Future Theosophy - a Vision
Future Theosophy
Discussion of theosophy in the future is a very difficult task. First, the ability of a human to prognosticate with any degree of specificity is near impossible. Second, the future events under discussion may rightfully be questioned as to whether the label “theosophy” is at all accurate and applicable. Creating a mechanism to handle either needs to be addressed. The first issue is unsolvable in specifics, until actual forecasting of a future event is obtainable. However, some aspects can be approached (see below). The second issue can be solved only by some solid definition of the term “theosophy”. That piece of the problem can be addressed. Furthermore, when properly done, the first item may then also be addressed. The broad scope of concepts regarding the future of theosophy must be able to include any theosophy available to the unfettered future mind of the theosophist. Predetermined limitations must be minimized to absolve the theosophist. The definition used for the term theosophy must contain only the minimal requirements for a working definition. The research in the last several decades have fortunately done this for us. Thus, we start with the widely accepted definition of “theosophy”, as created empirically by Antoine Faivre from centuries of available literature.
What is meant by “Theosophy”?
The three Characteristics of Theosophy:
1) Divine/Human/Nature Triangle: The inspired analysis which circles through these three angles. The intradivine within; the origin, death and placement of the human relating to Divinity and Nature; Nature as alive, the external, intellectual and material. All three complex correlations synthesize via the intellect and imaginative processes of Mind.
2) Primacy of the Mythic: The creative Imagination, an external world of symbols, glyphs, myths, synchronicities and the myriad, along with image, all as a universal reality for the interplay conjoined by creative mind.
3) Access to Supreme Worlds: The awakening within, inherently possessing the faculty to directly connect to the Divine world(s). The existence of a special human ability to create this connection. The ability to connect and explore all levels of reality; co-penetrate the human with the divine; to bond to all reality and experience a unique inner awakening
The above characteristics are the most complete and also the minimal set with which to achieve our objective.
The Scaffold of Future Theosophy from Two Hermetic Keys of Space and Time
Following a simplistic and unfettered approach, as reflected within the above spirit, we need only two fundamental keys from which future guidance toward a new theosophy may be erected. These come from and evolve from Thrice Greatest Hermes and the Emerald Table:
1) The key for the spatial connections in theosophy, i.e. the second verse in the 'Emerald Table' of Hermes Trismegistus:
"That which is above is like to that which is below and that which is below is like to that which is above, to accomplish the miracles of (the) one thing"
Note this refers to the Spatial Dimension. i.e. epistemologically it is externalism and internalism; theosophically as mind (human) as the mesocosm between the macrocosm and microcosm). Note the Eastern Philosophy version: “What is here is there, What is not here is nowhere”.
(Vishvasara Tantra; trsl. Arthur Avalone, The Serpent Power 1919, p 72.)
The second key is retrieved by actually using the technique of theosophy. One need act theosophically, using the three characteristics above, upon the first key of spatial dimensions. The analogy between space and time as interchangeable creates the second key. This is the temporal equivalent to the first key and completes the Hermetic set of keys for both time and space. This is one of the great results that surfaced in the 20th century by theosophists, actually doing theosophy by using the three characteristics ('Die Gnosis' by Hans Leisegang, 1926; and 'Le Tarot' by Marc Haven, 1923):
2) The key for the temporal connections in theosophy.
"That which was is as that which will be, and that which will be is as that which was, to accomplish the miracles of eternity"
Reference from Meditations on the Tarot by Anonymous, 1985. Note: Anonymous is known to be Valentin Tomberg (1901-1973).
The above, created in the theosophical revolutions of the 20th century, is the starting point for the 21st century. The better definition, and the two “Keys To Theosophy”.
Key One - Opening the Future with Science as Primary
Opening the door with the first key. The primary focus will shift. The first will be last and the last will be first. Hence, Science takes the dominate side of the equation.
Key One: That (deemphasized) which is above is like to that which is below and (new emphasis) that which is below is like to that which is above, to accomplish the miracles of (the) one thing
Therefore, the first characteristic of theosophy, which involves the triangle of macrosom-mesocosm-microcosm, is now driven by the knowledge of the macrocosm and it will correct misunderstandings within the microcosm. This compliment must be required for a consistent understanding. This is also true of the third characteristic of theosophy. The supreme world within, or epistemological internalism, becomes increasingly just a new form of externalism. The knowledge of psychology, biology and brain are realized through an externalism within science.
Key Two - Revealing the Future Past
This key unlocks the second characteristic of Faivre. First note that Archetypes are spatial – unchanging constants, but exist in the above and time is immaterial. Myth is a narration of a particular idea that is eternal in time but not a universal within the spatial. A good example is War, as viewed as a removal of a hierarchy. Most war, even religious war, is based on removal of a hierarchy. Nature abhors a hierarchy. It not a respecter of individuals. Nature changes in a manner known eternally through time. The point is to not confuse spatial analogy and typology with temporal eternal ideas through myth. Hence, the Arab Spring was in a sense a theosophical event. The overthrow of a hierarchy. These events are active and are manifestations of eternal myths/ideas. They live and happen eternally. Also, myths are cultural. With global cultures interacting through information flow, expect new global myths but only to represent an eternal myth/idea. The recasting of a myth in a global language. Perhaps the term Arab Spring itself is a new mythic, eternal event, in a new global culture.
The theosophist of the future will still be the Tarot's Major Arcanum Card I, the Magician. The one who performs the three characteristics as derived by Faivre. Doing so with ease. Precisely tuned and transformed from the theosophical revolution of the twentieth century with new understandings and preparation for the 21st century.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by William John Meegan on
-
John:
I am afraid I personally must be missing your point or am I getting it all too clearly? You seem to be inferring a Theosophical Utopia and a variation of a Theosophical World Order where there is a hierarchy of leadership overseeing and governing the entire expanse of humanity. Am I wrong in thinking that you are skirting the exact wording by not directly saying it?
Individually and/or collectively Theosophy can do nothing to change the eternal laws of the empyrean: that is a given. What you seem to be suggesting by not directly stating the issue – IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE BUT MEN DO NOT SEE IT.
All the major religions around the world have what you suggest esoterically codified to their sacred scriptures. And it sings in the hearts of individuals and pockets of mystery school around the world. All any individual or collective organization can do is preserve the idea in those several venues already mentioned.
There can never be peace on earth. Even Jeremiah tell us that “men will cry Peace, Peace but there will be no Peace”. Our natural world is created upon the opposites, which without there can be no external existence: then even God would blink out of existence. The internal and external support each other’s existence.
What you are suggesting in your vague wording even if possible cannot take place if we as Theosophists cannot even agree on what Theosophy is as a system of thought. You saw how difficult it was to get my point across to Gerry and I am only suggesting one aspect of a very huge, many faceted, diamond. I also lisp in my wording and curse the human vernacular for not allowing me to get across my point.
What you are suggesting I believed already existed in ancient times and I mentioned this in regards to a Theosophical Community in my last post in their setting up a beacon: the Judeao Christian religion as a monument to the genocide of the Canaanite Empire. So that it would never happen again. Don’t you see they had the authority to do what they did because they understood conceptually what Theosophy is from a grand perspective. Each of those major religions did not believe their religious mythological garments were the end all and be all of Theosophy. They saw the world community as one.
Theosophy in the twenty-first century is still crawling and has no right to believe it can hold the scepter of power such as the ancients held until it can confidently stand on its own two feet knowing its place in the world. That is not for now: that is for generations to come. Such a community of Theosophists (religions and/or organizations) would be each autonomous and no grand hierophant overseeing the board meetings.
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
well, If you read that in my post, it is a very poorly worded post. I need to fix it - entire rewrite.
I do not believe in Utopias. I do not believe in a hierarchy of hierophants and so on...
One can never change eternal laws....
I'll try to clean that post up.... Currently - I suggest everyone ignore it for a while.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ferran Sanz Orriols on
-
Hi, friends!
I'm just answering to the first post, and well, I don't know and I think I disagree.
I'm not sure about the usefulness (to us) of starting only from an academic definition of theosophy. I was thinking on the contrast between A. Faivre and Valentin Tomberg, who wrote anonimously the book Meditations on the Tarot. http://tarothermeneutics.com/tarotliterature/MOTT/Meditations-on-th... The first, an historian; the second, an hermeticist.
Tomberg speaks about soul and about heart, about the brain becoming a servant of the heart. This is theosophy from inside. Tomberg addresses to the reader as "my dear unknown friend" all along the book: he's welcoming anyone inside. He's been one of the major influences in me writing like this, in friendship terms. He opens a door for the reader.
This is different than an academical approach to hermetism, hermeticism, etc.
What I mean is that the artist and the arts historian are not doing the same thing. The first needs to be creative to give the second something to work upon, yet the artist is also fed by the work of past artists, available to him thanks to the historian.
I disagree with emphasis on science, unless this emphasis means we will question science itself. If emphasis on science means that brain is to be the servant of the heart, so a science of the soul is possible, then it's OK, but I don't think this is the original meaning.
I see future theosophy as the science of the soul, a cultural gap that needs to be filled.
Have fun today, friends! :-)
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Tomberg is a classic Theosophist. Faivre uses him as a good example. The academic definition is incredibly inclusive. It is a "Liberation" movement of theosophy. No current theosophist gets kicked out. You are misreading this.
The hermeticism is straight from Tomberg. Note: classic theosophy has no direct relationship to Hermeticism. nor Eastern religions etc.Theosophy is not a system of beliefs that require an allegiance to some book, religion etc.
I used Key 1 and Key 2 only as bare bones to possibly help form analogies, typologies etc.that may aid people. If you do not find them useful, that's ok.
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Tomberg's Tarot Meditations book contains academic Traditional Theosophical Thinking at some of it's best. It does not use the Christian Zohar. He is a Catholic (Eastern Orthodox) - more of the caliber of a Thomas Merton. Tomberg will quote the Bible and Pantanjali on the same page to make his point solid.
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Theosophy - Liberated Thinking
Our site uses the academic definition of Theosophy as the answer to the question "What is Theosophy"
Hence, if you consider HPB to be junk, and Black Elk as your sacred source of knowledge, then "yes, we recognize it as valid theosophy".That is not "new" on our site. We always try to proceed with high academic standards. Many people on this site have wanted to use theosophical principles in the outside world; try to find ways to externalize the teachings in the new future ahead. My position is that one fundamental starting point is theosophy (defined), and the two Hermetic keys. They are possibly the best ways to proceed to create new approaches and new theosophical thinking.
Joe and Captain Kumar have ideas that many people will find interesting.
Also - read Joe's Intro to this group. I am putting it below:
We are the carriers of a train of thought, a tradition that is almost two thousand years old.
On one hand we all believe strongly in the inner experiences that connect us, as individuals with divinity. On a larger scale it's the story of our relations with the universe, all the way to first principle.
This story is not finished. It will never be finished as long as we seek to merge our understanding with the great all. Culture and technology change and our expression has to reflect the understanding that we have of the world that we are in.
-
-
-
Hi, friends!
Well, disagreeing and misreading are not the same thing.
I do agree that theosophy is liberated thinking, and that's precisely the reason why I needed to liberate myself from academy when I got my degree. I survided "high academic standards": I can still write creatively.
If we are to question the most basic assumptions, we can question academy and science itself, too.
Starting from an academic definition does not help me. I don't know about its general usefulness, I don't know if it may help or not people to be creative.
Tomberg opened a door for me many years ago, he didn't open it with his erudition but with his friendship. The recipe I follow may seem stupid, naive or just "too simple"... I don't care, I just let brain listen to heart and then I write.
Have fun today, friends!!! ;-)
-
-
-
Ferran Sanz Orriols:
I too when initially embarking upon the quest for what the esoteric science truly was shunned academia for its lack of interest in these matter; however, as the years went by I began to see that some in the academic community were taking an interest. Academia is slowly and causiously being converted.: However, as a whole academia still holds to their "high academic standards" no matter the discipline, which I have learned is their major fault. They cannot endure 'liberating thinking'.
Each of us, even a member of a Theosophical group, must determine where are individual bliss lies. If we follow the methods of others we are followers not pioneers loosing the sense of our own bliss: Thus, I would advise each and every person that is consciously on the quest to learn his own methods. Each of us can be like the muscian, or poet, or painter learning the popular techniques of others then forget thier strictures and discover our own: that is what the master does.
Hence, your approach "I don't care, I just let bran listen to heart and then I write" is what Joseph Campbell (the great mythologist) calls FOLLOWING YOUR BLISS.
P.S. Theosophy has a comprehensive and all inclusive definitiion:
-
-
-
Hi, friends!
Thanks for your reply, William. Now I'm fearing I didn't write properly. I am not against academy or academical approach to questions. I think that historical studies are necessary in XXIst century theosophy.
But the point of view of the historian or anthropologist is different than the point of view of someone who's inside, and this is the reason why I doubt about the usefulness of academical definitions to us. They may be necessary, but they are not sufficient, in my opinion.
Yes, I think that analogy with arts helps us to understand more than analogy with science. One has to learn the basics, and then it's about being creative. The historian follows different rules than the artist.
If philosophy is to love wisdom, theosophy could be the art of seducing divine inspiration to enable us to live creatively. Mind is needed in this art, of course, but it's not the beginning or the end.
Have fresh fun today, friends!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher P. Holmes on
-
I am not familiar with the term 'theosophies' as i am more familiar with the singular Theosophy. I consider that the most important 'future' for theosophy, is for us to understand what has already been given out and revealed through Blavatsky's work. There are three areas in which i think theosophists have not realized what Blavatsky and the SD suggest, vis a vis the issues of modern thought, science and civilization.
The first issue concerns the nature of human consciousness, and whereas the whole mainstream of modern thought and science has assumed that 'consciousness' is manufactured somehow out of the material neurological processes of the brain, 'the head doctrine,' Blavatsky suggests that the SELVES EXPAND AND CONTRACT through their own HEART, as a Stanza states. The Buddhic Consciousness and Monadic essence are associated with the heart, as both consciousness and life emerge from within/without through a higher dimensional holographic physics of the human heart. Consciousness is the light which exists within, which can illuminate the mind, and is not a product of neurological processes.Consciousness in the body is connected to the heart, the blood flow, and the breath and oxygenation of the body, and through the dynamics of the chakra system with its zero point centers and dynamics. The 'head doctrine' of modern science is directly opposed to the 'heart doctrine,' of the Secret Doctrine. http://www.zeropoint.ca/Heart_Doctrine.htm
Secondly, theosophists have not realized the significance of Blavatsky's teachings as regards to 'zero point' dynamics. She states "material points without extension are the materials by which the Gods and other invisible powers, clothe themselves in bodies." Further, she suggests that the Kosmos had a first point of unfoldment, just as does a human being, as a singular 'I' within the heart, the divine element or monadic essence established in higher dimensional space.
Blavatsky's concepts of zero point centers, Laya or Layu centers, are profound in light of the newest ideas to emerge in modern holographic physics, and the new physics allows for understanding the Secret Doctrine in a new way, and what Blavatsky was claiming about understanding the laws of nature, which proceed through 'holes dug in Space'. I would recommend my writings on these subjects, to understand the relationship of Blavatsky's SD and metaphysics, to modern metaphysics and science. http://www.zeropoint.ca/table_GSSD.html
Thirdly, i think that theosophists have failed to further Blavatsky's noble aims of a universal brotherhood and of conscious nucleus of individuals to guide the evolution of humanity and bring about a better world. The Illuminati with their genocidal agendas and mass hypnosis and mind conditioning of the human race, have succeeded much better than any group intending to bring about spiritual awakening and the evolution of humankind. Instead, a old world psychiatric disorder has gripped the human race, as wars are multiplied around the world, the the masses of humanity are being systematically poisoned by the psychopathic elite who came to rule humanity. http://www.zeropoint.ca/Zeropoint_Publications.htm
So theosophists have failed to understand Blavatsky's teachings and failed in carrying forward her visionary goal for humankind. I suggest that dealing with these issues is where the future of theosophy lays.
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Victorian Clueless
"The choice of a name for the Society was, of course, a question for grave discussion in Committee. Several were suggested, among them, if I recollect right, the Egyptological, the Hermetic, the Rosicrucian, etc., but none seemed just the thing. At last, in turning over the leaves of the Dictionary, one of us came across the word 'Theosophy,' whereupon, after discussion, we unanimously agreed that was the best of all; since it both expressed the esoteric truth we wished to reach and covered the ground of Felt's methods of scientific research" (H. S. Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Adyar, The Theosophical Publishing House, 1974, 1st ed., 1895, vol. I, p. 112).
-
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
Christopher, you begin with the assumption that Blavatsky is correct in every respect and everyone else is wrong. What if Blavatsky was wrong in her understanding of the word Laya, as in Sanskrit it means in rhythm or in sync. The idea of Expansion and Contraction is borrowed from the Spanda Doctrine of Kashmir Saivism but was never acknowledged so.
I am yet to see a book on neuroscience claim that consciousness is a function of the hardware of brain. They simply claim that they do not know about it sufficiently. Such arguments are just rumors.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
