Esoteric Christianity

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"...present your argument as if everyone was in agreement with you...."

I feel I should comment on this, Thomas, because the only person I'm aware of at CR, who views things quite from a Theosophical angle - in the way that Nick does - is myself!

The next closest person, perhaps, would be Earl, though he has reservations/caveats about some aspects of Theosophy ... and for that matter, so do I!

I simply align myself with the notion of the modern, Theosophical Movement - a movement whose purpose is largely to REALIZE practically a universal Brotherhood, based on the FACT of this same principle in nature (underlying outward differences).

For some, even to affirm such a thing, amounts to a matter of Faith, or belief ... and when it comes to such matters, I would politely remind you that no one need defend his faith before another, excerpt where unusual or highly unconventional (especially if harmful) actions or practices are supposedly proscribed by that faith, having a clear, negative consequence on other members of society. [Example, sacrificing your neighbor's pet cat or dog, because it is part of your "religion." ]

Now, to the best of my awareness, neither Theosophy, nor the 20th Century presentations of Esotericism via Alice Bailey, Lucille Cedercrans, et al, asks that its adherents/students seek to harm others. Nor even, do we adhere to Aleister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt," or the Wiccan "An it harm none," for the student of White Magic is taught that our lives must become increasingly characterized by Service to others.

Meditation, and study, form the other two points of this esoteric triangle of self-discipline and devotion ... and we may safely say that discussions at CR come under at least two of these headings - while I, personally, also regard them as a form of meditation, as I sometimes ponder ... and certainly take to heart ... my experiences here (and hope others would do likewise).

From an exoteric angle, there is a great deal more that we could say one benefits by all manner of spiritual, philosophical, scientific and related discussion ... yet what I hear you asking, time and time again, is something like: "Prove to me that your Masters exist, prove to me that there are such things as `The Stanzas of Dzyan,' prove to me that Jesus made travels Eastward, prove to me that there is in fact `An Esoteric Brotherhood of all of Humanity,' prove to me that there are Elohim - plural, serving as the active expression of a Transcendent, unknowable PRINCIPLE (Deity), and so forth."

Thomas, none of us here owes you any proof whatsoever ... for what we believe, NOR need we defend ourselves for believing it. I think it makes for interesting discussion, all by itself, to investigate other ways of seeing things, than either the "orthodox" (by which I mean conventional) Christian, or the Roman Catholic/Protestant/Eastern Orthodox Christian ... and while some subjects may be appropriate for a Liberal Christian discussion forum, others will, by their very nature, find a better home here, on this forum or sub-forum (Alt/Esoteric).

I notice that you have come rushing in to attack Nick for daring to say that Theosophy provides a doctrine, but not a dogmatism. And really this is a most laughable situation. Theosophists (and esotericists) advocate the study of pretty well all world religious systems, spiritualities, and inspired texts/Sacred writings.

We encourage others to explore any and every Spiritual Path before settling on one ... yet as Nick has been keen to point out, a person can be a Christian, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or whatsoever s/he chooses, esoterically - and still call oneself a `Theosophist.' All that is required, is to be a lover of Truth, which does require an open mind, and to have and express a dedication to the Greater Cause of Brotherhood (which means the recognizing of Unity in Diversity, and an affirmation of a Unifying PRINCIPLE in Nature).

I am rather interested in a reminder, from Nick, of the "one required dogmatic belief" he keeps mentioning, but I would imagine I have just touched upon it, if not essentially expressed it ...

What we do resist - and reject - is such an affirmation as the "Dominus Iesus" which the Catholic Church has issued. The idea that spiritual Salvation comes via belief in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is a Roman Catholic dogma, bolstered by Dominus Iesus, and god knows how may other countless proclamations throughout the ages by a supposedly infallible earthly authority. If THAT'S not DOGMA, then I don't know what is!

Thomas, if you want to pretend that Roman Catholicism is not almost UNIVERSALLY perceived by a large majority of its non-adherents as being one of the MOST DOGMATIC of all religious ideologies ... then by all means, knock yourself out. But you know good and well that this is just a given. What great irony that you would come rushing in, when Nick mentions that Theosophy rejects dogmatism, and encourages FREE THINKING.

But let us follow this line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, drive my point home, and shore up the loose ends ... (I begin my point here, and end it a bit further down below):

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Theosophy, and Modern Esotericism, whether a `Christian Esoterism,' as you put it, or an Buddhist Esoterism, Brahmin Esoterism (`Gupta Vidya'), or so forth ... does indeed advocate the use of the Intellectual, Reasoning faculty in man - known as MANAS in Eastern teachings for thousands of years before the Christian Era.

This has everything to do with the Kumaras, who brought this faculty of Manas to us from Venus - or rather, Who, coming from Venus (whose HUMAN evolution is well in advance of ours), STIMULATED our own, latent Manasic Principle ... resulting practically in the CREATION of the Human Kingdom, physically speaking (at least, in the fashion we are used to thinking of ourselves, dual-gendered, in bodies of flesh and blood) .. as well as Spiritually.

I truly don't think this has immediate relevance to the repeated efforts we have seen to denigrate Theosophical teachings, ideas, characters, authorities, and presentations. I mean, really! Fancy the notion that there is something else out there, with every bit as much "rigor" - not to mention vigor and value! - as Roman Catholicism, existing as a well-established, philosophically & scientifically developed SYSTEM.

Yet, instead of being willing to investigate just how it is that Theosophy "works," and what the various teachings provided mean to adherents such as Nick and myself, what I see is frequent, unwarranted attack, and a truly remarkable amount of effort to PUT A STOP to the open sharing, discussion and investigation of Theosophical, and Esoteric ideas ... where they differ from a more conventional understanding and interpretation - in this case, of "Christian Esoterism," as you call it, Thomas, though I've noticed you ALSO have an "approved list" of authors, sources, authorities, etc. which you whip out and wave in front of our faces every now & then such as Rene Guenon, St. Thomas Aquinas, to name a couple of prominent ones.

Understandably, these figures (and the Sufis, certainly them, too) mean a great deal to you, and you rely heavily upon their writings as inspirational, and helpful of clarifying for your, and others' understanding, many "fine points" regarding Christian Theology ... even your brand of `Christian Esoterism.'

But Thomas, it is high time to consider, if not realize, that NOT all of us WANT to be Roman Catholic, or even Christian Esoterists ... at least, not after the fashion you seem to suggest - although to your credit, you do less of that (proselyting your own`Christian Esoterism'), yet that's because you're too busy trying to knock down anything and everything that Nick & I say. My assumption would be that should we both suddenly convert to Roman Catholicism, and become Guenon enthusiasts, things would be a whole lot more convenient for you, wouldn't they now?

As it is, I think Nick and I are quite well aware that not all the world are cut out to be Theosophists, we know that the average person, even religious believer, is neither meant to be, nor interested in becoming, an esotericist - of ANY flavor. What we also realize, however, is that many people ARE interested in exploring varying interpretations, and presentations, when it comes to spiritual, religious, philosophical and even scientific ideas. People often WANT to hear the wild and crazy, if only for amusement's sake, but sometimes because they know, that the Galileos and the Hypatias were not insane after all ... and a desire is kindled to hear what other great heretics might have to say on "the same-old, same-old" - in other words, established, DOGMA.

H.P. Blavatsky, had she INVENTED the Stanzas of Dzyan, and simply provided them as an alternative way of understanding Humanity's remotest past, our place and purpose in the Cosmos, and the WAY to the fulfilment of that purpose - both as a planet and as individuals ... HAD SHE simply cooked all this stuff up, we could STILL study her writings with great interest, and with attention even to the finest detail ... as through such a study we might find all manner of inspiration, encouragement, and even practical solutions for the problems we still face as the Human Family (and therefore, also, as individual challenges).

But what the record indicates, you see, is that HPB did not "invent" her ideas. I would even venture to say she presented almost nothing which was not culled from elsewhere, repeated and emphasized, at most with a different set of hypothetical conclusions - and suggestions - with regard to Humanity's past, present and future. I have said before, since the very Mahatmas who largely inspired (dictated) her works have said it, that her writings could be better organized, systematically arranged. Francis king has noticed this - and constructive criticism, vs. biting, vicious slander, is always welcome!

Clearly, in writing her Secret Doctrine, HPB took on directly the Roman Catholic Church "authority" of her own day, yet we find that the notion of Papal Infallibility, and dogma such as Dominus Iesus continue to this day. Similary, HPB challenged the Darwinists, for even as certain ideas were FRESH in the popular consciousness, and even more hotly debated than they are today (!), if we can imagine ... she nevertheless wanted us to be aware of factors MISSING from the Darwinian presentation, if not flatly denied.

It isn't surprising that during her own time HPB received much criticism, and that her writings were the subject of constant attack, while she herself was dragged through the mud both by the popular media and by certain ruthless individuals who so hated what she had to say (yes, these ideas are challenging, some of them) ... that they wished to RUIN her.

Were it not for the saving hand behind her efforts - assisting her, and watching out for her health, spiritually, psychologically, even physically - she would have died well before 1891, and likely become an "occult wreck," as it is termed. But she was the Messenger, and the only way she was going to fail, was if she threw in the towel, and herself, admitted defeat. What I fear some people may just not understand, is that some of us know her, even now ... yet I suppose this isn't too hard to understand, as her writings, her Service Work, and even the amusing and amazing details of her life's history - have been an inspiration to countless thousands, even millions of us (including Elvis Presley, Albert Einstein, and well more great figures than you might imagine).

Alas, some of us allow our own reasoning and opinion to be swayed by 2nd or 3rd-hand opinions ... while others will only judge according to information that comes straight from the source. And this is the segue I need to finish ...

(cont'd)

[AndrewX]

~+~+~+~+~+~

I have only gone so far with what I wanted to say, regarding the principles of consciousness, so I will conclude:

Theosophy, and Modern Esotericism (including `Christian Esoterism') teach that it IS POSSIBLE for human beings to KNOW things. We CAN draw closer to the Truth than merely "having faith." We ARE CAPABLE of developing our awareness - to such a point, that even MIND Itself (MANAS, both lower and `Higher') is TRANSCENDED.

Now this is spoken of, even in Exoteric Christianity, and in ALL world religions, while Esoteric teachings make plain that one need not be a Saint (as so pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church, usually posthumously!), in order to reach this level of Inspiration.

I believe that even Christian Fundamentalists will speak of being moved by the Holy Spirit. Esotericsts may speak of this in terms of the Third Ray, as the activity of the Higher Mind, or again a faculty of consciousness transcending mind altogether, the activity of the Buddhic Principle. It is also called, the Intuition.

True, one MUST develop this faculty, through use, in order for it to become a reliable and trustworthy means of ascertaining the truth with regard to a particular person, piece of information, or state of things. The Buddhic Faculty inspires "from above" - via Illumination - the lower mind ... which in its turn, operates via the external, physical brain consciousness.

At least two connections must be made, in order for a person to function in such an Illumined state, yet seers have existed for 18 million years or more upon THIS PLANET ... thus capable of functioning in a higher state of awareness. A disciple, just beginning to learn this technique, will NOT be capable of the same degree of (Buddhic, or Intuitive) Insight with which an accomplished Master simply functions all the time.

Lifetimes of dedication and training are required in order for us to become infallible in this manner, yet this is exactly what is meant by the popular expression, "gaining insight" into such-and-such. We experience, in brief, what will once be possible all the time. St. Paul indicated this ...

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

This gets us back squarely to the topic at hand, in terms of an ongoing dialogue - between Nick and Sunny C. at least - with regard to authenticity, or legitimacy of spiritual `Masters.' HOW, indeed, can we tell, if a supposed `Master' is not in fact, a total crank ... or outright charlatan?

This takes us well beyond the simple issue of - was so-and-so the emissary or Messenger for the Masters? This addresses the notion of who do we trust (with our own spiritual development, for one thing), and how do we tell?

If I am just starting out on the spiritual path, then how do I know where to turn?

Really this is part of a larger issue, since a Master will not likely immediately present himself - at least in terms of the 63 in Whom Theosophists and Esotericsts believe. No one will simply step out of the blue and say, "I am here!" Biblically, we are warned against just such attention-seeking individuals ... and we are advised to test the spirits, which gets us back to using the Buddhic faculty (the consciousness beyond mind).

It seems a bit of a Catch-22: If my Intuition is not yet fully unfolded, or fully developed, then HOW can I "use it" to decide if so-and-so is a capable, trustworthy, legitimate spiritual teacher/source (to help me develop the Intuition!)?

I don't think there is any cut-and-dried, simple answer, or guidebook we can go by. This is part of the challenge, and if someone were always handy, "sitting on our right shoulder" as it were, then of course we would know just what to do, and whom to trust, at every step.

Yet here we can fall back upon the world's PLETHORA of religious scriptures, and inspired writings, and look to the advice of whatever code, and set of teachings, we have already come to resonate with most closely.

Should there be none, then there will be any number of avenues through which "Spirit may inspire us," to speak in the Christian vernacular. Esoteric teachings indicate that all human Souls are found upon one or another of Seven RAYS of expression - which are something like, permanent, "beams" of Energy, emanating from "Our Father Who Art in Heaven."

Souls may be 1st Ray, and make good politicians or leaders, or they may be 4th Ray, and find inspiration and expression through the arts. In the case of the latter, we should not at all be surprised when the artist literally connects with his own Soul via his ART. S/he will quite possibly enter directly into the Buddhic consciousness while painting, dancing, performing a piece of music, or simply contemplating the composition and form of a piece of sculpture at an art exhibition.

The politician, on the other hand, should not be expected to reach his own Soul consciousness via these methods ... but in the daily Service he performs for the benefit of the Greater Good - assuming this is his true motivation - there are moments when he is functioning as a Soul, just as the artist may do. Would not Inspiration, Illumination, also reach the person with the 1st Ray Soul?

Scientists, philosophers, diplomats, financiers, clergymen, doctors, educators, lawyers, artists, and so forth ... not every person turns to the Holy Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration. Yet the Love and Light of the One Self (or Soul, the 5th Kingdom) is available to us all, and pours forth - spiritually speaking - from the very Heart and Mind of God ... equally upon all members of the Human, and lower, Kingdoms.

Only the triumph of superstition and evil could lead us to believe that it were otherwise. And thus religion, while so great a good, is also simultaneously the prisonhouse of the Human Race.

It would be easy to just say, "Trust your own heart, your own insights, your own intuitions and `gut feelings' with regard to whether or not someone is a spiritual authority." Perhaps this is part of what we must do, and if we find that we make mistakes, they will surely become part of our Learning Experience - and help us on the way to greater realization, and, literally, Enlightenment.

But no doubt there are many other guideposts, signals, factors that we can look for ... in a writing, in a teaching, in a person, or in a situation ... to help us know, Is this (thing) for me?

Perhaps other people have suggestions, and can see ways in which this ties together Esoteric Christianity with much that is familiar from Exoteric Christianity. [The relationship between these two, remember, is all important! One cannot exist without the other. "Inside" only has meaning with relation to "outside." And the many branches, boughs, twigs and leaves of a tree do not grow out of thin air ... they need the roots, trunk and support of the "tree itself" as a whole!

Perhaps what some perceive as "feelings of superiority" is simpy a confidence that comes from knowing one's roots, and feeling them deep. Folks like Quahom are proud to say, "My faith has a firm root, a strong foundation." Nick and I would gladly affirm that, and with you, Thomas, Sunny C., et al ... and say, "So does ours!"

Just because we rely heavily on the Intellectual Principle, does not mean we do not believe in, acknowledge, or value the emotive. And yes, it is wonderful when Love pours in from above, through the emotions, and inspires, invigorates us!

The idea of Buddhi, the Intuitive faculty, is something complementary to that of "pure inspiration," and it also goes hand in hand with the Conscious formulation of Spiritual ideas, originating in the Creative Light of Mind - whose purpose, and merest existence can be defined in part of the larger whole, and not with respect to oneself, only. This has NOTHING to do with oneself, essentially, or with "the personality" (the "I, you, me" consciousness). It goes entirely beyond, and is therefore, Universal, and rather Wholistic.

Esotericsm, Christian or otherwise, is thoroughly scientific. There is technique, and method, and experiment. There is no room for "blind faith," only positive, encouraging optimism. A negative attitude will kill spiritual progress quicker than anything. A positive one can restore it in the wink of an eye ...

I guess I'm editorializing, and I would really be interested in what others think about how we can discern truth from falsehood, a helpful teaching - or teacher - from a less helpful one, or from a waste of time.]

Namaskar ... In Love and Light,

~andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,


You said,

"...a person can be a Christian, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or whatsoever s/he chooses, esoterically - and still call oneself a `Theosophist.' "

--> This is the strength of Theosophy. No one is asked to give up their religion by becoming a Theosophist. (I do not see anyone saying this of Thomas....)

"Thomas, if you want to pretend that Roman Catholicism is not almost UNIVERSALLY perceived by a large majority of its non-adherents as being one of the MOST DOGMATIC of all religious ideologies ..."

--> I am afraid he really does not see his belief system as dogmatic.

"...what I see is frequent, unwarranted attack, and a truly remarkable amount of effort to PUT A STOP to the open sharing, discussion and investigation of Theosophical, and Esoteric ideas ..."

--> Fortunately, he will not succeed. The very open discussing that Theosophy promotes and requires will cause Theosophy to continue into the future.

"HPB took on directly the Roman Catholic Church "authority" of her own day, yet we find that the notion of Papal Infallibility, and dogma such as Dominus Iesus continue to this day."

--> This brings up the topic of excomunication. I do not know of anyone who was ever excommunicated (or burned at the stake) by Theosophical leaders.

"But she was the Messenger, and the only way she was going to fail, was if she threw in the towel, and herself, admitted defeat."

--> This brings up a fascinating topic. Many people believe God sent messengers during Biblical times, yet believe He stopped sending them as soon as the Bible was finished. I do not see any reason to believe such a thing. Indeed, Theosophy teaches that such a stoppage did not occur.

[Sunny C.]

Thanks Andrew. I read what you wrote and appreciated it very much. I've actually read HPB, Alice Bailey, and de Perucker. I was involved with a meditation group with a Theosophical bent for a while. It's all so very complex. After awhile there were just so, so many masters, and all I wanted was for the guided part of the meditation to end so I could trip off on my own stuff. I just can't devote my life to studying that stuff. I have too many other interests and responsibilities. And I can't justify going around spouting something I know I don't really understand. Plus, that's not where I'm being led, at least not at this time.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective, I found it very interesting.

Sunny

[Sunny C.]

I know several people with a distinct bent toward esoteric spirituality. I've never sensed that they hold any sort of elitist point of view regarding their path. If anything it's the folks from established denominations who seem to want to hold themselves aloof and deny the possibility of any legitimacy in non traditional spirituality. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, or why they seem to need to step on the necks of others to prove the worth of their own belief systems.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,
At lease you did not insult me or my belief system this time. I appreciate that.

A little consideration the other way might not go amiss.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I reject your definition of dogma. Just because you give a Catholic definition, it carries no weight with me.

Nevertheless, it's the classical definition.

I then said:
"Your whole insistence of the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is a 'Theosophical dogma'...."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is not dogma, because anyone can be a Theosophist, can refuse to believe the "us" people are not the Kumara, and no one in Theosophy has the right to tell them they are wrong. (Yes, this type of prohibition is actually in writing.) This is the beauty of Theosophy.

Then what's going on? Why are you and Andrew telling us all the time that we are wrong in what we believe our faiths?

My interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that it is the Trinity speaking in Itself. Is that wrong?[/quote]

Thomas

[17th Angel]

I would say, that perchance these are christians, that have an interest in Pagan and other as you put magical and mysterious groups/ways. But, not wishing to turn from their god, they hold on to christianity but, they want that little more.... They want that ritualistic mystical style in their religion, which christianity obviously isn't... It is kind of "plaine" If you know what I mean..... (not meant in an offending way, I mean the style the ways and such....)

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,


You said,

"A little consideration the other way might not go amiss."

--> I have never made the insinuation that Roman Catholicism is a pack a lies, as you have made towards Theosophy. I have never said you have a superior attitude, as you have said about me. If you want consideration, you need to give it first.

"Nevertheless, it's the classical definition."

--> It is not. Your religion requires certain beliefs, and your religion reserves the right to brand non-believers as heretics. Your religion reserves the right to take people who disagree and throw them out the door. That is dogma. Your defintion says such things are OK, and I say they are not. (At least your religion does not burn heretics at the stake any more.)

"Your whole insistence of the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is a 'Theosophical dogma'...." --> It is not dogma, because anyone can be a Theosophist, can refuse to believe the "us" people are not the Kumara, and no one in Theosophy has the right to tell them they are wrong. --> "Then what's going on?"

--> What is going on is a discussion about dogma. You see dogma as good. I see dogma as bad.

"Why are you and Andrew telling us all the time that we are wrong in what we believe our faiths?

--> (1) In the beginning, you and I have some very good open-minded discussions: It was a case of two people agreeing to disagree, and discussing our differences. As a matter of fact, I was thinking to myself, "I have finally found a Christian who is open-minded, and is willing to have a religious discussion with an "agree to disagree" approach. Finally!"

You then starting attacking me and Theosophy, which caused this good ongoing discussion to become nothing more than a shouting match.




(2) Here is the classic Thomas over-generalization -- You make it sound like Theosophy teaches that everything in your religion is wrong. Here is the classic Nick non-over-generalizating response, saying a specific teaching in your religion is wrong -- a refusal to perform a particular religious ritual will not send any of us to Hell.

"My interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that it is the Trinity speaking in Itself. Is that wrong?"

--> If you had respect for my belief system, I would couch my words with respect. Since you only attack Theosophy, I will answer bluntly -- yes, such a specific interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is wrong. I love to keep pointing out Genesis 1:26, because it is something the writers of the Bible actually got right (humanity was created by a group of beings just like the Bible says -- beings that Theosophy describes as "angels"), while some Christians think Genesis 1:26 contains a mistake.


~~~


- You may continue to make negative over-generalizations about Theosophy, and I will continue to point out specific mistakes in your religion.

- You may continue to say dogma is good, and I will continue to speak against it.

- You may continue to support Excommunications baised on faith, and I will continue to speak against it.

- You may continue to assert a refusal of a particular religious ritual will send of us to Hell, and I will continue to speak against it.

- You may continue to insinuate Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies, and I will continue to not respond in kind.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then what's going on? Why are you and Andrew telling us all the time that we are wrong in what we believe our faiths?

My interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that it is the Trinity speaking in Itself. Is that wrong?

By no means is this what has been suggested. One is free to believe what one chooses. All that Nick and I have said, is that we believe Genesis 1:26 to refer to the Creative activity of the various orders of the Manasaputras, or `Elohim' - including the Kumaras after a certain stage.

Now you see, this differs from a more conventional, strictly monotheistic presentation and belief system ... which is what most Christians, and presumably Roman Catholics, will maintain.

Both Nick and myself can probably tell you a great deal about just WHY it is that we maintain what we maintain about Genesis 1:26, and the Manasaputras (Kumaras, etc.) - as well as the existence of mankind's `compound soul,' or multi-layered spiritual, material, and intellectual/psycholgical constititution.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I was thinking to myself, "I have finally found a Christian who is open-minded, and is willing to have a religious discussion with an "agree to disagree" approach. Finally!"

Perhaps we should do our level best to proceed with just this exact assumption, and be equally willing to substitute the word `Theosophist,' `Esotericist,' `Buddhist,' `Muslim,' or whatever else we like for `Christian.' In other words, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt.

We could, if we so desired, create an entire thread JUST to address my glaring inconsistency with HPB's (Theosophical) affirmation that "the Christ is the seventh principle [Atman] if anything." So many times I said, "It is identical with Buddhi," and what this shows is how poorly I have come to understand, or relate the two systems (Theosophy, and an Esoteric Christianity) - even after so many years of study, experience, meditation and service!

But this is not the same as saying, "You're totally off base; Theosophy is for quacks. It lacks rigor, it is ill-founded, it is vague ..." and so forth. Taking one, specific point - be that a metaphysical issue, a reservation about a teaching on morality, or a specific tenet - and seeking to bring that to Light, is another thing entirely.

A good example would be the apparent incompatibility between the Theosophical belief in Atma(n), so in sympathy with Hinduism, yet superficially irreconcilable with the Buddha's an-atman. How, indeed, could Humanity's WISEST be so ridiculously, embarrassingly confused - about something He Himself was certainly paramountly qualified to discourse upon and clarify!?!

But again, to say, "Theosophy has no merit with Buddhists because it disputes this exoteric point of belief," is just what we are trying to avoid ... and likewise, similar points, when it comes to Christianity or Roman Catholicism.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I would say, that perchance these are christians, that have an interest in Pagan and other as you put magical and mysterious groups/ways. But, not wishing to turn from their god, they hold on to christianity but, they want that little more.... They want that ritualistic mystical style in their religion, which christianity obviously isn't

And you see, quite in line with what you have just said, 17th, there is an entire branch of the Catholic Church - the Liberal Catholic Church - which does its utmost to preserve the 7th Ray Ritual, and Ceremony, that forms so great a part of Roman Catholicism.

There is no affiliation between the two Churches, and there are even several varieties of Liberal Catholicism, as one can learn at Wikipedia:

Liberal Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Liberal Catholic Church - (The American branch of the more traditional church which emphasizes theosophical tenets)

Liberal Catholic Church International - (the church in which theosophical tenets are allowed but not emphasized)

So, as you see, even Catholicism is not incompatible with Theosophy, though there are clearly differences (both between Liberal Catholicism and Theosophy, and between Liberal Catholicism and Roman Catholicism) which warranted the formation of several branches of Liberal Catholicism.

While I could never be a Roman Catholic, I have seriously considered seeking out a Liberal Catholic Church ... but the closest ones to me physically are several states away.

I am also greatly interested in Freemasonry, which is of course, all over the United States (in every major city) ... but I would prefer Le Droite Humaine, or `Co-Masonry' (100+ years old, actually), since they admit women. I need a date ...

Anyway, there are no local branches/chapters/lodges, until some of us around here start one. And again, many Co-Masons are also Theosophists, or vice versa.

Namaskar,

~andrew

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

If anything it's the folks from established denominations who seem to want to hold themselves aloof and deny the possibility of any legitimacy in non traditional spirituality. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, or why they seem to need to step on the necks of others to prove the worth of their own belief systems.

sunny,

the problem arises when it is the alternative traditions that seek to define themselves by attempting to demonstrate that they are more intelligent, enlightened, progressive and spiritual than the, by implication, benighted "establishment". you will note that it is the theosophists that started out here by attacking judaism and christianity and suggesting that they understood texts sacred to judaism more than 2500+ years of jewish scholarship, which they conveniently ignore. i did not start this argument. i have no bone to pick with theosophists until it attempts to tell me i am ignorant of the true meaning of, say, genesis 1:26, when it is painfully evident to me that this is a means for them to assert their own superiority based on little more than conjecture, hearsay and one-upmanship. "you've got a 3000-year old book? well, ours is 300000000000000000 years old so yar boo sucks." can you suggest one important way in which theosophy has improved the world? judaism is a 3000-year-old civilisation that has helped to establish in the human consciousness such things as social justice, ethical business and environmental protection. judaism produced, apart from our own religious scholars, jesus, marx, freud and einstein. theosophy, to me, appears to be the product of an élitist bunch of self-important bigheads who enjoy writing verbose tracts to each other about how much cleverer they are than everyone else, whilst bleating about how nobody appreciates them. if anyone's trying to prove their own worth, it ain't us chickens.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[AndrewX]

Even those seething with hatred ... are to be met with LOVE.

Thank you, bananabrain. Until just now, I had forgotten how important this is!

Edit: Oh yeah, and the last time I checked, just because a piece of Scripture is sacred, valued and customarily interpreted by members of ONE faith - as meaning x, doesn't mean that members of another faith (or belief system) could not similarly, hold it sacred and value it, yet interpret it a different way.

The big-headedness, if there is any, is from those who insist that "this is OUR book," "WE are the experts," and YOU - because you are not ONE OF US - have NO RIGHT to come along and even suggest that it means something different than what WE say, and have always said, it means!!!

By speaking of the great antiquity of the Stanzas of Dzyan, an effort has been made to explain WHY IT IS that non-Jews such as Nick and myself happen to believe otherwise with regard to the strict monotheistic interpretation of Genesis 1:26 provided by yourself, bananabrain, Thomas, and others.

If you can't remember how to disagree politely, and express a bit more civilly your strong conviction that the authors of Genesis intended another meaning than that which we are advocating ... then I would suggest you really have no business finger-pointing to begin with, or perhaps that you just need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS ... not the POLICING OF IDEAS ... that's what Democracy is all about. And that's what Comparative Religion is all about.

We tell you what we believe differently than you, we tell you WHY we believe differently than you, we give you background, references, suggestions for further reading (should there ever happen to actually be any interest in doing ANYTHING other than just defending the status quo) ... and we do our very best to show how - in this case (as will occur in many others) - the particular teaching, or scripture in question can be found to have parallels in EVERY OTHER exoteric belief system in existence!!!

Really, bananabrain, we bend over backwards to address your concerns ... yet you consistently come across as a RUDE, condescending, overbearing, overly self asssured person ... and I'm not sure that has ANYTHING to do with what you believe. If all you really want to do is tell us Theosophists and Esotericists that we're a bunch of self-righteous louts -

- then CONSIDER YOUR MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

But I'm afraid you flatter yourself when you mistakenly assume that our motivation in posting is to provoke your ire, or get your dander up. Quite frankly, I had forgotten all about your reservations until just now.

Yet as all you've done is hurl invective ... I shall happily, gladly, forget them once more.

[bananabrain]

*yawn*

i'm afraid that i have utterly failed... in my quest to venture to suggest that we MIGHT actually know OUR OWN sacred TEXTS!

if i have unwittingly given...OFFENCE by missing any background references not actually written by theosophists that you have ACTUALLY PROVIDED in the course of our most lengthy correspondence.... or failed to take you up on your MOST GENEROUS OFFERS to expand my theosophical library, i can only HUMBLY BEG YOUR FORGIVENESS.

it's just that the THOUGHT of wading through any more theosophical EPICS exhausts me...

- in any case, fear that my eyesight would not stand it.

~ b'SHALOM

bananabrain

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Thanks Andrew. I read what you wrote and appreciated it very much. I've actually read HPB, Alice Bailey, and de Perucker. I was involved with a meditation group with a Theosophical bent for a while. It's all so very complex. After awhile there were just so, so many masters, and all I wanted was for the guided part of the meditation to end so I could trip off on my own stuff. I just can't devote my life to studying that stuff. I have too many other interests and responsibilities. And I can't justify going around spouting something I know I don't really understand. Plus, that's not where I'm being led, at least not at this time.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective, I found it very interesting.

Sunny

I'll tell you what ... part of the difficulty for me, is that over the years, I've come into contact with perhaps half a dozen or more equally valid, serious esoteric "systems" (or sets/presentations of teachings), and like yourself I've been involved with various meditation/study groups, so one can really become quite inundated with this stuff.

Although I do believe in a continuity, and even a complementarity between the several Teachings, including plenty of parallels between Theosophy and a more focused Esoteric Christianity ... what I've increasingly come to believe is that one is not meant to just try and gobble up everything one finds, and devour it whole. Nor even, to try and make connections between it all, or force everything into some kind of gigantic framework.

The latter, especially, has become an Achille's Heel for me, and thus while I have said much about the Intuition (or Buddhic faculty), I know that I tend to over-intellectualize everything. Nowadays I'm faced head-on with the realization that had I applied more fully, more sincerely, just one of the many systems or sets of Teachings I've discovered, I would likely be in a very different place right now, and I might also have saved myself all manner of future difficulty.

This, you may recall, Thomas, is a point you have made before, maybe even several times ... and it is captured well in Pope's warning: "A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring/For shallow draughts intoxicate the brain/And drinking largely sobers us again."

Wait, did he mean drinking heavily?

Anyway, in the final analysis, I have seen it said again and again, DO NOT mix the various meditations, sets of instructions, and so forth when it comes to the esoteric teachings (in the tradition of HPB, AAB, et al). The reason is not that they are actually contradictory, although in some places they may differ slightly, and have different emphases. It is because they are given out according to different Ray impulses, for disciples of different temperaments, and cannot safely be combined without causing confusion, even possible harm to the student.

Intellectually, one can perhaps inquire along several lines at once, but this is not the same as trying to adopt a system, and then flitting along fickly to another set of doctrines, practices, meditation excercises, and so forth. On this point, at least with regards to Esotericism, I am in 100% accord with something you have said, Thomas, probably several times. As for exoteric religion, I think it is a somewhat different story, and I am quite fond of Unitarian Universalism, where readings from the Bhagavad Gita may be followed by readings from the Hopi tradition, then ending with the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, all in the same religious service!

Still, `cafeteria religion,' as some have put it, is not likely to yield the same results as adhering to the tenets of one religion specifically, and devotedly ... but I also think that this comes down to a question of temperament, and to where a person is on his or her own individual quest for knowledge, self/other/Divine-understanding, and overall spiritual (Inner) unfoldment. AND - we come around to a need for the same set of lessons, many times, as we traverse the spiral of life.

For some, taking a world religions class will naturally - and rightly - lead to either a conversion experience, a rekindled interest in a childhood or abandoned tradition, an abandoning of certain beliefs (even the largest part or entirety) from within one's current religion, or possibly a strong motivation to pursue comparative religion from any number of hitherto untried, or unappealing angles (such as psychologically, sociologically, anthropologically, even geographically/historically). And if a person becomes a Theosophist in the process, then I'd say it would be no small wonder!

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I know several people with a distinct bent toward esoteric spirituality. I've never sensed that they hold any sort of elitist point of view regarding their path. If anything it's the folks from established denominations who seem to want to hold themselves aloof and deny the possibility of any legitimacy in non traditional spirituality. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, or why they seem to need to step on the necks of others to prove the worth of their own belief systems.

And alas, I think this is what we've just seen ... yet there will always be a problem, when a person (or group - even spreading to the point of an entire faith) comes to define itself, its worth, or its legitimacy - in terms of one's religion, or spiritual BELIEFS.



I am reminded of Mark 2:27 -

The Law (religion, Sabbath) was made for man, not man for the Law (religion, Sabbath).

Plenty of us could take a lesson in detachment; and I have no room to finger-point in this respect, at all!!!

Some of us rush quick to the defensive, when other angles are offered with respect to our cherished beliefs (to the point of defending people long since dead, reincarnated, dead, and reincarnated again) ... but on the brighter side, we are not eviscerating or decapitating each other about it! [A few centuries ago, I'm afraid this might well have been my own approach, all supposedly in the "name of God" and "soul-saving." Yuk ... not a good karma!]

[Sunny C.]

I'm sorry. I didn't know that there was an ongoing feud over this stuff. I was thinking of people I know in my real life who are religious bigots, not anyone here. I guess there's a history of bad blood here, but I didn't know. I'll just slowly back away....

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that there was an ongoing feud over this stuff. I was thinking of people I know in my real life who are religious bigots, not anyone here. I guess there's a history of bad blood here, but I didn't know. I'll just slowly back away....

Lol. You've done more to mend things ... than well nigh any of the rest of us!

Peace, and Namaskar (to everyone!)