Excerpts from Lucifer and more

 On Luciferism:

⁃ “Lucifer,” is the pale morning-star, the precursor of the full blaze of the noon-day sun — the “Eosphoros” of the Greeks.

⁃ So deeply rooted, indeed, is this preconception and aversion to the name of Lucifer — meaning no worse than "light-bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light," and ferre "to bring")

⁃ They ought to study their Homer and Hesiod’s Theogony if they would do justice to Lucifer, "Eosphoros and Hesperos," the Morning and the Evening beautiful star. 

⁃ But their sacred writ is the first to contradict their interpretations and the association of Lucifer, the Morning Star, with Satan. Chapter XXII. of Revelation, verse 16th, says: “I, Jesus . . . am the root . . . and the bright and Morning Star” (òρθριvòς "early rising"): hence Eosphoros, or the Latin Lucifer.

⁃ This gives the reason why one of the early Popes was called Lucifer, as Yonge and ecclesiastical records prove.

(Blavatsky, H.P. (1887) What's in a name?: Why the magazine is called "Lucifer." Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 1-7.)

On the astral plane:

⁃ The whole world is animated and lit, down to its most material shapes, by a world within it. This inner world is called Astral by some people, and it is as good a word as any other, though it merely means starry; but the stars, as Locke pointed out, are luminous bodies which give light of themselves. This quality is characteristic of the life which lies within matter; for those who see it, need no lamp to see it by. The word star, moreover, is derived from the Anglo-Saxon “stir-an,” to steer, to stir, to move, and undeniably it is the inner life which is master of the outer, just as a man’s brain guides the movements of his lips. So that although Astral is no very excellent word in itself, I am content to use it for my present purpose. 

(Blavatsky, H.P. (1887) Comments on "Light on the path." Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 9.)

About magic:

⁃ But a “hot-bed of magick” we never dreamt of. Such an organization as mapped out by Mr. Sinnett and yourself is unthinkable among Europeans; and, it has become next to impossible even in India — unless you are prepared to climb to a height of 18 to 20,000 amidst the glaciers of the Himalayas. The greatest as well as most promising of such schools in Europe, the last attempt in this direction,—failed most signally some twenty years ago in London. It was the secret school for the practical teaching of magick, founded under the name of a club, by a dozen of enthusiasts under the leadership of Lord Lytton’s father.

(Lal Singh K.H. [written Nov. 25+, 1880; rec´d. by A.P.S. to Hume A.O.] Letter No. 28. The Mahatma Letters, The British Library.)

On initiation:

⁃ It is a very well-known fact, one with which Bulwer Lytton dealt with great power, that an intolerable sadness is the very first experience of the neophyte in Occultism. A sense of blankness falls upon him which makes the world a waste, and life a vain exertion. This follows his first serious contemplation of the abstract. In gazing, or even in attempting to gaze, on the ineffable mystery of his own higher nature, he himself causes the initial trial to fall on him. The oscillation between pleasure and pain ceases for — perhaps an instant of time ; but that is enough to have cut him loose from his fast moorings in the world of sensation. He has experienced, however briefly, the greater life; and he goes on with ordinary existence weighted by a sense of unreality, of blank, of horrid negation. This was the nightmare which visited Bulwer Lytton’s neophyte in “Zanoni ”; and even Zanoni himself, who had learned great truths, and been entrusted with great powers, had not actually passed the threshold where fear and hope, despair and joy seem at one moment absolute realities, at the next mere forms of fancy. 

(Blavatsky, H.P. (1887) Comments on "Light on the path." Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 12-13.)

On Aphrodite:

⁃ Professor Max Müller rightly conjectures that Aphrodite, born of the sea, is a personification of the Dawn of Day, and the most lovely of all the sights in Nature (“Science of Language”) for, before her naturalisa­tion by the Greeks, Aphrodite was Nature personified, the life and light of the Pagan world, as proven in the beautiful invocation to Venus by Lucretius, quoted by Decharme. She is divine Nature in her entirety, Aditi-Prakriti before she becomes Lakshmi. She is that Nature before whose majestic and fair face, “the winds fly away, the quieted sky pours torrents of light, and the sea-waves smile,” (Lucretius).

(Blavatsky, H.P. (1887) The history of a planet. Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 17-18.)

On reincarnation:

⁃ Nor do we feel in any way concerned about the revival of our ancient arts and high civilization, for these are as sure to come back in their time, and in a higher form as the Plesiosaurus and the Megatherium in theirs. We have the weakness to believe in ever recurrent cycles and hope to quicken the resurrection of what is past and gone. We could not impede it even if we would. The “new civilization” will be but the child of the old one, and we have but to leave the eternal law take its own course to have our dead ones come out of their graves; yet, we are certainly anxious to hasten the welcome event. Fear not; although we do “cling superstitiously to the relics of the Past” our knowledge will not pass away from the sight of man. It is the “gift of the gods” and the most precious relic of all. The keepers of the sacred Light did not safely cross so many ages but to find themselves wrecked on the rocks of modern skepticism. Our pilots are too experienced sailors to allow us fear any such disaster.

(Lal Singh K.H. [written Nov. 25+, 1880; rec´d. by A.P.S. to Hume A.O.] Letter No. 28. The Mahatma Letters, The British Library.)

On karma:

⁃ Karma is a Sanskrit word which has to be used by those who discuss the idea it conveys, simply because there is no English word to correspond to it.

⁃ Granting the principle of reincarnation, Karma is the working of the great law which governs those incarnations; but, taken in its wider sense, Karma may be defined as a manifestation of the One, Universal, Divine Principle in the phenomenal world. Thus, it may be further defined as "the great law of Harmony" which governs the Universe.

⁃ One reason for the apparent disharmony may be given. The desires of man are, as a rule, devoted to the gain of what may be called his per­sonality.

⁃ That is to say that the one Divine principle is divided by man’s actions into two opposing forces of good and evil, and man’s progress depends on the exertion of his will to preserve harmony and prevent deviation to one side or the other.

⁃ It has been thought that, in consequence of the attention paid to the classics in education, the word Nemesis would replace Karma with advantage. So perhaps it might have done, had the earliest traditions of Greek mythology been preserved. But the fatal tendency towards anthropomorphism set in very strongly even in the palmy days of Greece, and in consequence Nemesis only pourtrayed the personification of a human passion.

(Archibald Keightley, M.B. (1887) A law of life: KARMA. Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 39-41.)

On Theosophy:

⁃ What the true occultist seeks, is not knowledge, or growth, or happi­ness, or power, for himself; but having become conscious that the har­mony of which he forms part is broken on the outer plane, he seeks the means to resolve that discord into a higher harmony.

This harmony is Theosophy —Divine or Universal Wisdom— the root whence have sprung all “religions,” that is all; “bonds which unite men together,” which is the true meaning of the word religion.

Therefore, Theosophy is not a “religion,” but religion itself, the very “binding of men together” in one Universal Brotherhood.

(Unknown author. (1887) The mystery of all time. Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine, 1(1), 48.)

The Unveiling of the Divine Face: On Absolute Beauty

⁃ Thy face, which a young man, if he strove to imagine it, would conceive as a youth's; a full-grown man, as manly; an aged man as an aged man's! Who could imagine this sole pat­ tern, most true and most adequate, of all faces —of all even as of each— this pattern so very perfectly of each as if it were of none other? He would have need to go beyond all forms of faces that may be formed, and all figures. And how could he imagine a face when he must go beyond all faces, and all likenesses and figures of all faces and all concepts which can be formed of a face, and all color, adornment and beauty of all faces? Wherefore he that goeth forward to behold Thy face, so long as he formeth any concept thereof, is far from Thy face. For all concept of a face falleth short, Lord, of Thy face, and all beauty which can be conceived is less than the beauty of Thy face; every face hath beauty yet none is beauty's self, but Thy face, Lord, hath beauty and this having is being. 'Tis therefore Absolute Beauty itself, which is the form that giveth being to every beautiful form. O face exceedingly comely, whose beauty all things to whom it is granted to behold it, suffice not to admire! In all faces is seen the Face of faces, veiled, and in a riddle; howbeit unveiled it is not seen, until above all faces a man enter into a certain secret and mystic silence where there is no knowledge or concept of a face. This mist, cloud, darkness, or ignorance into which he that seeketh Thy face entereth when he goeth beyond all knowledge or concept is the state below which Thy face cannot be found except veiled; but that very darkness revealeth Thy face to be there, beyond all veils.

(Nicholas of Cusa, De Visione Dei, translated by Emma Gurney Salter (London and Toronto: J. M. Dent and Sons; New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1928), pp. 25-27.)

The Self and the Creation of the Universe

⁃ . . . in the beginning this universe was but the Self in the form of a man. He looked around and saw nothing but him­self. Thereupon, his first shout was, "It is I!"; whence the con­cept "I" arose.—And that is why, even today, when ad­dressed, one answers first, "It is I!" then gives the other name that one bears. . . .

Then he was afraid.—And that is why anyone alone is afraid.—He considered: "Since there is nothing here but my­self, what is there to fear?" Whereupon the fear departed; for what should have been feared? it is only to a second that fear refers.

However, he still lacked delight.—Therefore, one lacks de­light when alone.—He desired a second. He was just as large as a man and woman embracing. This Self then divided him­self in two parts; and with that, there were a master and mis­tress.—Therefore this body, by itself, as the sage Yajnavalkya declares, is like half of a split pea. And that is why, indeed, this space is filled by a woman.—He united with her, and from that mankind arose.

She, however, reflected: "How can he unite with me, who am produced from himself? Well then, let me hide!" She be­came a cow, he a bull and united with her; and from that cat­tle arose. She became a mare, he a stallion; she an ass, he a donkey and united with her; and from that solid-hoofed ani­mals arose. She became a goat, he a buck; she a sheep, he a ram and united with her; and from that goats and sheep arose.—Thus he poured forth all pairing things, down to the ants.

Then he realized: "I , actually, am creation; for I have poured forth all this." Whence arose the concept "Creation" [sŗşţ ih: literally, "what is poured forth, projected, sent forth, emanated, generated, let go, or given away"].—One who thus understands becomes, himself, truly a creator in this crea­tion.

(Brhadāranyaka Upanişad 1.4.1-5.)