Akashic Records

← Encyclopedia

The Akashic Records are held to be a complete register of the past: every event, every act, every thought since the beginning of things, impressed without loss on a subtle medium that pervades the universe and legible there to the suitably developed. The name sounds immemorial. The doctrine is modern — assembled in public, in datable steps, across the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Half of the construction is genuinely ancient. Ākāśa in Sanskrit means sky, or space, and in the classical Indian systems it is a piece of cosmology, not a library. The Hindu schools count it the fifth gross element — the Yogatattva Upanishad seats it in the body between the eyebrows and the crown of the head. Jain ontology admits it as the substance that is space. The Theravada Abhidhamma denies it even that much, ruling endless space a pure concept with “no objective reality,” though some later Buddhist schools ranked ākāśa among the unconditioned dharmas. Theosophy’s own glossaries derive the word from the root kāś, to shine or be visible: the shining. What no classical sense provides is storage. Across its long Indian career the word names the openness in which things happen, never a register of what happened.

The register came from Europe. French occultism had developed the astral light, a universal medium imagined as receiving and retaining the impress of everything that occurs — the recording instrument the Sanskrit term lacked. Helena Blavatsky (1831–1891), who co-founded the Theosophical Society in New York in 1875, made the splice in print. The glossary at the front of Isis Unveiled (September 1877) states it as an identity: “The astral light is identical with the Hindu akasa,” akasa being defined as the source of life and reservoir of all energy, tallying in its latent state with the universal ether. The records themselves stayed under the European name. Blavatsky wrote of “indestructible tablets of the astral light”; by The Secret Doctrine (1888) the doctrine stands complete — the Lipika, celestial scribes whose name comes from the Sanskrit for writing, impress upon those tablets “the great picture-gallery of eternity,” a chronicle of human deeds and even thoughts, covering what was, what is, and what is yet to come, on a canvas Isis had already called the Book of Life. One word Blavatsky never used is “akashic.” The scholarship of the Theosophical current is explicit on the point: the compound is not hers.

It was built by her colleagues, and its first supports were presented as Buddhist. Henry Steel Olcott, the Society’s co-founder, wrote in The Buddhist Catechism (1881; the wording here follows later editions) that early Buddhism “clearly held to a permanency of records in the Akasha,” readable by anyone evolved far enough toward enlightenment. The catechism was composed for Buddhist schools in Ceylon; the sentence cites no canonical text, and it is Olcott’s gloss, not the Abhidhamma’s — the same Theravada analysis, after all, finds in space nothing real enough to write on. A. P. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism (1883) then carried the catechism’s claim to a far wider readership — an attestation that reaches this entry at second hand, through the scholarly literature on Theosophy rather than from Sinnett’s own pages; Annie Besant’s earliest uses rest on the same kind of citation. Where the exact compound first reached print remains, on present evidence, unresolved.

The earliest appearance that can be verified at first hand is C. W. Leadbeater’s Clairvoyance (1899), in which detailed visions of the past are described as readings from the âkâshic records — and in which the term arrives already apologizing. The name, Leadbeater concedes at once, “is in truth somewhat of a misnomer”: the records belong properly to the âkâsha understood as the matter of the mental plane, and the obvious alternative title, records of the astral light, he rejects as worse still, since the records lie far beyond the astral plane. In some of the Society’s earlier books, he notes, âkâsha and astral light had been used as synonyms. The doctrine was barely two decades old, and the man who fixed its name had already moved its address.

Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) gave the archive its most ambitious employment. General Secretary of the Theosophical Society’s German Section from 1902, he published twenty essays under the running title “Aus der Akasha-Chronik” in his magazine Lucifer-Gnosis between July 1904 and May 1908 — in English, Cosmic Memory, or From the Akashic Record. The preface lays out the warrant: documents and monuments are unreliable witnesses; “everything which comes into being in time has its origin in the eternal”; and the initiate, Steiner held, can read past events in that eternal register directly. What he reported reading there were whole lost worlds — the civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria reconstructed in confident detail, root-race by root-race. After his break with Adyar Theosophy — precipitated by Besant and Leadbeater’s promotion of the young Krishnamurti from 1909 — he turned the method on scripture itself: the “Fifth Gospel” lectures, opened in Oslo on October 1, 1913, presented a life of Christ derived not from the four evangelists but from his own akasha research.

The American career runs through Edgar Cayce (1877–1945), born near Hopkinsville, Kentucky, filed by Britannica as a “self-proclaimed faith healer and psychic.” Across more than four decades Cayce gave readings in trance, and the tradition that formed around him holds that what he consulted was the records themselves — the Book of Life, God’s Book of Remembrance — written, the readings say, upon time and space. His Association for Research and Enlightenment, founded at Virginia Beach in 1931, remains the term’s principal American carrier and keeps the figure of speech current: the records, in the A.R.E.’s present gloss, are “the universe’s super-computer system — or perhaps what today would be called cloud computing.”

The scientific framing is recent and specific. In Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything (2004; second edition 2007), the Hungarian-born systems philosopher Ervin Laszlo — Club of Rome member, veteran of United Nations research projects — recast the records as the Akashic field, an information field he locates in the quantum vacuum and offers as the explanation for nonlocal coherence in physics, biology, and consciousness research. His institute’s biography reports that in the 1990s his research led him to “the discovery of the Akashic Field” — a sentence whose verb converts a metaphysical postulate into a finding. The field’s serious readership has gathered in Jungian and consciousness-studies circles rather than in physics. The reference shelf is cooler still: Britannica writes its article entirely in the grammar of report; the Gale Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology pictures a central filing system of all events, consulted by mystics “switching on a celestial television set”; and Brian Regal’s critical encyclopedia of pseudoscience records the negative finding without ceremony — no scientific evidence that the records exist.

What is sold now is access. Reading the records has become a profession, with sessions, guided-access protocols, and journaling exercises, promising a view of the soul’s path and “every possible outcome your soul can experience” under its different choices; certification courses train new readers; practitioners post warnings about scams in their own market. The trade’s histories of itself tend to credit Blavatsky with the term she never used — one has her learning of the records from Tibetan monks — though at least one practitioner account concedes the harder point, that Blavatsky and her successors remain “controversial figures for their appropriation of Eastern spiritual traditions” and for the racial doctrines the records were first used to narrate. The records have a popular afterlife too: Prince used them as a storytelling device on The Rainbow Children (2001), notably on the history of slavery in the United States.

Taken as this encyclopedia takes them, the records are the esoteric tradition’s answer to a standing question — where the past persists, and how it might be consulted. The nearest modern kin is Jung’s collective unconscious, and the comparison is not this site’s invention: the Jungian literature has weighed it from its own side, J. L. Mackey setting the two beside each other in the Jung Journal in 2007, with Laszlo’s field as the hinge. But the two constructions answer to different specifications. The collective unconscious inherits forms — archetypes, empty of content, owned by no one, storing no particular thing — and yields typical images. The records store particulars: acts, thoughts, events; what they yield, in every account from Leadbeater to Cayce, is retrievable scenes — Atlantis in detail, an unwritten gospel, a single soul’s itinerary. One is a psychological hypothesis about the structure of minds. The other is a cosmology with an archive in it.

The archive’s own paperwork is less orderly than total recall suggests. Its custodians never agreed on where it is kept — Blavatsky’s astral light, Leadbeater’s mental plane, Cayce’s time and space, Laszlo’s quantum vacuum; Britannica still prints the first answer as the standard one. Readings presented as consultations of one and the same register do not tell one story: Steiner’s prehistories and the occult histories of Besant and Leadbeater diverge, and no reading from the records has yet returned a piece of the past that independent evidence could confirm. Through it all the borrowed word never changed, and it remains the strangest item in the file. In the systems that made it, ākāśa named open space — on the strictest Buddhist analysis not a thing at all, only a concept. The tradition took a word for emptiness and stored the whole of the past in it.

→ Related: Theosophy · Helena Blavatsky · A P Sinnett · Collective Unconscious · Astral Projection