Isis unveiled, Volume 2 (of 2), Theology : $b A master-key to the mysteries of ancient and modern science and theologyBlavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Religion
Isis unveiled, Volume 2 (of 2), Theology : $b A master-key to the mysteries of ancient and modern science and theology
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Theosophy
How dangerous may often become _untrained_ mediumship, and how
thoroughly it was understood and provided against by the ancient
sages, is perfectly exemplified in the case of Socrates. The old
Grecian philosopher was a “medium;” hence, he had never been
initiated into the Mysteries; for such was the rigorous law. But he
had his “familiar spirit” as they call it, his _daimonion_; and this
invisible counsellor became the cause of his death. It is generally
believed that if he was not initiated into the Mysteries it was
because he himself neglected to become so. But the _Secret Records_
teach us that it was because he could not be admitted to participate
in the sacred rites, and precisely, as we state, on account of his
mediumship. There was a law against the admission not only of such
as were convicted of deliberate _witchcraft_[177] but even of those
who were known to have “a familiar spirit.” The law was just and
logical, because a genuine medium is more or less irresponsible;
and the eccentricities of Socrates are thus accounted for in some
degree. A medium must be _passive_; and if a firm believer in his
“spirit-guide” he will allow himself to be ruled by the latter,
not by the rules of the sanctuary. A _medium_ of olden times, like
the modern “medium” was subject to be _entranced_ at the will and
pleasure of the “power” which _controlled_ him; therefore, he could
not well have been entrusted with the awful secrets of the final
initiation, “never to be revealed under the penalty of death.” The
old sage, in unguarded moments of “spiritual inspiration,” revealed
that which he had never learned; and was therefore put to death as an
atheist.
How then, with such an instance as that of Socrates, in relation
to the visions and spiritual wonders at the epoptai, of the Inner
Temple, can any one assert that these seers, theurgists, and
thaumaturgists were all “spirit-mediums?” Neither Pythagoras,
Plato, nor any of the later more important Neo-platonists; neither
Iamblichus, Longinus, Proclus, nor Apollonius of Tyana, were ever
mediums; for in such case they would not have been admitted to
the Mysteries at all. As Taylor proves--“This assertion of divine
visions in the Mysteries is clearly confirmed by Plotinus. And in
short, that magical evocation formed a part of the sacerdotal office
in them, and that this was universally believed by all antiquity
long before the era of the later Platonists,” shows that apart from
natural “mediumship,” there has existed, from the beginning of time,
a mysterious science, discussed by many, but known only to a few.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive