The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew –

I couldn't have said it better, Thomas. We aggree, utterly!
The Lord moves in mysterious ways ...

Do you mean to suggest that Theosophy is an "inferior science?" In a nutshell, is that what all the pretty blue text is meant to suggest? Speak plainly, now. And if so, inferior in comparison to what?

Out with it!
No, in this instance I was simply replying to Nick's objection. He seems to refute esoterism. Theosophy seems to endorse it.

My follow up was that if someone refuses to accept a viewpoint other than their own – which to me indicates a closed mind – then there is no point in discussion.

+++

You are a Catholic, Thomas, with some esoteric leanings and interests. Unless you decide Liberal Catholicism is the thing for you, why should you take stock in the 'revelations' of your God, via some branch of a Brotherhood about which you know next to nothing, in which you express not one whit of real interest, and toward whose greatest western Emissary you gladly display disdain, or even contempt

Actually I know a fair bit about the Theosophical Society, The Secret Doctrine sits on a bookshelf. I expressed a great interest at a certain time in my life, but found their philosophic method wanting, and their interpretations of texts ideosyncratic and their enforced syncretism metaphysically contradictory.

And, as I have intimated in private communications, I know more about the 'Brotherhood' than perhaps even they would like.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...and you seem predisposed to refute the idea of esoterism?"

--> Not at all. You would be surprised at how much esoteric knowledge Theosophy has released to the world.

"...you are bordering on arrogance...."

--> When I ask you who the "us" people are, I am being arrogant? You may call such seeking of truth as arrogance, if you wish.

Theosophy sees a search for truth as a good thing, not arrogance, as you see it. The Theosophical search for truth is very different from your rule that such seeking is arrogance. I will keep seeking the truth.

You wish to stop us from asking such questions, under the guise it is arrogance. Fortunately, you cannot stop our search for such truth.

This is the very difference between Theosophy and your belief system. Theosophy encourages such questions. Your belief system forbids them, and calls them arrogance.

"...what you say implies that unless a text reveals itself to you at the most superficial level, with no requirement on your part to seek understanding or clarification, then you refuse to accept any other meaning?"

--> Not at all. You assume too much. By the way, which "other" meaning of the word "us" am I rejecting? Which "us" am I rejecting? (I do not remember you answering the question, and giving me an alternate answer.) You have to give me an answer before I can reject it.

"The answer is esoteric...."

--> Great. Please share that esoteric answer with us. (The question is not forbidden. The answer, too, is not forbidden, although you are saying it is.)

Since my belief system does not forbid the question (even though yours does), I ask it again:

Who are those "us" people?

[Thomas]

For those who care to look beyond the literal, some thoughts on the elohiym of Scripture.

The word elohiym (430) is the plural form of the word elowah (433), which is a masculine singular term, a prolonged and thus emphatic form of the word el (410), which means God.
(Figs in parentheses refer to Strong's Concordance)

As is commonly understood, and widely accepted, the early Hebrew scribes followed their Aramaen heritage in preserving a certain deference towards the Deity. In so doing the singular form 'el' or 'elowah' was only used in poetic address. The plural form, referring to the majesty of a single divine being, occurs more than two thousand times.

The word elohiym however, in Hebrew usage, is applied not only to God, and to 'the God' when used with the article, but also the goddess, gods, false gods, angels, idols, and man, so one is obliged to read the term in context, rather than at face value, if one is going to make any sense of the text.

With regard to Scriptural interpretation, elohiym is understood toi refer to the Divine Assembly, this should be understood within the greater context of the Data of Revelation as a whole.

The Hebrews were, from the outset, fiercely monotheistic. There is one God, and therefore the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host, and as such is a gift and a grace, because Creation itself is a Free Act, and God is under no compunction or necessity to create (creatio ex nihilo).

Please remember that the Abrahamic Tradition is a Tradition of the Word: In the beginning God 'said', and in the Prologue of the Gospel of John the idea is even more emphatic.

In many places in Scripture, angels are agents of the Divine Will, or the Divine Word, but they never will on their own account. Angels are essentially messengers, but it is the One God who acts in history.

According to the traditions of Islam, when Go created man he invited all creation to bow before his finest creation. Lucifer, 'the brightest of them all' refused (pride) and thus fell, to become 'the Adversary' of God's will. Many posit God as opposed to Satan, but this is an error. Satan is opposed by St Michael, like Lucifer, an arch-angel.

In the mind of the Patristics, angels are beings of pure intellect, pure light, created but immaterial, but this only highlights the ontology of the Hebraic idea, an angel is elohiym when and if it acts according to the Divine Will.

Thus another reading of elohiym refers to the Primordial Unity at the start of creation that infused all creation, as it were. God walked in the garden of Paradise with Adam, and as expressed above, when an angel or a man fulfilled God's will, they did a Divine thing (although Divine ontologically, neither men nor angels are of themselves divine), they were in union with the Creator.

Once man fell, the unity in the elohiym was lost.

+++

A total overview of Hebrew theology shows a nuanced and delicate balance with regard to a God who is at once and simultaneously both utterly transcendant, and actively immanent. A useful approach is in the Patristic idea of essence (Gk ousia) and energy (Gk energia), and the easiest way to cross the gap between the Patristic and Deuteronomic scribe, is in the idea of apophatic and kataphatic theology.

The word 'apophatic' denotes in Greek a technique (tekné) of thought, a technique that is simultaneously one of denial and of openness to the mystery of the Principle of reality.

(It is worth noting here that 'be-re-shiyt', the opening words of the Bible, translated as 'In the beginning', can more accurately be translated as 'in the principle' – which demonstrates a certain metaphysic plasticity not immediately apparent to the lay reader.)

The principle of apophasis is not unique to Greek theosophy, but common in all traditions to some degree, and in the Hebrew as in any other. In the Far East the Hindus say 'neti-neti' – "not this, not that". In Near Eastern language, the distinction was observed by not talking of the Absolute directly, but by indirect address – by elohiym.

It was Gregory of Nyssa who introduced a theology of apophasis in the idea that God could not be known in essence (ousia) but only by His activity or energies (energia). There is a further distinction between energy (energia) and power (dunamis), but that need not bother us here.

Applying this principle, we can read Genesis Chapter One as the activity of the Transcendant God, which is why the scribe uses elohiym throughout, in reference to the Creative Act, which is of God, but does not define God. The Creation account in Chapter One is precisely that, the account of the Creation.

Genesis Chapter Two then highlights the activity of the Immanent God and, in relation to humanity, the appearance of the Personal Name of God, The LORD God (YHWH elohiym, Genesis 2:4) – this name 'defines' the relationship between creature and creator philosophically, theologically, ontologically and metaphysically, the Divine Name being derived from the Hebrew verb 'To be' – as well as physically (literally) morally and ethically, and eschatalogically.

In short:
Genesis One is the story of Creation.
Genesis Two is the story of the Fall.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host..."

--> This assumes the angelic host were co-participants in the Creation process. Either the angelic host were active participants in the process, or they were observers who were addressed by God during the events of Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, the grammar of Genesis 1:27 indicates the angelic host were active participants.

However, Genesis 2:7 states God created humanity by Himself.

Either God created man by Himself (Genesis 2:7) or he had active participants (Genesis 1:27). It has to be one or the other.

Which of the three is correct? (1) God created man by Himself, (2) God created man while the angelic host watched, or (3) the angelic host were actively involved in the process.

Yes, the angelic host can be "read" as the "us" people. Are you saying, in fact, they were said beings?

~~~

This, then, becomes the new critical question: Did God create man by Himself, or were there others actively involved in the process? (As I believe you have identified the "us" people as the angelic host, I consider that question secondary to this newly-stated critical question.)

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

...God is under no compunction or necessity to create (creatio ex nihilo).

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

From Wikipedia on `Ex nihilo':

Early Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

Process theologians argue that God has always been related to some “world” or another.

Perhaps you believe in an ex nihilo creation, Thomas, but Theosophists - and Easterners - do not ... and the above article demonstrates that a good many Christians and respectable theologians, including many enlightened Church Fathers among them, also do not.

Also, keep in mind - as you are no doubt aware, Thomas, from your own studies of Theosophy and The Secret Doctrine on your bookshelf - that HPB posits Three Fundamental Propositions in the SD, upon which all else in the Theosophical presentation squarely rests. The Third such Proposition states at the outset:

The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul -- a spark of the former -- through the Cycle of Incarnation (or "Necessity") in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. (emphasis added)

I would go on to include the following statement, for clarity's sake:

The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego [Reincarnating, Individual Soul, not ego in the Buddhist or psychological sense] through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations. (again, emphasis added)

In our discussion, our approach may be quite different if our assumptions, and fundamental beliefs, differ so widely as those of reincarnationists and non-reincarnationists, or advocates of an ex nihilo creation vs. believers in Mulaprakriti, or Akash.

~andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

-- Edit --

I wrote

"...or he had active participants...."

I meant

"...or he had active co-participants...."

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,

You said,

"...the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host..."

--> This assumes the angelic host were co-participants in the Creation process. Either the angelic host were active participants in the process, or they were observers who were addressed by God during the events of Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, the grammar of Genesis 1:27 indicates the angelic host were active participants.

Yes. As the Logos says: "Not my will, but thy will, be done." (Luke 22:42)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

However, Genesis 2:7 states God created humanity by Himself.

Yes. As the Logos says: "Not my will, but thy will, be done." (Luke 22:42)

The Book of Wisdom tells us:
"And thy wisdom with thee, which knoweth thy works, which then also was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was agreeable to thy eyes, and what was right in thy commandments."

God forbid the angels should want to claim it for themselves, for they, like us, "live and move, and have their being" (Acts 17:28) in Him, but unlike us, they know it, that is the luminesence of their being.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Either God created man by Himself (Genesis 2:7) or he had active participants (Genesis 1:27). It has to be one or the other.

Which of the three is correct? (1) God created man by Himself, (2) God created man while the angelic host watched, or (3) the angelic host were actively involved in the process.

Heaven is like Little Russia – Everybody works.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Yes, the angelic host can be "read" as the "us" people. Are you saying, in fact, they were said beings?

I'm saying many things. "Us" could imply the nobility of the Divine Address, for example, or the Trinity (and both would be theologically and metaphysically consistent), or, if angels are messengers of God, then let us not underestimate His Word they carry – "The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." (Matthew 8:8)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

This, then, becomes the new critical question: Did God create man by Himself, or were there others actively involved in the process? (As I believe you have identified the "us" people as the angelic host, I consider that question secondary to this newly-stated critical question.)

Philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, theology, theosophy ... they all do the same thing, they pursue the One Cause of All, in all.

However many were involved is a quantitive evaluation, and second to the qualitative ... who initiated the work. There is but one Will – or rather The One Who Wills ... and it is He who sustains all works, of whatever order, in whatever domain.

Even we, now, can serve to fulfill His plan, and by his Grace, can rightly say, "I played a part."

That is the meaning of vocation.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

No-one's infallible.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Perhaps you believe in an ex nihilo creation, Thomas, but Theosophists - and Easterners - do not ... and the above article demonstrates that a good many Christians and respectable theologians, including many enlightened Church Fathers among them, also do not.

References, please. (And you've misread Eriugena)

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Also, keep in mind - as you are no doubt aware, Thomas, from your own studies of Theosophy and The Secret Doctrine on your bookshelf - that HPB posits Three Fundamental Propositions in the SD, upon which all else in the Theosophical presentation squarely rests...

I know. But I think HPB's Esoteric Philosophy is flawed.
As do the Anthroposophists (and Western Hermeticism generally), the Traditionalists, and sages of all the Great Traditions ...

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No-one's infallible.

An Initiate, acting under certain circumstances and inspiration, is a lot closer than either you or me.

Originally Posted by Thomas

References, please. (And you've misread Eriugena)

Thomas, when I not only tell you that I got my quote from Wikipedia, but tell you what I looked up (`Ex nihilo'), and give you a link to that page ... the least you can do is follow it.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I know. But I think HPB's Esoteric Philosophy is flawed.
As do the Anthroposophists (and Western Hermeticism generally), the Traditionalists, and sages of all the Great Traditions ...

Thomas

Yep. I know you think that. I think that it is not. And I'm not an Anthroposophist, a Traditionalist, or a sage. Besides, if all the great sages agreed, we'd never have these discussions to begin with.

I think that the Bible is flawed. That our interpretations of this work are flawed. And that, as Master Hilarion suggests, ONLY by a study of varoius other works will we ever have any chance of understanding the true, or deeper meaning, of what the authors of (Judeo-Christian) Scripture intended.

As I have said, the Theosophical Teachings are not meant for everyone. They are open to everyone, they are largely tailored to a Western audience, even if a famliarity with Eastern doctrines is required or helpful. Yet they were not meant to become a new, or a replacement, `Bible.' And so long as they are either treated - or feared - as such, neither will these teachings themselves be understood for what they are, nor their practical application to the Gospel and New Testament Wisdom become possible (as a revealing key for the symbolism contained therein).

No, as long as we say, "There are no secrets, God has spoken plainly, the entire message has been put directly in front of us, for any idiot with a parrot's IQ to swallow whole and repeat back undigested" ... so long as we declare this, this is exactly what people will do.

If there is no secret (doctrine), then why rally on so much about denying one? And why is it that all we end up doing is going around in circles, while these lesser orbits themselves describe - and prove ipso facto the very existence of a Greater?

It is as the moon, orbiting the Earth, or perhaps the latter, on her great pilgrimage around the Sun. And we've already done this dance once about which orbits which. Let us not continue, or repeat these mistakes ... until even the monkeys have evolved the intelligence to repudiate them.

~andrew

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

An Initiate, acting under certain circumstances and inspiration, is a lot closer than either you or me.

But still, that does not make him or her, nor you nor me, infallible. And philosophically, Philo has been found wanting.
(In light of my above reply, please note that I'm not saying Theosophy is wrong per se, I'm saying it's wrong in respect to the conclusions it draws about Traditions not its own in general, and Christianity in particular.)

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, when I not only tell you that I got my quote from Wikipedia, but tell you what I looked up (`Ex nihilo'), and give you a link to that page ... the least you can do is follow it.

Now now, Andrew, no need for that ...

Besides, in the wiki link on Origen it says "The ultimate aim of God in the creation of matter out of nothing was not punishment, but the upraising of the fallen spirits." So you seem to be arguing against yourself?

So what I am saying is that just by quoting names is insufficient. You need to quote precisely what you're referencing, otherwise I'll assume you haven't read it yourself ... As it is, I cheked Eriugena and found nothing to support your argument, I checked Origen and found likewise, at which point I saw no reason to continue.

Hoist on your own petard, old bean, as the saying goes.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I think that the Bible is flawed.

That is simply a promethian assumption. Do you know the inner workings of the Mind of God? I don't think so, so how can you say? Because you think it's flawed, it must be? To make such a determination would require you know the measure of all things.

Again – I look at you, who says it's flawed, I look at the lives of the saints, who say that it is not, who say, in wonder, quite the opposite – and might I repeat your own words, they are a lot closer than either you or I.

And by their lives we can see it is entirely adequate and without flaw, for the greatest among them will admit, without hesitation, that even their lives fall short of the Message.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

That our interpretations of this work are flawed.

Ahh! That's a different kettle of fish altogether. That I can agree. But then it is a matter of degree, and the Doctors of the Church stand as Masters of the Interpretation of Scripture ...

Remember that 'blue writing' of a previous post ... Aquinas? Such a one was he. One might not agree with it, but only the unwise dismiss it out of hand.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

And that, as Master Hilarion suggests, ONLY by a study of varoius other works will we ever have any chance of understanding the true, or deeper meaning, of what the authors of (Judeo-Christian) Scripture

You know my view on so-called 'ascended masters'.

And, might I add, patently not the case as the sacra doctrina of the Great Traditions is sufficient to produce such luminarties as you yourself quote often ...

I look to the saints and the sages, and I have yet to find one who says the same as your 'masters'. Each have found their own sacra doctrina an infinite source of wisdom and guidance, greater than the capacity of the human spirit to contain it ... Read them for God's sake please, Andrew, and listen to what they say, not what your masters say about what they say ... go to the source!

Originally Posted by AndrewX

As I have said, the Theosophical Teachings are not meant for everyone. They are open to everyone, they are largely tailored to a Western audience, even if a famliarity with Eastern doctrines is required or helpful.

Note also that HPB's unfamiliarity with Eastern doctrines is evident, which makes the whole enterprise suspect, to say the least:
Mistaken Foreign Beliefs about Shambhala

And the Dalai Lama has spoken out against the whole edifice, especially 'ascended masters' and the 'IAM' cult in America. I'll finfd you the reference if you want it.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yet they were not meant to become a new, or a replacement, `Bible.'

No, but those such as you use them as the only valid means of interportation, and continually inform me that the orthodox interpretation is erroneous, false, or even malign. Shame on you for trying to pass off your text as inocuous. You know 'The Sacred Doctrine' presents itself as the means of Biblical interpretation, and that it presents Satan as the 'hero' ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

And so long as they are either treated - or feared - as such, neither will these teachings themselves be understood for what they are, nor their practical application to the Gospel and New Testament Wisdom become possible (as a revealing key for the symbolism contained therein).

Fear? Andrew, don't make me laugh. I know this is a classic tool, to always claim the other is acting out of fear, but I do not fear your teachings, I speak against them in defence of Scripture:
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
2 Timothy 3:16

Originally Posted by AndrewX

No, as long as we say, "There are no secrets, God has spoken plainly, the entire message has been put directly in front of us, for any idiot with a parrot's IQ to swallow whole and repeat back undigested" ... so long as we declare this, this is exactly what people will do.

You might want to say that to Nick – your point was what I was trying to say, somewhat more discreetly – certainly this is not the Christian way.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

If there is no secret (doctrine), then why rally on so much about denying one?

I don't dent the esoteric, I defend it from error.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Well, Thomas, here again - you prove that, whether through your own zeal, or just by a general inattentiveness to anyone who demonstrates an interest in the Mahatmas ... you have missed several key points in what I've been saying for literally years!

I am, gladly, the first to express a mutual renunciation, or in the very least, a suspicion, of anything coming from the "I AM" movement, or any source that makes reference to "Ascended Masters," rather than Adepts, Masters, Mahatmas, Great Ones, and so forth. I haven't the slightest interest in "Ascended Masters," since - as the Tibetan puts in, in one of Alice Bailey's books - they are a travesty of the reality. The I AM movement, at least by THIS Tibetan Lama, is clearly seen for what it is.

So, let's get our FACTS straight, and our sources sorted out, before we go tossing out the baby with the bathwater, Thomas. Just as I would be a fool, and show utter ignorance if I sought to dismiss with a wave of the hand all that Catholicism has contributed over the centuries, I think you at least owe it to the genuine article - the Mahatmas - to give the Stanzas, and the commentary by a half dozen or more Masters (writing via HPB), a second look. You may just find that the old lady knew a good bit more about the Eastern teachings than you have realized ... and that - while far from infallible - she was, nothing more, nohthing less, than the Messenger we celebrate her as.

Namaskar

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I don't dent [deny] the esoteric, I defend it from error.

I think this thread may be coming to an end, Thomas, as a number of people have weighed in, and shared something about `The Secret' ... while we have also pursued some discussion of Genesis 1:27, and the subject of the Creation of Humanity.

I would be happy to continue discussion of either, yet when I see such a statement as you have made (above), I feel myself growing a little weary. What is one to say, when we see that you have made it your self-appointed task to speak out against anyone, anywhere, who makes mention of HPB's Teachers, or who approaches esotericism from any different background than your own ... respecting other contributions than those of the Roman Catholic Fathers, or the approved, sanctioned, revered and esteemed list of contributors - which YOU YOURSELF are willing to provide?

In short, I would like to clarify, as politely as I know how to do - that while I do value your contributions, and find your posts interesting ... and your point of view quite informed, what I do not appreciate is being told that I err if and when I take interest in the writings of HPB, that her (presentation of) esotericism is flawed (unless you can thoroughly and successfully defend this accusation, which you have yet to do - either for Nick, or for myself), and especially that you yourself somehow hold and safeguard "the correct" (or a more correct) interpretation of the Sophis Perennia than ANYONE else, frankly speaking.



You heap too much upon yourself, Thomas, in so proclaiming all of this, whether you do so directly, or simply through insinuation and by making such statements as:

the Doctors of the Church stand as Masters of the Interpretation of Scripture ...

Read them [the saints and the sages which you yourself provide in the Thomas-as-authority-sanctioned Holy Reading List] for God's sake please, Andrew, and listen to what they say, not what your masters say about what they say ...

HPB's unfamiliarity with Eastern doctrines is evident [undefended - you accuse, then you withdraw ... let us know WHY this is so, if you so accuse her, Thomas]

Shame on you for trying to pass off your text as inocuous. [Shame on you, Thomas, for not seeing that it is! Or rather, for seeing that the only harm it can do, is to those institutions which have come to rely a good bit too heavily on commentaries - and in your own words, fail to go to the source. I believe Shakespeare said it best: "More matter, less art." ]

Originally Posted by Thomas

You know 'The Sacred Doctrine' presents itself as the means of Biblical interpretation, and that it presents Satan as the 'hero'

Again, here, Thomas, you simply reveal to me that The Secret Doctrine, whenever you purchased it and for whatever reason, has apparently sat on your bookshelf unopened - or else been perused but cursorily - and you make it evident that you have relied almost entirely upon the commentary and interpretations of OTHERS ... and specifically, ONLY those writers who fall sympathetically & unquestioningly lockstep into the march of the greater Roman Catholic tradition, with regard to this matter.
You are far too intelligent a man, to have actually read what HPB writes, to have studied her teachings (or those of the Mahatamas, at any rate) thoroughly, sought for the proper key to their right understanding, and still come off so determined to spout invective, decry her every utterance as uninformed, and repudiate the doctrine she presented in so hard-nosed a fashion.

Satan, the `hero?' Dear God, man, WHAT have you been doing all this time - rather than actually looking at what she said??? I can see that we will never have a proper dialogue, since you are unwilling to read ANYTHING except what the "Church authorities" have provided you, or what such greats as St. Thomas Aquinas has had to say on matters, or perhaps what Mr. Berzin thinks - again in criticism.

I will put it to you this way: If you would dispute even a single word of what HPB taught, then let us choose WHAT SHE TAUGHT ... in her own words ... and take up something, point by point, for a proper discussion. At least that way you demonstrate that you do not "fear" the Teachings offhand, for as I have said, Truth and Love will complement each other, they will aid and glorify each other, even reveal each other ... and Love will never squelch the Truth or mislead us in that regard, while Truth will only empower, or amplify Love.

That what HPB presented is God's Own Wisdom, you must decide for yourself, but to continue to dismiss it out of hand, without looking at what has actually been said, is no different than my dismissing the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, or any other presumed authority - simply because he may have been a Roman Catholic. Nor did I reject St. Thomas' words ... that is what YOU said, your words, in my mouth. I simply ASKED you, WHY you quoted him at such length - what was YOUR POINT. Let us be honest, Thomas, and stick to the facts.

Yours, you see, may be a towering intellect, as was HPB's, and just as has been that of many a commentator on various Scriptures - as Thomas Aquinas on the Holy Bible, or Mr. Berzin on the books of Kiu-te. I will not pit my intellect against yours, my Catholic Friend, for it is useless to beat this dead horse ... if what we expect it to do is get up and gallop.


In my own way, I have met HPB, and (some of) her Masters - thus I do not need you, or anyone, to try and straighten out for me my confusion, correct the error of my ways (in this regard), or try to set me about the study of some "proper literature," or "actual" inspired writing(s). You see, it is quite like preaching to the choir, except - to borrow a line from a Clint Eastwood movie:

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining ...

I know your mind, and your heart, well enough, Thomas - let us leave God's out of it for a moment - to feel 100% content that your own, greater intent, and motivation - are noble. You can either accept that mine are likewise, or you can accuse me, doubt me, get an honest chuckle (nothing wrong with that ), and so forth.

But what you cannot do, since it has long since been a part of my being, is stand/sit there and tell me, "HPB's were not inspired writings, her Mahatmas were not the genuine article, and thus her doctrine are - at best clever, in the least, misguided." You can SAY this, if you like. But it's like saying, the grass isn't green, the sky isn't blue, and rocks don't fall back down when you toss them up in the air.

We can play the games of the philosophers all day long if you prefer, and speak of perspective, and interpretation, and human shortcoming and errors. Were there two typos on this page or were there three? Did she really mean that Pratyeka Buddhas are "selfish," or was there perhaps more to this than even the Theosophists can usually figure out. That sort of thing. I'll play those games if you like. Is the sky really blue, or do we just see it that way.

I can't tell you quite where (or `who') Thomas Aquinas is these days. I honestly don't know. With God, in the "Communion of Saints" ... yes, okay, I'll go with that. It reflects what I believe just about as well as it does what you believe. But I should verily love to see you sit, and try and explain to a Mahatma - any given `Mahatma' - why His presence before you, mayavic as it may be ... is first of all impossible, and second of all NOT an ample demonstration that the Old Lady wasn't EXACTLY what she said she was.

In a nutshell, I don't give a rat's hindquarters ... that you really don't "get it," or "see."There are many things I don't get, and see, and it probably makes me just as obstinate, or as short-sighted, as all of this makes you. But again, what's to be gained if it all comes down to a battle of ego, or wits?


I'd rather just smile, and be on my merry way ...

Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin' to,
I don't want to ...
(`A Song for Jeffrey,' Jethro Tull)

On a strictly personal note, I will add that I first encountered the writings of Theosophists some 18 or more years ago, and soon discovered that there were (and are) such men as `the Masters,' or `Mahatmas.' By the time I was 18 or 19 I was familiar with many of them, historically, and they were far too intriguing and too inspiring to remain names on a printed page, or names whispered by those who revere Them.

I found my way to sketches, drawn firsthand, and more accounts of them than any one person should need to accept them as a possibility. But I did want to take the possibility, even the likelihood that such men exist - beyond theory. This I was given the opportunity to do, and I have done so. I hestitate to say, "to my own satisfaction," for in many ways I yearn for exactly what every Theosophist, or esoteric student yearns for, when it comes to the relationship between student and Master. But I learned, long, long ago (and have even re-learned it) - that the only doubt, which is possible, after a point - is in the mortal, human mind.

You may curse Satan, my Catholic friend, since you have been taught to. You may speak of Prometheus, and his Gift to us, the Fires of Mind, with less than Reverence and Esteem ... but I have been taught otherwise. I have been taught, and come to see, that evil is not something to be objectified, and spurned as the "gone-wrong" of God's otherwise-perfect Creation ... nor the gross matter of this, or any other plane, as per a superficial reading of Gnosticism.

No, I have learned that the only true evil which exists, both within us and without, is ignorance, narrowness of vision, short-sightedness both in virtue and accomplishment, and the apathy or slothfullness which we allow too great a hold on our borrowed equipment ...


... and I have also learned something of the way to overcome this. For that, I have both Theosophy, and Christianity to thank, but more so, much more so, than any set of Teachings on the printed page (or computer screen), I learned long ago that I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to -

my Teachers,
my Family,
my Friends.

And without them, I would be nothing.

SPEAK with a Master, sometime. SPEAK with a Mahatma. Or even with one of their Disciples. With one who Knows Them, either firsthand, through meditations, through dream visits, or through the revelation that can come by a number of other means of famliarity. I invite you to do this, for with an open mind, and an open heart, you can see for yourself - whereof I speak.

`BAH,' you can say, and que sera, sera. I know this, I know this.

I am far from this thread's topic, in one way, but I have tried to contribute something from my own past, and experience, which is the testimony that the Secret exists! And it has its Exponents, not merely in the world of men, but in the realms of pure Light, and pure Love, and also where Pure PURPOSE reigns supreme.

From Purpose, through Light and Love, and via the hearts and minds, actions, words and speech of people everyday, The Secret is brought to life, and every morning the Sun never fails to rise on the world and reveal the Mysteries.

I pity, even weep for, any person, who has come to rely too heavily on words, and on clever concepts for the witnessing of God's Secret. If we cannot see it in the birds, in their beautiful colors - and hear it in their song, or perhaps experience it the paintings and other work of artists both famous and unknown, then I'm not sure we can see it at all.

As my friend has asked me to do, I am seeking it now, The Secret, in contemplation of Divine Order, and for this, I will not be reading ... but meditating, and going within - and asking, that the Divine Order be manifest in my life, in my heart, in my mind, and in my actions. I shudder, to think that people would dismiss this offhand, speaking of it somehow with disdain, or with anything less than the greatest of Respect and awe ... as it is God's own Purpose, and an Aspect of His Creation made manifest.

And there are other contemplations, and they are calling.


Some things, we do not need to see, to know and to understand, if only in part. And it simply remains for us to have confidence in what we have heard, even if this means, in the last analysis,

To Know, to Dare, to Will ... to be Silent.

Namaskar, and Pax Vobiscum,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

Thomas, I will only give one example, that you need to at least read that form which you are quoting - or using to illustrate your point - something you accuse me of not doing ...


From your own linked article, by Alexander Berzin:

Steiner emphasized the conflict between good and evil, as personified by Lucifer and Ahriman. Blavatsky had already differentiated Lucifer from Satan. According to The Secret Doctrine, Lucifer is the “Light-Bearer,” the “Astral Light” within each of our minds that is both our tempter and liberator from pure animalism. It serves to both create and destroy, and manifests in sexual passion. Although Lucifer can uplift humanity to a higher plane, the Latin scholastics had transformed him into the purely evil Satan.

Blavatsky also wrote about the Zoroastrian dualism and struggle between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, as the forces of light and darkness. Steiner, however, went a step further than Blavatsky and transformed the dualism into an antagonism between Lucifer and Ahriman. In Occult Science, An Outline, Steiner characterized Lucifer as a being of light, the bridge between Man and God, bringing us closer to Christ. The “Children of Lucifer,” then, are all those who strive for knowledge and wisdom. Ahriman, in contrast, leads mankind downward to its lower, material, carnal, animalistic nature.

Steiner called himself a Luciferian and, by his logic, Maitreya is the Antichrist. Since people have perverted Christ’s actual teachings, Maitreya, as the Antichrist, will come from Shambhala and purge the world of their blemish and teach the true message of Christ. In 1913, Steiner’s followers founded the Anthroposophical Society, although Steiner himself did not join until he reestablished it in 1923.

Let us pay careful attention to the first paragraph. Now go on to tell me that H.P. Blavatsky praises Satan as `hero!' You know what they say, wax in the ear ... or in this case, the nose in front of one's face ...

No, I do not quite agree with where Steiner goes with this in his Anthroposophy, yet inasmuch as the 1st Ray is that of the Destroyer, identical with the Father Aspect of Christianity and with St. Michael (or St. George), who slew the dragon, Apophis (Apap/Apep), then yes, even Steiner's point can be understood ... still distinguishing as he does between Lucifer and Ahriman.

And what has the Catholic Church done, to clear up the confusion? How have the authorities, and all the great Fathers contributed? How have they regarded the Bearer of LIGHT ... keeping in MIND that Moses himself speaks of God as the LIGHT that is within the mind of EVERY MAN (`man,' this word itself coming from the Sanskrit MANAS, or "MIND")?

I rest my case, insofar as we are arguing such absurdities as the notion that HPB praised "Satan" as `hero.' Goooooood Grief!



EDIT: Again, a later section (as I read on) from the same article:

Recall that although Blavatsky had written about Lucifer and Ahriman, she did not make the two a pair and did not associate either of the two with Shambhala or Agharti. Moreover, Blavatsky explained that although Latin scholastics had transformed Lucifer into a purely evil Satan, Lucifer had the power both to destroy and to create. He represented the light-bearing presence in everyone’s minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence.

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew –

Thank you for picking out one point from a somewhat lengthy discourse, and hopefully I might be able to utilise it to highlight where the difference lies between us.

Let me say from the outset, that I would have no issue with American Theosophy Society as such, if it kept itself to itself. But it does not, it offers a constant critique of the doctrines of other Traditions, and this is where, when Christianity is invoked, I speak out against it. It's interpretations are syncretic, and many of the assertations made by you and others are metaphysically erroneous, and often without foundation, and without evidence.

+++

Now, in light of the above, to address the point you make in detail.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, I will only give one example, that you need to at least read that form which you are quoting - or using to illustrate your point - something you accuse me of not doing ...

I did not accuse, I evidenced.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

From your own linked article, by Alexander Berzin:

... Blavatsky had already differentiated Lucifer from Satan. According to The Secret Doctrine, Lucifer is the "Light-Bearer," the "Astral Light" within each of our minds that is both our tempter and liberator from pure animalism. It serves to both create and destroy, and manifests in sexual passion. Although Lucifer can uplift humanity to a higher plane, the Latin scholastics had transformed him into the purely evil Satan.

My emphasis.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

a later section from the same article:[INDENT]... Blavatsky explained that although Latin scholastics had transformed Lucifer into a purely evil Satan, Lucifer had the power both to destroy and to create. He represented the light-bearing presence in everyone's minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence.

Well ... Blavatsky is wrong on the following counts:
1 – The 'demonisation' of Lucifer occurs in Isaiah, in the Old Testament:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?" (14:12)

2 – In the words of Christ, in the New Testament:
"Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." (Luke 10:18)

What she fails to perceive, wrapped in her esoterism but blind to the principle of metaphysics which proceeds it, is that Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualisation, of the necessary possibility of evil if freedom is to exist as an ontological possibility.

Lucifer is to the angelic order as Adam is to the human ... and to promote the error of Lucifer is to promote the error of Adam, which is fundamentally of a creature who says "I know better than God."

In her syncretism, in trying to be a 'jack of all traditions' as it were, she has become 'master of none' and it shows, tellingly. Her metaphysics is muddled and contradictory, a failing she seeks to gloss over with glamourous dollops of pseudo-esoteric flimflam, as far as her understanding of the Scriptures is concerned. I shall leave the spokespersons of other traditions to defend their own.

As such, Lucifer does not represent "the light-bearing presence in everyone's minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence" but quite the opposite, he represents the presence of one's own egoic tendency and desire to be god-unto-myself, that's why he fell, and that's wehy he seeks to draw all with him.

Consider, is not that 'light-bearing presence' the presence of the Logos of God written into each and every soul, that the darkness of the mind fails to comprehend? And does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer – who nowhere, ever, is attested to as Logos, but only ever as a created being, a fallible being, and a being who fell?

Why should man deseert God in pursuit of a creature, and a fallen creature at that?

Why indeed ...

But lest I be accused of quoting my favoured sources, let me quote one of yours, Origen:
De Principiis : Book I : Chapter 5
"Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, "How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth, who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the kings of the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house; but thou shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many dead who have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to the lower world. As a garment cloned with blood, and stained, will not be clean; neither shall thou be clean, because thou hast destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shall not remain for ever, most wicked seed. Prepare thy sons for death on account of the sins of thy father, lest they rise again and inherit the earth, and fill the earth with wars. And I shall rise against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and I shall cause their name to perish, and their remains, and their seed." Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning.

For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, "Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." (Luke 10:18)

For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words, "For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be." And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e., of an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since "the whole of this world" — for I term this place of earth, world — "lieth in the wicked one," and in this apostate. That he is an apostate, i.e., a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, "Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate dragon," i.e., a fugitive. Now it is certain that by the dragon is understood the devil himself. If then they are called opposing powers, and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless purity exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since that which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite powers once were spotless, and were once among those which still remain unstained, it is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness (if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that state in which he will be changed into what is called an "opposing power."

Originally Posted by AndrewX

And what has the Catholic Church done, to clear up the confusion? How have the authorities, and all the great Fathers contributed? How have they regarded the Bearer of LIGHT ... keeping in MIND that Moses himself speaks of God as the LIGHT that is within the mind of EVERY MAN ('man,' this word itself coming from the Sanskrit MANAS, or "MIND")?

See, even you do it, you confuse the Logos of God, "the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world" with Lucifer, and you distort the Scriptures to do so, and who is, in the words of Origen, an 'opposing power' against the will of God.

The confusion you speak is not the Catholic Church's Andrew, it is yours, and worse than that, it is a confusion her masters seek to sow in the hearts and minds of the honest seeker, to bend them, as the above demonstrates, into the unwitting service of the adversary.

It is this vendetta against Christ and His Church that is the reason why I will always speak out against it, for I see it for what it is. A lie.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

I am not sure of your interpretation of the Theosophical idea of Satan, so I am putting it here.

Theosophy teaches that there is no Satan, that there is no fellow running around in long red underwear and carrying a pitchfork. Theosophy teaches that there are evil beings in the universe, but they tend to work in isolation; they are not arranged into some sort of a universal Hierarchy of Evil, and no Satan sits atop such a Hierarchy.

Theosophy teaches that a group of “angels” called the Kumara actively participated in the creation of the human race. There was point in the story where the Kumara hesitated to press forward. This group of angels was supposed to supply man with a particular principle — intelligence. However, they wanted man to develop intelligence on his own, so they stepped back and took a hands-off approach. In this they were mistaken — the Divine Plan called for them to do that very thing.

It was their decision not to act that causes us to say they failed to act.

“… the Radiant Archangels …refused to create [man], because they wanted Man to become his own creator and an immortal god — that men can reach Nirvana and the haven of heavenly divine Peace.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 246)

It boggles my mind that the Kumara chose to disregard the Divine Plan, but that is what Theosophy says happened. Over the centuries the story has been embellished, and the Kumara have been vilified to the point where today people call them by the (singular) name Satan.

You may wonder how the plural concept Kumara bacame the singular concept Satan. The Kumara are the "us" people of Genesis 1:27, which is the issue Thomas and I have been going over and over ad nauseum.

ANGEL OF LIGHT

The Kumara were Archangels actively involved in the creation of humanity. This is where the idea of “angel of light” comes from. From this we get the present-day story of Lucifer the Angel of Light rebelling against God and becoming the Angel of Darkness.

We can now look at Thomas’ criticisms.

“Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualization, of the necessary possibility of evil….”

--> Thesosophy teaches Lucifer (as described in Christianity) does not exist.

“… does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer…?”

--> She does not. The Logos and Kumara are separate Theosophical concepts.

“For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light?”

--> This is a fascinating question, and gets into some important Theosophical theory. Lucifer (and everything else in the universe) comes from Darkness (which is the same Darkness named in Genesis 1:1). Darkness is another name for the Absolute, which predates the Logos. To answer Thomas' question specifically, yes, it can be said Lucifer is a nature of Darkness, just as you and I are natures of Darkness, because you and I are Rays of Light that came from the One Light (The Son) which came from the Darkness (The Absolute). To use Thomas' words, The Kumara, You, and I 'arose in the morning' when that first Ray of Light flashed out from inside the Darkness (The Absolute) and began our universe.

“… you confuse the Logos of God, ‘the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world’ with Lucifer….”

--> No, we do not. Lucifer (plural) is the Kumara (plural), which are Rays of Light blasphemed into being called Darkness because of their mistake.

~~~

Finally, there are the names Satan, Devil, Angel of Light, etc. Here is a Theosohical article that gets into a lot of detail about the origins of these names. Take a look for more information.

"Some Light on Lucifer" by Ina Belderis