Esoterism and esoterica - Page 2

Thomas · 07-02-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

Hi Thomas - What I meant was that if you grouped all religious beliefs of the world together, that then these two paths become visibly distinct.

I think there are superior distinctions. The first would be theist and nontheist traditions. How love is understood is determined by this view. Another way of putting it is acceptance or rejection of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

Not that all religions would follow both of them, but that generally they could be seen as common threads.

I disgaree — at a superficial level, yes. But you cannot impose a Christian definition of love on Daoism or Buddhism, for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

From what you've said above I understand that you disagree with Love of God being a reality that exists outside of Christianity?

Not at all — I'm saying that each tradition defines Love (or not) as a reality according to itself. What I'm trying to do is prevent a religion being determined according to the precepts of another and ending up 'not-quite-fully-Christianity' by applying a predominantly Christian aspect to them.

As I have discussed previously, Buddhist compassion is not the same as Christian love at all, as much as people try and make it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

I'm strongly against whitewashing everything as the same,

Precisely my point — 'Love' is far too vague a term to apply with any degree of accuracy. However you define something, you're going to do it from the standpoint of one of them, the one you 'feel' suits best, and however you do it, you're going to misrepresent the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

but at the same time would see 'The Universal Truth' argument as ... being the most logical perspective from what information I have at my disposal.

Now here you touch on a very fine point.

The saying goes 'all Truth is one' and I agree, but as One, as truly transcendant, it is beyond form, beyond definition, beyond distinction ... and it manifests itself in varying forms, across time and culture, with greater and lesser degrees of penetration or revelation.

Now modern man, gifted with global communications, suddenly arrives at the idea that because there are certain superficial commonalities, they all speak of one thing, and if one can strip away the accidental and contingent factors, then one arrives at a pure doctrine.

So you strip everything away ... and find there's nothing there.

You end up taking a position which assumes a superiority to all religion, a meta-religion, in which you define terms such as 'love', 'grace' 'submission', 'surrender' etc., according to yourself (what other means have you?) or according to your favoured sage ...

To do this, to say one can see or comprehend Universal Truth, means you know the Mind of God, absolutely.

You can say of Christ, of Buddha, of Lao Tzu, of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Koran and the Torah, the Gospels and the Pali Canon ... of all of them "I know what you're trying to say, and have come to a purer and more profound realisation than you could manage ... my way is better than yours."

It's a truly Promethian assumption, and is born of a modernist mentality that believes in material progress and applies the same dictum in the spiritual domain.

Thomas

AndrewX · 07-02-2007, 06:47 PM

No, no, I think it's good that you choose to intermediate, InLove, for this is exactly how I believe the spirit of Christ moves amongst us today, whether we call that God, or Jesus, or simply Inner Human Goodness.

So thanks for the question, and the observations.

Yes, modern Theosophy does acknowledge that `Truth is One, Paths are many.'

So a person can practice one or more of any number of spiritual traditions, and still meet with "Salvation," or what the Hindus and Buddhists call Enlightenment.

I came across an old email from an ex-girlfriend, truly a teacher in my life ... So I posted that email on this thread, above. I agree with her wholeheartedly, while I still wish to make certain points about esotericism - things I've learned, and some of which I know incontrovertibly to be true.

Now this is where I know we are told, or required, to tread lightly, because one man's truth ... is another man's blasphemy. Yet I have the crazy idealistic notion that somewhere, people can meet in the middle.

Thomas has demonstrated, clearly enough, that for him - there is no middle. Sometimes he just tosses the baby out with the bathwater. And he makes no effort to reconsider ...

Now, that is his karma. And it's not my job to change it. I'm beginning to realize that. And some recent insights - not surprisingly into some of the most mundane, or rather HUMAN matters - show me that indeed, the path is through the Heart. So to that I am seeking to turn more of my attention.

Yet I will not stand by, and see the Prophets, Saints, and even Saviors of ONE era slandered, simply because those of another era mean a great deal to someone.

Notice: While I do challenge conventional interpretations, and favored theories regarding figures like Jesus of Nazareth, Siddartha Gautama, and even Plato ... I do not say that these men were frauds, that all they taught was simply ripped off from earlier traditions, or that they were shallow, shoddy philosophers.

Now, what am I to say to a man, who insists that anything and everything advanced by modern-day Theosophists is amiss, by very virtue of the affiliation?

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

No, I don't think Thomas believes we are "doomed to hell." He may, perhaps, as some do suggest, believe that having taken the more expedient - dare I say, favored - path, they (Roman Catholics) will arrive at the desired destination/goal ahead of the rest of us.

But this is no different than what many Muslims believe, while I find that outside of Christianity and Islam (and possibly Judaism), such sentiment is not nearly so prevalent.

Native American spiritual traditions interest me greatly, yet I would counter your point by telling you that why they interest me ... is because I can see the similarities, the amazing similarites, between what I know of them, and what I have learned of other indigenous traditions.

I have never studied anthropology the way I wish I had, but it was the major of most of my ex-girlfriends, and I was always fascinated by what they had to share. Yet as a resident of North Carolina, where the town of Cherokee had become nothing more than one giant tourist trap even several decades ago, I think I know exactly what you mean about the concern that some people have regarding their religious tradition, and the possibility that something may be lost. I mean, just look at what has happened! Most people do not even realize that the Cherokee did not have the kind of pow-wows, with all the fancy feathers and headdresses, as the plains Indians. But if they can buy their Kodak disposable cameras, snap a few photos of the real live pow-wow, and buy their kids a toy tomahawk, who cares, right?

InLove, I often agree with what you are saying, if not 100% with the specifics, then certainly with the sentiment. Yet I would go one step further, here, and suggest that just because the Wasichu has attempted to understand the Wisdom of the Native Elders, does not mean that he has failed. Pohwaikahine would probably find it unusual, the notion that just because we are white, living in 2007, we cannot understand Black Elk (or Hawaiian spirituality, at any rate).

I know, that's not what you've said. But what I'm saying, is that if there is actually a "Great Spirit," I DARE SAY that this Supreme Deity, at least as far as our planet is concerned, is SURELY the same as the Christian God - at least, in some form or fashion, or on some "level." I think the notion that we're dealing with entirely different entities, certainly in terms of RULERS of our entire Planet, is proposterous!

Is what I say opinion? Is it really? I think we are all entitled to our beliefs ... yet when you're dealing with people such as myself and Thomas, as you know, it's not unusual to find a good deal of effort put forward to demonstrate that such beliefs actually make good sense - and good sense for everyone, rather than something like a preference for roast beef, over venison.

This isn't about what's your favorite color, and I have found that Thomas is amazingly skilled at the straw-manning of the other person's argument, suggesting that something like Theosophy is simply seeking to SYNCRETIZE all the world's exoteric religions - and kind of SMUSH them all into ONE!!!

You see? He's so good as dolling that stuff out, he's got YOU, and quite a few other people around here, running around believing it. And that, to me, is a bit disturbing.

But on the other hand, I do see where you're coming from, InLove, to an extent. Just because I believe that money is going to fall out of the sky, doesn't mean it will. I might WISH it would do that, but that isn't how rain, or money, works. I am well aware of the popular, New Age sentimental type of "spirituality" which is very much a feel-good religion, and isn't really about righteousness or self-transformation at all, but is in fact, quite glamorized ... and certainly no better than familiar $$-making crap like televangelism!

~+~+~+~

But when it comes right down to it, you've kind of put your finger right on the problem, Deb. You mention that "the ones doing the preserving seem to hold no animosity toward the followers or pioneers of another Tradition," but you see, there is plenty of animosity.

The animosity stems from the fact that Esotericism has ALWAYS presented another interpretation of things that the Roman Catholic Church has DOGMATIZED. And it is not just Roman Catholicism which has done this, it is EVERY system of organized religion, which - after awhile - loses touch with the originating Spiritual Impulse of its Founder.

Sometimes we still say that teachers like Jesus came to found a Great Religion. And I think that is the worst possible interpretation we can give to His life, His teachings, and His essential message. The same is true of Buddha and Buddhism, Sri Krishna and Hinduism, Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism, and so on.

Even to say that Jesus came as a reformer of Judaism, and Buddha as a reformer of Hinduism, misses the point. These men were not looking for a following. They came as LIBERATORS, as SAVIOURS, but as the movie `Life of Brian' so wonderfully illustrates, the "Lemming Effect" is really just the fallout, the unavoidable consequence of their presence in our midst.

SOME, a precious few, were able to receive the message. Some, a very, very few, could actually understand. Christ, the Buddha, Sri Krishna, and others like them ... were 3-dimensional figures, even here, in the dense physical world, of heavy, crusty, ordinary old matter. Their Light may have shone in the spiritual worlds, but we do not even have to have the Inner Eye to SEE the Truth objectively.

How did Christ move about? Do we really believe, that as in the movies, He was always followed by a mass, a throng? THIS, I'm afraid, is the image we've attached to Him. It is a glamorized one, and it is incorrect.

Christ spoke from the Mountaintop, or at least a large hill ... more than once, I should say. And there were large audiences, at times. But there is a reason, and men like Thomas should KNOW it, why those close to Christ were ARRANGED around Him as they were.

Christ had His closest three, though even among these it is said that one disciple was "Beloved of Him." Beyond these, were the chosen Twelve, whose Greatest Service to us and to Christ, we should remember, was in being sent away to preach the Good News - which gives them their name, `Apostles.'

And while this Inner Group were able to receive some, some FEW, of the spiritual Mysteries from their Teacher ... we can only imagine the Wisdom which He was not able to impart, in so short a Ministry.

Less still, did the 70 Faithful Followers understand, yet they were faithful, and they constituted the next circle around Christ (or sphere, if we remember - Christ came to us in THREE dimensions - as an aura of Love and Light).

There were also an interested 500, and these plus the other two groups, together might be thought of as the few that are chosen ... though a more conservative interpretation would suggest that not even the chosen Twelve truly understood their Master.

But you see, while Jesus of Nazareth was overshadowed by the Christ, and the Christian speaks of Christ as being Universal Spirit (if Individually focused, as the 2nd `Person' of the Godhead) ... it becomes the greatest tragedy of Christianity, and the worst travesty of Christ's own Teaching, when this Universal Spirit cannot be admitted, apparently because it is not recognized, among all other of the world's great religions!

This is something that gives me MUCH distress ... and thus, while the figures in the late 19th Century Theosophical Movement, and in 20th Century related Movements, may not always bear the striking objective Beauty which Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated in his outermost appearance, Truth's Prophets are known by those who have sought to remain faithful ... in some cases, to vows long since spoken.

~+~+~

Sometimes I have challenged, quite directly, conventional Christian teachings - or rather, the interpretation which has usually been given to Christ's (supposed) words.

Yet all along, what I have attempted to demonstrate relative to Christianity, is not that Christianity is an insufficient, or failed religion, but rather, as G.K. Chesterton put it, It has only failed to the extent that it has NOT BEEN APPLIED.

And if the great, unwashed masses (pun may as well be intended) are unwilling to really APPLY Christ's Teaching in their daily life, because it is inconvenient, in so many ways ... then HOW DO YOU KNOW (you, whoever) that there are not greater Mysteries, even contained in the Gospel Teachings, than have as yet been perceived or understood by the average follower?

We need not look outside the Bible, if we cannot even understand the Wisdom contained therein! Yet it will be argued that ALL WE MUST DO is to pick up our Bibles, recite a few passages, and believe our way into Salvation?

This, to me, even if my opinion does seem to contradict my ex-girlfriend's advice, is NONSENSE. It is nonsense, because that is not what she is saying. The reason that exoteric religion "works," whether it be Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism or Santeria, is that the follower is choosing to cooperate with God, and God's Plan ... and with the Wise, Loving Custodians OF this Plan. And this is the SAME fundamental, inherent choice as that which gets so much attention in Christianity!

It is a shame that some of the theologies get things so mucked up that people can no longer recognize the natural, inherent human GOODNESS ... the fostering and development of which is given to exoteric religion as their very raison d'etre, or Purpose amidst Humanity. But so it is.

+-+-+-+

I guess that's a much more long-winded response than it should have been, because I know how sincere your post was ... and also the Spirit in which it was posted! For that reason, I hope that you will simply take up something that stands out from my response, and continue the dialogue.

Notice that Thomas, in his most recent post, has sought to push Truth beyond mankind's grasp - beyond our reach. And Love? What does he say of Love? It is "far too vague" to speak of with any accuracy.

Deb, for the first time in awhile, I feel (!) that I may have finally met someone who has something to teach me! And I don't mean dogma, or doctrine, or a new meditation technique ... I mean something about feeling, and being human.

Because NEVER, even in all my most abstract readings and studies, and ponderings with esotericists, did I think ... that I would meet someone who was so incredibly astute, and gifted, and amazingly intelligent, and profoundly learned and read ... and yet more in need of the simple realization of LOVE, which IS Truth ... than I am.

When I met my Master as an adult, I can say that my life was truly, forever changed. Not in an instant, and not overnight, but as lonely as I may have been at times, knowing that kind of Love ... changes one forever.

I may speak of it again, because I would affirm certain spiritual verities, but the least of these - is that the Masters exist, and such myths as the idea that Theosophists are out to syncretize the world's religions into one, homogenous meta-religion ... I would PLAY MY PART to dispel such glamour.

Thomas, you may spread it. I will diffuse it. And I am sternly resolved ...

The master of the straw-man, become a master of Love. It is not so easy a path.

And regardless, NAMASKAR

~Andrew

Thomas · 07-02-2007, 09:21 PM

Andrew's position is that the Theosophical Society knows more about Christ and His mission than the Church does. And equally knows more about any and every tradition than anyone else.

This posits the Theosophical Society as the Meta-religion in sole possession of the Truth of all, and sole possession of the Truth as such.

I don't believe that. He does.

That's what it boils down to.

Thomas

wil · 07-02-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Andrew's position is that the Theosophical Society knows more about Christ and His mission than the Church does. And equally knows more about any and every tradition than anyone else.

This posits the Theosophical Society as the Meta-religion in sole possession of the Truth of all, and sole possession of the Truth as such.

I don't believe that. He does.

That's what it boils down to.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas and Andrew...

Now I believe each is as adamant in his beliefs as you are in yours...hence my discussion about ones beliefs ending where another's begin.

I believe each believes he is right, I also believe you believe you are right. I thoroughly enjoy the discussion and points both of you bring up. We are all educated by the knowledge and dedication you both have to your studies. It appears to me that the discussion can continue but that would be by choice...

Where we don't know is to openly state what someone else thinks...we can say what we think they think, we can ask them to verify what they think...but we really shouldn't put words in each others mouth and expect to be able to continue. It seems to me if the Catholic Church or the Theosophists or anyone had the answer that was clear cut...then nobody would be leaving any of them...and the discussions wouldn't be so sharp...

It is always amazing to me that folks are surprised that when someone is backed into a corner they come out swinging...after all we aren't all enlightened and G-dly and Christlike now then are we....or we wouldn't...

we wouldn't box folks into corners...

and when boxed into a corner we wouldn't come out swinging...

hence our responses are indications of what we need to work on??

InLove · 07-02-2007, 10:39 PM

Hi Guys

I'm sorry. Like I said before, I kind of figured I would kick myself for asking. Andrew, I wasn't trying so much to intermediate. I was trying to understand the problem, and I mistakenly thought that you had overlooked something important that Thomas keeps saying. But I see that you haven't, so thanks for clearing that up for me and maybe some others.

Perhaps all this stuff is a bit over my head. And I shouldn't have asked such direct questions when I don't really comprehend the basics that you and Thomas and some others here seem to grasp so well. What I do know is that each of you is committed to your respective faiths, and both of you have much knowledge to offer someone like me. So, I think I will leave it there for now. Hopefully I did not do too much damage. Actually, I think it was mostly a lesson for me, more than either of you. I mean, at least you guys know what you are arguing about.

I love you both--
Deb

InPeace,
InLove

AndrewX · 07-02-2007, 11:39 PM

Thank you, wil. This has been part of my grief from the very beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Andrew's position is that the Theosophical Society knows more about Christ and His mission than the Church does. And equally knows more about any and every tradition than anyone else.

Words are continually being inserted - and quite forcefully, it sometimes feels - into my throat, and I find myself coughing as I ask, "Did I say that!?!"

Indeed, I did not, nor have I ever!

What I have said, and what I will say again, since this is a thread on "Esoterism and esoterica," on the esoteric forum, is that I do, when it comes to religion(s), unquestionably BELIEVE (key word) in an all-embracing Universal spirituality (please note my word choice, and the image it might convey).

This I would simply call Truth, as in Buddhism it is called Dharma, translated as roughly the same (literally meaning to bear, or support).

Sometimes the term applied, in the East, is Gupta Vidya, meaning the knowledge, or wisdom, which is concealed, or preserved. And THIS is where semantics become important.

~+~+~+~

But I should clarify that the term I prefer in speaking of the Gupta Vidya, or Dharma, is not Theos Sophia, or `Wisdom of God,' much as I believe this appellation to be accurate. NOR am I a representative, or representative MEMBER, of the Theosophical Society.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: My membership in the Theosophical Society of America lasted from about Nov. of 1990, for perhaps a year or two, before I stopped paying dues and allowed my membership to lapse.

As for my own spirituality, I prefer the simple, plain English term Wisdom Religion, or as it is also often called by its adherents, the Ageless Wisdom. One could also say, the Wisdom Tradition, or - simpler still - the Wisdom.

~+~+~

Yes, this seems quite presumptuous to some. It is SO presumptuous, in fact, as Thomas most keenly observes, that it begs the very question: IS there, in fact, a "Universal Truth?"

But notice that we have two different ways of approaching this subject.

It seems, that rather than speak of Truth, in some measure, as something we CAN objectively attain, and then looking at WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN, or LOOK LIKE, for us to do so ... Thomas would rather say, "it is all beyond us."

And that, as Mr. Churchill put it, is something up with which I shall not put.

Still, without realizing it, Thomas has stated exactly what the Ageless Wisdom posits as its most CENTRAL and critical tenent! As Thomas puts it:

[Truth is] beyond form, beyond definition, beyond distinction ... [but] it manifests itself in varying forms, across time and culture, with greater and lesser degrees of penetration or revelation. (my emphasis)

To quote further:

You end up taking a position which assumes a superiority to all religion, a meta-religion, in which you define terms such as 'love', 'grace' 'submission', 'surrender' etc., according to yourself (what other means have you?) or according to your favoured sage ...

I'll answer this question, since it is a valid one. And for once, Thomas is on the right track here - in seeing to the heart of the Wisdom Religion.

Precisely what the Ageless Wisdom holds is the position that NO ONE RELIGION is superior over all others ... but rather, that all are methods, or paths, of approaching, communing (and communicating) with the Divine.

And therefore, certainly, is it not the MOST OBVIOUS realization of all - ironically, somehow the stumbling block for so, so many people down through the ages, and even in the world TODAY - that YES (!!!), Love, Grace, Submission and Surrender are common among all people, for they are ALL characteristic of our Universal Human approach to the Divine?

How do we define these experiences, these wonderful, beautiful spiritual verities, which all people, and all peoples have had, ever since our world began ... IF NOT in terms of our direct, human participation IN THEM???

This, I'm afraid, is the tragedy. THIS, is what for me has become, at times, a source of heartbreak, that "my favoured sage," as our friend Thomas puts it, is somehow LESS IMPORTANT than HIS FAVOURED SAGE.

If St. Thomas Aquinas appeals to one man, or the writings of Rene Guenon are inspirational to another, then let that man read those works, and where there is an online discussion forum ... DEDICATED to compartive religion, philosophy and Interfaith, then SURELY there will be room for further investigation and exploration among kindred hearts and minds.

And if another man has found meaning, purpose, guidance and genuine wisdom, true insight in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, or Rudolf Steiner, or Max Heindel, or Alice Bailey, or Lucille Cedercrans, or other modern esotericists who have followed their footsteps ... wisdom which has influenced that man for the better, and led him straight and clear in matters both of the heart and of the soul, then WHAT A FOOL this man would be - to abandon his calling, forsake his greatest Teachers, and begin his search anew, as if he had learned nothing by treading life's path.

Yet we find, again and again, that Thomas is ready to naysay anything having to do with the resurfacing of the Wisdom ... as if there were NOT, indeed, One Universal Truth, GOD'S OWN, plain and simple.

The Wisdom Tradition does not say, there is One Truth, and "we have it." And THIS, you will find, is what upsets Thomas the most. If the Wisdom Religion is indeed, available to all who seek ... and is NOT contained, in Vatican libraries, or secret underground chambers, NOR in the vestments, authority or person of the Pope, the Dalai Lama or the Grand High Mighty Poohbah of Froopaloopa VII, then yes - WHERE IS that Truth, and WHAT is it?

To assert that there is a Universal Wisdom, and that it is GOD's, is really - for anyone who's been paying attention, and not living under a rock, a complete TAUTOLOGY.

As a refresher (for me as well, I assure you), that means "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," says Webster. Needless, because it is so, bleeding obvious!

Sure, several philosophical, not to mention scientific and religious questions are begged in saying, there is a Universal Wisdom ... but most of us would say that we can skip that part, and just get to the angle on things, so to speak.

What is one's angle? Obtuse? (no really, we say that) Or acute? A cute `e,' for wordplay? yeah, groan ... but what is the opposite?

An obtuse person is a difficult, or "thick" person ... sometimes by choice, yet also this can mean someone not so bright, not tremendously intelligent.

And what is the opposite, then? I'd have to say, that "acute" individuals, are folks such as Thomas and myself. Obtuse people are not heartless, or unemotional, and neither are acute folks. Yet the acute sort do indeed have a "sharpened wit," and to make sure we're all on the same page here, Webster's primary definitions of wit include "mind, memory, reasoning power, intelligence, sense, mental soundness, sanity, astuteness of perception or judgment, and acumen" ... only listing "apt humor" WAY down the list.

I will hand the wittiness to Thomas every time, yet while I can certainly be obtuse at times (and I AM such a person, more than I know) ... neither of us is particularly unenlightened. The term people often use, as a compliment, is `sharp,' or of course, `BRIGHT,' which is what I have heard most of my life.

What am I getting at by all of this?

Come on, we even have this expression in everyday parlance as, "what angle of attack do you want to use," as when solving a problem, or approaching a troubling situation.

Now there is more I could say here about aquiline noses, and Rome, and the Masonic Square has - in fact - everything to do with this line of reason, yet I fear even I would chuckle at what I am suggesting, were I in any other frame of mind ... and for those not familiar with certain Theosophical ideas, this could very easily seem worse than farcical, while those who are familiar either "get it," or will - clash noses - as it were.

Suffice it to say, that mental clairvoyance, wherein a man's own thoughtform can be perceived, is a revelatory thing indeed ... whereupon I call recall thinking to myself those several years ago: "Am I THAT!?!"

But no, it was no pretty aura, nor a delightful, glowing splendor that I saw ... when it comes down to one man, arguing his various thoughts or viewpoints with (or even against) another, our own (personality, `ego') thoughtform is a rather matter-of-fact thing, after all.

And the argument does not need to be so vicious, so cutting, antagonistic and intense ... nor even the modern, sportive, fast-paced raquetball echange of ideas which often ends up causing worse injuries than a deadly game of jai alai (or rugby).

~+~

Yes, I am being fairly direct. But I find that, at times, it helps to deal openly with something, rather than keep shoving it under the rug, pretend it is merely a trifle, or yet worse, channel the irritation into all sorts of flowerly, prosaic speech, which is really only so much thinly-veiled swordplay.

I may not have used one on this plane for 8 centuries, but I have had my fair of sharpenings as well.

(seems I'm verboser than ever - pt. 2 forthcoming I guess!)

AndrewX · 07-03-2007, 12:03 AM

InLove, you may be quite right about my overlooking something important that Thomas keeps saying. It is not just a matter of, oh, he's putting words in my mouth. For certain, I have done the same, and I don't doubt that I am overlooking some of his points, or perhaps a very good one, or two.

For that, I can only wait, and hope, that he wishes to genuinely dialogue with me. And for that, I demand the same Respect as that which is given to any other person.

At times, it is surely I who have been anything from impatient, to egotistical, to downright callous! And again, anyone who's paying attention is clearly aware of that ...

I have been known to post on little sleep, or by way of hasty reaction (rather than well-thought, well-pondered, let alone heartfelt response), not to mention slight measure of inebriation - although, I think a drunkard makes plenty fool enough of himself, and really needs no help from anyone around him!

But it is exactly this tendency of tit for tat, which Christ came to do away with! Or at least, that's how I read it, summed up fairly succinctly. What if ... we all treated each other, as if life really mattered, as if we were all here for a Purpose, and as if yes, all the world really WAS - and IS - Sacred!

It's enough to make your head spin!!! Quick, call the Exorcists!!!

I'm not so great at the Divine Possession, and what I have read, is that Socrates, who was not an Initiate (as per the Ageless Wisdom), would often have to wait for DAYS ... before the Daimon would "visit" him.

Nowadays, many a Christian may speak of the Holy Spirit as moving through the world much more freely, and I don't doubt the pervasiveness of the Divine, in some diffused sense, certainly more so than in Socrates' day!

Yet what must that have been like, for him to make the appeal, then quietly, patiently, reverently and yet expectantly wait .... for God to speak!?! And yes, to say that it was any less than precisely that (as with Moses ... be it his own Higher Self, or Soul, or the Logos qua Logos), makes no difference to me - that is just semantics, splitting of hairs, even if, perhaps, it is a valid question at some level.

Plato, supposedly, was but a student of Socrates ... yet he is held, by some, as an Initiate, and that, could be a thread all on its own.

Have I ever said that my Inner God, as it may as well be called, is as close to me, or as accessible, as was the Daemon of Socrates, much less the Living Wisdom (Christ Spirit, born) in Plato?

I have not. I have said that Christ, as a Spiritual Principle - not separate from the Whole, yet somehow given to each of us - IS truly, within our hearts. And when that Spirit, innately and by default but a spark, is fanned into a flame, THEN a man is said to be twice-born.

Thus marks the BEGINNING of his spiritual Journey proper, and the preparation of the path he may choose to tread, eventually leading to direct tutelage from a Master of the Wisdom, IF and WHEN he passes the tests.

And while this very process can be spoken of as the esoteric path, or even the esoteric `aspect' of our being, of life itself, this is not even necessarily what we might wish to discuss ... when we speak of esoterism, and esoterica!

There are so many approaches (a gentler, softer term than angle), so many possibilities, and truly, so many directions in which we can proceed, both in this discussion, and in all related discussions! My babbling about the philosophers is merely a tangent (mmm, sidetrack), yet there are probably five good threads or more just in those couple of paragraphs.

So many degrees of subtlety ... and of course none of us can perceive the highest, or the deepest, or the most sublime layers - even of the mind, the thinking principle. There again, room for discussion regarding just where, and how, within our human mind(s) - do we MEET with God, with the Divine, operating through the Divine Mind (?). And I could forsee plenty, probably endless, exploration!

Brother Bruce, speaking often as an Anthroposophist, but first and foremost as Br. Bruce, I would imagine (

), often reminds us that there is a Christian, mystical approach to the Ageless Wisdom, or esoteric teachings ... which is not always in agreement with Theosophy, or with other presentations of the Ageless Wisdom - yet which emphasizes the heart, and the Christ Aspect, rather than the Mind, and the Intellectual approach.

Somewhere, you may be able to find a common ground, midway between a Theosophy which you have often rebuffed as being too intellectual, Thomas, and the Anthroposophical teachings, wherein the mystical Christ becomes almost the entire focus of Steiner's presentation - along with invaluable contribution to our understanding of esoteric healing, and subtle anatomy.

Anthroposophy is a step closer to the Christ of Roman Catholicism, even while my own interest is along the exoteric line of Eastern Orthodoxy, yet I would as soon discuss the more practical questions of what the Christ might possibly have to do with our own, astral & etheric auras ... as go off on some fifteen page diatribe about Lemurian consciousness and where animal-man went wrong.

Br. Bruce might be on the same page with me, I dunno ...

~+~+~

The lesson, Deb, was and is, mine. Your invitation, served to evoke something from within me. You sought heart, as much as mind, if I'm not mistaken ... and although with all the usual verbosity, I've felt myself seek to respond more genuinely, and more personally, than I am accustomed to doing!

How we approach others, really does determine to a large extent what we may hope to find, or receive in return (as we offer) ... doesn't it? Not to mention, the spirit of the sharing ...

Yet who just presented that lesson to whom?

Humility is not always embarrassing, and since when is Service to one's fellow human being not supposed to be Joyous?

At any rate, I thank you for you, Deb, and for yours. They have certainly made my day, and will give me much to ponder, as I enjoy our coolest weather for weeks ...

Love and Light,

~Andrew

Thomas · 07-03-2007, 10:02 AM

I have been informed, on these boards and elsewhere, by The Theosophical Society that:

The Tradition is bankrupt;
The Scriptures have been fabricated;
The Church is corrupt;
The Fathers were liars;
The faithful are poor, deluded fools.

The same applies to Judaism and Islam, as we share a common heritage.

I am informed that only the Theosophical Society understands these Sacred Texts, and only they can interpret them correctly — only they know what is true, and what is false.

I have also been told that once they have rewritten the Testaments, Old and New, everything will be OK.

+++

I have also been approached by spokespersons of 'The Old Catholic Church' with the invitation to join them, and that if I should deem to throw my 'theological insight' behind their cause, then ordination into said church will be a matter of routine, and a bishopric will follow in short order.

Thomas

Neemai · 07-03-2007, 11:28 AM

It seems to me that this thread is about more than just esoterism. I'll sign off with a quote:

"God is neither Christian nor Hindu or Muslim or... No. God is God. Just like gold. Gold is gold. Either in the Hindu community, or Muslim community, gold is gold. Because gold is there in some Hindu community, nobody says "Hindu gold." Does anybody say, "It is Hindu gold" or "It is Christian gold"? No. Gold is gold. Similarly, God is one. There is no "Hindu God" or "Muslim God" or "Christian God." This is mistake. "We believe God in this way...," that is nonsense. No. God is one, and you have to see what is the characteristic of God. ...That should be the subject matter of theology, to know actually what is God and to understand what is our relationship with God."

... Neemai

Thomas · 07-03-2007, 01:09 PM

Hi Neemai,

I think this thread is precisely about esoterism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

[I]"God is neither Christian nor Hindu or Muslim or... No. God is God...

Agreed. But the point is, we can know nothing of God as God, for God is beyond our wildest imaginings, our most serene speculations, the best we can know, with any certainty, is that which God has chosen to reveal to us. And these revelations comprise the content of religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

God is one. There is no "Hindu God" or "Muslim God" or "Christian God." This is mistake. "We believe God in this way...," that is nonsense.

True. But where does it leave humanity? God reveals Himself in different ways.

What is missed is knowledge of God is not important. Union with God is the point, and in the great traditions, God has provided the means and method of attaining this unity — the Buddhists call it 'upaya' — and without those means or those methods, Union is impossible for man.

And you still have made no inclusion of the non-theist traditions. Do you assume that if a tradition does not say God, it has nothing to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

No. God is one, and you have to see what is the characteristic of God. ...That should be the subject matter of theology, to know actually what is God and to understand what is our relationship with God."

Exactly, and how do we do that? By studying the Sacra Doctrina of the Great Traditions, and shaping our lives according to their wise counsel.

Now. As a Christian 'my' doctrine is Catholic, but I do not presume that the Vedas, the Pali Canon, the Koran, are wrong ... in fact I think they are as valid as my own, but they are not the way for me, although I delight in walking and talking with those who walk those ways, for there is much to be learned, and much to be shared.

I find much to be understood is the Moslem doctrine of sin, for example, and Islam has much to say on the history of the Holy Family, for example. The account of creation in the Vedas parallels the account given in Genesis 1 very closely ...

The Secret Doctrine of the Theosophical Society asserts however, that all other doctrines are 'wrong' when they do not agree with their own.

I do not assume, as the Theosophical Society does, that all other scriptures are false, because they don't agree with mine, and I do not suppose to tell other people they are wrong, in believing as they do.

If someone tells me, however, that my sacra doctrina is false, a fabrication, in fact a blasphemy, then I will say they are wrong, and will defend it, and that's all I seek to do.

+++

All religions lead to God, I agree, and furthermore I would say that God draws all men to Himself ... but I do not agree you can roll all religions into one homogenous religion, nor do I agree that you can dispense with religion and get to God by knowing a little bit about each of them.

Only in and through a religion, only by doing a religion do you have any chance of understanding it, and this is the real meaning of esoterism.

Thomas

Ciel · 07-03-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neemai

It seems to me that this thread is about more than just esoterism. I'll sign off with a quote:

"God is neither Christian nor Hindu or Muslim or... No. God is God. Just like gold. Gold is gold. Either in the Hindu community, or Muslim community, gold is gold. Because gold is there in some Hindu community, nobody says "Hindu gold." Does anybody say, "It is Hindu gold" or "It is Christian gold"? No. Gold is gold. Similarly, God is one. There is no "Hindu God" or "Muslim God" or "Christian God." This is mistake. "We believe God in this way...," that is nonsense. No. God is one, and you have to see what is the characteristic of God. ...That should be the subject matter of theology, to know actually what is God and to understand what is our relationship with God."

... Neemai

Greetings Neemai,

This is beautiful, this is wisdom.

Peace, love and light flows with you.

- c -

Ciel · 07-03-2007, 02:13 PM

Thomas,

On an overall observation.........

Do you not see you are your own double axe........ though it appears where others are concerned you swing words with the give and take of a single blade.

- c -

Thomas · 07-03-2007, 03:24 PM

Not at all.

I see the difference as I defend my faith vigorously,
but do not seek to attack others for their faith,
nor do I attack others for their faith.

Andrew consistently attacks Christian doctrine at the most fundamental level, with accusations not only of ignorance and error, but of lies, corruption, falsehood, blasphemy.

Might I offer that another TS member of this forum informed Bananabrain that the Jewish scribes had similarly and intentionally falsified Hebrew Scripture.

Might I suggest two things:
The TS will inform all any any that their sacra doctrina has been falsified, etc., where is disagrees with TS doctrine.

That I started this thread on the specific notion that the world's esoterisms belong wholly and uniquely to their respective traditions ... by which I hope all will understand that I defend the authority, honesty and authenticity of every sacred tradition ... the only proviso being a syncretism that offers nothing but a reworking of stuff lifted from all and sundry to suit its own agenda.

Thomas

wil · 07-03-2007, 03:37 PM

Namaste Thomas,

Please correct me if I am wrong.

In regards to Judaism and Christianity, there are those that believe literally that the world is some 6,000 years old, that Adam existed and was created by G-d, that the Garden of Eden are not metaphor but actual fact and all of creation was manifest as it says in seven days, that Moses brought down five complete books off the mount and they celebrate that event.

Now there are others that believe that much of the bible is a glorious metaphor for life, stories created to satisfy those around the campfire and eventually written down...but all should be taken with a grain of salt and even the most factual fragments contain some fantasy elements added for emphasis, or to inspire, or to convince, conspire...

There is a small percentage of believers that fit into either of those camps...that the vast majority are somewhere in between, hence our numerous denominations/sects and those that consider themselves nondenominational...

Do you agree or disagree? One other piece of info...I have it from three different sources that took graduate level courses at Loyola in Baltimore...learning theology from the Jesuits...that long ago the church discovered that we don't want to know/hear the truth...that we have no interest in personal responsibility or growth...that we want someone else to save us and go on our merry way, beer and theater...is there no truth to that? This isn't theosophists....but Jesuits.

Ciel · 07-03-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not at all.

That I started this thread on the specific notion that the world's esoterisms belong wholly and uniquely to their respective traditions ... by which I hope all will understand that I defend the authority, honesty and authenticity of every sacred tradition ... the only proviso being a syncretism that offers nothing but a reworking of stuff lifted from all and sundry to suit its own agenda.

Thomas

Thomas,

I see it as spiritual evolution, and never doubt God has a hand to play.

- c -