Early nineteenth century ‘New Age’ movement sources
Rawlinson’s essay starts with some interesting points: he notes how the flood of gurus has reached a point that the West now has more activity in this field than the East (a distinction I dislike). Note how the real source of this energy is that of ‘modernity’, in the context of globalization. It is not inherently spiritual. Note the irony. The New Age is filled with so much nonsense along anti-modernist lines, but these impulses are really cut flowers with no generative power for the future. We need to take stock of this phenomenon beyond the say-so of the gurus themselves who are elements in a larger field.
This phenomenon Rawlinson describes is actually sourcing around the time of the Romantic movement, and as so often the first to note it had an objectivity that was later lost.
I recommend studying this early history before Blavatsky because this moment when, e.g. Indian texts, began to reach the West animated figures like Schopenhauer who produced what is most certainly the best rendition of ‘sutric psychology’ in existence. That’s the irony. The ‘great work’ of translation was done instantly, and all the rubbish that comes later has served mostly to confuse people. The whole thing is latent in Kant, whose key or clef was transposed by Schopenhauer, who detected the latent strain of ‘upanishadism’ in the Kantian critical system.
It is interesting that Schopenhauer read the ‘Upanishads’ in an english translation of a Persian translation!
Look carefully at Ouspensky (Tertium Organon gives the game away), and then Gurdjieff, and then finally Bennett. They are trying, without saying so, to bypass the ‘Kantian revolution’ in metaphysics, because they have an agenda that wishes to revive a pre-Kantian world of thought.