Isis Unveiled and Reincarnation: A Refutation?

Isis Unveiled was Blavatsky’s first major work on theosophy, examining religion and science in the light of Western and Oriental ancient wisdom. Even though Isis Unveiled was considered to be an outstanding literary work when published in 1877, the book is more like a dark storage room for occult concepts, lacking the clarity of The Secret Doctrine which was published ten years later. Isis Unveiled was not penned to any dispositions or a plan, and the work was not intended the public save a theosophical group. There are several reasons why this grand opus contains more than a few unfortunate errors. One reason is that Blavatsky lacked insight of the procedures in book industry; the art of writing a book and prepare the manuscript for print and publication were all closed secrets to her. The main reason, however, was her shortages in the English language. She had never written one word in English, nor barely spoken English for over thirty year before she immigrated to America in 1873 (and became the first Russian woman to be naturalized American). Yet already the following year, she began penning down her intricate reflections in English, which resulted in the book Isis Unveiled in 1877, tree years later.

The final English formulation of Isis Unveiled does not owe her hand except the few sections she claimed was been dictated to her mentally by the Masters, and which proved to be formulated in perfect English. The rest of the text had such a sad condition that it drew upon the good will in many hours of literary labor by acquaintances and strangers who had no education in the esoteric matters therein (with exception of Professor A. Wilder). As a result, several of Blavatsky’s expressions fell out erroneous in the delicate context, which was further shuffled by the reorganization of the manuscript into two volumes (by Col. H. S. Olcott). The work would without doubt have been in better shape if Blavatsky had time to correct the final draft for more than three chapters before it went to print, but due to lack of funds, all the proof-reading and corrections were left to outsiders. In addition, there are quite a few typing errors which are not even been corrected in subsequent editions by a combination of economical and technical reasons, and copy rights. It was first in 1881 that Blavatsky read her book and realized the sad condition of her work, thence declaring Isis Unveiled less recommendable (but she did not renounce the material as such).

One of the main critics against early Theosophy is the assertion that there is a discrepancy between Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine regarding the doctrine of reincarnation. Initially, The Secret Doctrine was meant to be a consist clarification of the veiled teachings of Isis Unveiled (Blavatsky disapproved of the title ‘Isis Unveiled’ right from the start, however, the title was chosen due to commercial reasons), but while writing the work, it grew into its own Herculean life of 1500 pages in small prints. On these pages, Isis Unveiled is frequently quoted on several essential subjects, and in the context of reincarnation, The Secret Doctrine corroborates to the teachings we find in Isis Unveiled. The problem of motley insight of the theosophical texts is that the same teachings is presented in escalating details through time, which has led to that words and concepts were utilized more and more specific and often with other denotations. For example, the factor being identified as ‘spirit’ (in men) in early Theosophy was later on designated as ‘soul’, but now from a higher standpoint in the same nexus. This evolution in concepts, which goes from the mystical perspective to the occult viewpoint, has to be taken into careful consideration else it would confuse the idle reader and the careless student.

An important mission of the Isis Unveiled was to reintroduce the distinction between soul and spirit. The terms spirit and soul had become synonyms in Western thought, and in those rare cases where spirit and soul were treated as different factors, it were by a superficial and confusing manner. The teaching of the spirit in man was abrogated by the eighth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 869-870), thenceforth the human being consisted of a duality in rational soul and body as it was considered heretical to assume a threefold human constitution. Blavatsky had before her a jungle of concepts and prejudices to elucidate before anything else, and it was found wise to withhold the explicit teachings of the sevenfold constitution of man (although it is given hints on). The human psychological constitution was instead simplified as spirit and a dual soul. The dual soul denotes the rational mind, and on the other hand the irrational sensations (which in later Theosophy is identified as the astral body even though Blavatsky rarely utilized the expression ‘astral’ in this correlation, but to what is later known as the etheric body). The spirit (in Isis Unveiled) denotes the inner ego, the individual I in the truest sense, whereas the soul denotes the perishable psyche, which contains the worldly intellect and the mortal characters of man. This is why it is said that the soul is fashioning by the spirit in incarnation, and the soul is consequently a structure or a body of lower principles which the spirit has to free itself from in death. The eternal nature of the human being is thus spirit, the ego, and the mortal structure is the bodies that are known as the mental and astral vehicle, the embodiment of the lower principles which constitutes the lower man, the personality, kama-manas. The Secret Doctrine affirms that the human does not reincarnate with the same personality. It is this statement that had an alarming effect on many casual readers not realizing that the soul (as denoted in Isis Unveiled) does not contains that which is self-conscious in man, which is spirit, but only the sense-principles and qualities which the incarnating aspect of the spirit (the ray of the spirit) has falsely identified itself with, thus obtaining that partial consciousness which implies karmic incarnation. To be ignorant of this opens up many problems in reading Isis Unveiled as it then would appear that Blavatsky advocate annihilation of man in an universal evolution that holds no place for reincarnation, only by exceptional occasions.

On page 345, vol. I, reincarnation is nailed as fact in that;

‘This philosophy teaches that nature never leaves her work unfinished; if baffled at the first attempt, she tries again. When she evolves a human embryo, the intention is that a man shall be perfected – physically, intellectually, and spiritually. His body is to grow mature, wear out, and die; his mind unfold, ripen, and be harmoniously balanced; his divine spirit illuminate and blend easily with the inner man. No human being completes its grand cycle, or the “circle of necessity,” until all these are accomplished.’

The inner man is atma-buddhi-manas, and the spirit (the inner ego) has to fulfill a cycle by a perfecting effort. Furthermore:

‘As the laggards in a race struggle and plod in their first quarter while the victor darts past the goal, so, in the race of immortality, some souls out-speed all the rest and reach the end, while their myriad competitors are toiling under the load of matter, close to the starting-point. Some unfortunates fall out entirely, and lose all chance of the prize; some retrace their steps and begin again. (Isis Unveiled, p 346. vol. I)

It is the phrase ‘lose all chance of the prize’ which has led to the notion that Blavatsky taught of annihilation of man in the race of immortality. However, Isis Unveiled clearly states that man is eternal, and it is only his vehicles, however subtitle, which is doomed to annihilation, even though the matter of which any vehicles is composed, is eternal. The lost soul does not imply the spirit within, the ego, but the habits of the former man let loose of the spirit to its own powers, feeding on other’s life force by vampirism in order to subsist. The animals possess no ego, which would, occult speaking, make animal a human, and the lost souls is just a ‘spiritual animal’ – there is nothing in it who can observe its own actions, no ego, just instincts based on a humanly past.

It is on this ground of terms that we obtain correct understanding of Blavatsky’s sharp critic of how the French spiritualists understood and presented reincarnation, for the spiritualists maintained that the human being is its very social character and it is this nature that reincarnates. It is true, however, that Blavatsky claims that the personality, as it is, could reincarnate as a psychic structure (and not only as skanda) after an abrupt death when the higher purpose of the incarnation did not come into fruition, as spirit and matter has to run parallel in the evolution. Usually the personality dissolves by the inner death process, but not the experiences through it as the human’s perpetual nature is the abstract thinker, the observer, the inner ego. It was by this insight that Blavatsky claimed that the spiritualistic séances often communicated energy forms which were nothing but souls where the inner ego is missing, yet colored by recognizable habits. The eternal individuality is the pirit, not the personality, and the former ego finds itself in a condition which is inaccessible to such emotional séances, dominated by the lower psychism that Blavatsky warned about.

In studying Isis Unveiled we have to take into consideration that we have to do with an occult treatise. The words are often utilized esoterically, and the literal meaning is often misguiding the mind. Every occultist knows that the word ‘planet’ is esoterically employed to represent ‘cycle’, and a cycle or circle (sphere) implicates incarnation of spirit or life. On page 346, vol. I, we read about Buddha instructing how to free oneself in the cycle of life (thus Blavatsky acknowledge reincarnation), yet on the following page, Blavatsky says ‘this former life believed in by the Buddhists, is not a life on this planet’ when it better, considering the public, should have been put, ‘in the same cycle’. This is palpable as the occult treatment of the world ‘planet’ corroborates with the rest of the same sentence, after the comma, where Blavatsky assert; ‘for, more than any other people, the Buddhistical philosopher appreciated the great doctrine of cycles’. Instead of the refutation of reincarnation that some critics claims Blavatsky culpable of, the text only states (in the cultural context) the occult doctrine of the inner ego’s proportion to its incarnations, and how these are related to each other as the circle itself. It clearly shows that it is not the personalities of the inner ego that incarnates as their next upon the planet or in the wheel of life (as Blavatsky’s strike against the French spiritualists), but it is the inner ego, the point within the wheel of life, which radiates the personalities (incarnations) simultaneously, because the inner ego, as Isis Unveiled asserts beyond doubts, is timeless, eternal and transcendent. As a circle signifies a simultaneous event relative to its center, what is the spirit to gain if the incarnations should only repeat the history of the next one on the same circle? There is no further incarnation for the personalities on the same planet or cycle, as the circle representing the only incarnation of the spirit, and Blavatsky’s comparison of the reincarnating personality as two-headed child is then accordingly more striking than ludicrous now that the statement is coming to its logical coherence. Man cannot realize his true nature’s inner dynamic by seeking forth and back on the circle of life, but by focusing the mind on the center, the point, which in Buddhism signifies nirvana. Nirvana is not a state or condition that exists outside the individual, but lays in the heart and core of the very being of man.

‘They, in whom evil desire is entirely destroyed, are called Arhats. Freedom from evil desire insures the possession of a miraculous power. At his death, the Arhat is never reincarnated; he invariably attains Nirvana — a word, by the bye, falsely interpreted by the Christian scholars and skeptical commentators. Nirvana is the world of cause, in which all deceptive effects or delusions of our senses disappear. Nirvana is the highest attainable sphere.’ (Isis Unveiled, p. 346, vol. I)

On the page 346 we find the sentence which is the root to why so many have came to the conclusion that Isis Unveiled refutes reincarnation: ‘This is what the Hindu dreads above all things — transmigration and reincarnation; only on other and inferior planets, never on this one.’ Let us hear what Blavatsky herself say to her defense:

‘The last “sentence” is a fatal mistake, and one to which the writer pleads “not guilty.” It is evidently the blunder of some “reader” who had no idea of Hindu philosophy and who was led into a subsequent mistake on the next page, wherein the unfortunate word “planet” is put for cycle. Isis was hardly, if ever, looked into after its publication by its writer, who had other work to do; otherwise there would have been an apology and a page pointing to the errata, and the sentence made to run: “The Hindu dreads transmigration in other inferior forms, on this planet.” This would have dove-tailed with the preceding sentence, and would show a fact, as the Hindu exoteric views allow him to believe and fear the possibility of reincarnation — human and animal in turn by jumps, from man to beast and even to plant, and vice versa; whereas esoteric philosophy teaches that nature never proceeding backward in her evolutionary progress, once that man has evoluted from every kind of lower forms — the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms — into the human form, he can never become an animal except morally, hence — metaphorically. Human incarnation is a cyclic necessity and law; and no Hindu dreads it — however much he may deplore the necessity.’ (The Path, ‘Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits’, Nov. 1886)

Is Blavatsky reformulating the sentence to clear her name of an earlier awkward lack of knowledge of the Eastern philosophy? I don’t think so. The later formulation fits everything written on that very page smoothly as the text continues as;

‘But there is a way to avoid it, and Buddha taught it in his doctrine of poverty, restriction of the senses, perfect indifference to the objects of this earthly vale of tears, freedom from passion, and frequent intercommunication with the Atma — soul-contemplation. The cause of reincarnation is ignorance of our senses, and the idea that there is any reality in the world, anything except abstract existence. From the organs of sense comes the “hallucination” we call contact; “from contact, desire; from desire, sensation (which also is a deception of our body); from sensation, the cleaving to existing bodies; from this cleaving, reproduction; and from reproduction, disease, decay, and death.”’

In the following paragraph, Blavatsky concludes:

‘Thus, like the revolutions of a wheel, there is a regular succession of death and birth, the moral cause of which is the cleaving to existing objects, while the instrumental cause is karma (the power which controls the universe, prompting it to activity), merit and demerit.’ (Isis Unveiled, p 346, vol. I)

The succession of death and birth by karma as the instrumental cause – could reincarnation been put clearer? And yet even more unmistakably when this is followed up by; ‘At his death, the Arhat is never reincarnated; he invariably attains Nirvana’ (Isis Unveiled, p. 346, vol. I). Are Blavatsky deranged, even raving mad, to affirm that Arhats does not reincarnate any more by karma, still the previous incarnations have not take place? Attributable to some critics, this has to be the point, yet absurd to her sincere students, for as Blavatsky herself sees it:

‘By rejecting reincarnation must necessarily reject KARMA likewise! For the latter is the very corner-stone of Esoteric philosophy and Eastern religions; it is the grand and one pillar on which hangs the whole philosophy of rebirths, and, once the latter is denied, the whole doctrine of Karma falls into meaningless verbiage. Nevertheless the opponents, without stopping to think of the evident “discrepancy” between charge and fact, accused a Buddhist by profession of faith of denying reincarnation, hence also by implication — Karma.’ (The Path, ‘Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits’, Nov. 1886)

The hermetic axiom ‘as above, so below’ alone should bear witness on reincarnation in Isis Unveiled, as Logos is said to incarnate periodically into universal manifestations. In a footnote, page 301, vol. I, Blavatsky is telling us that the;

‘Animals have only the germ of the highest immortal soul as a third principle. It will develop but through a series of countless evolutions; the doctrine of which evolution is contained in the kabalistic axiom; “A stone becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a beast a man; a man a spirit; and the spirit a god.”’

In regards to this five states of development, how could the monad progress through ‘a series of countless evolutions’ and then abrupt in a passing human incarnation secure the extreme moral status of an Adept?

The most palpable indication of that Blavatsky resolutely believed in the doctrine of reincarnation lays in the fact that she entitled the doctrine the ‘Circle of Necessity’.