The fundamental contribution of modern theosophy to the history of occultism consists in its assimilation, by the early founders of “Comparative Religion”, in an already existing western occultist framework.
The theosophical approach is basically eclectic: selected concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism were adopted insofar as it seemed that they could be assimilated; if not, they were either ignored or given a new meaning. This does not mean, of course, that theosophy owes nothing to the Orient. It seems evident that karma, in particular, became of central importance only after Blavatsky’s travel to India in 1878. However, it was embraced essentially because it provided a solution to the problems connected with typical western concepts of spiritual and moral evolution. As such, theosophy – although it has been instrumental in stimulating popular interest for Indian religions – is not only rooted in western esotericism, but has remained an essentially western movement.
If the spiritualists and theosophists perceived a “great outpouring” which would lead from materialism and dogmatic Christianity to a new spirituality compatible with science, a similar concern inspired the transcendentalists: they, too, sought to overcome both materialism and orthodox Christianity by an alternative vision based on the new science, comparative religion, and a belief in “progress”. Like theosophy, they approached the religions of the world in an eclectic manner: abstracting from the original religious context whatever elements they could use, while disregarding or reinterpreting whatever did not attract them.
The transcendentalists were certainly not of one mind in their attitude to Oriental religions: but it is evident that they were almost all fascinated by them, and contributed strongly to popular American conceptions of the Orient.
In spite of widespread interest in the Orient, it remained difficult for the westerners living in the late nineteenth century to achieve an adequate and balanced perspective on Hinduism or Buddhism as they actually functioned in their own cultural context. Oriental religions were consistently idealized and adapted to Western conditions. Modern theories of secular progress and evolution are as alien to the Orient as they were originally to western esotericism. They represent a third “mirror of secular thought” through which esotericism – already profoundly affected by “causality” and the new study of religions – had to be reflected in order to be acceptable to nineteenth and twentieth century mentalities.
Reference: W. Hanegraaff (1996).
