Talk:Helena Blavatsky/Archive 4

Revised lead
The revised lead does not confirm to WP:LEAD: it is not a summary of the article, not WP:NPOV, and contains no references for most of it's statements. A lot of criticism of Blavatsky is possible (I'm not a fan myself), but this is not an improvement. Therefore, I undid the revision. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is now acceptable. Good job. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By the way: I'm still not a fan of Blavatsky - but the impact of the Theosophical Society can hardly be over-estimated. See also D.T. Suzuki and Ashin Jinarakkhita, to name a few (of probably a lot more). Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite by a native speaker, please
Half the sentences in this article would score a d-minus on any fifth grade writing test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thevetat redirect
The link Thevetat at the bottom only redirects back to this same page. But that link is the only reference to Thevetat in the article, and no dragon (if that is what Thevetat is) is mentioned at all. I was originally redirected to this page while looking for information on that name, but it looks like a complete dead end. 50.30.49.13 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Overall, the standard of writing is weak. The constant repetition of "H.P. Blavatsky" is quite artificial, and suggests a wholesale copying of content from somewhere which is not acknowledged. The article appears not to know that she was always called "Madame Blavatsky" in England, so maybe a Russian source?
 * 2) The article as a whole has an aura of hero-worship. And sentences like "As of 2011 Theosophy remains an active philosophical school with presences in more than 50 countries around the world" looks one-eyed. You know, there are plenty of organisations which keep offices round the world, but which are basically as dead as the Dodo. Members number 20 to 30,000: ("Theosophical Society Membership Statistics 2007/2008" under Sources). That's a very small number.
 * 3) Most of all, I miss a sense of what a really good biography should be. Though it is a bit out of date now, the touchstone for a modern biography is Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians. In four short biographies the reader gets a sense of an inquiring mind searching out the real core of a famous person's life: the things that really matter above all else.
 * 4) The article is very long, and far too much time is spent describing Theosophy. Probably 3/4 of the article is not about the person, except indirectly. Biographies are supposed to be about people. Maybe we don't actually know much about her as a person. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree with your comments. Attempts to counterbalance this unbalanced entry are removed or carefully re-worded to make it look that the exposure she received in her lifetime was unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out that this article seems to contain evidence of time travel. The following was found in the article: "In 1856, Blavatsky's memories about living in India were published in the book From the Caves and Jungles of Hindustan. The book was composed of essays written from 1879 to 1886 under the pen name "Radda-Bay"." And a second error at: "In the letter from 2 October 1991 (?) she wrote to M. Hillis-Billing that the house of Teacher K.H. "is in the region of Karakoram mountains beyond Ladakh which is at minor Tibet and related now to Kashmir." (she passed in 1891) One of you experts might want to address this. 99.122.112.233 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should like to apologize for mistakes I may have made in code in my edits of this article feel free to fix them. Let's all be honest about this. Sources for information about this person pretty much all originate from within the "theosophy lodge" the lodge itself is nothing more then a refuge for charlatans of various sorts and has been exposed as such time and time again. The theosophy "lodge" is very sophisticated in its endeavors to create false history for itself and its claimed founder in all of its iterations. Claims about Madame Blavatsky founding the "theosophy lodge" are in fact the cult formerly known as "church universal and triumphant" attempts to rebrand themselves following bad publicity regarding their racism and bust with a cache of weapons in America during the 1980s. It is the same group and the attempts to deceive people genuinely seeking spiritual improvement are deplorable. Time travel? Really? From this bunch? I think not. The unfortunate truth is that the "theosophy lodge" is willing to resort to any manner of deceit, revisionism, and conspiracy in their efforts to dupe the souls unfortunate enough to fall under their influence. The entire article is nothing more then "church universal and triumphant" inheritors thinly veiled attempt to rebrand themselves and hoodwink people into believing their lies. It is disgraceful that Wikipedia is being subverted in this fashion and frankly something needs to be done. The group offered someone I know personally a large bribe as well as a cut of the profits of books and seminars if he would pretend to "channel" an ascended master from the white lodge. All of the parties involved in this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves but alas some of the inner circle are actually Satanists or Anarchists deliberately intent on confusing people. I am a sociologist in the United States and have followed the antics of this group since about 1984. Most of this article is made up out of whole cloth or "sources" provided from within the group itself and this goes even for the supposed sources within the Harvard Divinity School. It is unacceptable that Wikipedia is a party to this. Several groups use this umbrella in pursuit of their aims whether they be profit or spiritual anarchy or deliberate deceit and some of them ARE DANGEROUS ala C.U.T.'s substantial cache of automatic weapons. The wiki community can not simply allow them to make up their own history, references and post them. I would also point out that the intelligence community in the US has made use of the umbrella represented by this group and that groups and members of this ideological umbrella have been caught misrepresenting themselves as Freemasons, "Merry Pranksters", the intelligence community and law enforcement. Believe what you like but the truth remains pure and immune to rearrangement by perception or lies. Paul Escudero (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A nice page, but needs re-write for English usage
It is a very nice presentation on Blavatsky. Both the tone and the general emphasis are right. But the grammar is very weak, to the point of sometimes obscuring the meaning. Please somebody, preserve the tone and correct the grammar. --66.81.100.246 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Barlow is Intelligent
Listen to this fellow, actually read her works apparently. If any of you editorial magisterial elite Brahmins ever read "The Secret Doctrine", the racism is absolutely central and painfully obvious as one of the central notions of her specific rendition of "Theosophy" -

Her comments cannot be taken out of context. She states that the black race in America shall intermix with the others, seemingly "liberal" right?, as part of "karmic evolutionary progress" - reading more closely, what she is stating is the African type shall cease to exist as an outmoded form or vehicle by its eliminatory assimilation into the "Anglo-Teutonic" racial mass possessed of the highest "physical intellectuality" (see Mahatma letters) - and ANGLO-TEUTON is what Blavatsky means in describing America's "racial future" and "AMERICANS" - the alleged evolutionary "next step" is the fusion of Slavs and Teutonic types, vanguard species life-forms, as the "cream of the crop" of the Aryan Root Race as it dissolves and is reborn into the next post-Aryan Root Race. Racial mixing as moderns understand was not in her mind: elimination by absorption was the "karmic destiny" of the African and related varieties of humanity who lag behind the "WHITE CONQUERORS" (Mahatma Letters)... If too inferior, as the Tasmanians and certain Oceanic tribes, B. is clear as pure day their time is past, they are doomed: select specimens of Africo-Asians are granted by her munificence a form of survival by being uplifted through assimilative means is the extent of her "pan-humanistic" generosity. I speak the truth.

There, every Wiki-editor go crazy and hysterically shout me down now for telling the truth without pandering to populist moralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Those were her views. What of it? No one is asking me to believe it, we just want an accurate record. 73.70.250.164 (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Helena Blavatsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theosophycanada.com/files/fohat-summer-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Racial Beliefs section is incorrect in stating Blavatsky was not racist, Blavatsky was extremely racist and Anti-Jewish
This statement in the racial beliefs section is incorrect "Regarding the concept of race as defined – in a comparatively more limited manner – by anthropology, sociology, and other disciplines, Blavatsky did not encourage superiority by any person or group, promoting the idea of the common origin and destiny of all humanity, and establishing the principle of universal brotherhood as the First Object of the Theosophical Society." That statement is not correct, Blavatsky was extremely racist and Anti-Jewish. Hannah Newman in The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to Jews on New Age Anti-Judaism (which I cannot use as a source in the article itself because Newman is fringe, but can use as a bridge to find other, more reliable sources) wrote of " Blavatsky's link of the Jewish God with materialism." "Helena Blavatsky's assertion (_The Secret Doctrine_, II p.471) that the Jews have 'a religion of hate and malice toward everyone and everything outside itself,'" and " both Bailey and Blavatsky believed in an earlier, Judaica-free Christianity which at some later point was 'corrupted' by Jewish missionaries, resulting in the form we know today. " She also wrote " Helena Blavatsky [HPB] called the "God of Abram, Isaac and Jacob" a "spiteful and revengeful" deity. (_The Secret Doctrine_ I, p.439, footnote)" Newman also said "Blavatsky agreed that the Gnostics 'were right in regarding the Jewish God as belonging to a class of lower, material and not very holy denizens of the invisible world.' (quoted in Sklar, p.144)". I also recall reading that Blavatsky called Native Australians "sub human". I don't have time to go to the original sources Newman used today, but I will later to add information on Blavatsky's Anti-Judaism to the article and I'll try to locate her racist remarks about Native Australians also. RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if you search through the archives you will find more about her racism, e.g., , and . I couldn't decide on how to write about her or theosophy. I also gathered public domain content that you may find useful. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blavatsky's main interest was the paranormal and religion, not Anti-Judaism and racism, if I remember correctly this article used to focus mostly on her Anti-Judaism and racism, but now it seems to have gone to the opposite extreme and become apologetic and portrayed her as anti-racist, which is dishonest. I don't think her Anti-Judaism and racism should be a huge focus of the article, it just bothered me that it was not mentioned at all. I'm going to add slightly more about the topic of her Anti-Judaism and racism when I have time. But I don't want it to be overdone like it was in the past. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with you, her racism was sanitized. For example, she wrote "Tasmanian women — i.e., the representatives of a race, whose progenitors were a 'soulless' and mindless monster." She explicitly states that some people do not have the same kind of soul as other people do. She calls some people "semi-animal creatures" and calls other people "semi-human stock" and calls Australians "degraded men". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The group she was most racist against were Jews, at least that's my impression. So her Anti-Judaism is what I'm going to focus on mainly in the racism section. Do you agree with that? RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, why not – but you need good sources. Quotes from her books are easy to find. Pre-WWII secondary sources may have content that may have been rehabilitated out of the narrative about her post-WWII. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference book
Does anyone here have this book?

''Washington, Peter (1993). Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: Theosophy and the Emergence of the Western Guru. London: Secker & Warburg. ISBN 978-0-436-56418-5.''

It seems to have a section on the School of Economic Science and the Wiki on that article would benefit greatly from additional content based on more reliable sources such as this. Please bring the book there if you can. Thanks -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious background
The section on her early life explains that accounts of her background are dubious, yet goes on to discuss her supposed ancestry without any qualification, as if any of that rubbish is actually accurate. This seems somewhat inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DD00:5000:A07B:65E3:8511:F7E2 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Theosophy Tag
I added the Theosophy tag to this article, and it was reverted because it was "unencyclopedic". I'm not sure if this is serious. She founded Theosophy - I says so in the article. So what gives? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Seven Shaktis
Her infobox 'notable ideas' mention 1/7 the idea (she transliterated from Hindusim) The Seven Saktis/Shaktis: Iccha/Itcha, Jnana, Kundalini, Kriya, Mantrika, Para, Devi Prakrti/Prakriti. However most have been removed/redirected but I don't know full seven-name idea can be relisted without recreating.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 11:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

AI Infobox image
The image we are using for this article has clearly been 'upscaled' by deep-learning, so it's not an authentic photograph of Blavatsky anymore. This is surely not right and it needs to be reverted to the original version, but I don't have the overwrite permission necessary. I can see User:Librero2109 has pointed out that AI manipulation is not appropriate but their revision of the file is the AI version, not the original photograph. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)