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.

Views: 1257

Replies to This Discussion

Any particular reason Jimmy, to seek all the answers within Blavatsky only. By her own admission, while writing an article titled "What is Theosophy":

Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent opinions.

Must we consider all of those to be the same as what Blavatsky proposed?

Does it really matter how Theosophy is viewed, from a mythological perspective, in the future?  For I cannot envisage a dramatic conceptual change in how Theosophy in the future is viewed.

The spiritual forces in the empyrean (God) is unchangable yesterday, today and for eternity: that is a given.  Thus it does not really matter what the mythological narrative says that clothes the divine missive.

I am reminded of the long history of the Egyptian Civilization that reached back to three thousand BC: some say 36,000 years; whatever.  No matter how many times the Egyptians were conquered and destroyed they came back and rebuilt thier culture to a great degree of sophistication.  As John Anthony West points out in his SERPENT IN THE SKY the Egyptian civilization sprung up fully developed without any evolutionary development of the arts.

Let us say that each of us is reincarnated into Buddhism or Hinduism or Taoism or any of the near Eastern religions, would our thinking concerning Theosophy be any different then it is now?  Let us say we understood Theosophy to its fullest in our present culture.  Would we think about it differently in other incarnations into other religions?  I dare say, no.  For it matterns not how the divine knowledge is clothed.

There is a magic in the earth called the paideumatic influences (educative forces).  What this means is that you can take organic life forms and relocate them in different geodectic areas of the earth and the first generation of offspring or seedling would mature or bloom to such a state they would appear to be of a different breed or species altogether..

An American stallion and mare can be relocated to Egypt and the first generation colt would appear to be of an Egyptian breed.  A German born in Germany relocated to American siring a child.  This first generation born would look like an American Indian.  Every so often in Egypt all the cattle die off and new cattle have to be purchase from surrounding countrie.  The first generation of offspring will take on the apparance of the cattle depicted on Egyptian monuments.

I point all this out to demonstrate that nothing changes or can be forced upon another.  A conquering army occupying conquered lands are themselves vanquished.by the conquered.lands.

We see this in the history of the United States where the Continental Congress took on the governmental structure of the Onondaga Indian Confederacy.

These are the same forces that little old Charley Darwin mistook for evolutionary forces.  He had no idea of what he was observing.

It use to be that these forces were so observed that a Forest Ranger could tell where a deer was shot feet from its original habitat though the poacher would be miles from where he killed it.

Do you really think that Theosophy could be any different in any geodectic area of the globe?

That is excellent way to phrase the truth, Joe.

Thank You.

The definition is to include that which is theosophy without including the baggage of particular beliefs and doctrines.
If you read it and say - "yes, that agrees with my concept of theosophy", then the definition is good. HPB can be examined and included here. It is not meant to exclude her. However - many of the books she wrote are immaterial. They are specific to her conceptualization, culture, doctrine etc.

Some important factors to consider:
1) "The One Wisdom Religion of Antiquity" is not assummed to even exist. The assumption of that existence is referred to as Universalism. It is not included here.
2) "As above" is kept free of another's spirituality or religion. To view "as above" with a specific conceptualization for everyone is not needed. (never was). However, it also may be true.

3) an "Initiation" is not at all required.  (although - it may have advantages) It has nothing to do with theosophy. Guru-Disciple is not here.

How theosophy is applied in the future is what is of interest. Theosophy has recognizable characteristics, not specific fixed ideas. My point is to look forward to see how theosophy may become active in the future. To do so, there is no reason to carry old baggage forward.

hi Jimmy -

Jimmy (prior) => "Well I read the above and gave it plenty of thought. The question still stands. How does this definition of theosophy differ from HPB's definition?"

One should bring back your prior thinking here.

The theosophy of HPB is:
I.  That there is an omnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable Reality, of which spirit and matter are complementary aspects.
II. That there is a Universal law of periodicity, or evolution through cyclic change.
III.That all souls are identical with the Universal Oversoul, which is itself an aspect of the unknown reality.

(above from Enc. of Religion on HPB; written by Emily Sellon)

Hence, the answer you had above was the right one.
However - Universalism is hard to prove. There is no reason to force it until proven. You may assume it if you want.

Note: The Keys, if accepted, almost force it as so.
Also - We are not in a room. We are on a planet with 148,940,000 sq.Km of land. If HPB is running around on the land, it is not important.

The next hundred years - whatever - is the topic.
I see those years to be dominated by Science within the first key (As I call it for reference only) the second equality is most likely to be dominant.   i.e. "Science as Primary" into the future.

Key 1) "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"

I am not negating the first part. But the emphasis will be in the second direction of flow.

The second Key, temporal Key 2 - the correlate to spatial Key 1, is a place to begin building what the future may hold for us - and how we may use theosophy to facilitate the problems of the world.

Peter:

I think you have touched upon a very important point:

There are two types of educational systems.  There is the sterile traditional education thought up by modernity to educate the masses into the commercialization of the world.  This I consider the world's mandatory and sub-human education.  I think of it this way because the regugitators euphemistically called teachers can only matriculate the class as fast as the slowest student.  Whenever cramming the required curriculum into the minds of the masses it is done on the level of the animal: meaning water reaches its own level.

The second educational system is that of self-education where all the obstacles of the former are not present.  Only on this level can Theosophy be taught because the sincere individual is working with those invisable hands that Joseph Campbell, the great mythologist, talks about.  You can reach these people but not the former.

When an individual become self-motivated he has reached a point of being a no-nonsense individual; therefore, he or she is pretty well cleansed of the subjective and seeks only the objective and his or her head is rarely turned by the charisma of another.

It is only on this level can the theory of the one hundredth monkey be achieved.  I see this only being accomplished in Theosophy if it can be shown that its science is totally scientific and from the empyrean and not the worlk of some charismatic individual.  That it is a divine law and not a transitory one.  This is how I look at the stage of Theosophy as laws from the transcendent and not the interpretations of individuals.

Does not "As Above so Below" assume universalism no matter what garment it is clothed in?  I am not suggesting one religion but rather a universal Theosophy?

From this all one has to do is look back over the expanse of Western Civilization to see the fall of Greece and Rome and Egyptian civilizations and witness the demise of its mystery schools.  Futher, we can take into account the fall of the great civilizations destroyed in the Americas do to the plagues that were brought there by the discoverers of the so called New World.  Thus the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans not to mention those that existed the North American continent.  What replaced these is Christianity.

But it would take a worldwide calamity to completely wipeout Christianity mystical roots.

I cannot speak to the far East: Tao, I Ching, Hinduism, Buddhaism, etc., etc because I do not know their histories and what went before.

However, if we are to hypothesize a restructuring of Theosophy in the future to determine what it would look like in the future we have to look at what the demise of many dead cultures and civilizations.

There is also the demise of all the religions and their mystery school in the near east: Summer, the Canaanite Empire, etc., etc. that surrounded Israel.

The almost genocidal destruction of the Canaanite Empire at the birth of Israel has seeds of its mystical religion in Judaism and its mystical interpretation Christianity.  The Canaanite empire was not completely wiped out because of the paideumatic influences in that geodectic area of the world.  Judaism is not a separate religion from Christianity it is merely its opposite as the I Ching is to the Tao te Ching.  I get the sense that because of the genocidal war between the nomadic Hebraic tribes of near East and the Canaanite Empire force the Theosophical World Community (Chinese, Buddhaism, Hinduism, Rome, Greece and Egypt), at that time, to come together to establish an everlasting record of what took place and a religion for those normatic Hebraic tribes.  Isn't it interesting how Israel is surrounded by the Arabic nations (Islam) as the Hebraic once surrounded the Canaanite Empire.  It would seem what comes around goes around.  Yet, I can not see the demise of Israel and its opposite Christianity if the land of Israel is lost.

Take Jimmy Cardwell idea of a new Theosophy taking the form of the Hebrew Kabbalah.  I think it would have to be along those line, which would include the mystery schools associated with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  For a new garment clothing for Theosophy cannot be had unless it first fully understood in all its glory.

A new style of Theosophy would have to have great work projects as were seen in Egypt's pyramid age and Judaism building of Solomon Temple and Christianity's cathedral and Renaissance periods.  Islam also had it great periods of inspiration.

To look towards the future we must look at what transpired in the past.

Believe it or not I see inklings of a new garment of Theosophy enbedded in the histories of the American Civil War: that sound absolutely crazy.  Though I could explain those tibits I would perfer to leave it at that.  I believe I mentioned these points in aother parts of my writings.

To have a radical change a worldwide catastrophe would have to take place wiping out about 95% of humanity such as what Professor Paul LaViolette writes about in his research on galactic core explosions EARTH UNDER FIRE.

finding a universalism is something I will believe will happen, and Science seems the most likely candidate to do it and prove it.

I can not prove each individual in all cultures and all religions will have the same internalism.
You are correct that the Keys imply it.
The definition if Theosophy does not.
Thanks for bring that out!

 Hi, friends!

 Sorry, William, but you wrote "I cannot speak to the Far East: Tao, I Ching, ..." a few lines before opposing the I Ching and the Tao-Te-Ching. The I Ching is the common source of Confucianism and Taoism, which can be understoood as different readings of the same book. 

 Have a good day today, friends!!! 

Ferran Sanz Orriols:

You are right is suggesting that both Confusians and Taoists read from the same book: however, the I Ching is a book and/or philosophy to live by; whereas, Taoism is a mystical understanding of the I Ching.

I had used the I Ching and Tao te Ching previously as an analogy to how Judaism and Christianity should be viewed; seeing that Christianity is Judasism mystical interpretation of the Torah.  In fact the New Testament is a terse commentary on what the Old Testament holds esoterically beneath its texts.

When I said "I cannot speak to the Far East: Tao, I Ching..." I was speaking to what existed historically before these sacred texts appear.  What went on in the Far East's antiquities is what I have no knowledge of.

 

 Hi, William!

 Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see the usefulness of the analogy, nor the analogy itself. My opinion is that Judaism, Christianity and the Bible are difficult questions in themselves, and that an analogy with the I-Ching and the Tao Te Ching makes them even more difficult, not more clear.

I fear some may be missing the point in a way.

I think people need to focus on what we are talking about, which is what, where, and how we expect theosophy to be viewed (which side of the gem, so to speak) as interacting with the living (Man and Nature in particular)

What does the future bring and how can we help as theosophists. The dynamics of theosophy "in action" will likely alter to function differently in a world that needs to see its other (omnipresent) aspects.

If so - How???  What can theosophy do?? Are we going to sit in some Victorian Doctrine and wish for the grand unification of externalism, mind, internalism? other??  Are we to wait for the grand Peace on Earth to appear. Then smugly say: "See I told you it would happen". or worse, set ourselves to another grand date in the future we again wait for.

A leadership role would be best.

It is time to access and retrieve the most fundamental tools. I am starting from what I see as the most basic assumptions. It is also the most Academically accepted definition of the term. We should not make assumptions rapidly. They must appear as and when needed, given freeley by nature. Growth must be dynamically available from/in all directions.  Some will have to get used to playing second chair to Science. We also have the temporal key (I have only seen it show up, stated, in the last century).  I am not talking a fuzzy concept of cycles in nature. I am referring to the law. The dynamics of how the synchronous, the Mythic, the Hieroglyphs of history, all must come into play. The future can be seen from these. Or, I think we should be able to see it better. We present a challenge, offer tools and a fresh start to use, develop and recover  theosophemes of Nature. Clean the attic. This century will be a bit different. A tsunami and not a trickling stream of small changes.

i.e. ===>>> Perhaps it is far better to see where we are headed, using theosophy, and start planning a future direction. Get ahead of the ball, not behind it.

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2021   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service