Blavatsky had some good insight going for herself. She didn't just repeat older material, she had quite the decent grasp upon its meaning.

It's no surprise various satanist-like figures like Bailey tryied to latch so hard into it and co-opt her message culturally.

Realistically the only good one who came out of it was Steiner, and even he had some quite unrealistic ideas because of it imo.

she was just copying

Copying (perception) source (perceivable) or mimicking (consent) one another (suggested)...

Being within nature implies different copy within same origin.

copying older ancient truths

Old vs new; ancient vs recent; truth vs lie...a circular conflict based on mimicry of one another; not copying linear origin.

Instead of old vs new...try now. Instead of ancient vs recent...try sentience. Instead of truth vs lie...try change.

You don't like Blavatsky, go to the source

Like vs dislike tempts one to ignore that same source differentiates each being.

before the gnostics

Forwarding being generates gnostic/gno - "to know" aka all perceivable moving towards each ones perception.

Those who seek, shall find.

Only withing foundation (perceivable) can one seek (suggested)...seeking tempts one to ignore foundation, and since foundation moves life from inception towards death..."those who seek, shall find".