Esoteric approaches to Foundations of Christianity

[Thomas]

Hi taijasi

For simplicity's sake, if I may, Thomas, I would say, you may quote your Bible, I shall quote mine.

I wish you would, or rather, I wish you would reference the sources, as I have requested before - at least something to signify there is more to this than your own speculations, entertaining as they may be.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I wish you would, or rather, I wish you would reference the sources, as I have requested before - at least something to signify there is more to this than your own speculations, entertaining as they may be.

Thomas

You got it! I do not usually document every argument I make, simply because most of my inspiration comes from the collective set of teachings known simply as The Wisdom Tradition. In recent posts I have made several references to Alice Bailey and H.P. Blavatsky; these are all cited. I also prefer to reference the Bible, when possible, especially when posting on a thread with a title like this one! Even for well-known passages, it is helpful to give reference, and I can't get out of the habit of using KJV! Upbringing, I guess ...

I have long been in the habit of falling back upon gnosis/buddhi as an acceptable source at least for the validation of what I have come to believe or hold sacred. However, it is a bit silly to just say, "oh, I know this," so I'm making every effort to lend credence to my convictions ... but please call me on my omission or assumptions. Lunamoth is good at that, too!

Oh, and if anyone finds my posts even the least bit entertaining ... then I can breathe at least some sigh of relief. While I mean what I say, at least where I am not in error, I have no reservations whatsoever about coming off as a wee bit of a nut, and comic value sure as heck beats no value. lol Yes, my scholasticism is not quite what it used to be, but I have not yet thrown all caution to the wind ... not quite.

Regards,

taijasi

[wil]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Oh, and if anyone finds my posts even the least bit entertaining

Entertaining, you gotta be kiddin... I gotta get ready everytime I see your name...gotta print out half of em just to give some time to contemplation...

I imagine the keyboard blazin at your finger tips...and as Thomas indicates have often wondered if this is an accumulation of thought that is coursing thru your viens or if you are cuttin and pastin...

You made me look up leaven, and I'm appreciative that I can do my part...and am honored to be in with Luna on filling this role.

[flowperson]

Taijasi:

I've wound my way through most of your posts to this thread, and as I mentioned on my" Hi !" post, I'm a bit overwhelmed; however, I can pose a few questions and comments regarding what you have observed.

First, since Christianity has been presented to all peoples of the earth by the original church ( at least in contemporary times ) as a belief system encompassing all humans and all cultures, and often adopting local cultural expression as mediums to effectively communicate the elements of Christ's life on earth and His messages. Don't you believe it is not surprising that ancient elements in culture also indicate the timelessnes of His concepts ?
He wouldn't have had to travel there except in spirit in order to have evoked these older cultural indications.

I am puzzled by your references to Jesus' time on earth to have begun in 105 bce. Most, if not all scholarly remarks concerning this place his birth at about 6 bce when there was a planetary conjunction of unusual magnitude that many astronomers believe would have constituted the unusually prominent star mentioned in the birth stories.

Your mention of the 23,000-26,000 cycle of the astrological maps is interesting since that concurs with the 26,000 year period in which the earth's axis describes a complete circle in the cosmos. Known as precession, this could also be visualized as a series of spirals as it proceeds on its three dimensional trips through time and space; and yes, is it any wonder that chiral forms are one of the most prevalent symbols used by ancients to demonstrate sacredness. I won't even comment on the obvious reasons for the chiral form of DNA.

In his book James the Brother of Jesus, noted scholar Robert Eisenman, draws information from sources contemporary to the time of Jesus' existence among us in the first century, and notes that Jesus was mistakenly referred to as the "nazarene" throughout much of the time since then. Whereas secular references concurrent with his times, or shortly following it make reference to "Jesus the Nazirite". I don't recall what Eisenman said with reference to the Nazirite term, but it shouldn't be difficult to look up if one had the book. I no longer have my copy.

Back to your references to the eastern influences upon Christianity. The Nestorians established a significant bridgehead for the early faith in Xain in western China about 650-700 ad. There was an excellent book available on the web a short while ago detailing much of this history and the relationship of the travels of Thomas Didymus ( twin-twin and the other brother of Jesus ) to this history. It was written by a man named Herbert Christian Merrilatt who is a professor at Yale. Try googling him and I'll bet it's still there.

You should also obtain access to a book by Robert K.G. Temple , The Sirius Mystery. It has a lot of legend and lore concerning the cult of the dog star among African peoples, most notably the Dogon of Mali. Their elders have preserved legends concerning ancient visitations from Sirius and passed on illustrated depictions of the "Nommo" who visited in "Arks". Much of this was studied and documented by French researchers just prior to WW II.
One of the most amazing things in the book is the story of how the elders always depicted an invisible twin star to the main star of the Sirius system in their illustrations. The invisible twin star was first observed, photographed, and studied by U.S. Naval Observatory staff in 1970 ad.

Finally, you asked that I comment on the three depictions of the G-dhead included in your post. The first is not what is described in Daniel 7 since the four described there were under the ground and were chimera of the lion, the bear, the leopard, and some sort of iron-toothed machination. The enthroned ancient-of days character definitely controlled these deadly and ravaging powers with force, at least that is what I understood from the chapter. The human, bull, eagle, lion depiction in your post are above-ground beings, and I would suggest are a depiction of the four gospel symbols. The enthroned figure is wearing the compassionate G-d color of red, that is also associated with the passion of Jesus. I find it interesting that the pillars of the throne depict the extreme conditions of the cosmos, fire and ice, and that under each depiction of these extremes are skull figures. Mr Knapp must have had quite a pineal gland !

The second depiction is, as you noted, the demiurge creating in a reflective environment. We could assume this to be, again, a depiction of the
G-dhead's compassionate processs of creation in our world since the cross is red in color. But I believe that it has a deeper symbolic meaning in that the cross itself is symbolic of a process in the new science of complex systems. Briefly, diversities cross to form unities, which in turn cross again and again to form other new unities which are in of themselves diverse. This process, think of chromosomes forming a new plant or animal, proceeds in an ordered manner through time so that chaotic results are not dominant.

Last, there is the depiction of the fish-person emerging from the foam along the shore. This image is actually drawn equivalently from feminine and masculine references of the ancient times in the Mediterranean and middle east area. Ishtar/Aphrodite in many cultures was said to have emerged from the ocean foam. The Oannes, or Fish men of Sumerian legend, were considered to be the most highly revered of their ancient dieties, and were also the most creative. Don't forget the statue of the mermaid that watches over the harbor in Copenhagen And who could forget Darryl Hannah's depiction in the film Splash. Actually I'm trying to point out that one of the most ancient cultural beliefs among the peoples that eventually became western culture was that, as you have pointed out, the most loved and creative G-d was the androgyne who had both masculine and feminine traits. And here we have Jesus the Nazarite emerging from the foam on the shoreline to the amazement of onlookers, fishermen.

Flow....

[taijasi]

Flow,

Thanks so much for your response ... and forgive me, as old episodes of bad sitcoms are flashing before my inner eye, and the phrase "kiss my grits" is coming to mind. (No, that's not directed at you, by any means, or really even relevant ... lol) What can I say - I watched Chasing Amy for the first time the other night. You can disregard all that, just trying to be punny.

Okay, my energies are at an ebb, despite Wesak being 36 hrs away. Perhaps I will recharge, but an honest response seems in order.

Originally Posted by flowperson

Don't you believe it is not surprising that ancient elements in culture also indicate the timelessnes of His concepts ?
He wouldn't have had to travel there except in spirit in order to have evoked these older cultural indications.

Agreed that many flights in the subtle body, as you indicate, would have occurred ... but my understanding is that proximity, and sustained presence with the Teacher of Teachers, The Christ, were absolutely necessary in order for Jesus to perfect the techniques that would later allow for full overshadowing. Not much regarding this experience is revealed as of yet to the public, and probably for very good reasons - of physical and spiritual safety. But I would refer you to a most wonderful account, in light of its revealing and illuminating potential, found in Isis Unveiled (by H.P. Blavatsky), which will perhaps help.

The account, which apparently references an even earlier incident that dates some 220 years (!), begins with these words ...

"A singular account of the personal interview of an English ambassador in 1783, with a reincarnated Buddha -- barely mentioned in volume i. -- an infant of eighteen months old at that time, is given in the Asiatic Journal from the narrative of an eye-witness himself, Mr. Turner, the author of The Embassy to Thibet."

But HPB goes on to provide in full detail the eyewitness testimony of a very brief, temporary overshadowing of a 4-month old infant which stands, completely of its own capacity (apparently) and recites Tibetan Buddhist scripture ... animated during this episode by an advanced Tibetan Lama, who concedes to the brief demonstration for the spiritual encouragement of a Mr. K-, an ex-Lutheran minister and "a positivist, [who] rather prided himself on his anti-philosophical neologism."

I would ask that you read the full account, entertaining in the very least, here beginning exactly midway down, on page 598.

Originally Posted by flowperson

I am puzzled by your references to Jesus' time on earth to have begun in 105 bce. Most, if not all scholarly remarks concerning this place his birth at about 6 bce when there was a planetary conjunction of unusual magnitude that many astronomers believe would have constituted the unusually prominent star mentioned in the birth stories.

I assure you that my conclusions come after many years of searching, though more so in the past year I would say than all the rest put together (regarding this particular issue) ... and my reasons for holding this view have nothing to do with a desire to be different, or simply to be controversial for controversy's sake. Right now I have every reason to believe that I am correct - but if that time comes when I see evidence to the contrary, I would gladly reverse my view.

My references, and sources of inspiration for the date 105BC are many ... yet in the last analysis, I go by what must be - and not mere speculation. Let me illustrate:

Appollonius of Tyana, according to every accepted historical reference and piece of academic inquiry, can safely be shown to be born around the year 2AD, perhaps as early as 4BC, although his death is only approximated at 98AD. EVEN if we allow greatest flexibility for his date of birth, we are off by so much as 30 years from the supposed death date of Jesus of Nazareth. This makes the men contemporaries, if we accept the church's dates for the birth and death of Jesus. As a friend used to argue to me, Appollonius could not have been the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, for precisely this reason! And he had a point ...

Well this friend, though with strong opinions of his own, and somewhat different interests when it comes to esoteric writing, has long been a fellow student of the Tibetan Master's teachings through Alice Bailey, as well as his former work with H.P. Blavatsky. When all is said and done, my friend's knowledge of Kabbalistic, Gnostic, Eastern, and other esoteric doctrines far eclipses my own casual famliarity, yet we both belonged to two different meditation groups over the years which used the Tibetan's writings as the basis for focus and study. What we gained, individually and in group format, is priceless when gauged from the Soul's perspective, but I dwell on all this to show that even two good friends and students of Alice Bailey's may yet come to different conclusions (if temporarily?) as to something so - seemingly objective - as the presumed date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Really, in many ways, it is only of passing interest, but for reasons I elaborated in one of my lengthy posts, I think the correspondence with the initiation of Humanity into the Piscean Era will make much more sense if we recognize that the church shifted the date a full century forward - for all the wrong reasons, thus confusing the average Christian (not to say, historian!) ... who might otherwise be able to see the full importance of the coming of (Christed) Jesus as Oannes, to inaugurate the Era (and thanks, Flow, for your commentary on that! ).

Let me go ahead and quote the Tibetan, from his first book, Initiation Human and Solar (1919) in what, for me, is "the clencher":

"[Master Jesus] is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation, as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story he is known for two great sacrifices, that in which he handed over his body for the use of the Christ, and for the great renunciation which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation. As Appollonius of Tyana, he took the fifth initiation and became a Master of the Wisdom."

The line that is of real interest here is the last, although some may find it helpful to ponder the deeper signficance of what is indicated by the appearance of earlier Joshuas and Jeshuas. Even to know that The Tibetan Master himself was the Biblical Benjamin, later Gaspar of the Three Magi, is useful information. (He was also Dharmajyoti, a bhikku of Shakyamuni Buddha, Kleinias, closest pupil to Pythagoras, and Arya Asanga, the Indian Saint and great exponent of the Yogacara system.)

Anyway, to focus on this last line of information from the quote, we see clear indication - from a reliable source - as to the necessary historical placement of Jesus of Nazareth ... namely, prior to the accepted time of his birth, by a full 33 years in the very least! The line of connection is complete if we also look at the two italicized portions of the above quote, which clearly tell us that Jesus took status as a High Initiate with the Renunciation (`Crucifixion'), or 4th Initiation ... which obviously must precede the later 5th Initiation which he took as Appollonius.

The objection that Christ/Jesus might somehow be too special a figure to warrant consideration within the context of the process and stages of Esoteric Initiation which apply to all lives upon the planet - only demonstrates ignorance of this Universal tradition, based upon God's own LAW which was brought to us and provided as the means or path of attainment for every Son of God. I do not mean to be pretentious, or presumptuous here. My own familiarity and expertise is obviously going to be limited ... perhaps to a wandering stream-entrant at very best. Yet the Christ-in-me testifies to the Christ-in-you, and indeed, to the Christ-in-everyone. But of course, there is more ...

As for a few more references, let's take HPB's testimony, from H.P. Blavatsky Collected Writings (vol 9:225), which will overlap with your mention of the precession of the equinoxes, Flowperson:

"[Jesus] is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. . . . Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac."

In an article by David Pratt, entitled "Who Was the Real Jesus" (Sept. 2001), the following background is given on `Jesus the Nazar':

"The Hebrew name for Christians has always been notzrim, and although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the 1st century CE, the 1st-century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the notzri movement, which had been in existence for about 150 years. In the rabbinical tradition, Jeshu ben Pandera is also called Jeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus the Nazar). The Greek equivalent of notzri is nazoraios (or nazaraios/naziraios). The stem of this word means 'to keep oneself separate' -- an indication of the ascetic nature of this sect. The early Christians conjectured that nazoraios (variously rendered Nazar/Nazarite, Nazorean or Nazarene) meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. However, the original Hebrew for Nazareth is Natzrat and a person from Nazareth is a Natzrati. The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is therefore a mistranslation of 'Jeshu ha-Notzri'."

I find this interesting and helpful, though not a direct reference to the date 105BC. But David then goes on to quote HPB in the next paragraph, and this information does bring us one step closer (please see original for complete documentation) ...

According to Blavatsky, the Essenes were 'the converts of Buddhist missionaries who had overrun Egypt, Greece, and even Judea at one time, since the reign of Asoka' (mid-3rd century BCE). She states that although Jesus was a pupil of the Essenes, he was not a strict Essene as he disagreed with his early teachers on several questions of formal observance.

"[T]he Nazarene Reformer, after having received his education in their [the Essenes'] dwellings in the desert, and been duly initiated into the Mysteries, preferred the free and independent life of a wandering Nazaria, and so separated or inazarenized himself from them, thus becoming a travelling Therapeute, a Nazaria, a healer."

She describes the Nazars as 'a class of Chaldean initiates' and 'kabalistic gnostics'. Regarding Jesus' mission, she writes:

"The motive of Jesus was evidently like that of Gautama-Buddha, to benefit humanity at large by producing a religious reform which should give it a religion of pure ethics . . .

In his immense and unselfish love for humanity, he considers it unjust to deprive the many of the results of the knowledge acquired by the few. This result he accordingly preaches -- the unity of a spiritual God, whose temple is within each of us, and in whom we live as He lives in us -- in spirit."

I should add, that HPB, who verily attacked "churchianity" - surely redeems herself here, if not through her voluminous other publications, in the eyes and hearts of all but the most unforgiving of persons.

The final piece of testimony regarding the good possibility that Jesus of Nazareth lived a full fivescore years before the currently accepted dates, comes from this same Soul - the Master who is usually called Master J. in deference to the honor He served in Palestine, yet Who is by His own right now one of the more advanced of the Adept Hierarchy (Brotherhood). In the book Vision of the Nazarene (by Cyril Scott), Master J. relates the following in the chapter on `Of My Life Story':

"And even those who do not discredit me and my teachings have been puzzled in their minds as to whether I was not born fivescore years prior to the date of my reputed birth.
...
So have the sceptical negated, and the learnéd pondered, and the seers pronounced; yet ever does my life present a mystery baffling to the brains of men."

So, the very Master whose former incarnation we are dealing with, as well as one who traveled from afar as a Seer of that same time (Gaspar) - now also an advanced Adept, both give testimony that would either corroborate, or at least suggest, the earlier date of ~105BC. HPB, who was Initiated into the Mysteries to the extent that was capable under her circumstances (and more fully later, in her next incarnation) ... not to mention trained directly under the tutelage of a small handful of arhat and Adepts in Tibet ... also points to 105 or 107BC. But if all this is not enough, we will be forced to demonstrate that Appollonius of Tyana was born a full 30 years after the date currently accepted, in order for Jesus to occupy the time period conventionaly given.

Motive has already been indicated, although I could post at even greater length to show why the church found it necessary to adjust the facts as they are. And many will say it is all of no consequence. Again, I beg to differ, but if the `Teaching of Living Ethics' which Christed Jesus sought to establish - in whatever years he lived - are what is squarely at heart in the consideration of the earnest Christian, then yes ... dates are of little import.

Can't comment on the Sirius/Dogon thing right now, but I am aware. It's for another post, since I'm out of space! (big surprise there - )

Love and Light,

taijasi

[flowperson]

Thanks Taijasi,

Your extensive knowledge of the linkage of Tibetan masters with the history of the middle east is new to me, but then I've never looked for it. Was Blatavsky the founder of Theosophy? That seems to have stuck in my memory somewhere.

I always enjoy reading your posts.

flow....

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Thanks Taijasi,

Your extensive knowledge of the linkage of Tibetan masters with the history of the middle east is new to me, but then I've never looked for it. Was Blatavsky the founder of Theosophy? That seems to have stuck in my memory somewhere.

I always enjoy reading your posts.

flow....

Thanks ... yes, Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge founded the Theosophical Society in 1875 in New York, I think. Not to be pedantic, but it is of course important to distinguish this organization from any unique claims to Theos Sophia, Divine Wisdom ... and even Ammonius Saccas (3rd Century Greek philosopher and founder of Neoplatonism), though usually being credited as the first modern Theosophist, was only adding to tradition already ancient at the time (hinted at in the reference to the Buddhist influence over the Essenens and Alexandrians).

H.P. Blavatsky, both in that incarnation and in her earlier one as Allessandro Cagliostro, has been a much maligned figure over the decades ... and accused of many, many things unjustly - including charlatanism. Certainly she was a gifted psychic, had an early interest in Spiritualism, though also some very important moral objections, and she had numerous encounters with the Eastern Mahatmas (and their chelas) dating from the earliest days of her childhood.

The latter experience is true of Alice Bailey, who wrote from 1919 to 1949 for the Tibetan Master, this being the same Adept who dictated large portions of The Secret Doctrine to HPB. Various other Adepts also had a hand in HPB's many writings, such as Master Morya (who later dictated the Agni Yoga Teachings to Helena Roerich, another Russian), Master Kuthumi (or Koot Hoomi, who we are told is a Christ-in-the-becoming, sic - i.e., the future Bohdhisattva), Master Hilarion (who is the inspirational influence behind Spiritualism, John Edward almost certainly being one of his modern disciples - right down to appearance!), Masters Serapis and Tuitit Bey (of the Brotherhood at Luxor), and `The Old Gentleman' (Master Narayan, or Nylghara, `The Rishi of the Nilgiri Hills,' who is an expert astrologer among the Mahatmas).

I could name yet more Adepts who HPB, Alice, and other Messengers knew and assisted ... such as Master R. (Rakoczy), whom Johann Strauss even memorialized in a rather famous piece of music. Another half dozen are utterly unknown even to most esotericists - although Master P., Polidorus Isurenus, is not so unknown in his incarnation as Philo Judaeus!

I can also say, that each and every one of these former sons of men have attained to the same Divine Status (if that is how the average Christian prefers to regard it) as Jesus of Nazareth ... or at least, to similar participation and place of Great Responsibility among the Adept Brotherhood. So, too, HPB was said to enter into the Mysteries as an Initiate (3rd Degree) in a male incarnation, in about 1924, or 1926, I forget. My own belief is that she currently resides in another female incarnation, but that is an opinion which I have never had corroborated. I am aware of at least half a dozen individuals, mostly women, who have either claimed to have been HPB's tulku (reincarnation), or have had this claim made about them. Thus, there is much speculation ... especially among Theosophists, and it's perhaps as much a glamorized subject as that of The Mahatmas themselves!

Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.

cheers,

taijasi

[AletheiaRivers]

I knew you two would get along.

[flowperson]

The matchmaker speaketh !

flow...

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by flowperson

The matchmaker speaketh !

flow...

Heh. Definitely not a matchmaker. Just a friend maker.

[Thomas]

In all this speculation, it might be a useful self-check to remember that the actual foundation of Christianity, esoteric or otherwise, is:

"Begotten in tradition, or even from tradition, the biblical writings come to us borne on a living religious reality – the community of God's chosen people, and this religious reality itself existed before these writings, either as the whole community, or as its most genuine and representative elements."
Yves Congar, "Tradition and Traditions".

Two points:
Congar, a Catholic cardinal and one of the architects of the Constitutional documents of Vatican II regards the Catholic Church as the 'living religious reality' of Christianity - as the Sangha is the 'living religious reality' of Buddhism.

His reference to "its most genuine and representative elements" are therefore the founders of the tradition, and refers to those who follow its original and thus orthodox transmission – every spiritual tradition suffers its heterodox and heresiarch element.

Whilst there is much entertainment to be garnered from such speculations as posed above – they are in no sense 'foundational' - having played no part as such.

Esoterism is a mode of understanding, not the content of what is understood. As such, the 'esoteric approach to the Foundation of Christianity' must necessarily be founded on the words and deeds of its Founder, and those to whom the Word Made Flesh revealed Himself. Furthermore, the correct understanding and interpretation of that revelation likewise belong to the Founder, and to those to whom He entrusted them, including the commission (which would necessarily comprise the empowerment) to transmit the Message with which they had been entrusted.

If, on the other hand, we argue that the 'esoeric foundation' of Christianity lies in a reality outside of its orthodoxy, then we are arguing that neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit can vouchsafe Himself - that in fact, Jesus Christ essentially failed in His mission, which was (according to the above) accomplished by other means not dependent upon Him, in which case the very content of His message is suspect, regardless of whatever interpretation, and every interpretation of every scripture is equally suspect, as God is apprently unable to make Himself understood.

In short, if orthodox Christianity is wrong, then every mode of revelation must similarly be subject to the same margin of error - then what proof have we that theosophy can guarantee itself?

It all boils down to faith, and to choice.

The choice is to accept the Word as transmitted by those to whom it was entrusted - and is evidently witnessed by the life of its saints and sages - or to accept the word as transmitted by those who chose to determine themselves as the arbiters of truth.

I argue one is free to accept the Witness of the Word of God in Christ, or deny it, and I accept the decision either way. What I do not accept, and what I think cannot be argued, is that the Witness of the Word of God in Christ can be interpreted to mean something other than that which was transmitted by those called to be witness, without at the same time rendering any mode of witness equally suspect.

I'm not arguing against the doctrine of theosophy, but its logic.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"Begotten in tradition, or even from tradition, the biblical writings come to us borne on a living religious reality – the community of God's chosen people, and this religious reality itself existed before these writings, either as the whole community, or as its most genuine and representative elements."
Yves Congar, "Tradition and Traditions".

Objection #1: “chosen” – This is based on the mistaken understanding of God’s relationship with Humanity. Already we’re off to a bad start. Replace “community of God’s --- people” with `the collective Human Community’ and let’s keep moving.

What reality is Congar talking about? If it is the ongoing dialogue between God and Humanity, then yes, okay … I’m with you (and him) so far …

Originally Posted by Thomas

Congar, a Catholic cardinal and one of the architects of the Constitutional documents of Vatican II regards the Catholic Church as the 'living religious reality' of Christianity - as the Sangha is the 'living religious reality' of Buddhism.

Fine. And a bunch of Lutherans sitting around will prefer to focus on the Lutheran Church in this same light. And so will the Methodists, and on and on. But that doesn’t make it so, or doesn’t make any of these groups superior to, or more legitimately Christian, than all the rest!

Even I can stand up and declare myself the sole legitimate heir to the Institution of Christianity by some spurious claim along the lines of Apostolic Succession … but this is hogwash! I do not mean that Congar is full of it, or that the Catholic Church is not a legitimate institution … but it expresses one “living religious reality” at best – and if it is one’s chosen path, i.e., if one is comfortable with Roman Catholicism, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Thomas

His reference to "its most genuine and representative elements" are therefore the founders of the tradition, and refers to those who follow its original and thus orthodox transmission – every spiritual tradition suffers its heterodox and heresiarch element.

Okay, so what we call Christian Orthodoxy may or may not closely resemble the outward religious observations of Christ and His followers, the 12 and the 70 … and Catholicism may indeed also bear some resemblance, inasmuch as the Eucharist (and other Sacraments) are meant to commemorate various proceedings and spiritual relationships.

As for the Founders of the Tradition, we must not lose sight of the Pagan observances and existing Pagan Traditions, or of the Eleusinian and Alexandrian Mysteries, much less the Jewish Faith, Mysteries and religious traditions, which were all part of the backdrop against which the goings-on of 2100 years ago took place. Shall we point to the mere handful of individuals, Christ and His followers, and ignore the panorama of contributing influences which infused and inspired the fledgling Christianity in its first several centuries of existence?

By what right would you wave your magic wand over the contributions of the Gnostics in their many variations, or the Essenes, or the Therapeutae, and say that these faithful followers contributed any less to early Christianity than those who have thus far been exclusively acknowledged and revered by the ecclesiastical authorities? We have increasing evidence of the legitimacy and relevancy of these other early Christian groups and their contributions to tradition – supported by peer-reviewed scholarly investigation, such scientific methods as carbon dating, and our own ability to confront and read various texts firsthand (or at least, direct reproductions of these texts – untainted by two millennia of adaptation and re-mis-translation, as applies to the Old and New Testament, or canonical works). Yet we still meet with some of the same prejudice and small-mindedness as ruled for seven hundred years during the dark days of the Inquisition … and it hasn’t even been two centuries since I would have long ago received the iron maiden for my boldness and audacity (to inquire, indeed!).

Originally Posted by Thomas

Whilst there is much entertainment to be garnered from such speculations as posed above – they are in no sense 'foundational' - having played no part as such.

Please clarify …

Originally Posted by Thomas

Esoterism is a mode of understanding, not the content of what is understood. As such, the 'esoteric approach to the Foundation of Christianity' must necessarily be founded on the words and deeds of its Founder, and those to whom the Word Made Flesh revealed Himself. Furthermore, the correct understanding and interpretation of that revelation likewise belong to the Founder, and to those to whom He entrusted them, including the commission (which would necessarily comprise the empowerment) to transmit the Message with which they had been entrusted.

You’ve locked yourself in a box here, Thomas. You are basically saying that only Christ (and the privileged, closest few) can be credited with founding Christianity (in complete ignorance of the entire backdrop of other traditions and prophets against which & whom Christ’s teachings are meaningless, since He Himself came as a Jew, to fulfill Jewish prophecy, and clearly made reference again & again to this fact – and to the bigger picture, or context, into which everything He said really fits) … yet you then go on to say that only Christ and the select few, initial followers could “really understand” – or perhaps transmit the message which I feel you are struggling to insist rests in the sole keeping of Mother Church, who faithfully reproduces that message, untainted and complete, 2 millennia later … naturally to the select and chosen few, or rather, to anyone who is simply willing to renounce all other (heretical, heterodox) misunderstandings – and bow down in utter submission.

Just as surely as you yourself have no desire to cast aside your Catholic Faith, I have no desire to abnegate my debt of gratitude to Theosophy and the contributions of H.P. Blavatsky, much less to the subsequent Messengers who built upon her foundations. What I would acknowledge, at best, is that HPB’s contribution was incomplete, being but the first leg of New Teachings to issue forth from Christ and His Church (sic) … and as the Masters Themselves have made plain, HPB was not infallible, nor were her utterances or writings to be viewed as the final word! This, as you will see, is something that poor, Mother Church cannot even admit (relative to her own Papal bull) … these many, many centuries later! Even our good friend Galileo did not merit so much as a genuine apology, but simply – an admission of perhaps some small measure of slight and oversight.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In short, if orthodox Christianity is wrong, then every mode of revelation must similarly be subject to the same margin of error - then what proof have we that theosophy can guarantee itself?

This is a valiant effort, yet if falls back upon the assumption, and I argue the wrong assumption, that Orthodox Christianity (yes, I realize you mean conventional Christianity and not Eastern Orthodoxy) was the unflawed, untainted handoff from Christ and the Apostles to future generations, however early. Yes, IF that handoff were exactly what many believe it to be (100% accurate, complete and untainted), then your logic would be sound and the point would drive itself home! But as I say, this just ain’t how it is!

Originally Posted by Thomas

It all boils down to faith, and to choice.

I agree, and base the preponderance of the former upon my direct experience(s) ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

The choice is to accept the Word as transmitted by those to whom it was entrusted - and is evidently witnessed by the life of its saints and sages - or to accept the word as transmitted by those who chose to determine themselves as the arbiters of truth.

The Roman Catholic Church falls largely into the latter category as I see it … while I will happily bet my mother’s soul, yours, mine, and a small island for good measure – that we shall not err if we broaden our understanding with regard to the former.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I argue one is free to accept the Witness of the Word of God in Christ, or deny it, and I accept the decision either way. What I do not accept, and what I think cannot be argued, is that the Witness of the Word of God in Christ can be interpreted to mean something other than that which was transmitted by those called to be witness, without at the same time rendering any mode of witness equally suspect.

And this is the reason why, although I have utmost respect for those wise & loving agents of Christ’s who still operate within the Earthly Institution of the RCC – thus good reason not to toss out the baby with the murky bathwater – I nevertheless look elsewhere for my own Salvation/Liberation … and for Revelation.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'm not arguing against the doctrine of theosophy, but its logic.

The logic is simple. Christ has not left us. He resides within each of us, being the spark of Divinity – for lack of better English terminology – which can & will deliver us once it has been set ablaze, to rule our heads & hearts. The Christ in us, the Hope of Glory, is not different than the Christ Transcendent, or the 2nd Person of the Christian Trinity (and Vishnu of the Hindu Trimurti, or the principle Buddhi of esoteric Buddhism).

Christ spoke to us before Abraham. He spoke to us after His Mission and Ministry in Palestine. He has always been available to the earnest seeker, and answers us each, according to our ability to inwardly discern. Those who, through the necessary discipline and spiritual training, have strengthened their relationship with Christ to an advanced degree, earn the right and the Responsibility to serve alongside Him more directly in His Ministry. This is as true today as it was 2100 years ago, and HPB bore witness to this fact, as has Alice Bailey, and every Messenger since the early days of the Theosophical Society.

This is really only tangentially related to the foundations of Christianity, yet you seem interested in speaking of H.P. Blavatsky, or at least of the Theosophical Movement which she established. Yes, a connection with Christianity exists, and HPB did much to throw some light on the earliest days of the Christian Faith. She also demonstrated, beyond any real question, that the Foundations of Christianity consist of much more than bible, Bethlehem, and bishop (my attempt at alliteration ). But unless you really want to talk about Theosophy, I’d rather confine our dialogue to Soteriology, and to the true nature of Christ (2 paragraphs up).

Namaskar,

taijasi

[taijasi]

To simplify, as I continue to reflect on your post, Thomas … what I think I hear you saying is something like: the words of Christ to and through the Apostles and His followers, is good enough (sound, sufficient). If I have not oversimplified, then we are on the same page precisely!

Where we differ, is in where to look for this Revelation. It is precisely because I would like to more fully understand what Christ said (and why) that I look to the New Revelations coming through H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, Lucille Cedercrans, Geoffrey Hodson, and a host of other Messengers and commentators …

Consider for a moment, that if the New Revelation can shed light on the earlier, we might be capable of grasping some small hint of the Divine Plan as Christ sees it, and not just in terms of that small slice of time, and narrowed focus of interest, which applies to us, personally, across our three score & ten …

Long have I asked the familiar questions such as `Why am I here,’ `What is my purpose,’ and `What is my Destiny?’ Yet, none of this really began to make sense for me personally until I was able to see how my past, mypurpose,and my future … are all intimately bound up with that of Humanity as a whole – starting first with the familiar relationships with partner, friends, & family, and reaching out in ever-widening circles to community, country, and to every constituent member of Brethren Humanity as a whole.

Understanding that Christ is first and foremost Universal, it became necessary for me to find a presentation (of Christ) that did not rely upon some special relationship with the select few. I am accused of heresy because I say that Christ taught His Apostles in secret, yet the Christian is guilty of precisely the same “crime!” Christ taught Christians, we are told … and the lines of division define as few “saved” as 144,000 for those incapable of discerning the symbolism … or perhaps as many as 2 billion, if you are particularly forgiving and willing to cast the net wide in your acceptance of all who call themselves `Christian.’

Nonsense! I would sooner call myself a parachute, open my mind, and begin to contemplate the Emptiness of Parent Space!

No, I will be the first to admit, the Teachings that have been helpful for me can be useless or even unhelpful & misleading for others. They are intended primarily for Initiates, and were never given out as the basis for some new religion. I doubt I will ever grasp their subtler connotations during my present lifetime, yet neither shall I understand the Christian Bible, which still has relevance for today, if one can but pierce the symbolism and steer clear of the theological innovations.

The Master H. expresses it thus:

“Unfortunately there is an occasional student of the occult who has become so prejudiced against the Bible, or against much that it contains, that he is unable to appreciate the fact that some of the most important and basic truths of the Wisdom Religion may be found therein, clothed in different language.” (Teachings of the Temple)

And in another lesson He says:

“As I have told you before, the New Testament holds in its pages all the knowledge of the universe. All the diffuse philosophical literature of the ages that preceded the Christian era was preparatory. The New Testament synthesizes all, but it has been so misunderstood and misinterpreted that we deemed it best to go back to the older philosophies, that they might explain the New Testament. It is only through the old philosophies that it can be understood, for it contains copies of the most occult manuscripts in the world; and the treasures of the hidden chambers of the East, of which I have spoken to you before, are, as I have said of the western philosophies, but explanations of all that you find between the pages of Matthew and Revelations. You cannot study that book too much. It will open to your understanding, with the explanations you have already had, as nothing else can.” (Ibid)

This Master, the same one who dictated to the Disciple John the Book of Revelation some 2000 years ago, is speaking largely to a Western audience, which puts this last sentence into proper context, yet no qualification is necessary in considering His message. Does this sound like anything other than a clear, emphatic endorsement of the pursuit of Wisdom, Inspiration and spiritual Revelation by studying the Christian Bible (i.e., the New Testament)?

I think the words of this Great One should carefully be pondered, before one tosses away so lightly the Theosophical crown jewel, HPB’s The Secret Doctrine. If you wish to understand the significance of The Flood, if you wish to know more of Abraham and Noah’s contribution, and if you wish to gain insight into Humanity’s long, troubled past … then HPB’s magnum opus is unparalleled for its ability to cast thitherto unavailable Light – at least in terms of a presentation readily available for the serious student.

The Secret Doctrine is not easy reading, but if approached without bias and preconception, it will address squarely the problem of the so-called `missing link’ (not truly missing because – nonexistent!). It will tell the story of Humanity as far back (in Vol. II) as the earliest descent of our Divine Progenitors, the Sons of God who gave to us the kama-rupa (or astral-emotive vehicle), and the etheric or `model’ body, the Hebrew nephesh or `vital soul.’ It will address the origins of what we call Manas or `Mind’ (including self-consciousness), with the coming of `The Sons of the Fire Mist’ from Venus, 18 ½ million years ago … and light is cast upon the Founding of the Spiritual Brotherhood on this planet, which followed. This also reveals to us something profound as to the nature of Our Father Who art in Heaven, since this event in our history marks the literal incarnation of GOD within the physical world … which every Mormon is taught, and can explain in detail, Joseph Smith being quite familiar with our esoteric history.

HPB’s Secret Doctrine traces the evolution of Humanity as far back as it is reasonably helpful to take it … and she provides sufficient detail to form a useful picture of what life was like during the much more recent days of the Lemurian `Giants,’ the Hebrew nephilim, Gibborim, or Grigori. The evolution of our cyclopean ancestors is followed through to the days of the seven Atlantean sub-races, with attention given to the mighty civilization that reached its zenith ~1 million years ago and its capitol, `The City of the Golden Gates.’ And finally, how we inherited all that is glorious, and noble, and worthwhile of the present civilization (tens of thousands of years old even in its most recent incarnations via Ancient Egypt and Greece) - is given in comprehensive detail.

Here we learn all we need to know about Humanity’s sinful, erring past, in the relating of the War between the Sons of Light and Darkness (or between The Lords of the Shining Countenance and The Lords of the Dark Face) … as well as in the earlier “sin of the mindless” – in which certain of Humanity descended into rebirth through the form of the anthropoid ape (Genesis IV:1-7). The unanswered questions of the misguided Darwinians come to light, and the confusion of the rebelling Creationist is withdrawn, as Humanity is shown descending along a steep and Sacred set of stairs – having stumbled somewhat, as She neared the bottom-story landing.

Yes, a racial karma is shown for what it is, and the activity of those who seek to thwart the Divine Plan and retard our spiritual (and material) evolution … is squarely addressed, on no uncertain terms. The student who has studied Volume I of The Secret Doctrine will find this chapter in Human history revealing, but not surprising, as s/he will have already benefited from the adjusted sense of historical and chronological perspective that results from insight into Cosmogenesis. Far, far worse derailments have occurred, both in our own collective Human past, as well as in the history of other evolutionary schemes (other `humanities’), such that the Lemurian and Atlantean mishaps take their place as but temporary setbacks, and in no way give us an excuse or justification for perpetuating such an erroneous and blasphemous notion as `original sin.’

Our Divine Heritage is restored to us, the theological errors of the centuries being rectified – as far as possible and as much as can be done in two short volumes of a treatise, not the least of whose purpose was to offset some of these unfortunate misconceptions – and new seeds sown that have since burst forth into today’s lilies of Solomon’s envy.

Not even most Theosophists recognize that the Master H. provided a third dictation of some of the Stanzas of Dzyan, which earlier formed the structure and blueprint for Master DK’s commentary in the first two volumes of The Secret Doctrine - `Cosmogenesis’ and `Anthropogenesis.’ The final set of Stanzas that had been provided by 1912 to the Temple of the People were published in complete form, with commentary, in 1981. Those primarily responsible for providing the Teaching are Francia La Due and William H. Dower, with Harold Forgostein being responsible for the final publication. The volume is called Theogenesis, and it is a natural continuation of the current stage of Anthropogenesis in which Humanity at large currently finds itself.

Yes, let’s get Biblical one more time and remember these two Scriptural passages:

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalms 82:6)

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)

And yet the Christian or Catholic will object to the words of Christ Jesus, and argue vehemently against his own Inner Divinity, against the God which is in him, against the Hope of Glory as preached by St. Paul, and against the very Purpose for which he has descended into incarnation! Forgetful of his heritage, blind to his past, confused by his samsaric wanderings … he strikes out like a hurt animal against any who would seek to mend his broken limb.

Do I over-dramatize, do I really? Or do I not simply depict things as they are? Oh, certainly, Theosophists love to quarrel about who made the greater presentation, and just exactly who still speaks as the authoritative earthly agent of the Masters … and in this, they are no different than squabbling, territorial Christians. They miss the point, they cease to think for themselves, and they rely utterly upon the direction of some presumed authority to lead them to Salvation. Truth is not a pathless land, but Mahatma-worship is no different than Jesus-worship, and neither has to do with advancing us spiritually upon the Path, much less to helping our Brother!

Christ did not teach this, not through the earliest Apostles and followers, nor through his latter-day Messengers HPB, Alice Bailey, and dozens of other prophets (a word I do not like to use, personally, since it has been seized upon, and invokes a false prophet by the same powers of resonance which come into play at the utterance of the Sacred Word, or its much more familiar permutation, ummm). No, Christ taught us, as did the Buddha, to rely upon our own Inner Divinity, the Light and Voice within, however much that Light may flicker as we walk through adversity and opposition, and however faint the Voice of Wisdom may grow, as it echoes through the chambers of this vessel of clay, amidst the booming shouts of iconoclasm and confusion.

Christ taught us that, wherever two or more are gathered in His name, there He is, amidst them. And just as He dwells within my heart and yours, He knows equally well and abides eternally within the heart of that DEVA who approaches me, even now, outside the window – with the booming thunder, the brilliant bolts of lightning, and the untold powers of destruction that are held in check, yet released momentarily, in accord with – karma.

In Love and Light,

taijasi

[Thomas]

On the one hand HPB said:
"So little have the first Christians (who despoiled the Jews of their Bible) understood the first four chapters of Genesis in their esoteric meaning, that they never perceived that not only was no sin intended in this diosobedience, but that actually the "serpent" was "the Lord God" himself who, as the Ophis, the Logos, or the bearer of divine creative wisdom, taught mankind to become creators in their turn."
The Secret Doctrine, II, p215

"Satan and his rebellious host would thus prove ... to have refused to create physical man, only to become the direct Saviours and the Creators of Divine Man"
Ibid, I, p193

"'True and Perfect Serpent', who leads forth the souls of all who put their trust in him out of the Egypt of the body, and through the Red Sea of Death into the Land of Promise..." this "true and Perfect Serpent" is now credited with being ... Jehovah, and Jesus"
Ibid I, p410

On the other hand, Jesus said:
"Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."
Mark 8:33



Lastly, I have it on as sound authority as you often cite, that HPB recanted of her works and was reconciled with the Russian Orthodox Church?

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

On the other hand, Jesus said:
"Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."
Mark 8:33

Lastly, I have it on as sound authority as you often cite, that HPB recanted of her works and was reconciled with the Russian Orthodox Church?

Thomas

Recanted of her works??? ROFL You really do crack me up, Thomas. Back that up, do! I should say she most likely groaned, in the full realization that so many would falter, and so few would arrive at truth, despite her best efforts! Even knowing what great service she did for the disciples and seekers, of days to come, she did once say that she "bitterly regretted" ever making the existence of the Masters known to the public!

But this, she even says, was not so much because it caused her grief and personal anguish, but because she knew well - having met these same Masters and spent time in their Himalayan retreat (and perhaps even visited their other outposts bodily) - how twisted they had become in the popular imagination, to the point of either that horrid extreme of deification on the one hand, or utter disregard & disrespect on the other!

The Tibetan Master assures us most squarely that the Masters in truth have no resemblance to the travesty portrayed by the `I am' movement, and this is exactly what HPB was getting at. If this is the kind of "recant" to which you refer, then yes - HPB and Alice both drank their bitter cup of poison.

Please catch up, btw, on this thread a bit, before we speak more of "the serpent." As Chela most helpfully pointed out, it is the Kundalini and is not universally positive, only infinitely potential! And as I even responded, we have a clear demonstration in the mythology of Saints George and Michael that the serpent can symbolize the lowest, basest aspects of our nature, trammelled by matter and the darkness of human ignorance, and surely THIS is the Satan to which Christ referred in the passage you quote! Hermes Trismegistus is also sometimes depicted as standing on the back of the conquered Typhon; yet I would still try and rescue the Naga and Dragon of Wisdom from the the clutches of perverse imagination ... but I think the Chinese have "got my back" on this one!

HPB speaks of the Archangel, or Kumara Lucifer, and I shall not likely shake you of your Catholic indoctrination in tackling that subject, thus I will not even make the endeavor. When you find love for even a Fallen Archangel in your heart, however, I believe you will begin to understand the mystery. Christ so forgave, and Christ so understood, and yet he tarried not. He did not hestitate to confront the Dark Brotherhood on the very earth where evil has the edge ... because, like the Buddha, he was able to put his hand to the Earth as his witness, Christ being the Emissary of Him Who Governs the Planet, and Who occultly holds the efforts of Lucifer in check. The writings of HPB and Alice Bailey do not beat around the bush when it comes to the existence of planetary/systemic, and Cosmic, evil ... as we must know our adversary, but what is emphasized is that for him who is occultly "pure in heart," the Dark Ones can find no foothold or chink in the armor, thus psychic self defense does not occupy the bulk of the Tibetan's teachings.

It would be helpful, and advantageous to all, imo, if we did not attempt to add insult to injury, or heap dirt upon the good name of HPB ... when it is our own head, and Lenten ashes, we ought to be concerned with. If you would like to go barking up trees, I hear Mr. Crowley is happy to entertain the hounds, and while I still think that it is better to speak a kindness than harbor for a fleeting instant uncharitable thoughts, that choice is up to you. But I will quote an earlier post of mine from this thread, in which Blavatsky summarizes the entire teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in one, concise statement, and because it is necessary, I will repeat my commentary that followed:

"The motive of Jesus was evidently like that of Gautama-Buddha, to benefit humanity at large by producing a religious reform which should give it a religion of pure ethics . . .

In his immense and unselfish love for humanity, he considers it unjust to deprive the many of the results of the knowledge acquired by the few. This result he accordingly preaches -- the unity of a spiritual God, whose temple is within each of us, and in whom we live as He lives in us -- in spirit." (Isis Unveiled)

Originally Posted by Taijasi

I should add, that HPB, who verily attacked "churchianity" - surely redeems herself here, if not through her voluminous other publications, in the eyes and hearts of all but the most unforgiving of persons.

I would close with a quote from the Maha-Chohan, Whom the Theosophical Mahatmas reverently called their "Chief," being a High Initiate of precisely the same evolutionary status as Christ, the Bodhisattva ... his Brother representing the 3rd Aspect, as it were:

> Once unfettered, delivered from their dead weight of dogmatism,
> interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions, and
> salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will
> be proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Krishna,
> Buddha, Christ, will be shown as different means for one and the
> same royal highway of final bliss -- Nirvana. Mystical
> Christianity teaches SELF-redemption through one's own seventh
> principle, the liberated Paramatama, called by the one Christ, by
> others Buddha; this is equivalent to regeneration, or rebirth in
> spirit, and it therefore expounds just the same truth as the
> Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us have to get rid of our own Ego,
> the illusory, apparent self, to recognize our true Self, in a
> transcendental divine life.

Namaskar,

taijasi