1. Introduction

When we think of comics, especially those from DC Comics and Marvel, we tend to think of lighthearted stories full of superheroes. Most of the time we would not classify them as having deep spiritual and metaphysical value.

Many of the most popular cult classics, however, come from more limited series where the authors have greater creative freedom and the target audience is more mature. Vertigo Comics (1993-2020) was a DC Comics brand aimed specifically at this audience, showcasing deeper, more nuanced, complex and, in most cases, darker stories. This brand focused on the mystical and supernatural, often with a touch of horror.

Seekers into the Mystery (1996-1997), written by J.M. DeMatteis¹DeMatteis has also written almost all the great DC and Marvel icons (e.g., Spider-Man), is a limited series of fifteen comics published under the Vertigo imprint, with one particular characteristic: this work does indeed have metaphysical value and a clear spiritual initiatory aim. 

This work is a partially autobiographical account of a particular type of spiritual awakening. It clearly exposes for a modern and relatively young audience the very ancient spiritual concepts that were used to fill the void left by the disenchantment brought forth by pure Materialism and the Nihilism to which it leads.

It is also a clear summary expression of the spiritual thirst of the “post-Christian” Western generations, and how they desperately searched for lost meaning and transcendence in ancient metaphysical schools. This often led to syncretism and its characteristic contradictory (and therefore unsatisfactory) answers. 

The synopsis of the series explains how it follows the tortured life of Lucas Hart, a struggling screenwriter, afflicted by his addictions and inner demons. In his dreams, he recovers repressed memories of childhood abuse along with an extraordinary method of coping: astral projection. Lucas once again engages in out-of-body experiences, this time with angels, aliens and otherworldly beings in hopes of finding the Magician whose grace can transform the human race.

Defining itself as a story of salvation and spiritual rebirth, Seekers into the Mystery aims to introduce us to the secrets of the mind and the Universe.

Let’s see what these secrets, which are also the metaphysical backbone of mainstream superhero comics, are.

2. Perennialism and the Equivalence of All Spiritual Paths

One of the main messages found in Seekers into the Mystery is a common one in New Age circles: the equivalence of all spiritual paths.

In this view, the only dichotomy in one´s life is the choice between a mundane, materialist existence, and a spiritual one, with all possible latter paths leading to the same destination. In addition, the Universe is conceived as a place of learning, a school for immature spiritual children, with the spiritual realities behind the veil of our senses always looking after our benefit.

Spiritual awakening is the ultimate goal, and the Universe is a place full of friendly spirits who “conspire” to help us achieve it. Adversarial spiritual entities are re-conceptualized as beneficent spirits who only appear as “harsh” teachers because of our present deficient state of being, actually assisting in their own way to our spiritual progress. Other times, evil spirits are interpreted as mere metaphors for our baser passions and self-destructive tendencies. The message is that only we, in our ignorance, can harm ourselves.

This vision, however, does not correspond to that of any traditional esoteric or religious path. In fact, it is quite opposed to their constant warnings about the dangers of the spiritual path and the entities and influences one may encounter if unprepared. The source of this belief, instead, is the purely Western syncretic spiritual movement and pseudo-religion known as the New Age, with its characteristic rosy and superficial understanding of spiritual realities.

In contrast, every mystical, esoteric or religious school warns us of the dangers ahead for those who engage in “spiritual warfare”, emphasizing the need for experienced guides (e.g., gurus [Hinduism], lamas [Tibetan Buddhism], spiritual fathers [Christianity²The Orthodox practice of Hesychasm also includes necessary guidance (usually elder monks and nuns), as it is thought to be spiritually dangerous to try it alone.]).

 “Without a captain, the boat alone cannot cross a river.” “Without an oarsman, the boat cannot cross the river.”  

— Array of Stalks Sutra

“Even if all the qualities are completed, but without a guru you can’t be liberated from samsara.”

 — Yeshe Gyatso (“Oceans of Transcendental Wisdom“)

“Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind.”

— Katha Upanishad, I. ii. 5 

While most esoteric and mystical beliefs are exponents of the religion of “the One” and can be more or less easily integrated into a common template (especially if we abandon strictly monotheistic exoteric religions such as Judaism and Islam in favor of their respective esoteric schools, which tend towards Panentheism [Kabbalah and Sufism]), Christianity and its Tri-Une personal God cannot be integrated.

2.1. The Equivalence of Means and the Focus on Spiritual Experiences

In Seekers into the Mystery, it is suggested that “mystical” or otherworldly experiences achieved through external means, such as entheogens (implied by the presence of “machine elves“) or even alien abductions, all grant the same insight into the common underlying reality that the paths based on internal spiritual struggle provide (e.g., meditation, Hesychasm).

This means that if all “mystical” experiences are the same, the hard-earned ascetical spiritual paths are indirect and, therefore, second-class ways of obtaining transcendental knowledge, unable to compete with instantaneous chemically-induced entheogenic experiences that anyone can achieve.

This, in turn, degrades the value of purification (catharsis), the first step in every mystical or religious path that tries to get closer to their conception of the Divine. In addition, it transforms spiritual states into mere brain states and removes the agency of God in any such experience⁴Spiritual experiences are emphasized, instead of the attainment of hard-earned spiritual states which may, or may not, provide them. In this way, the New Age mentality is just a modern consumerist version of spirituality, where the difficult parts of the spiritual life are ignored or discarded in favor of a flashier, but shallower, collection of quickly attainable disparate experiences., as they are seen as reproducible through external means. All this may be compatible with the Highest Reality viewed as an impersonal Principle, but not with a personal God, as we will later see.

2.2. Syncretism or Minimum Common Denominator Spirituality

In order to believe that all religions are the same, we have to create a nonexistent religion based on the minimum common denominator between all of them, discarding anything that is too specific to fit this template. This, in turn, needs us to cherry-pick some beliefs while we reject others (syncretism).

a. The Battle for the Meaning of the Christ and the Unavoidable Challenge of the Stumbling Stone

The figure of Jesus Christ is the clearest example of this, as he can only be integrated into this composite view by reconceptualizing Him as a mere emissary or enlightened teacher (one of many) bringing wisdom (Gnosis). However, by doing this, we would be explicitly denying what he taught, as well as all Christian theology. Doing this would not be an act of integration but of reformulation and, oftentimes, of direct inversion.⁵Because Gnosticism is the only way to “adapt” Christianity into a perennialist template (by rejecting all its core tenets and becoming almost the complete opposite; see [1] and [2]).

Probably because of these perceived incompatibilities, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (founder of Theosophy, the precursor and main influence of the New Age⁶Sometimes regarded as Theosophy-lite, the version created for mass consumption by ordinary, less sophisticated, people unable to stomach the extensive and pompous theosophical rhetoric. movement) attacked the Christian view of Jesus, transforming Him into a mere “grand philosopher and moral reformer.”⁷Blavatsky, H.P.(1877). Isis Unveiled. Vol. 2. New York: J. W. Bouton, p. 150.

Instead of the Incarnation of God, uniting the Absolute (God) and the Concrete (man) and transcending the problem of the One and the Many, unsolvable by human reason alone, she transformed him into another avatar of the One whose mission was to provide us with wisdom (Gnosis). A “Great Teacher” with healing and demon-exorcising supernatural powers, whose Incarnation had no ontological consequences beyond his teachings.

As Joseph H. Tyson stated, “she did not view him as The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but a Brahmin Perfect Master“⁸Ibid., p. 553., with the Christian version being nothing more than a myth.⁹Ibid., p. 544. 

Theosophy changed the meaning of the term Christ (meaning the anointed of God and implying the figure of the Messiah) to mean the personal divinity believed to “dwell” in every one of us. The godhood of Christ was removed from the God-man in order to transfer it to us (e.g., Ascended Masters, whom she believed to be channeling). In fact, she tried to change the understanding of the figure of Jesus to resemble that of the Buddha, promoting an esoteric understanding of the Gospels and rejecting their literal meaning.¹⁰Blavatsky, H.P. (1960a). “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels”. In Zirkoff, B. de (ed.). Collected Writings. Vol. 8. Wheaton, Ill: Theosophical Publishing House. p. 208.¹¹Williams, Jay G. (2001). “Christian Exclusiveness Theosophical Truth” Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 89 (2). Professor Williams wrote that one should not understand literally the words of Jesus, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14.6) He speaks here, not as a historical character, but as “the divine light, the light presumably known to all the wise sages of every age.”

The very existence of the figure of Jesus Christ, then, cannot be reduced or integrated into a perennialist template without distorting it. He is the unavoidable challenge or, as he said, a “stumbling stone” (Rom 9:33, also Isaiah 8:14) that demands an answer from us. Either we believe that he was who he said he was or not. If the answer is positive, we cannot believe that all spiritual paths are the same. If the answer is negative, Christianity will be a thorn to be removed in order to affirm the “religion of the One”. No compromise can be made without losing the essence of each position.

b. The One Principle, the Tri-Une God and the Impossibility of Finding a Neutral Ground

The figure of the Christ is not, however, the only irreducible point of contention.

Is Ultimate Reality personal (God) or impersonal (the Absolute)? Dialectical (the One) or non-dialectical (Tri-Une) in nature?¹²A dialectical choice defines itself by its contrary (either/or logic). In this case, the One defines itself by rejecting any multiplicity and particularity, the Many. A non-dialectical solution, in contrast, follows a both/and logic, affirming the Divine to be above the human limitations (both in reasoning and being) that state that the Godhead has to be limited by its oneness. See [1] and [2] for a more in-depth discussion on this crucial subject and the solutions proposed to the problem of the One and the Many, respectively.

Perhaps these inherent incompatibilities were the source of Blavastky´s characteristic animosity towards Christianity and its principal doctrines.

More specifically, what her philosophy rejected was the existence of a transcendent personal God who creates out of nothing (Ex Nihilo) instead of the Universe being the emanated body of the Absolute:¹³Blavatsky, H.P. (1888b). The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. London: Theosophical Publishing Company, p. 41.

“An extra-cosmic god is fatal to philosophy, an intra-cosmic Deity — i.e. Spirit and matter inseparable from each other — is a philosophical necessity. Separate them and that which is left is a gross superstition under a mask of emotionalism.”

Instead, she defined her vision of the Divine as a nameless Principle, her worldview being an exponent of Pantheism/Panentheism:¹⁴Berdyaev, N. A. (1972). “Ch. 8. Theosophy and Gnosis”. Freedom and the Spirit. Select Bibliographies Reprint Series. Books for Libraries Press. pp. 270–302.¹⁵Hanegraaff, W. J. (1998). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. SUNY series in Western Esoteric Traditions. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 443.
According to Professor Hanegraaff, Blavatskian Theosophy is “an example of Comparative Religion on occultist premises, developed with the express intention of undermining established Christianity.”

“[…] the All, the source of all existence, the infinite that cannot be either comprehended or known, the universe alone revealing It, or, as some prefer it, Him, thus giving a sex to that, to anthropomorphize which is blasphemy.”

“Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude.”¹⁶Blavastky, H.P. (1967a). “What Is Theosophy?”. In Zirkoff, B. (ed). Collected Writings. Vol. 2. Wheaton, III. Theosophical Publishing House, pp. 87–97.

When asked who it is that created the Universe, Blavatsky responded:

“No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists call it emanation; we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it only the universal and eternal reality casting a reflection of itself on the infinite Spatial depths.”¹⁷Blavatsky, H.P. (1889). The Key to Theosophy. London: Theosophical Publishing Company, p. 84 

Regarding the Divine, in summary, a “minimum common denominator” of all spiritual worldviews cannot ever be attained. We will always be forced to choose between:

1. Personal / Impersonal God, which in turn implies:
2. Created Universe / Emanated Multiverse
3. Linear (with or without repeating motifs) / Cyclical Existence and time
4. Personal Salvation or Deification (Theosis) / Impersonal Fusion (Henosis) with the One

It will be interesting to finish this section with some of the (probably surprising for some) remarks made by René Guénon, father of the modern Traditionalist school (Perennialism)¹⁸Despite founding modern Traditionalism, he insisted assiduously on the necessity of fully embracing not only a given esoteric school but also its associated exoteric religion, so as not to focus only on an esotericism common to all but alien to the living reality of that particular religion., about Theosophy. The same Theosophy which now holds a special place in the United Nations through the channeled works of Alice Bailey:

“Must this be seen as a sign of the times? Whatever the case and without venturing the least prediction, it is quite difficult in the presence of all these things not to recall the words of the Gospel: ‘For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.’ [Matthew 24:24]

Assuredly, we are not yet there; the false Messiahs we have seen until now have offered wonders of a very inferior quality, and those who have followed them were probably not very difficult to seduce, but who knows what the future holds in store? If one reflects that these false Messiahs have never been anything but more or less unconscious instruments in the hands of those who have raised them up, and if one looks at the series of attempts made by the Theosophists, one is led to think that these are no more than trials, experiments which will be renewed in various forms until success is achieved.

In the meantime, these efforts always have the result of troubling some minds. We do not believe moreover that the Theosophists, any more than the occultists and the spiritists, have the strength to succeed in such an enterprise by themselves. But behind all these movements is there not something more fearsome, of which their leaders perhaps do not themselves know, and of which they are in their own turn merely the instruments? […]”

― René Guénon. Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion. ¹⁹Sophia Perennis et Universalis (2004), p.271

3. Panentheism: The Ocean of Nothingness and its Magician

The Panentheism that can be seen in Seeker´s into the Mystery seems to be derived especially from Hinduism (and its Advaita Vedanta tradition in particular²⁰Which is not the main school of thought in Indian soil, but was the principal one imported into the West (see Swami Vivekananda). Instead of the impersonal Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, the majority of Hindus adhere to a personal God (e.g., Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, among others).), also one of the main sources of Theosophy. At the center of its metaphysical views is the conception of the First Principle as an impersonal void (Primal Ocean of Nothingness [Advaita´s Nirguna Brahman]), from which every differentiation and particular individual existence is later derived, starting with the World Egg (Hiranyagarbha) from where the first manifestation of a personal god emanates (called here the Magician).

The Magician, in turn, creates duality, which includes birth and death, thus implying that any particular existence apart from the void has to be necessarily limited by time, since only the Absolute, the All, is perfect. This is also the case for Hindu deities, which remain in their manifested form only as long as a particular cycle of time lasts.

Once creation and imperfection have been emanated (stated as created from his “flesh”), he engages in a game of self-forgetfulness and self-discovery by losing himself in it. According to this point of view, each of us is then seen as a specific mask of this amnesiac god whose only purpose is to enact this divine game (the Hindu concept of Divine Play) of joyful self-discovery again and again.

3.1. The Joy of Self-Discovery Against the Joy of Discovering the Other

This is not the case for all spiritual worldviews, however. Again, Christian theology speaks of retaining each one´s individuality while elevating it to the stature of God (Theosis), consistent with its Tri-Une (both One and Many [1 Cor. 15:28]) conception of the Divine²¹When Christianity speaks of the God of love it does so taking into consideration that, for this religion, our individual differences are viewed not as imperfections but are willed, cherished, and loved by God, who created us as particular yet equally good possibilities of manifestation of His image in us.. Instead of Advaita´s metaphor of individuals as water droplets melting back into the ocean, the Christian metaphor could be for each droplet to absorb the whole ocean while retaining its form.

For impersonal Monism, in contrast, difference means opposition²²Sylvan Guthrie, Kenneth. Complete Works of Plotinos (Vol. IV). Comparative Literature Press, section “The Unity Of Reason Is Constituted By The Contraries It Contains”: “Since it exists, Reason must, therefore, contain within itself some difference; and the greatest difference is opposition.[…] Now difference carried to the highest degree is opposition. Therefore, to be perfect, Reason must from its very essence produce things not only different, but even opposed.” Also interesting is the following section: “The Whole Is Good Though Composed Of Good And Evil Parts”.. An imperfection that, even if cherished for a while, is granted only a fleeting existence before being re-absorbed into the One, the only true Good.

The character of both evaluations of individuality is deeply different. Christianity speaks of a God that gives Himself fully to all, eternally valuing our unique mode of manifesting what he is. The Panentheistic deity, instead, is said to only find joy in the re-discovery of himself in each one of us, discarding what makes us ourselves in the process. There is no place for the Other in Panentheism, which makes love impossible.²³Which also renders the suffering of each one of us in this life as ultimately inconsequential, only useful for the amnesiac god to play his game. It is not necessary for salvation because, in this worldview, we are already the One, only that we are ignorant of the fact.

4. Maya: Illusion as the Complementary of the Only Real One

If the panentheistic deity of Seekers into the Mystery is a simple Essence (see image 12) devoid of any “otherness” in it, where does our perception of difference come from? As with Advaita Vedanta, the answer is from Maya, the Principle of Illusion.

This, in turn, means that difference is opposition but, at the same time, it is unreal. The individuality that makes us what we are is a mirage concocted by the Hindu version of evil.

The existence of Maya, however, is not an uncontroversial topic within Hinduism itself. It has received criticism because it implies the following dilemma: if the impersonal deity is One, all the problems and conflict that duality brings have to derive ultimately from it too, like anything else. But if we affirm the existence of a secondary primordial principle like Maya, we are then transforming this monistic worldview into a type of Dualism, which is not acceptable for a school of thought (Advaita) which means “Non-Dualism” (additional discussion can be found HERE).²⁴This eternal opposition is the natural consequence of dialectical thought. Of believing, using human logic, that God has also to choose between being one and being many. We are axiomatically projecting into Him a purely human limitation.

Either we are all God, or we are nothing at all, unwelcome particulars for a deity that has no place for us. Therefore, at the core of Advaita (Hindu Absolute Monism), lies a contradiction: the One implies the many, and there is no way of escaping this paradox while still trapped in dialectical thinking.

4.1. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: An Uneasy Duality in the Heart of Oneness

The solution assumed by Seekers into the Mystery is one more attuned to Western Esotericism and Buddhist Non-Dualism than to classic Hindu Monism: the Complementary Dualism of Maya and the Magician (Brahman). The latter is eventually to be re-integrated into the former, but without absorbing it. They are the two sides of the same coin.²⁵This, in turn, is similar to: 1. The Egyptian Osiris/Isis (also the goddess of magic); 2. The Hindu Shiva/Shakti (the latter being, however, real, as the energies and actualization of the All-Potentiality contained in the former); 3. The tantric Buddhist Father/Mother (Yab/Yum) deities; 4. The Father and Mother deities of Druidism and Wicca.

This metaphysical doctrine, as we have discussed HERE and HERE, is one of the main pillars of dialectical thought and of the metaphysics promoted by modern popular culture.²⁶Influenced predominantly by Jungian psychology (itself linking to Alchemy [Hermeticism] and Gnosticism), Perennialism (mostly Hindu and Sufi thought), and Western esoteric teachings (e.g., Qabalah, New Age).

The classical metaphors used (or implied) here to explain this doctrine are: the complementarity of the projectionist and its projection screen, and the Universal Mind thinking itself (with the Magician being its first thought [Ennoia in Gnostic metaphysics; Nous in Neo-Platonism]).

This non-dual solution, paradoxically, just means the co-existence and co-primacy of two Principles, abandoning its previous absolute Oneness. It re-contextualizes the meaning of “evil”, illusion or ignorance as part of the Essence of the Godhead. “Evil”, in this type of systems, becomes equal to imperfection, which at the same time is seen as a part of God. This has two consequences:

1. It relativizes “evil”, as it is not intrinsically opposed to the deity. The evil illusion of classical Advaita is elevated to the status of God´s shadow, its necessary counterpart. Truth and illusion are the same, an unavoidable consequence of conceiving the divine as the Absolute, the one who contains it All.²⁷This is why Dharmic religions do not tend to focus on the notion of evil, instead defining it as everything that brings ignorance, pain or suffering to living beings (sickness, aging). it is seen as a natural consequence of our plane of duality which, nevertheless, is the only place where imperfect particular beings like ourselves can exist.
   
2. It transforms difference and limitation (plurality) into sin (“missing the mark”; willing rebellion against an All-Loving God´s Will in Abrahamic religions).

It is interesting to see how, in Seekers into the Mystery, the “evil” Maya´s discourse could be characterized as the typical critique that monotheistic religions have against panentheistic systems.

With this exposition of Maya as the deity´s shadow, we arrive at the crux of the problem:

Do we accept to go back to the One (Absolute Monism, Advaita´s solution), losing our individuality in the homogeneity of this Ocean of Nothingness from which everything emanates?

Or do we aim at a non-dual realization (of the Buddhist “Samsara equals Nirvana” type), the belief that we can remain as a liberated version of ourselves within the confines of the imperfections of the manifold realities that compose the Multiverse, while avoiding ultimate absorption? Seekers into the Mystery chooses the latter.

The third option, that of Unity in Multiplicity (typical of Christianity, see HERE), where individuals (Theosis) and creation (the “New Earth“) are elevated, the former to the stature of God, while retaining their uniqueness, is not contemplated.

Thus, we find here the paradox of all panentheistic systems: they assert that we are already God in essence. However, our ultimate destiny is believed to be either to lose what we now hold most precious about ourselves (our individuality) or to remain as liberated differentiated individuals wandering the different immanent (more or less imperfect) planes of existence.

In either choice, there is a compromise to be made between the level of deification achieved and that of individuality retained, because a greater simplicity is equaled with a greater godliness. The inherent conflict between the two means that the increase of either one necessarily implies a proportional decrease in the other.

TRAUMA AS ILLUSION AND CATALYST OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH [Click Here]

One of the most striking aspects of Seekers into the Mystery is how it links trauma (specifically sexual abuse) with the need to dissociate and the enabling of astral travel, equating this, in turn, with the beginnings of a possible spiritual awakening. The relationship between trauma and dissociation was quite novel when this work was published, at least to the layman.

This concept of spiritual awakening through trauma is linked to the notion of the ego-death²⁸This is different from the Christian “dying to the flesh”, meaning dying to selfishness and to the bondage of the passions (the term flesh equaling not the body, but the body enslaved by those passions)., the necessary consequence of understanding god as the Absolute, the All, where individuals have no place (as an example, see the tantric Buddhist practice of Chöd, which aims at killing the ego through fear).

This bears the risk, however, of rationalizing trauma and the most disturbing aspects of life as useful or even necessary steps in our path to awakening. We all can think of many (if not most) instances where trauma is not useful, instead leaving useless scars that only condition and limit its victims (e.g., industrial farming for animals, senseless violence or rape for humans).

This is the uncomfortable corollary of the doctrine of the Unity of Opposites taken to its extreme and logical conclusion: the notion of the divinity being “beyond good and evil”, both extremes being limiting and partial aspects of its existence.

A deity like this could be understood but, as humans, we may find it difficult to love It.

5. Conclusions

Seekers into the Mystery is a concise but comprehensive explanation of the key metaphysical doctrines of the “religions of the One” and Non-Dualism, focusing especially on a modern, westernized version of Neo-Vedanta.

It explains in a more personal and explicit way the same principles that we can find in a more fragmented state in the most popular productions of both Marvel and DC Comics (see HERE).

Thus, Seekers into the Mystery, besides being by itself an interesting story of spiritual awakening that dares to touch upon real and mature themes that other works only hint at, allows us
to get a sense of the general metaphysics that underlies modern superhero culture.

Notes

1. DeMatteis has also written almost all the great DC and Marvel icons (e.g. Spider-Man)
2. The Orthodox practice of Hesychasm also includes necessary guidance (usually elder monks and nuns), as it is thought to be spiritually dangerous to try it alone.
3. Survivors of alien abductions have spoken of perceiving an evil and foul feeling, relating their experiences to the demonic. Mechanical Elves seen under the influence of drugs, in turn, are notorious for conveying a very specific “New Age” type of message, always in line with pop-spirituality.
4. Spiritual experiences are emphasized, instead of the attainment of hard-earned spiritual states which may, or may not, provide them. In this way, the New Age mentality is just a modern consumerist version of spirituality, where the difficult parts of the spiritual life are ignored or discarded in favor of a flashier, but shallower, collection of quickly attainable disparate experiences.
5. Because Gnosticism is the only way to “adapt” Christianity into a perennialist template (by rejecting all its core tenets and becoming almost the complete opposite; see [1] and [2]).
6. Sometimes regarded as Theosophy-lite, the version created for mass consumption by ordinary, less sophisticated, people unable to stomach the extensive and pompous theosophical rhetoric.
7. Blavatsky, H.P.(1877). Isis Unveiled. Vol. 2. New York: J. W. Bouton, p. 150.
8. Ibid., p. 553.
9. Ibid., p. 544.
10. Blavatsky, H.P. (1960a). “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels”. In Zirkoff, B. de (ed.). Collected Writings. Vol. 8. Wheaton, Ill: Theosophical Publishing House. p. 208.
11. Williams, Jay G. (2001). “Christian Exclusiveness Theosophical Truth”. Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 89 (2). Professor Williams wrote that one should not understand literally the words of Jesus, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14.6) He speaks here, not as a historical character, but as “the divine light, the light presumably known to all the wise sages of every age.”
12. A dialectical choice defines itself by its contrary (either/or logic). In this case, the One defines itself by rejecting any multiplicity and particularity, the Many. A non-dialectical solution, in contrast, follows a both/and logic, affirming the Divine to be above the human limitations (both in reasoning and being) that state that the Godhead has to be limited by its oneness. See [1] and [2] for a more in-depth discussion on this crucial subject and the solutions proposed to the problem of the One and the Many, respectively.
13. Blavatsky, H.P. (1888b). The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. London: Theosophical Publishing Company,
    p. 41.
14. Berdyaev, N. A. (1972). “Ch. 8. Theosophy and Gnosis”. Freedom and the Spirit. Select Bibliographies Reprint Series. Books for Libraries Press. pp. 270–302.
15. Hanegraaff, W. J. (1998). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. SUNY series in Western Esoteric Traditions. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 443.
    According to Professor Hanegraaff, Blavatskian Theosophy is “an example of Comparative Religion on occultist premises, developed with the express intention of undermining established Christianity.”
16. Blavastky, H.P. (1967a). “What Is Theosophy?”. In Zirkoff, B. de (ed.). Collected Writings. Vol. 2. Wheaton, Ill: Theosophical Publishing House. pp. 87–97.
17. Blavatsky, H.P. (1889). The Key to Theosophy. London: Theosophical Publishing Company, p. 84.
18. Despite this, he insisted assiduously on the necessity of fully embracing not only a given esoteric school but also its associated exoteric religion, so as not to focus only on an esotericism common to all but alien to the living reality of that particular religion.
19. Sophia Perennis et Universalis (2004), p.271.
20. Which is not the main school of thought in Indian soil, but was the principal one imported into the West (see Swami Vivekananda). Instead of the impersonal Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, the majority of Hindus adhere to a personal God (e.g. Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, among others).
21. When Christianity speaks of the God of love it does so taking into consideration that, for this religion, our individual differences are viewed not as imperfections but are willed, cherished and loved by God, who created us as particular yet equally good possibilities of manifestation of His image in us. Instead of fusion, the total giving and interpenetration of each other.
22. Sylvan Guthrie, Kenneth. Complete Works of Plotinos (Vol. IV). Comparative Literature Press, section “The Unity Of Reason Is Constituted By The Contraries It Contains”: “Since it exists, Reason must, therefore, contain within itself some difference; and the greatest difference is opposition.[…] Now difference carried to the highest degree is opposition. Therefore, to be perfect, Reason must from its very essence produce things not only different, but even opposed.” Also interesting is the following section: “The Whole Is Good Though Composed Of Good And Evil Parts”.
23. Which also renders the suffering of each one of us in this life as ultimately inconsequential, only useful for the amnesiac god to play his game. It is not necessary for salvation because, in this worldview, we are already the One, only that we are ignorant of the fact.
24. This eternal opposition is the natural consequence of dialectical thought. Of believing, using human logic, that God has also to choose between being one and being many. We are axiomatically projecting into Him a purely human limitation.
25. This, in turn, is similar to: 1. The Egyptian Osiris/Isis (also the goddess of magic); 2. The Hindu Shiva/Shakti(the latter being, however, real, as the energies and actualization of the All-Potentiality contained in the former); 3. The tantric Buddhist Father/Mother (Yab/Yum) deities; 4. The Father and Mother deities of Druidism and Wicca.
26. Influenced predominantly by Jungian psychology (itself linking to Alchemy [Hermeticism] and Gnosticism), Perennialism (mostly Hindu and Sufi thought) and Western esoteric teachings (e.g., Qabalah, New Age).
27. This is why Dharmic religions do not tend to focus on the notion of evil, instead defining it as everything that brings ignorance, pain or suffering to living beings (sickness, aging). it is seen as a natural consequence of our plane of duality which, nevertheless, is the only place where imperfect particular beings like ourselves can exist.
28. This is different from the Christian “dying to the flesh”, meaning dying to selfishness and to the bondage of the passions (the term flesh equaling not the body, but the body enslaved by those passions).

Discussed in this Article

Disclaimer: the following recommendations may contain affiliate links, which means that we may receive a small commission, at NO additional cost to you, if you decide to make a purchase through them. By doing so, you will be supporting us and allowing this website to remain ad-free.

1. Seekers into the Mystery. Dover Publications.

Recommended Reading

1. Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. René Guénon.
2. Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta. René Guénon.
3. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. C.G. Jung.
4. Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites. C.G. Jung.
5. The Perennial Philosophy. Aldous Huxley.
   
   
   
   

• 1
  DeMatteis has also written almost all the great DC and Marvel icons (e.g., Spider-Man)
• 2
  The Orthodox practice of Hesychasm also includes necessary guidance (usually elder monks and nuns), as it is thought to be spiritually dangerous to try it alone.
• 3
  Survivors of alien abductions have spoken of perceiving an evil and foul feeling, relating their experiences to the demonic. Mechanical Elves seen under the influence of drugs, in turn, are notorious for conveying a very specific “New Age” type of message, always in line with pop-spirituality.
• 4
  Spiritual experiences are emphasized, instead of the attainment of hard-earned spiritual states which may, or may not, provide them. In this way, the New Age mentality is just a modern consumerist version of spirituality, where the difficult parts of the spiritual life are ignored or discarded in favor of a flashier, but shallower, collection of quickly attainable disparate experiences.
• 5
  Because Gnosticism is the only way to “adapt” Christianity into a perennialist template (by rejecting all its core tenets and becoming almost the complete opposite; see [1] and [2]).
• 6
  Sometimes regarded as Theosophy-lite, the version created for mass consumption by ordinary, less sophisticated, people unable to stomach the extensive and pompous theosophical rhetoric.
• 7
  Blavatsky, H.P.(1877). Isis Unveiled. Vol. 2. New York: J. W. Bouton, p. 150.
• 8
  Ibid., p. 553.
• 9
  Ibid., p. 544.
• 10
  Blavatsky, H.P. (1960a). “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels”. In Zirkoff, B. de (ed.). Collected Writings. Vol. 8. Wheaton, Ill: Theosophical Publishing House. p. 208.
• 11
  Williams, Jay G. (2001). “Christian Exclusiveness Theosophical Truth” Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 89 (2). Professor Williams wrote that one should not understand literally the words of Jesus, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14.6) He speaks here, not as a historical character, but as “the divine light, the light presumably known to all the wise sages of every age.”
• 12
  A dialectical choice defines itself by its contrary (either/or logic). In this case, the One defines itself by rejecting any multiplicity and particularity, the Many. A non-dialectical solution, in contrast, follows a both/and logic, affirming the Divine to be above the human limitations (both in reasoning and being) that state that the Godhead has to be limited by its oneness. See [1] and [2] for a more in-depth discussion on this crucial subject and the solutions proposed to the problem of the One and the Many, respectively.
• 13
  Blavatsky, H.P. (1888b). The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. London: Theosophical Publishing Company, p. 41.
• 14
  Berdyaev, N. A. (1972). “Ch. 8. Theosophy and Gnosis”. Freedom and the Spirit. Select Bibliographies Reprint Series. Books for Libraries Press. pp. 270–302.
• 15
  Hanegraaff, W. J. (1998). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. SUNY series in Western Esoteric Traditions. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 443.
  According to Professor Hanegraaff, Blavatskian Theosophy is “an example of Comparative Religion on occultist premises, developed with the express intention of undermining established Christianity.”
• 16
  Blavastky, H.P. (1967a). “What Is Theosophy?”. In Zirkoff, B. (ed). Collected Writings. Vol. 2. Wheaton, III. Theosophical Publishing House, pp. 87–97.
• 17
  Blavatsky, H.P. (1889). The Key to Theosophy. London: Theosophical Publishing Company, p. 84
• 18
  Despite founding modern Traditionalism, he insisted assiduously on the necessity of fully embracing not only a given esoteric school but also its associated exoteric religion, so as not to focus only on an esotericism common to all but alien to the living reality of that particular religion.
• 19
  Sophia Perennis et Universalis (2004), p.271
• 20
  Which is not the main school of thought in Indian soil, but was the principal one imported into the West (see Swami Vivekananda). Instead of the impersonal Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, the majority of Hindus adhere to a personal God (e.g., Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, among others).
• 21
  When Christianity speaks of the God of love it does so taking into consideration that, for this religion, our individual differences are viewed not as imperfections but are willed, cherished, and loved by God, who created us as particular yet equally good possibilities of manifestation of His image in us.
• 22
  Sylvan Guthrie, Kenneth. Complete Works of Plotinos (Vol. IV). Comparative Literature Press, section “The Unity Of Reason Is Constituted By The Contraries It Contains”: “Since it exists, Reason must, therefore, contain within itself some difference; and the greatest difference is opposition.[…] Now difference carried to the highest degree is opposition. Therefore, to be perfect, Reason must from its very essence produce things not only different, but even opposed.” Also interesting is the following section: “The Whole Is Good Though Composed Of Good And Evil Parts”.
• 23
  Which also renders the suffering of each one of us in this life as ultimately inconsequential, only useful for the amnesiac god to play his game. It is not necessary for salvation because, in this worldview, we are already the One, only that we are ignorant of the fact.
• 24
  This eternal opposition is the natural consequence of dialectical thought. Of believing, using human logic, that God has also to choose between being one and being many. We are axiomatically projecting into Him a purely human limitation.
• 25
  This, in turn, is similar to: 1. The Egyptian Osiris/Isis (also the goddess of magic); 2. The Hindu Shiva/Shakti (the latter being, however, real, as the energies and actualization of the All-Potentiality contained in the former); 3. The tantric Buddhist Father/Mother (Yab/Yum) deities; 4. The Father and Mother deities of Druidism and Wicca.
• 26
  Influenced predominantly by Jungian psychology (itself linking to Alchemy [Hermeticism] and Gnosticism), Perennialism (mostly Hindu and Sufi thought), and Western esoteric teachings (e.g., Qabalah, New Age).
• 27
  This is why Dharmic religions do not tend to focus on the notion of evil, instead defining it as everything that brings ignorance, pain or suffering to living beings (sickness, aging). it is seen as a natural consequence of our plane of duality which, nevertheless, is the only place where imperfect particular beings like ourselves can exist.
• 28
  This is different from the Christian “dying to the flesh”, meaning dying to selfishness and to the bondage of the passions (the term flesh equaling not the body, but the body enslaved by those passions).