“Don’t Take Any Wooden Nickels”: Western Esotericism, Yoga, and the Discourse of Authenticity

Applying dichotomies like 'authentic' vs. 'inauthentic' to entire fields of study—such as Western occultists who engaged with Asian traditions—is problematic, because labeling something inauthentic implies a standard of authenticity that may not exist. This chapter examines how the 'discourse of authenticity' operates in Western esotericism and yoga studies, showing that the drive to preserve a pure, premodern 'East' often overlooks the innovative contributions of South Asians who adapted their teachings for new audiences. The analysis covers figures like H.P. Blavatsky, Henry Olcott, Aleister Crowley, Theodor Reuss, and Franz Hartmann, who integrated Indian, Buddhist, Daoist, and Sufi ideas into occult literature and teachings.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Hardly anyone would doubt that history is full of charlatans. However, the situation becomes much trickier when dichotomies like “real” vs. “fake,” “genuine” vs. “fraudulent,” or “authentic” vs. “inauthentic” become applied not just to individuals or institutions but wholesale to entire objects of study, such as musical genres, regional cuisines, or in our case modern occultists who have engaged with the literatures and traditions of Asia. It is a scholar’s job to analyze, and in the process we often discover bogus representations that necessitate a good, solid debunking. Such critical assessments can serve as an etic “check” on over-enthusiastic emic perspectives or exaggerated idealizations of charismatic personalities. However, there is always an important corollary to keep in mind: to postulate something as “inauthentic” requires by dialectical reasoning to assume that there is an “authentic” something (unless, of course, everything is “inauthentic,” but then the descriptor becomes categorically meaningless). In this chapter I examine how this “discourse of authenticity” both differs and overlaps in two growing academic fields, that of Western esotericism and yoga studies, and how the preoccupation with preserving an authentic, premodern “East” often overlooks the innovative contributions of native South Asians who adapted their teachings to fit new audiences, both pan-Indian and outside of India. This discourse is especially relevant to post-Orientalist scholarship that treats onWestern occultist movements in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as for example the early Theosophical Society founded by H.P. Blavatsky (1831–1891) and Henry Olcott (1832–1907) as well as the Thelema of Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), all of whom integrated, albeit in different ways, not just Indian teachings but also ideas from Buddhism, Daoism, Sufism, and so on into published occult literature and oral teachings (cf. Sand and Rudbøg, 2020; Krämer and Strube, 2020; Baier, 2016; Djurdjevic, 2014; Bogdan and Djurdjevic, 2013). It is also relevant to the study of lesserknown personalities, such as Theodor Reuss (1855–1923) and Franz Hartmann (1838–1912), both of whom likewise expanded their views on occultism to also encompass yogic teachings. To be sure, these Western occultists modified and adjusted religious teachings to fit their own agendas, curriculums, and world-