theosophy
{'<entity_0>': 'Christian theosophy', '<entity_1>': 'esotericism', '<entity_2>': 'theosophy', '<entity_3>': 'religion'}
[['theosophy', 'subclass of', 'esotericism'], ['theosophy', 'different from', 'Christian theosophy'], ['theosophy', 'instance of', 'religion'], ['theosophy', 'different from', 'theosophy'], ['theosophy', 'subclass of', 'theosophy'], ['theosophy', 'description', 'religion']]
<entity_2> is a <entity_3> established in the United States during the late nineteenth century. Categorized by scholars of <entity_3> as both a new religious movement and as part of the occultist stream of Western <entity_1>, it draws upon both older European philosophies such as Neoplatonism and Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. <entity_2>'s founder, the Russian Helena Blavatsky, insisted that it was not a <entity_3>, although she did refer to it as the modern transmission of the "once universal <entity_3>" that she claimed had existed deep into the human past. That <entity_2> should not be labeled a <entity_3> is a claim that has been maintained by Theosophical organizations, who instead regard it as a system that embraces what they see as the "essential truth" underlying <entity_3>, philosophy, and science. Scholars of <entity_3> who have studied <entity_2> have characterized it as a <entity_3>. Various scholars have pointed to its eclectic nature; Joscelyn Godwin described it as a "universally eclectic religious movement", while scholar J. Jeffrey Franklin characterized <entity_2> as a "hybrid <entity_3>" for its syncretic combination of elements from various other sources. Scholars have also classified <entity_2> as a form of Western <entity_1>. The historian of <entity_3> Wouter Hanegraaff noted that <entity_2> helped to establish the "essential foundations for much of twentieth-century <entity_1>". Although <entity_2> draws upon Indian religious beliefs, the sociologist of <entity_3> Christopher Partridge observed that "<entity_2> is fundamentally Western. Alternately, the scholar of <entity_1> Wouter J. Hanegraaff distinguished the Blavatskian movement from its older namesake by terming it "modern <entity_2>". In the early years of Blavatsky's movement, some critics referred to it as "Neo-<entity_2>" to differentiate it from the older <entity_0> movement. According to the scholar of <entity_3> James A. Santucci, discerning what the term "<entity_2>" meant to the early Theosophists is "not as obvious as one might think". Campbell also noted that <entity_2> appealed to educated Asians, and particularly Indians, because it identified Asia as being central to a universal ancient <entity_3> and allowed Asians to retain traditional religious beliefs and practices within a modern framework. Many early scholars of <entity_3> dismissed <entity_2> as being not worthy of study; Mircea Eliade for instance described <entity_2> as a "detestable 'spiritual' hybridism". Hammer and Rothstein suggested that the "dearth of scholarly literature" on <entity_2> was because "powerful individuals and institutions" in Europe and North America regarded the <entity_3> as "ludicrous", thus discouraging scholars from devoting their time to researching it.
['religion']