Paradise and The Fall

[Thomas]

Hi Nick

"To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'."
--> This is not a Theosophical concept. Theosophy sees humanity as basically good, not basically bad. Also, Sin is not a Theosophical concept.

The quote expresses a metaphysical concept.

The Abrahamic Traditions see humanity as essentially good also. In fact, very good.

Is there a Theosophical correlate of sin?

Thomas

[earl]

Well, since this is a comparative thread, guess it's OK to share my blended Christo-Buddhist notions. They're probably more akin to Theosophy and certainly are akin to the view shared by Richard Smoley in his book, "Inner Christianity: a Guide to the Esoteric Tradition." His point in a nutshell is the converse of the traditional Christian notion of the Fall being related to breaking a covenant with God. Rather it is more like honoring a covenant. That is "paradise/Eden" was the metaphor for an original primordial state which knew no individualty/duality-knew no "humanity." God gave us what we thought we wanted- a human life to know "good and evil," wages of the body and all that. So rather than fell it's more like we've been planted with the task to grow back toward a true uniting of heaven and earth but to do so requires overcoming our "ignorance" of our condition. Buddhism speaks of the chief cause of both rebirth and suffering being "delusion" or ignorance of our true condition. Of course, "falling and getting up " again in Buddhism is cyclic in a "human" life-death as opposed to the 1-time linear notions prevalent in Christianity. But I believe the "divine ignorance" is a more apt way to look at these issues. But those "God moments" when we are however temporarily overcoming ignorance and thereby uniting heaven and earth are "sinless" moments-we're at least in that moment "aiming true," ( "sin" as in the Greek word for sin "hamartia," which meant to miss the mark). I would add that the metaphor/symbol of the tree is a perfect one for this notion of "bloom as God planted you," including the notion of cycles if 1 is so inclined given that the fruit/seeds which issue forth from trees begin the next cycle. Well enough of my babble for now. earl

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"The Abrahamic Traditions see humanity as essentially good also. In fact, very good."

--> I have always understood the Christian position that we are all basically sinners unless we change our ways. Is this not true?

"Is there a Theosophical correlate of sin?"

--> There are two answers. (1) Bad karma (2) Learning to deal with freedom.

(1) Bad karma, is, well, bad karma.

(2) We sometimes hear the question, "Why is there so much evil in the world?" The author quoted below is saying that we must freely choose to be good, and at the next level of existence only good people will be allowed in. We must allow people here at this level to be good or bad, so they can make that choice freely:

"And then the question arises - as I know it arises in many minds, for it has been put to me both in the East and in the West over and over again - why so much difficulty in the evolution, why so much apparent failure in the working, why should men go wrong so much before they go right, why should they run after the evil that degrades them instead of following the good that would ennoble them? Was it not possible for the LOGOS of our universe, for the Devas who are His Agents, for the great Manus who came to guide our infant humanity - was it not possible for Them to plan so that there might be no such apparent failure in the working out? Was it not possible for Them to guide so that the road might have been a straight and direct one instead of so devious, so circuitous?

"Here comes the point that makes the evolution of humanity so difficult, having in view the object which is to be gained. Easy in truth would it have been to have made a humanity that might have been perfect, easy to have so guided its dawning powers that those powers might have travelled towards what we call the good continually, and never have turned aside towards what we call evil. But what would have been the condition of such an easy accomplish­ment? It must have been that man would have been an automaton, moved by a compelling force without him which imperiously laid upon him a law which he was compelled to fulfil, from which he could not escape. The mineral world is under such a law; the affinities that bind atom to atom obey such an imperious com­pulsion. But as we rise higher we find greater and greater freedom gradually making its appearance, until in man we see a spontaneous energy, a freedom of choice, which is really the dawning manifestation of the God, of the Self, which is beginning to show itself through man. And the object, the goal which was to be attained, was not to make automata who should blindly follow a path sketched out for their treading, but to make a reflection of the LOGOS Himself, to make a mighty assemblage of wise and perfected men who should choose the best because they know and understand it, who should reject the worst because by experience they have learnt its inadequacy and the sorrow to which it leads. So that in the universe of the future, as amongst all the great Ones who are guiding the universe of today, there should be unity gained by consensus of wills, which have become one again by knowledge and by choice, which move with a single purpose because they know the whole, which are identical with the Law because they have learned that the Law is good, who choose to be one with the Law not by an outside compulsion, but by an inner acquiescence. Thus in that universe of the future there will be one Law, as there is in the present, carried out by means of Those who are the Law by the unity of Their purpose, the unity of Their knowledge, the unity of Their power - not a blind and unconscious Law, but an assemblage of living beings who are the Law, having become divine. There is no other road by which such goal might be reached, by which the free­will of the many should reunite into the one great Nature and the one great Law, save a process in which experience should be garnered, in which evil should be known as well as good, failure as well as triumph. Thus men become Gods, and because of the experience that lies behind them, they will, they think, they feel, the same."

Besant, Annie, The Path of Discipleship, paragraphs 3-4 (online)
Theosophy : Path of Discipleship by Annie Besant : AnandGholap.net

Besant, Annie, The Path of Discipleship, pages 9-11 (hardcopy)
Quest Books

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

Your ideas are very similar to Theosophy.

You said,

"...'paradise/Eden' was the metaphor for an original primordial state which knew no individualty/duality-knew no 'humanity.' "

--> This is very much a part of my belief system.

"...rather than fell it's more like we've been planted with the task to grow back toward a true uniting of heaven and earth but to do so requires overcoming our 'ignorance" of our condition.' "

--> This is also very much a part of my belief system. I see our inital ensoulation as a postive and necessary act, giving us freedom, although creating a frightening sense of separateness at the same time.

[Each soul, created at the moment of the creation of the universe] "...feels itself to be separated because the divine self-affirmation of the Logos is forcing it to look outwards into the vortices of form; thus it ceases to pay attention to the inner unity. ... under the influence of the third Logos, the points in Mind rush out into separateness." (Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish pp. 324 & 192)
Link— Quest Books

As painful as that first separation was, it is seen as a positive step in the formation of the universe.

"Just as milliards of bright sparks dance on the waters of an ocean above which one and the same moon is shining, so our evanescent personalities — the illusive envelopes of the immortal [soul] — twinkle and dance on the waves of [matter]. They last and appear, as the thousands of sparks produced by the moon-beams, only so long as the Queen of the Night radiates her lustre on the running waters of life...." (The Secret Doctrine, vol I p. 237).
Link— The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky
Link— "The Secret Doctrine" by H. P. Blavatsky, from Theosophical University Press

You said,

"But I believe the "divine ignorance" is a more apt way to look at these issues."

--> I agree.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by earl

Well, since this is a comparative thread, guess it's OK to share my blended Christo-Buddhist notions. They're probably more akin to Theosophy and certainly are akin to the view shared by Richard Smoley in his book, "Inner Christianity: a Guide to the Esoteric Tradition." His point in a nutshell is the converse of the traditional Christian notion of the Fall being related to breaking a covenant with God. Rather it is more like honoring a covenant. That is "paradise/Eden" was the metaphor for an original primordial state which knew no individualty/duality-knew no "humanity." God gave us what we thought we wanted- a human life to know "good and evil," wages of the body and all that. So rather than fell it's more like we've been planted with the task to grow back toward a true uniting of heaven and earth but to do so requires overcoming our "ignorance" of our condition. Buddhism speaks of the chief cause of both rebirth and suffering being "delusion" or ignorance of our true condition. Of course, "falling and getting up " again in Buddhism is cyclic in a "human" life-death as opposed to the 1-time linear notions prevalent in Christianity. But I believe the "divine ignorance" is a more apt way to look at these issues. But those "God moments" when we are however temporarily overcoming ignorance and thereby uniting heaven and earth are "sinless" moments-we're at least in that moment "aiming true," ( "sin" as in the Greek word for sin "hamartia," which meant to miss the mark). I would add that the metaphor/symbol of the tree is a perfect one for this notion of "bloom as God planted you," including the notion of cycles if 1 is so inclined given that the fruit/seeds which issue forth from trees begin the next cycle. Well enough of my babble for now. earl

Hi earl,

Of course! Your comments are very much welcomed here...and hoping to hear from other views as well...Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, Eastern, personal interpretations too...the more the merrier.

That does sound like what Nick is saying, and also to a degree what Spong says too relating to the aquisition of self-consiousness, but take away any idea of a supernatural diety.

luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"The Abrahamic Traditions see humanity as essentially good also. In fact, very good."

--> I have always understood the Christian position that we are all basically sinners unless we change our ways. Is this not true?

My answer to this is that to be a "sinner," does not mean evil, bad, depraved. Yes, we all sin and IMO, no matter how virtuous our life, we still sin because we live in a fallen world. But that does not make us bad or evil...it makes us fallen, or dis-ordered, or ill, or exiled. We can't live up to the nature we were created for because we are embedded now in the world which by its nature demands that we judge, we kill, we are physically tied to evolutionary/biological constraints. This is not bad...it's not a judgement issue. It just IS.

When we make these judgments, this is bad, that is good, that is the way OUT of the Garden. We are not here to become 'good,' we are here to love. We love when we put aside such judgements about the nature of things.

This does not mean we don't judge...we have to judge to get through every day from things small to things large...this is the nature of the fallen world. We must judge to survive, we must judge to have a peaceful world where we get along, we must hold people responsible for their actions, make ammends, keep people safe.

2 c,
luna

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

Thank you for your post. It is always interesting to read your glimpses into Christian doctrine. Allow me to make two observations.

-- LEARNING GOOD AND BAD --

You said,

"We are not here to become 'good,'...."

--> On this point, Theosophical philosophy absolutely disagrees with Christian teaching. Our main task is to learn to discriminate good from bad, and to discriminate great from good. Theosophy teaches the universe is evolving. Whatever assists this spiritual evolution is good, and whatever cause disharmony to it is bad. Specific guidelines exist, and part of being a human is trying to figure out those guidelines. But some are clear. Murder (and I don't mean in self-defense, etc.) is bad, wrong, and the person will suffer bad karma because of it. Theosophical principles are very clear on this.

"When we make these judgments, this is bad, that is good, that is the way OUT of the Garden."

--> For the Theosophist, just the opposite is true.

"Between right and wrong [Theosophy] knows no compromise. At whatever apparent cost, that which is right you must do, that which is wrong you must not do, not matter what the ignorant may think or say. You must study deeply the hidden laws of Nature, and when you know them arrange your life according to them, using always reason and common sense.

"You must discriminate between the important and the unimportant. Firm as a rock where right and wrong are concerned, yield always to others in things which do not matter. For you must be always gentle and kindly, reasonable and accommodating, leaving to others the same full liberty which you need for yourself."

link to online book — Modern Theosophy: At The Feet of the Master, Alcyone

-- REQUIREMENTS TO ENTER HEAVEN/NIRVANA --

At this point, it may be good to compare Christian requirements for Heaven vs. Theosophical requirements for Nirvana. It seems that only a change of heart, and a dedication to specific religious principles is the way into Christian Heaven. Unfortunately, these things will not get us even close to Theosophical Nirvana. (They WILL get us into Theosophical Heaven, but that is another discussion for another day.)

The road to Nirvana is very difficult — perhaps brutal is a better word. (See Krishnamurti's book, cited above, for details.) One of the first steps is beginning to judge right from wrong.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"We are not here to become 'good,'...."

BTW, the above is the way I think of it...not sure it would be an orthodox way of stating it. Certainly the outflow of Love are the fruits of the Spirit, which are indeed good. I guess it's a matter of the cart and the horse. To my way of thinking, and in line with what I hear in church anyway, is that Love comes first and that Love is from God...God is the source. We turn to God, that love flows to us and through us out to the world. The fruit is thus not what we do to be good, but an effect of God's love. Thus, God reconciles the world through Christ, and now through the Body...us. As some would say, not because of our works, but through them.

--> On this point, Theosophical philosophy absolutely disagrees with Christian teaching. Our main task is to learn to discriminate good from bad, and to discriminate great from good. Theosophy teaches the universe is evolving. Whatever assists this spiritual evolution is good, and whatever cause disharmony to it is bad. Specific guidelines exist, and part of being a human is trying to figure out those guidelines. But some are clear. Murder (and I don't mean in self-defense, etc.) is bad, wrong, and the person will suffer bad karma because of it. Theosophical principles are very clear on this.

That's interesting. And yes, quite opposite of how I view it.

"When we make these judgments, this is bad, that is good, that is the way OUT of the Garden."

--> For the Theosophist, just the opposite is true.

Gotcha. Interesting.

"Between right and wrong [Theosophy] knows no compromise. At whatever apparent cost, that which is right you must do, that which is wrong you must not do, not matter what the ignorant may think or say. You must study deeply the hidden laws of Nature, and when you know them arrange your life according to them, using always reason and common sense.

"You must discriminate between the important and the unimportant. Firm as a rock where right and wrong are concerned, yield always to others in things which do not matter. For you must be always gentle and kindly, reasonable and accommodating, leaving to others the same full liberty which you need for yourself."

Well, you know, we all try to do this.

link to online book — Modern Theosophy: At The Feet of the Master, Alcyone

Thank you for the resource.

-- REQUIREMENTS TO ENTER HEAVEN/NIRVANA --

At this point, it may be good to compare Christian requirements for Heaven vs. Theosophical requirements for Nirvana. It seems that only a change of heart, and a dedication to specific religious principles is the way into Christian Heaven. Unfortunately, these things will not get us even close to Theosophical Nirvana. (They WILL get us into Theosophical Heaven, but that is another discussion for another day.)

No, I don't think it's that stringent. I think it's more about turning to God and living an intentionally God-centered life...intention and faith (trust), rather than achievement. I personally do not think it is about dedication to specific religious principles...those principles and doctrines are only good to the extent that that help us understand God's nature, love God and each other. As soon as they divide us, they are useless, and worse than useless.

The road to Nirvana is very difficult — perhaps brutal is a better word. (See Krishnamurti's book, cited above, for details.)

Love is very difficult.

[flowperson]

Thomas...never heard that before. If so, it makes a lot of sense, no ? The earliest and first medicinal for depression ? Very Interesting.

Did Churchill know about this ? He thought cigars, a parrott, and scotch would help. All it might have taken to help him through the black days were a few figs.
flow....

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You said,

"...not sure it would be an orthodox way of stating it."

--> Do you feel a need to always be orthodox in your views?

As far as the idea of religious principles is concerned, I think we are merely fumbling over definitions. You said,

"I personally do not think it is about dedication to specific religious principles...those principles and doctrines are only good to the extent that that help us understand God's nature, love God and each other."

--> For me (a non-monotheist), God is a religious principle. Turning to God, and living an intentionally God-centered life are religious principles. For you, no, for me, yes. I suppose we need to consider the differences we have in defining God. My definition and your definition are different.

What you call God, we call Almighty God. When we say God, we mean the main Deity of the universe — actually the Deity is the universe. We call this Deity the Son. However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Absolute. (I am starting to get into a deep, metaphysical definition of the Trinity, so I must stop. I am getting off-topic.) This is why I said a dedication to specific religious principles (God, etc.) is the way into Christian Heaven. Therefore, in essence, we are talking about the same thing.

So, in conclusion, Theosophists feel that merely understanding and loving the Deity will not get us to Nirvana.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

You said,

"...not sure it would be an orthodox way of stating it."

--> Do you feel a need to always be orthodox in your views?

Lol, What's with the psychiatrist impersonation?


No, just trying to be clear about what are my personal views (the theology of lunamoth) and what I would consider traditional/orthodox doctrine. Pretty much all of my views are going to be considered heterodox by someone.

As far as the idea of religious principles is concerned, I think we are merely fumbling over definitions. You said,

"I personally do not think it is about dedication to specific religious principles...those principles and doctrines are only good to the extent that that help us understand God's nature, love God and each other."

--> For me (a non-monotheist), God is a religious principle. Turning to God, and living an intentionally God-centered life are religious principles. For you, no, for me, yes. I suppose we need to consider the differences we have in defining God. My definition and your definition are different.

Well, if we are going to compare, we do need to try to be as clear as language allows. I've had too much experience with people using the same language to mean totally different things...and likewise using different language to express pretty much the same principle.

What you call God, we call Almighty God. When we say God, we mean the main Deity of the universe — actually the Deity is the universe. We call this Deity the Son. However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Absolute. (I am starting to get into a deep, metaphysical definition of the Trinity, so I must stop. I am getting off-topic.) This is why I said a dedication to specific religious principles (God, etc.) is the way into Christian Heaven. Therefore, in essence, we are talking about the same thing.

So, in conclusion, Theosophists feel that merely understanding and loving the Deity will not get us to Nirvana.

OK, that helps, and I'm sorry to keep sounding like a broken record, but the Way to heaven/eternal life is Love. I now understand that you believe otherwise...but I bet in the end what it looks like in our lives is pretty much the same.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

You asked:
I have always understood the Christian position that we are all basically sinners unless we change our ways. Is this not true?

The Christian, in fact the Abrahamic, position is that sin is alien to our nature, which is fundamentally good. Thus the call to 'change our ways' is to become who we actually are, not something other than we are.

Sin is a self-inflicted wound, if you will, a disorder of the will, which reverberates through the whole being, and is evident in disordered passions and their apetites ... the reason for the appelation 'of the flesh' in Scripture is a metaphysical indicator that such a state is not of the essence of humanity, sin arises in the will, not the soul, which is the 'blueprint' of the person; the soul determines what we are, it is a logoi, but a logoi which is not free (in the sense that 'I' am a human being), whereas the will is free within the logoi of its being ... free in the sense that it can subvert itself by claiming to be itself in an absolute and thus self-determining sense ... this sense of 'absolute autonomy' is what freedom is, and it is a sense imbued in the soul because the soul bears the imprint of its Creator who is autonomy, absolutely.

It is the seductive but substantially superficial glamour of autonomy, the desire 'to be like gods', that brought the Primordial Couple down, and the 'karmic effect' of sin, if I can so say, is that fallen man develops a taste for, an addiction to, his fallen state.

By change of ways we mean change of heart, metanoia, and as any addict will tell you, man cannot overcome his additions unless and until he truly wants to.

And as soon as he does, to the degree that he does, he finds God ready to help him overcome himself supernaturally ... he is in touch with the logoi of himself, and through that logoi the Logos Of All Things ... this is why Divine Justice proceeds Divine Mercy; why the sickness has to be diagnosed before a cure can be effected ... were it the other way round, God would be allowing man to deceive himself.

(1) Bad karma, is, well, bad karma.
As above, I would say karma is the outcome of self-determined action, and bad karma in that sense is the outcome of sin...

From a metaphysical perspective, the adjective 'good' or 'bad' is dependent upon the ability to comprehend karma as a principle – which in the absence of any definition I assume to be cause and effect.

Equally, as I have offered elsewhere, in a Comparative sense I see karma and sin as signifying a prior concept of justice, by which I mean the mean by which (Good Lord, a chiasm! I'm deep into the Gospel of Matthew at the moment, whose structure is chiastic) we determine good and bad as such. In that sense, karma is an objectivisation of the principle, sin is a subjectivisation of the same.

(2) We sometimes hear the question, "Why is there so much evil in the world?" The author quoted below is saying that we must freely choose to be good...

What follows is essentially the same as Christian doctrine, and in fact, I think, any Religious Tradition ... the Hindu, the Abrahamic, the Buddhist, the Daoist, the Shamanic ... all address the question.

The fundamental address of which in the Abrahamic Traditions, addresses how man is free, and why. What it means to be 'free' metaphsyically ... In Genesis, man is defined as free, founded on the ontological notion of 'Free' as a transcendental – like Good, Truth, Reality – in that in an Absolute sense, only God is Free, Truth, Goodness, Reality, Beauty, Bliss, with no limitation or reservation, no prior determination ... God is by nature what God is, under no prior derermination or condition ... God is, God is not caused to be ... the Apeiron of Greek theosophy, the [i]Arche Anarchos[i/] of Patristic Theology.

Man, on the other hand, has a nature which is open to the Supernatural, and can know himself in the Supernatural (transcendance) and the Supernatural in himself (Immanence) ... the journey, man's vocation, is the from lower to higher is seen as a stripping away (ascesis) of the substantial form to realise the essence of that form ... and Scripture is a description of that journey from 'self' to 'Other' in which the self subsists, but in so doing, to be at all possible, understands that his substantial being (selfhood) is not only 'ordered by' but ontologically 'founded in' God, by the very fact that God ahas determined human nature as being essentially 'very good' and by extension, the superlative of every other transcendental.

Man, alone in all creation, symbolises (both transcendentally and immanently) all that is Good, True, Real, Beautiful, Blissful, and so forth, in a necessarily subsistent and thus contingent mode of being ... were this not so, man would be God.

Man can be in God (the doctrine of theosis or filiation), but man is not God, and in Christian doctrine to such degree that any distinction between God and man disappears – cf the Matthean parables of 'the Kingdom', the Markan 'Messianic Secret', the Lucan 'Lordship', the Johannine 'Vine' and the Pauline 'Mystical Body' ... which all make up the Church ... these themes are explored most directly in the body of Patristic Literature and are taken as doctrinal and dogmatic when the Fathers are in accord with Apostolic Tradition, in the Doctors (luminously metaphysical in Aquinas and Bonaventure) and ever in the words of the mystics, from Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite onward, and famously, of course, in Eckhart.

The response is that make man to be good only implies he is not free, and as such not human but, as Bailey says "an automaton. The rest of the quote only re-presents common doctrines in all the world's religions.

But I still don't see how, in light of the above, one can say "Sin is not a Theosophical concept"? How can one determine 'good' and 'bad' and not 'sin'? Good and bad are objective determinations, 'sin' is a qualitative determination of an act, the outcome of which can be said to be good or bad.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Nick and Luna –

A good debate going on here. But I must pick up on this, and would suggest it an interesting topic for its own debate ... one that is discussed here often.

I'm conflating your posts here, Nick, but hopefully not altering the sense in so doing.

The Absolute is limitless, unknowable, and undefineable. The limitless part is key.
I think this is common to all Traditions.

The Absolute allows part of itself to be limited (to be "trapped inside of matter") for the purpose of gaining experience.
Here Abrahamic Traditions would disagree, and I think Hindus and Buddhists would also. If the Absolute is indeed absolute, then it can suffer no constraint. It is not deficient in any way; nothing can be added to it, nothing can be taken away; it cannot grow, nor can it decrease; it cannot be multiplied, nor can it be divided, so there is nothing the absolute can gain, there is no experience other than itself.

The question then is why? And as Absolute there can be no element of coercion, nor necessity, so it can only be as Gift, the essence of which is Love.

The "limited section" of the Absolute (called the Son, or the universe) takes on layers of materiality. When the final veil of materiality is taken on, the physical world appears. The Son has now traveled from the super-spiritual down to the mundane.
This is key to the difference, in your philosophy you define the Son cosmologically, in hierarchical degrees and modes of manifestation, the Son is 'caused' by the Absolute.

Monism and Emanationism is rejected by the Abrahamics in defence of the the metaphysical principle of the Absolute as such. Likewise we 'define' the Son metaphysically, as ontologically (begotten) in the Absolute, prior to any cosmological determination, which is subsequent to the Principle as such. The Patristic teaching of God as Arche Anarchos ('Principle without Principle') and the Son as Logos or Arche ('Principle') talk of this. The Logos was in the Absolute before the World existed, and the world was brought into existence by the Logos – as Our Lord said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

This Fall into matter is seen as a sin in Christianity.
There was debate amongst the Fathers, notably Origen, as to whether the soul existed before the flesh, but the error inherent in this (Platonic) philosophy was made explicit and corrected in St Maximus (6th century), and expanded by his student, Eriugena (in the 9th). Nicholas Cusanus is another notable, especially for his contribution to the foundations of modern scientific theory.

The fall in Christianity is seen as a moral fault that necessarily preceeds any material outcome, Christianity treats of the causes, before it deal with the effects.

However, Theosophy views it as a positive event, a normal progress of the evolving of the universe.
The Abrahamic Traditions view the Kosmos as a Divine Good – a Theophany – marred by this human moral fault.

Humanity has completed the first half — the phase from spiritual down into matter — of a complete cycle. We are now in the upward phase of the cycle, on our return back to the spiritual.

Christianity does not limit spiritual realisation in man to temporal or cosmological condition. The world, yes, but man, no. God is open to and calls to all men and all times ... 'The first shall be last, and the last shall be first' means they shall all be one ... the possibility then, to be first or last, exists in succession (time and space) and in simultaneity (the soul).

+++

At this point, it may be good to compare Christian requirements for Heaven vs. Theosophical requirements for Nirvana.

I think, from the above, that the Theosophical mis-understanding of Christian doctrine, and of the Trinity in particular, is at the root of a whole raft of erroneous assumptions.

However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Absolute. (I am starting to get into a deep, metaphysical definition of the Trinity...
That is a cosmological triune, but not the Christian Trinity, nor anywhere near it.

If I can find time, I'll post some excerpts from St Maximus, from his Hundred Sentences on Theology. In the meantime, here's an extract from an online glossary of metaphysical terms utilised by Frithjof Schuon:

Absolute / Infinite:
In metaphysics, it is necessary to start from the idea that the Supreme Reality is absolute, and that being absolute it is infinite. That is absolute which allows of no augmentation or diminution, or of no repetition or division; it is therefore that which is at once solely itself and totally itself. And that is infinite which is not determined by any limiting factor and therefore does not end at any boundary; it is in the first place Potentiality or Possibility as such, and ipso facto the Possibility of things, hence Virtuality. Without All-Possibility, there would be neither Creator nor creation, neither Maya nor Samsara.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Thank you for your posts. I feel all of us benefit from this discussion, because all of us are somewhere on the sin-karma spectrum.

But first I must ask (I may have already asked, I don't remember): Do you believe in the forgiveness of sins?

[Thomas]

Yes. Don't you?

Thomas