Theosis, The making of gods

"In Christian theology, particularly in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θέωσις, meaning divinization, deification, or making divine) is the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings . . . "
--- from Wikipedia

This is a doctrine not usually associated with Theosophy, but which was plumbed by, for one, G. de Purucker. I would like to see more about it from a Theosophical viewpoint. At what point, exactly, do we achieve godhood or the status of gods? The Mormons, of course, believe in this ancient doctrine, but in a very literal, physical way, where they even have multiple wives in eternity on some planet or another. The ancient Greeks and Romans, especially the latter, made gods of their favorite tyrants, most notably Augustus Caesar. Where does this fit into our current body of doctrine of a Theosophical nature? If not, then where does G. de Purucker get his ideas from in the "Fountain-Source of Occultism"? I would like to know more about this personally, from those who may have studied the idea in some depth.

Andrew, you quoted,

"...the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings . . . "

--> Perhaps this is the leap of faith that Christians talk about? Or is it more of an inner balancing of ideas? Many people are transformed by what they believe. But the way a Theosophist is transformed is quite different from, say, an evangelical Christian. Both people are transformed, but what a difference! I think it gets back to the idea that there are different kinds of people, and we need different kinds of religions. If I remember correctly, there are seven Rays, and the first Ray is the Ray of devotion. I think it only makes sense that a person of the first Ray would be more attracted to evangelical Christianity. But I am not of the first Ray, and evangelical Christianity does not appeal to me. If I remember correctly, I am more in tune with the fifth or sixth Ray. (Does anyone remember which Ray is which?) This is also in keeping with the idea of Universal Brotherhood, and that we need to respect people who are different from us (on different Rays).

"At what point, exactly, do we achieve godhood or the status of gods?"

--> HPB uses both the terms semi-divine beings and divine beings to describe beings who are at a level that is higher than the human level. I am not sure where she draws the line between the two. (Has anyone read of where she draws the line?) It seems to me that anyone who has achieved both enlightenment and nirvana could be called semi-divine. (I am curious at where we divide semi-divine and divine.)

"The Mormons, of course, believe in this ancient doctrine, but in a very literal, physical way, where they even have multiple wives in eternity on some planet or another."

--> The Mormons are not the only Christians to believe in a physical heaven. In a faintly similar way, it could be said that Theosophists believe in "wives on some planet." We make very strong emotional and spiritual bonds with the people closest to us in physical life, and (according to Theosophy) we carry such fondness with us to higher levels. I remember reading somewhere that the august Being who is the Logos of our solar system has seven lieutenants who serve him. It has been said that the "emotional" and spiritual bond between our Logos and his seven lieutenants is stonger than we can imagine. It is also said that these bonds may have been first started when all eight of them were inhaibiting human bodies an unthinkable number of universes ago. So, I think we may have bonds with other beings when we travel to other planets -- bonds that are stronger than earthly marriage bonds -- but this will be on a level much higher than the physical, astral, or even mental levels.

Vastly interesting! I see how the first ray would be "bhakti" (devotion, or love) and how that would fit into Christianity especially. According to yoga philosophy, I think there are 4 differrent ways that one can achieve enlightenment (samadhi): bhakti (love, devotion), jnana (thought), karma (work), and raja (meditation), although this is very much simplified. Swami Vivekananda dealt with each of these in turn in his writings, as have many others.

What is new, to me, is the idea that we carry our relationships into the next life whether on different planes or planets. It is "new" in Theosophy that is. I never really realized that this doctrine is the logical outcome of karma. That, too, is fascinating. I'll have to ponder this some more. (I still reject the Mormon idea of being gods with a plethora of wives in eternity, however. The whole idea of polygamy, while perhaps attractive to a young man, does not have the same appeal for those of us who have weathered out 40+ years of monogamous marriage. And the Islamic idea of the houris in Paradise just gets to be too gross to be conceived; it might incite terrorism, but I seriously doubt if the Prophet had anything like this latter teaching of Islamic hadith in mind at all. For one thing, the Prophet was monogamous himself, pbuh.)

"What is new, to me, is the idea that we carry our relationships into the next life whether on different planes or planets."

--> I believe that the most important thing in a successful marriage today is how good a relationship the two people had in one -- or many -- lifetimes before. (I think that, in many cases, a good marriage in this lifetime is just picking up where the two people left off last time in a previous reincarnation together.) To me this makes a lot of sense. And, I see this going on for countless billions of years from now.

"And the Islamic idea of the houris in Paradise just gets to be too gross to be conceived..."

--> Many religions have taken a super-astral heaven and made it into a physical heaven. Fortunately, Theosophy teaches us otherwise.

"I still reject the Mormon idea of being gods with a plethora of wives in eternity, however...."

--> Perhaps this is based on the Theosophical idea that we have strong "emotional" and spiritual bonds with each person that is important to us, even when we move onto nirvana. (The way I see it, if we have had five different women that we have loved tremendously in previous incarnations, we can love all of them at the same time in Devachan (heaven) and there will not be any problem. Here in this monogonous physical world, if we love two women we have to choose one and say goodbye to the other. This problem does not exist in Devachan.) So, in a way, they are right. But they have twisted it around to where it doesn't make any sense.

Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_wives

Let me clarify from my own point of view. I know that the Prophet was "married" to several women for reasons of security (for them) and for political ties, but as to whether or not he consummated those marriages is subject to some historic doubt. It is still a debated subject among scholars. In any case, polygamy is odious for any number of reasons, and the treatment of women under Islam is unconscionable. With this, IMHO the Prophet would have agreed.

I find it fascinating that conditions in Devachan, if copied here on earth, would result in polygamy. This is a good example of misinterpreting the teachings and ending up with false teachings as a result. Fortunately, we have Theosophy to explain what is actually going on.

What in the world do you mean about Devachan?

Nicholas,

The way I see it, in Devachan, we can have extrememly strong and close relationships with many different people. If we were to have the same types of strong relationships here on earth, I think marriage would be one way to describe them. I have had my share of girlfriends in this life, and I still think quite fondly about several of them. I think I wil be able to "see" all of them them in Devachan, and there will not be any conflict.

Also, I think that jealousy in Devachan must be impossible. One strong relationship with one person would not cause any jealousy regarding a strong relationship with someone else in Devachan. That is the beauty of Devachan, and seems to be something that cannot be duplicated here on earth.

At a much higher level, I believe that our Solar Logos has an extremely strong spiritual bond with each of his seven "assistant Logoi," and that there is no jealousy there either.

Nick, you seem to have a very unorthodox view of Devachan that I find hard to understand. (Yes, I am aware that there is no "orthocoxy" in Theosophy.) How did you develop your ideas, and where in HPB or other Theosophists are your interpretations of Devachan to be found. One thing is certain: Devachan is impermanent and it is but a temporary stopping-off-place in samsara. If we aim only for Devachan, we do a disservice to our spiritual goals, no matter how appealing Devachan may be to the wandering soul.

I see Nick.

Since the Happy Realm of Devachan is, by definition, free of sorrow and contains only happiness and further, springs forth only from the mind of the Devachanee - what you want spiritually is what you get.

Maybe it is Amaterasu.

Andrew,

Thank you for calling me unorthodox. To me, that is quite a compliment.

I got my ideas about Devachan from a Theosophical book. Sorry, I do not remember which book. I also got a couple ideas from a great psychic who was my friend years ago.

According to that book, Devachan is a place where we are in a kind of private "cocoon," where we are cut off from the rest of Devachan. Inside our "cocoon," we have all of our memories from our just-completed reincarnation. We are able to construct images of our loved ones, and interact with these images while we are in our private Devachan. If you think about it, this is the only way it could be done, because the real persons are off somewhere else, doing other things. Devachan is a time of reflection, reliving the events and remembering the people of our recently-completed reincarnation, gleaning as much wisdom as we can from what has just happened. Then, when we have gleaned all we can from our recent reincarnation, it is time to go back for another "fieldtrip" (reincarnation). The cycle of Devachan/reincarnation is a constant cycle of having experiences, and then gleaning as much wisdom as we can from those experiences.

I was once told by my psychic friend that it is all one big illusion, so make it a good one!

This brings up one more difference between Devachan and Nirvana. Devachan is an illusion, whereas Nirvana is something approaching reality.

I agree with you. Devachan is entirely subjective maya, while Nirvana would be not-so-much subjective (perhaps even objective) reality. As HPB said, Devachan is certainly real to the one who experiences it, but ultimately, eveything is maya (or, in my own words, a Game). The whole idea of Lila ("sport" of Brahma) in Hinduism covers all this just fine. I refer to my ideas about reality, or the lack of it, as "Game Theory." This is not that a god or demigod plays us, but that what we might refer to as god is the player and the played. This comes from the "Adi Granth" and from, oddly enough, also L. Ron Hubbard's ideas in Scientology. The "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" also covers all this very well, but it states it in more anthropomorphic terms. My "Game Theory" is, characteristically for me, a movement of spirituality and not one of a god. Therefore, I still remain, logically, an "atheist."

Andrew,

You are right that Nirvana is more "real" than our physical reality. But there are planes of existence above Nirvana that are even more "real." The Stanzas of Dzyan describe how our physical reality was built by throwing veil upon veil, illusion upon illusion. When we finally achieve nirvanic consciouness, we will have cast off several veils, with more veils yet to cast off.