plant, as mentioned above, each of the
historical religions are necessary representations without which the highest
and true religion could not have developed[98].
There is thus both metaphysically and historically a development from the natural
religions through the other religions to Christianity or revealed religion.
Hegel’s understanding of
the history of religion is thus “developmental” being ‘a philosophical
interpretation of the history of religions as a movement, in and through human
subjectivity, of self-positing divine subjectivity’[99].
Moreover, each of the religions is gradual expressions of religion (universal)
itself, each one successively being a more accurate expression[100].
The central idea in Hegel’s
history of religion is in my view the integration of metaphysics, history,
religion and truth into an overall developmental scheme of freedom. From the
foregoing exposition and discussion of Hegel’s view of the necessary development
of the “moment” religion and its “sub-moments”, it thus hopefully stands clear
why there could not once have existed a complete religion or wisdom at the
beginning of time or early in history, because history and truth are
interrelated and interdependent. Universals or in this case religion does not
transcend history, but is a fundamental (part of) history itself and without
history no truth would exist.
Throughout her life, HPB
worked extensively to prove and to show to the world that, at the basis, all
world religions are one, even though they might appear to be different on the
surface. To show and prove the existence of such a common basis of all
religions was both the aim of her first Magnum Opus, ‘Isis Unveiled’ - wherein
she examines religion in a provocatively new manner on the backbone of Godfrey
Higgins and thus highly stimulating the comparative method used by the then new
science of religion “established” around 1870 by Max Muller – and ‘The Secret
Doctrine’, in which her aim was ‘to rescue from degradation the archaic truths
which are the basis of all religions; and to uncover, to some extent, the
fundamental unity from which they all spring’[101].
In ‘Isis Unveiled’ HPB concludes, as we have seen, that all the various
religions found throughout world history are nothing but fragments of the once
one universal ‘wisdom-religion’. This once one universal ‘wisdom religion’ can according
to HPB still be found, in the esoteric core of the various religions since they
all build on common and universal principles, however, dogmatic and crystallised
they have become through human activity and interpretation.
This idea that all
religions sprung from a primeval and common source is not a new idea originating
with HPB. We can find it all the way back to, at least, Roger Bacon in the 13th
century[102]
and among Renaissance esotericists under words such as philosophia perennis
(the eternal or primeval philosophy), philosophia sacra (the holy philosophy);
and prisca theologia (original theology). All words that point back towards a
primeval source of wisdom. This is the idea with which Hegel disagrees, since: How
can there be a purposeful successive development of religion if it were completely
revealed from the beginning of time? In addition, how can there be a system
without self-conscious development? Moreover, Hegel also considers the esoteric
or esoteric knowledge to be the most primitive and undeveloped[103]
where HPB sees it as the most complete consisting of “the highest” truths.[104]
The paradox one meets in HPB is, however, that everything else in her system
evolves to higher stages, “an esoteric truth itself”, as we have seen, but not religion?
Unfortunately, HPB provides, contrary to Hegel, no systematic outline of a “development
of religion” and it does seem as if religion in its true sense in fact does not
evolve. However, in the ‘SD’ after having discussed and given examples of the
esoteric “dogma of the risings and falls of civilization”; we find the
following statement: ‘Any how, all this is one among the many proofs of the
cyclic rise and fall of civilization and religion’[105].
Here it is seen that religion undergoes a cyclic movement of rise and fall and
not a progressive development in the enlightenment sense of the concept. This
idea is also found in HPB’s collected writings in which she writes: ‘Thus we
find again the old truism that it is but names and forms that change – ideas
remain the same’[106],
meaning in this context that exoteric religions, as the outer form and name of
the esoteric ideas are the ones changing. This change seems to be lawfully cyclical
and periodical since she writes in the same connection of the ideas and true
symbolism of esoteric religion that ‘It may have its meaning changed nay, even,
its outward form altered [exoteric religions],’ but ‘Like the phoenix of old,
it will continue periodically to revive from its ashes’[107].
This gives a cyclic and not progressive view of the ‘development of religion’.
In HPB’s view, as we have
touched upon, every religion has two sides or aspects to it; one exoteric and
one esoteric. The exoteric aspect is the outer or worldly face of religion
consisting of various dogmas and rituals constructed by man. It is generally a crystallization
and interpretation of the universal truths of the primeval religion into the
language and expression of the culture to which it is designed to serve, or as
she writes:
As cycle
succeeded cycle, and one nation after another came upon the world’s stage to
play its brief part in the majestic drama of human life, each new people
evolved from ancestral traditions its own religion, giving it a local color,
and stamping it with its individual characteristics. While each of these religions had its
distinguishing traits, by which, were there no other archaic vestiges, the
physical and psychological status of its creators could be estimated, all
preserved a common likeness to one prototype. This parent cult was none other than the
primitive “wisdom-religion”[108].
Exoteric religion is thus
more or less a human construction or interpretation of the One (esoteric) ‘wisdom-religion’
by an initiate or adept[109] and
thus every religion in its exoteric aspect differs from every other religion
since man’s interpretation of divine truth is as various as the human minds and
cultures are[110].
The esoteric aspect of religion is the original and primeval ‘wisdom-religion’
preserved through time by initiates in various countries. It consists of
universal and divine truth(s) and is at the core or basis of every exoteric
religion but preserved for the initiates in the adyta of the mysteries and
temples[111].
The primeval religion is thus still present today in its original form,
however, veiled it might be in every religion by its exoteric aspects.
From this perspective
there never really has been any one religious founder but rather various
religious interpreters who themselves were initiated[112].
None of the religions is thus purely fiction since they contain some of the
universal truths but they are not special revelations either[113].
The human element in all the religions of the world being crystallised dogmas
are what is ever killing truth[114].
The natural element or the religion of nature is the Truth[115].
The history of religion
is thus from HPB’s view a history of how the one Truth originally was given to
initiates from higher sources; how it from time to time has been re-transmitted
to the masses and finally, how it has been dogmatized and crystallised by human
vanity and limitedness and thus fallen into falsity. It seems as if the history
of religion is a history of the rise of Truth among men at certain cyclic times
and the fall of Truth at other cyclic times as under the law of periodicity[116].
This reminds me of the
statement in the ‘Bhagavad-gita’ in which Krisna states: ‘Whenever and wherever
there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a
predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself’[117].
Truth is thus separate from history and history is not a development of Truth
as with Hegel. Truth is something “other” which is to be implemented in
history.
Esoteric religion is thus
ever alive and the same in the inner sanctuaries of the initiates whereas exoteric
religion is ever changing and diverse among the various cultures, even though
elements within them are inspired from the common esoteric religion. There does
thus not seem to be any indication of a development in a progressive manner
towards higher truth among the exoteric religions as with Hegel.
To Hegel such a concept
of history is naive since, to him, the esoteric is not the ideal or ever
highest, as it is the most undeveloped and must be developed or become exoteric
in order to be systematic and manifest.[118]
To HPB the esoteric must from a certain perspective remain esoteric in its
essence, but be presented anew to every age under cyclic law. There is thus in
HPB’s system a law or teleology, but not towards higher expressions of
religion.
The reason why religion
in its true sense does not evolve is probably as mentioned earlier: because
there is but One true eternal religion and Truth according to HPB, the ‘wisdom-religion’
being the first and thus the primeval religion, and this Truth cannot descend
to us in its purity but we can epistemologically ascend to it via our divine
faculty. This true religion does thus not evolve or manifest itself gradually
as a successive unfolding of the yet potential as Hegel’s religion as well as
his whole system does.
HPB constructs an occult
or “emic” history and development of (exoteric) religion which is an integrated
part of her grand narrative of evolution. This history is not systematically
presented in her works but can be (re)assembled somewhat as follows: HPB views
the beginning of religion as follows quoting Faber: ‘There was a time when the
whole world, the totality of mankind, had one religion, and when they were of
"one lip." "All the religions of the Earth were at first One and
emanated from one centre,"’[119].
At this early age, we furthermore find according to HPB that this original unitary
(esoteric) religion was given to mankind by divine teachers and that it was
cared for and honoured by a small number of men and on the other hand slowly
degraded among the mass of men. The degradation among the mass of men later
formed the exoteric religion(s). The small group thus became and ‘remained the
elect custodians of the Mysteries revealed to mankind by the divine Teachers’[120].
Already at this early time,
it seems that an emerging separation in (esoteric) religion took place. The
exoteric religions thus slowly emerged and “evolved” under the cyclic law of
periodicity thus undergoing a cycle of rise and fall. “Rise” can in this
connection be viewed as a progressive or continual identity with Truth or the
original (esoteric) religion and “fall” can be viewed as a process of degradation
or fall away from Truth.
The first dawning of
exoteric religion consisted of a reverence for the ‘bright gods of the elements’[121]
which to the first races were visible around them and within themselves. HPB
writes:
It
was the "Golden Age" in those days of old, the age when the
"gods walked the earth, and mixed freely with the mortals." Since
then, the gods departed (i.e., became invisible), and later generations ended
by worshipping their kingdoms -- the Elements[122].
With the Atlanteans or
the fourth root race exoteric religion was formed and took root. It was the Atlanteans
‘who became the first "Sacrificers"’ as HPB writes and this sacrifice
was made to ‘the god of matter’ also called the ‘Spirit of the Earth’[123].
She further states that this worship degenerated into self-worship ‘thence led
to phallicism, or that which reigns supreme to this day in the symbolisms of
every exoteric religion of ritual, dogma, and form’[124].
HPB elsewhere states: ‘Phallic worship has developed only with the gradual loss
of the keys to the inner meaning of religious symbols’[125];
Here again we see how exoteric religion is influenced by the cycle of fall
(away from the esoteric) in HPB’s view.
Within our race, the
fifth, also known as the Aryan race the “Veda religion” is the most ancient exoteric
religion. Its seeds or root are according to HPB old and were in fact planted
during the Atlanto-Lemuria period being the root of all now existing religions[126].
HPB thus also writes that: ‘Pre-Vedic Brahmanism and Buddhism are the double
source from which all religions sprung; Nirvana is the ocean to which all tend’[127]. The subsequent development of the known religions of
the world was to HPB somewhat the following:
The
oldest religions of the world -- exoterically, for the esoteric root or
foundation is one -- are the Indian, the Mazdean, and the Egyptian. Then comes
the Chaldean, the outcome of these -- entirely lost to the world now, except in
its disfigured Sabeanism as at present rendered by the archaeologists; then,
passing over a number of religions that will be mentioned later, comes the
Jewish[128].
However, religion has not
now reached its highest point of development with Christianity as with Hegel
but tends towards a future religion that is nothing but a re-manifestation of
the ‘wisdom-religion’. HPB writes,
Be
this as it may, the religion of the ancients is the religion of the future. A
few centuries more, and there will linger no sectarian beliefs in either of the
great religions of humanity. Brahmanism and Buddhism, Christianity and
Mahometanism will all disappear before the mighty rush of facts[129].
Having presented and
discussed a smaller part of the complex and comprehensive “grand theories” of Hegel
and HPB regarding religion, evolution and their interconnection, I conclude the
following anent the object of this article, which was, as mentioned, to
explore how the concepts religion and evolution were used by Hegel and HPB and to
examine the similarities and contrasts between these uses.
Concerning this, it can
be concluded that both lived during a time where history and evolutionary
theories became increasingly dominant which naturally affected their theories; both
thus incorporated religion and evolution into their systems as central elements
and in this sense became mirrors of their own time. The concepts were partly
used as attempts to solve the old problem of truth and its relation to history.
This can also be explained as attempts of historicism during an age where “universal
truths” were in decline and “historical consciousness” arising.
They thus both expound
evolutionary views and the similarity in this regard is that, teleology, spirit,
the absolute, universal structures, and trans-empirical elements play a
dominant role in both theories in contrast to mechanistic and naturalistic
theories of the time. Evolution, history and time are also in both theories
displayed as cyclic or spiral cyclic rather than linear. There are however
obvious dissimilarities as regards the “from of thought” they represent since
Hegel was primarily a Philosopher and HPB an Occultist/Theosophist[130].
The paradox of this article
was, however, that both theories teach evolution, but only one of the theories
that religion evolves progressively to higher phases. Why is that?
Within Hegel’s system religion
and everything else is a stage, form, or expression of consciousness (spirit). Thus
religion, being a part of evolving consciousness as absolute spirit, must
evolve too. Religion must, as all universals or notions, unfold its potential
structure and become whole, which is truth. With Hegel, the absolute and
universals (notions) are thus not apart or separate from consciousness which
also means that truth and history are interdependent. Truth is not static but
dynamic and historical.
With HPB on the other
hand true religion as Truth itself is eternal and static – always the same. It
is separate from finite consciousness. Finite consciousness is the only thing
which really evolves historically and it does this through better and better or
higher and higher instruments (the various natural kingdoms). As it does this,
it can perceive Religion or Truth more and more clearly, consequently it is our
perceptions of Religion that evolves and not Religion itself. Religion itself
is static and transcendent as the rest of the noumenal universe. The Absolute
is separate from the phenomenal and historical world as in Platonism.
Because true Religion is
the one Truth itself, beyond history, the historical aspect of religion becomes
interpretations. This effects a splitting of the concept religion into esoteric
and exoteric. Esoteric or true religion is interpreted from time to time or
given to or implemented in the world, by initiates or divine beings, in a garment
fitting the given culture and people and slowly under historical cyclic law the
exoteric religion will fall, become distorted, crystallise and die. Then a new
exoteric religion will arise and so the cycle continues until man is pure
enough to maintain the ‘wisdom-religion’ pure.
The contradiction between
the two systems is thus real and grounded in a philosophical distinction
between the ontological and epistemological nature of the absolute, universals
and particulars, the noumenal and the phenomenal. As mentioned earlier, Hegel’s
philosophical background can be seen as of an Aristotelian nature where HPB’s can
be seen as of a more Platonic nature combined with evolutionary theories.
The synthesis of the two
systems is that HPB, who lived after Hegel, saw Hegel’s philosophy compatible
with esoteric philosophy. Hegel’s philosophy she thought is the process of the “divine
mind”, what she calls the (Sk.) mahat. The pure Absolute, which is above, is
unmovable - Hegel himself would probably not have agreed to this since it seems
to be the whole point of his philosophy to prove otherwise i.e. that the
absolute, spirit and truth is the force behind dialectic and dynamic becoming,
or history.
The conclusion here
reached can, however, not be deemed final since the subject itself is complex
and fare from exhausted, but I hope to have shed some light upon this
relatively unexplored terrain within the domain of Western Esotericism about
the problems of an original perfect religion (tradition/prisca theologia) and
its relation to history and evolution or upon two “modern” solutions to the old
problem of truth and its relation to history.
·
Bacon, R., The Opus Majus of Roger
Bacon, trans. by Robert Belle Burke, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1928.
·
Bahti, T., Allegories of History:
literary historiography after Hegel, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1992.
·
Barborka, G. A., The Divine Plan, Adyar,
The Theosophical Publishing House, 1992.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Isis Unveiled: A
Master Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology, New
York: J. W. Bouton, 1877.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., The Secret Doctrine:
The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy, London: The
Theosophical Publishing Company, 1888.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume IV, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1991.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume IX, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1986.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume X, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1988.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume XII, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1987.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume XIII, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1982.
·
Blavatsky, H. P., Collected Writings,
Volume XIV, Wheaton: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1992.
·
Browning, G. K. (ed.), Hegel’s
Phenomenology of Spirit a Reappraisal, London: Kulwer, 1997.
·
Fackenheim, E. L., The Religious
Dimension in Hegel’s Thought, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1967.
·
Godwin, J. The Theosophical Enlightenment,
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
·
Hammer, O. Claming knowledge: Strategies of
Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age, Leiden: Brill, 2001.
·
Hanegraaff, W. J., New Age Religion and
Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirrir of Secular Thought, Leiden:
Brill, 1996.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the
Philosophy of History, trans. by J. Sibree, London: George Bell and Sons,
1888.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Aesthetics: Lectures
on Fine Art, trans. by T. M. Knox, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the
History of Philosophy, trans. by E. S. Haldane, London: Kegan Paul, 1892.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the
Philosophy of Religion, trans. by E. B. Speirs, London: Kegan Paul, 1895.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Science of Logic,
trans. by W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, New York: Macmillan, 1929.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., The Logic of Hegel, The
Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, trans. by William Wallace, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1892.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Hegel’s Philosophy of
Mind, The Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, trans. by William
Wallace, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., The Phenomenology of
Mind, trans. by J. B. Baillie, London: George Allen, 1910.
·
Hegel, G. W. F., Phänomenologie
Des Geistes, Gesammelte werke Vol. 9, W. bonsiepen and R. Heede (eds.), Hamburg:
Felix Meiner, 1980.
·
Hyppolite, J., Genesis and Structure of
Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. by Samuel Cherniak and John
Heckman, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974.
·
Inwood, M., A Hegel Dictionary,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
·
Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The
Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge: University Press, 1957.
·
Lamb, D., Hegel – from foundation to
system, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.
·
Magee, G. A., Hegel and the Hermetic
Tradition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
·
McCalla, A., ‘Illuminism and French Romantic
Philosophies of History’, in: Faivre, A. & Hanegraaff, W.
J., (eds), Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion, Belgium:
Peeters, 1998, 254-268.
·
McCalla, A., ‘Romanticism’, in: Braun,
W., and Russell, T. M. (eds.), Guide to study of religion, London: Cassell,
2000, 365-379.
·
O’Brian, G. D., Hegel on Reason and
History, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975.
·
Prabhupada, S. (trans.), Bhagavad-gita,
New York: Collier books, 1972.
·
Schlitt, D. M., Divine Subjectivity:
Understanding Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion, London: University of
Scranton Press, 1990.
·
Trompf, G. W., ‘Macrohistory in Blavatsky,
Steiner and Guenon’, in: Faivre, A., & Hanegraaff, W. J., (eds), Western
Esotericism and the Science of Religion, Leuven: Peeters, 1998.
[1] See Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 410-482, for a discussion of this period in the history of Western Esotericism.
[2] H. P. Blavatsky, from now on called HPB.
[3] It is to be noted that Hegel presents his philosophy as a system whereas HPB presents her thoughts either as commentaries to ancient texts, critical articles or general discussions, thus no real systematic exposition is given by her even though a system is definitely behind her unsystematic expositions.
[4] This is embodied in all his works but can especially be seen in the threefold structure of his Encyclopedia (Logic, Nature, Spirit).
[5] Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 1. Vii, Vol. 2. 216.
[6] This HPB attempted to show throughout: Isis, Vol. 1 named Science.
[7] This HPB attempted to show throughout: Isis, Vol. 2 named Theology.
[8] See Blavatsky, Collected Writings, Vol. X, 166-167. (This series of books will from now on be called: Blavatsky, CW).
[9] Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, 11.
[10] Ibid, 60.
[11] See Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 390 and note 32.
[12] Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 2, 639.
[13] Ibid, 639.
[14]
Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1, 310. (This book will from now on be called: Blavatsky, SD).
[15] See: Bahti, Allegories of History, 9-26.
[16] Quoted in: Inwood, Hegel Dictionary, 118.
[17] Ibid, 118.
[18] Quoted in: Inwood, Hegel Dictionary, 118.
[19] Ibid, 119.
[20] See Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, 223-227, 236-247. See also: McCalla, ‘Illuminism and French Romantic Philosophies of History’, 254-268.
[21] See Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 419-421, 464.
[22] Ibid, p. 413.
[23] See Kirk, and Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers, 197, 218-219.
[24] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 2 note.
[25] Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, 9.
[26] I use Sk. as a shortage for Sanskrit.
[27]
Hegel, Phenomenology, Vol. 1, 2-3. Hegel,
Phänomenologie, 10.
[28] Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 270.
[29] Ibid, 272.
[30] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 465.
[31] Ibid, 470-471.
[32] Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 271.
[33] Ibid, 273.
[34] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 465-467.
[35] Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 276, 280.
[36] Ibid, 276.
[37] HPB would be classified under occultism according to Hanegraaff’s etic definition of occultism as a sub category of esotericism defined as: ‘all attempts by esotericists to come to terms with a disenchanted world…’ Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 422- 423.
[38] Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 295.
[39] Ibid, 276, 281.
[40] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 332, 259-260.
[41] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 471, 480.
[42] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 277-8. See also: Hammer, Claming Knowledge, 53-54, 254-259.
[43] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 115.
[44] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 471. Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 277-278.
[45] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 277-278.
[46] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 471, 480.
[47] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 43.
[48] Ibid, 368-378.
[49] Ibid, 158, 289-290.
[50] For example in between each of the seven globe periods constituting a round there is a period of rest.
[51] Barborka, The Divine Plan, 158-247.
[52] See: Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 280.
[53] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 472.
[54] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 641-642.
[55] Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 279.
[56] Hammer, Claming Knowledge, 54.
[57] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 641. For similarities see Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 413, 465, 470-471, 480 and Trompf, ‘Macrohistory’, 280.
[58] Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 472, 480.
[59] Hammer, Claming knowledge, 257.
[60]
Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 50-51.
[61]
Hyppolite, Genesis and Structure of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit,
534. See also Hegel, Phenomenology, Vol. 2. 687-689. Hegel Phänomenologie,
364-365.
[62] Schlitt, Divine Subjectivity, 39-40. This book will from now on be called: Schlitt, DS.
[63] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. X, 161.
[64] Ibid, 161. It seems that HPB derives this definition from its Latin etymology as re’ligio from the root reli’gare which means to bind as in a bond.
[65]
Hyppolite, Genesis and Structure
of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, 534. See also Hegel, Phenomenology, Vol. 2. 687-689. Hegel Phänomenologie,
364-365.
[66] See Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, 89-258, on the conception of Religion.
[67] Hegel quote and translation in Schlitt, DS, 42.
[68] Schlitt, DS, 40.
[69] Schlitt, DS, xiii.
[70] Schlitt, DS, xiv.
[71] Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 2, 639.
[72] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. IV, 408.
[73] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. IX, 33.
[74] Inwood, Hegel Dictionary, 275.
[75] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. XII, 691-693.
[76] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. IX, 33.
[77] Ibid, 33.
[78] Ibid, 33.
[79] Ibid, 156-157.
[80] Ibid, 41.
[81] See section 7 of the present article.
[82] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 37.
[83] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 2, 487.
[84]
See Hegel, Phenomenology,
698-711. Hegel, Phänomenologie, 369-375.
[85]
See Hegel, Phenomenology,
712-758. Hegel, Phänomenologie, 376-399.
[86]
See Hegel, Phenomenology,
759-799. Hegel,
Phänomenologie, 400-421.
[87]
See the final section of Hegel, Phenomenology, VIII, Absolute Knowledge, 800–823.
Hegel, Phänomenologie, VIII.
[88] It is to be noted that Hegel’s classification of the various religions varies according to the year of the lecture series; however, due to limitation of space for the present article, the presentation here given is more of a general nature.
[89] Schlitt, DS, 67, see also 80.
[90] Ibid, 81.
[91] Ibid, 81.
[92] Ibid, 83.
[93] Ibid, 86.
[94] Ibid, 79.
[95] Ibid, 79.
[96] Ibid, 74.
[97] Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 2, 327.
[98] Schlitt, DS, 85.
[99] Ibid, 86.
[100] Ibid, 87.
[101] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, viii.
[102] See Bacon, Opus Majus, Vol 1, 52-68.
[103]
See Hegel, Phenomenology,
11-12. Hegel, Phänomenologie, 15-16.
[104] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. XII, 601-602.
[105] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 2, 723.
[106] Blavatsky, CW, Vol. XIII, 301.
[107] Ibid, 301.
[108] Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 2, 216. See also Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, xxxvi.
[109] In HPB’s system there, however, exist various degrees of the initiators of a ‘new’ religion, some are of a more divine nature than others, such as avatars. There is for example a cyclic law which calls avatars into the world when Truth has vanished; in this case religion is given in a suitable form to the world rather than being an interpretation by a religious adept. See Blavatsky, CW, Vol. XIV, 373.
[110] Blavatsky, SD Vol. 1, xxxvi.
[111] Blavatsky, SD Vol. 1, xxxvi.
[112] Blavatsky, SD Vol. 1, xxxvi.
[113] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 2, 797.
[114] Ibid, 797.
[115] Ibid, 797.
[116] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 17.
[117] Prabhupada , Bhagavad-gita, ch. 4, text 7, 224.
[118]
Hegel,
Phenomenology, Vol. 1, 11-12. Hegel, Phänomenologie, 15-16.
[119] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 2, 760.
[120] Ibid, 281.
[121] Ibid, 272.
[122] Ibid, 273.
[123] Ibid, 273.
[124] Ibid, 273.
[125] HPB, SD, Vol. 2, 471.
[126] Ibid, 483.
[127] Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 2, 639.
[128] Blavatsky, SD, Vol. 1, 10-11.
[129]
Blavatsky, Isis, Vol. 1, 613.
[130] It is, however, to be noted that Hegel was strongly influenced by Hermetic thought and Christian Theosophy, which might account for some of the similarities he shares with HPB. See Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.