So we can touch on the core principles of theosophical thought if you wish. The first principle behind theosophical thinking is correspondence.

Long story short, in Christianized terms, the words of god were continually functioning in the universe around us and could be read and explored by someone with the right understanding. Everything was an expression of a coherent, centralized body of thought/imagination/wisdom. Everything a symbol, sign and season for something. Much of the clockwork universe style of thinking, even present in the works of thinkers like Newton, reflects this.

Where they differ from modern models of deterministic philosophy is that rather than being static and passive cogs, the various facets of reality were part and parcel of the very being of god. Everything taking part in the very existence of the divine.

As above so below? Indeed, as above so below would reflect their thinking.

Imagination was not seen as something personally authored to the theosophical thinker. You had concepts or images or visions come into your mind through the working of god, and not just because you arbitrarily made them up. They didn’t believe that sort of creativity was personally possible.

Divine inspiration. All “fantasy” was seen as divinely inspired even if the individual failed to properly understand or make use of this. You can still see this sort of thinking echoed even in the early America’s – the works of Edison and people like them. This is often why they pursued invention so passionately. In a sort of round about sense the creation and implementation of their inventions was seen as a divine mission.

Tesla’s speaking of visions of angels would have been seen as strange, but not necessarily completely insane. It mostly would have been seen as a romantic way of discussing something they already took for granted as happening on a day to day basis, or at least as having the potential to happen. What do you think of this? Too crazy to take seriously?

Muses? It would parallel the concept of the muses who were daemons/minor deities themselves.

Not at all crazy unless taken literally rather than mytho-poetically.

Invention is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

I will get to that topic.

I like the idea of creativity being divinely inspired. It takes the pressure off when having a team. You’re working with the divine, it’s not just you.

What makes us think what we think…

What was sought in theosophical conversion was something more like alchemical transmutation in a sense, rather than simple ritual initiation. They believed that after a certain point in the search for understanding the individuals consciousness would undergo a transformation, sort of like the eastern concept of enlightenment. You would know you achieved salvation when you could freely perceive nature “as god intended it.”

Concordance is the observation that nothing could actually behave or function entirely outside of the will of god. As much as things could become distorted, they could never truly be severed from the original divine will. So any expression of the spirit would contain some divine truth in it and they would study the works of the Greeks freely despite the fact that they were otherwise seen as pagans and barbarians most commonly.

I ponder the “infinitude” of God — and therefore it’s not possible to be “outside.”

Transmission is seen as important. The theosophical wisdom is seen as having two components, perhaps much as the theosophy of India was, one consisting of the particulars, the scriptures, sutras, chants and what not, and the other consisting of the understanding of the enlightened, something that was believed impossible to record in text. It had to be transmitted through interaction, sometimes even just contact. Gurus are often spoken of in this way, even to the point of from time to time being able to enlighten with just their aura, their personal presence.

Would you say, then, that ontology is a sub-set of theosophy? In other words, if it exists (BE-ing Itself), if it participates in Being, then it is “connected” to god or to the gods? Perhaps “informed by the gods would have been a better way to have said it. Oh no. I would say ontology is more a metaphysical concern. Esoteric by comparison to theosophical thought and interest.

Gods are just conscious creative entities like us? To Buddhist thinking, yes. Gods being enlightened caretaker beings rather than the originating authors of existence.

Just a little older… Indeed. A similar concept is present in some schools of modern spiritually when they make reference to ascended masters. Basically it’s the same idea.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~