What is Theosophy? - Page 3

Zagreus · 02-20-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

I based my comment on what had been said to me, and sadly a recent quotation, has not altered my opinion in that regard...

What I will say, must say, for my part, is that I feel we are all learning even the most basic steps of this dance, as well as the motive, means and method to improvise, and contribute new moves from within our own, co-creative reservoir and potential.

I have in the past directly challenged the idea that the Catholic Church, or even Christianity at large, has a monopoloy on the legitimate path and means (in terms of individual spirituality or liturgical styles & practice) back to Godhead (or `Absolute,' the One Ground of Being). I stand by that belief now, as always.

Where I feel I may have been in error is asking that you, Thomas, or indeed anyone, should be expected to derive the same proverbial kick-in-the-rear ... from say, quoting the much-discussed `Maha Chohan's Letter,' as I have. This is like saying that John 3:16 must mean exactly the same thing to everyone who reads it, and that there is only one possible inspiration, or motivation, that can come by so doing.

What I think the Great Dharma-Lord (`Maha Chohan') was saying in His letter, as I intrepet it, is that Truth speaks for itself. It has no interpreter. It has no "official earthly agent, or mediator," and therefore anyone, or anything, which sets itself up as such, has immediately proved its non-validity and error. This has everything to do with authority, yet it is 100% as applicable to Theosophy and Theosophists, as to Catholics, Christians, or anyone else.

To go deeper, the Maha Chohan's letter says to me that once we have fully, properly and truly understood the Truth (more than intellectually - this means to have accepted it, embraced it, and sworn oneself to upholding its behests) ... we cannot fail to act in accordance. And this action, if I may speak in terms of Christianity, would or will require that we do our utmost to embody Christ's most noble and Divine example: not just in word, but also in deed. It requires that we act, in Brotherhood, for the greater well-being of whatever group of people we are considering, that greatest group being the human family itself ... even taking the well-being of the entire planet into consideration.

The mistake would be to assume that the Maha Chohan was pointing his finger to a specific, limiting and restriced/restricting/restrictive set of doctrines or dogmas ... which in the present discussion we might call `Theosophical' vs. `Catholic,' as "Truth." But this goes against everything that I have come to understand and believe about God, man, religion and Truth!!!

This is like confusing the pointing finger ... with the Sky, the Stars, the Sun and Moon, or even with the Self-Manifest Beauty of Cosmos itself. I can put food in my little kitty-kat's bowl, and tell him ever so gently, "Tiger, here's the eats!" ... yet I have to laugh; if I point, then the cat follows my finger, no matter where I move it, and he never yet has looked in the direction that I was pointing. I have to leave it up to him to realize I've just fed him! I know this is really an observation about animal vs. human consciousness, but for me, at least in this application, it is also the same as human vs. Divine.

And so we have such simple confusion as one man, holding up his Koran, tapping it, and saying, Herein are God's Holy and Divine injunctions, the Voice of Wisdom and of Truth. The Christian, holding up his Bible, does likewise. And the Hindu, perhaps with the Bhagavad Gita or Mahabharata, is equally capable. Zoroastrian, Zend Avesta. Buddhist, Sutras. And so on, ad infinitum.

How many Gods, how many Truths?

Yep.

As for your clarification, Nick, that as a Theosophist, the focus is the Absolute vs. a monotheistic God, I wanted to say, thank you!!! I think this is very helpful, and this helps me to see that in my error, my desire to see religions (and people) agree, I would readily exhange words like `God' and `Absolute,' while inadvertently overlooking (or ignoring) the differences in these two concepts, as they are experienced - in the minds, heart, soul ... of the believer!

Therefore, again, my apologies, Thomas ... et al, and thank you, Nick, for bringing many things - and our dialogue - to greater light, and Love.

Namaskar,

Andrew

Nick the Pilot · 02-21-2007, 03:40 AM

Thomas,

You said,

"...the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo precludes any mode of pantheism...."

--> Perhaps the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo precludes any mode of pantheism, but the Bible does not. Why does the first page of the Bible indicate a pantheistic creation of humanity?

"Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1.26) (emphasis added)
Attempst were made to wipe out all references to Christian Pantheism, but a few, like this one, got by the censors.

The concept of an Almighty God is rejected by modern Buddhism. Your quotes regarding the bringing of God to Buddhists (against their will?) seems to go against the idea of "The Catholic Church acknowledges the Sacred Texts of the world's religions as issuing from a sacred source, and furthermore regards all other religions as valid and authentic means of attaining salvation... " Does Catholicism regard the Buddhist rejection of an Almighty God as part of an authentic means of attaining salvation? I am afraid I see Christians striving to disprove the very Buddhist Cannons you are referring to.
You quoted the Maha Chohan (which can be found at...)
The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett - View of the Chohan
The Maha Chohan is an august being, with a status equal to that of the Buddha himself. What the Chohan is saying is that no one religion has all of the answers -- a very Theosophical idea. Catholicism does not have all of the answers, and neither does Theosophy -- this theme is repeated often in Theosophical literature.
Let's take a closer look at what the Chohan said. "...none of its religions and philosophies, those of the civilised races less than any other, have ever possessed the truth." By this he is referring to a whole release of the entire truth. This whole release will eventually occur, but many years from now, only when humanity is ready for it.
The Chohan was lamenting the role of religion in the world I am afraid I must agree – look how many people force their religion on others. We have not made a lot of progress since those words were penned in 1881. Theosophy is dedicated to speeding up the progress of humanity – and speeding up the reforming of outdated religious ideas.
That is a great quote. I always take note of what the Chohan says. Thank you for sharing it.
I suppose the purpose of these discussions is to see what we have in common, not where we differ. I feel we have moved a little closer to that goal.

Nick the Pilot · 02-21-2007, 04:00 AM

Andrew,

Since we are getting into a God vs. Absolute discussion, I thought it would be good to give a Theosohical definition of the Absolute.

The Absolute is the one constant, unchanging from universe to universe. It is the one constant, unchanging from universe to universe. It is the one life, the one Reality, with all other aspects of the universe merely being an illusion.

[The Absolute is] “ ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE.”

(Secret Doctrine Vol I page 2)
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, Proem

pohaikawahine · 02-21-2007, 06:49 AM

-->Quote" I am curious. How do you feel when you hear the story of the woman who climbed up to Pele's volcano and defied her (and threw kapu fruit into the volcano, if I remember correctly), and brought Hawai'i into "the modern age"? End Quote

By this time many were confused about the meaning of our own legends and knowledge .... what I feel is that the true knowledge buried in the legends went underground after the arrival of the missionaries .... like so many others in the world we even forgot how to see deep within the messages and clues .... knowledge of this energy force was used for personal power and gain and although everyone had access to it at any time, they fell into (what I refer to ) a deep sleep .... it still lies buried about 4 levels deep in meaning .... this is what is referred to as the "huna" or the "sacred meaning" (it is not secret, it is sacred) .... it is not a religion,it is a way of life .... the woman who climbed up to Pele's volcano was a converted Christian and supported in these efforts to show the local people "the true way" .... since there was and is no goddess Pele (only her stories filled with hidden meanings) there was nothing to fear about a volcano except its natural tendency to flow .... this was only a show .... the legends and knowledge of the energy force named Pele runs within my own family line and names are carried that reflect this .... for example there is a story of Pele when she goes into a deep sleep and goes to the island of Kauai looking for her lover .... the seven major islands are lined up like the seven energy centers within the human body and the island of Kauai would correspond with the third eye .... they are stories within stories .... just like the Old Testament, it cannot be understood literally ....

Like the Theosophists (as I think I understand) I also look for links in the ancient traditions through sounds,directions and symbols .... the more years that pass,the easier it is to see through the veils and I marvel at the way this ancient knowledge was preserved and packaged .... I no longer try to convince others of what I see or interpret .... but I now have hope for a better future for our children because the change will happen and we are returning to the ancient knowledge .... we have started walking the path to the fifth world and have crossed over into a higher vibration of being .... as the Hopi say "this is the time in which we will meet ourselves" .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine (in Hawaiian this names means a circle of women .... it is also a meaning within a meaning)

Nick the Pilot · 02-21-2007, 01:35 PM

Pohaika Wahine,

It is an important Theosophical concept that we are in the fourth world, and on our way to the fifth world. What exactly is the fifth world, according to Hawaiian tradition?

Thomas · 02-21-2007, 08:57 PM

Hi Nick –

You said:
Why does the first page of the Bible indicate a pantheistic creation of humanity?
Where, exactly?

"Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1.26) (emphasis added)
Attempts were made to wipe out all references to Christian Pantheism, but a few, like this one, got by the censors.
How does Gen 1:26 imply pantheism? It certainly doesn't contradict an ex nihilo causation.

Thomas

Nick the Pilot · 02-21-2007, 09:42 PM

Thomas,

"Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

--> Who are these "us" people? (Members of a Pantheon.) Such plurality excludes the idea of a monotheistic creation of humanity.

Even the sentence is grammatically incorrect. It should say,

"Then the gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

...which is what the original scripture says.

Thomas · 02-21-2007, 11:46 PM

Nick –

Allow me to quote a Torah scholar:
"There is an enormous difficulty with the interpretation that the name Elohim signifies a sort of plurality in the godhead; for if Elohim implies a plurality of persons, how can (one) explain that the identical word Elohim in Tanach refers to Moses as well?

Regarding Moses, in Exodus 7:1, the Torah says:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, "See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (KJV)

The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. This is self-evident from the fact that the verb "created" (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is in the singular. This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish scriptures. For example ... the Hebrew word chayim, meaning "life" ... contains the identical plural suffix "im," as in Elohim, yet it repeatedly means "life", in the singular, throughout the Bible. Examples are:

And Rebekah said to Isaac, "I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these who are the daughters of the land, what good will my life (chayim) be to me?" (Genesis 27:46)

You have granted me life (chayim) and favor, and Your care has preserved my spirit. (Job 10:12)"

Outreach Judaism - responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults. Responds to Jews For Jesus

+++

Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on Revelation, makes the point that exegetes must take great pains to study not only Scripture, but also the literature of the people, their place and their time, and the forms and genres employed.

In light of which, without a discourse, the sacred scribe would have great difficulty in expressing what is, essentially, a profound metaphysical principle, to the Hebraic mind which is more attuned to the language of 'mythos' than, for example, the Hellenic, which delights in the abstracts of a 'logoic' philosophy. The discourse as a means of Revelation of the Word is used throughout Scripture.

I might add that to suggest to a Jew that they overlooked or knowingly ignored the primae facia evidence of polytheism in their own sacred texts reaches beyond the bounds of credulity ... bearing in mind these were the people who championed an absolute monotheism – I rather like the expression 'the supermonotheism of the Desert' – in the face of the diversity of deity in their neighbours.

Thomas

pohaikawahine · 02-22-2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Pohaika Wahine,

It is an important Theosophical concept that we are in the fourth world, and on our way to the fifth world. What exactly is the fifth world, according to Hawaiian tradition?

aloha e nick - this is not exactly a hawaiian concept, but it is certainly a part of the overall way of life and understanding .... in a nutshell we have seven energy centers in the body, four are below the neck and three above (this corresponds to heaven and earth or sky father and earth mother or wakea and papa) the reconnection of the head (what I usually refer to as the severed head) to the body is the marriage of heaven and earth or the meeting of heaven and earth .... all symbols .... this leads us to understanding the concept of the 4th and 5th worlds .... at the lower vibrations we keep our energy levels below the neck (or in the earth) and when we finally start to reach the higher vibrations (thus the colors of blue, purple and white) we have moved into the area associated with the head and have crossed over into the fifth world .... I have always suspected this is why the color purple is associated with royalty because the knowledge (however sometimes misused) was taken from the everyday person and used for personal power by royalty (including Hawaiian) .... purple is associated with the third eye and if you know anything about colors used in Hawaii is also associated with the island of Kauai (remember Pele's dream) .... basically when we move (or cross the river styx in greek mythology) the energy into the level of the head we have moved into the heavens or world of the gods .... sorry this is so long, but it is difficult to explain in few words .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine p.s. that is also why the pig head is used in so many rituals .... it represents the mountain top (or the top of the head) and if you look at a mountain from a distance (especially on an island) is looks like a boar's head .... Moses went to the mountain top, Mohammed went to the mountain top .... all metaphors (in my view) of the ancient knowledge buried in stories .... there are many paths to the mountain top, but when we get there we all see the same moon .... love this stuff ....so many legends with the same inner meanings in my view:

the location of the holy grail (in the center of the brain) and the 12 knights of the round table (the head) and the 12 pairs of cranial nerves .... the search for the holy grail takes place within and all the symbols tell us how to get there

the portable temple in the wilderness .... portable because we carry it with us everywhere .... the 12 tribes (cranial nerves) and the regathering

we have a circle of 12 women .... same messages ....

the 12 gods of mount olympus ....

well .... perhaps you get the picture .... gotta go for now ....

Nick the Pilot · 02-22-2007, 05:41 AM

Thomas,

There are two issues here. (1) The Bible as it exists today, in English. (2) The original language of the Bible.

(1) I ask the question again: who are these "us" people in the English version of the Bible?

(2) For those of you who are wondering why the word Elohim has entered this discussion, the word for god/gods is Elohim in the original version of the Bible, which was later translated into English.

Elohim, the word, is masculine and plural. This is why we say gods, not God created humanity. Here is a link, if anyone is interested in studying this issue further.

Elohim: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

You have pointed out the bara/bar'u issue, as covered in the above link. This brings up the issue of the Elohim in Genesis 1:1 being a different monotheistic god than the pantheistic gods of Genesis 1:26 (which really is a different discussion for a different time). Your reference to monotheistic Genesis 1:1 still does not rule out a pantheistic nature to the gods of Genesis 1:26.

~~~

I suppose we could continue this debate on ad nausium, but both of us have made our point. Perhaps it suffices that there are two sides to the question, and it is up to the people out there to make up their own mind. Christianity teaches a monotheistic creation of humanity. Theosophy acknowledges, nay, celebrates a pantheistic creation of humanity.

Zagreus · 02-22-2007, 06:05 AM

Poh,

It's very good to be posting with you again!

Thanks for being a part of this discussion, and helping to create the bridge ... (antahkarana)

I included this term, and a link to a page from the online Theosophical Glossary, because I think it's relevant here. I'm also uploading a chart ... from the works of Alice Bailey, who was not strictly a Theosophist, yet who studied The Secret Doctrine of H.P. Blavatsky, and who presented Theosophical concepts in her writings.

Name: Meditation-chartB.gif
Views: 47
Size: 86.2 KB

Name: Meditation-chartB.gif
Views: 47
Size: 86.2 KB

The chart is on `The Science of Meditation,' and shows many things at once. With respect to what you said, Poh, the three head centers are at the very bottom, as the alta major center, pituitary body, & pineal gland. No doubt you will recognize them!

These form a triangle of energies, which allow the threefold Individual Human Soul (the yellow triangle labeled `Ego' according to the Theosophical terminology) to express itself in the etheric body of the physical world. So the Soul, or `Ego,' is understood as belonging to the upper portions of the Mental Plane, while a person incarnates temporarily through a mental body in the lower mental world, an astral or emotional body, and a compound etheric-physical body (which houses the meditative, or higher creative triangle). {I know all this is familiar, and charts are quite 2-dimensional, obviously ... but maybe this one helps?}

A lower triangle of creative energies also exists, consisting of the root chakra, the sacral (or sexual) chakra, and the reproductive organs (or gonads) ... which must be gradually sublimated in order for the higher creativity (especially expressive via the throat chakra) to come into activity and properly function. No wonder the emphasis on the celibate, or monastic lifestyle - as a necessary stage of the spiritual path, at one point or another, in some particular incarnation. Not that there aren't other reasons, but here is the practical reason, in terms of specific energies (Kundalini-shakti, to which I think you were referring, Poh).

Nick, your mention of the fourth world, or Fourth Round, in Theosophical terms ... is to that stage in Humanity's unfoldment wherein lower manas, or lower mind, is being developed, is that correct? The idea of Fifth Round Humanity suggests a time when the entirety of the Human Race will be much farther along, spiritually speaking (and developing Higher Mind, globally, instead of in individual cases here & there, or sometimes in groups) ... maybe equivalent to those beings that Theosophists call `Masters' or Adepts. Under this system, a Sixth-Rounder would then be much closer to the Christ (or Bodhisattva) in terms of attainment, and the final, or 7th Round man ... will be a Buddha.

For this to make sense, it is helpful to have considered the Theosophical idea that: Where mankind now is, every more advanced being once was ... and thus, where advanced beings now are, mankind will one day be. I'm not sure if this is completely in sync with the classical idea of a Great Chain of Being, but it is definitely what the Theosophist believes when s/he speaks of all of Nature as consisting of a great Hierarchy of Lives ... in the broadest sense of this term.

Every single atom, even, is ensouled by living energies, and thus Annie Besant put to words the ideas of the Unity of all Life, the consequent Brotherhood of one man with another, and the existence of the Divine Presence even within the smallest unit of evolution ...

O Hidden Life, vibrant in every atom;
O Hidden Light, shining in every creature;
O Hidden Love, embracing all in Oneness;
May each who feels himself as one with Thee,
Know he is therefore one with every other.

Namaskara,

andrew

Nick the Pilot · 02-22-2007, 06:05 AM

Pohaika Wahine,

Thank you for telling us about Hawai'ian views of the nature of man.

You said,

"...there are many paths to the mountain top, but when we get there we all see the same moon...."

--> How true. The goal is one, but the paths are many.

Nick the Pilot · 02-22-2007, 06:12 AM

Andrew,

You asked,

"Nick, your mention of the fourth world, or Fourth Round, in Theosophical terms ... is to that stage in Humanity's unfoldment wherein lower manas, or lower mind, is being developed, is that correct?"

--> Correct. I was hoping there was a correlation between that idea and the Hawai'ian idea, but they seem to be different after all. That is OK, we still got to read a little of the Hawai'ian view of the nature of man.

Hey, I can match you chart for chart!

Zagreus · 02-22-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I suppose we could continue this debate on ad nausium, but both of us have made our point. Perhaps it suffices that there are two sides to the question, and it is up to the people out there to make up their own mind. Christianity teaches a monotheistic creation of humanity. Theosophy acknowledges, nay, celebrates a pantheistic creation of humanity.

If I might add to the very last line of your post, Nick, which I have emphasized, I'd like to quote from the Stanzas of Dzyan. H.P. Blavatsky presented the Stanzas to the world as the basis of the Secret Doctrine, which treatise is simply a commentary and elucidation of such stanzas ... that the world might better understand both Cosmogenesis (the creation of the Cosmos), and Anthropogenesis (the creation of Humanity).

These four slokas are from Vol. II of The Secret Doctrine, and refer specifically to the Creation of Humanity ... including reference to our Spiritual origin, as provided in the first two slokas, and the fourth sloka is surely one of the most important teachings ever given under the name `Theosophy'. I want to emphasize it (in blue), for consideration:

14. THE SEVEN HOSTS, THE "WILL-BORN LORDS," PROPELLED BY THE SPIRIT OF LIFE-GIVING, SEPARATE MEN FROM THEMSELVES, EACH ON HIS OWN ZONE.

15. SEVEN TIMES SEVEN SHADOWS OF FUTURE MEN WERE BORN, EACH OF HIS OWN COLOUR AND KIND. EACH INFERIOR TO HIS FATHER. THE FATHERS, THE BONELESS, COULD GIVE NO LIFE TO BEINGS WITH BONES. THEIR PROGENY WERE BHUTA, WITH NEITHER FORM NOR MIND. THEREFORE THEY ARE CALLED THE CHHAYA.

16. HOW ARE THE MANUSHYA BORN? THE MANUS WITH MINDS, HOW ARE THEY MADE? THE FATHERS CALLED TO THEIR HELP THEIR OWN FIRE; WHICH IS THE FIRE THAT BURNS IN EARTH. THE SPIRIT OF THE EARTH CALLED TO HIS HELP THE SOLAR FIRE. THESE THREE PRODUCED IN THEIR JOINT EFFORTS A GOOD RUPA. IT COULD STAND, WALK, RUN, RECLINE, OR FLY. YET IT WAS STILL BUT A CHHAYA, A SHADOW WITH NO SENSE . . . .

17. THE BREATH NEEDED A FORM; THE FATHERS GAVE IT. THE BREATH NEEDED A GROSS BODY; THE EARTH MOULDED IT. THE BREATH NEEDED THE SPIRIT OF LIFE; THE SOLAR LHAS BREATHED IT INTO ITS FORM. THE BREATH NEEDED A MIRROR OF ITS BODY; "WE GAVE IT OUR OWN," SAID THE DHYANIS. THE BREATH NEEDED A VEHICLE OF DESIRES; "IT HAS IT," SAID THE DRAINER OF WATERS. BUT BREATH NEEDS A MIND TO EMBRACE THE UNIVERSE; "WE CANNOT GIVE THAT," SAID THE FATHERS. "I NEVER HAD IT," SAID THE SPIRIT OF THE EARTH. "THE FORM WOULD BE CONSUMED WERE I TO GIVE IT MINE," SAID THE GREAT FIRE . . . . MAN REMAINED AN EMPTY SENSELESS BHUTA . . . . THUS HAVE THE BONELESS GIVEN LIFE TO THOSE WHO BECAME MEN WITH BONES IN THE THIRD.

In sloka 15, the words `shadow,' `color' and `kind' should be understood as indicative, but not necessarily literal. They connote something, but I think we should focus on the idea that man is the creation of the Seven Elohim - the Seven Hosts from sloka 14, or the Will-Born Lords. Notice that these Elohim were "propelled by the Spirit of Life-Giving," and see how this corresponds to what you provided, Thomas, as part of the Catholic Church's Catechism:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Para 295: We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."

Also, in sloka 16, Manushya refers to human, and in the clause that follows, Manus also refers to Humanity. Same roots, yet each usage has a specific connotation. And since Theosophists regard a person as a being consisting of several trinities, each ensouled by a Higher, or greater trinity ... then we might look at sloka 16 as a preparation for the more complex sloka 17. The "good Rupa" that is produced refers to a form ... definitely not a human being as we know it, but sort of a prototype. And again, `chhaya' means "shade," or "copy."

Although we could just emphasize slokas 14 and 15, relative to the question of Theosophists' celebration of the pantheistic creation of Humanity ... I wanted to focus on stanza 17, since this is where the details really come into light. In special connection to the two charts we have posted (was that synchronicity? lol) ... here we find almost a narrative, wherein various of the Hosts are speaking about what each provided in terms of Humanity's end-resulting spiritual, psychological and material constitution. Notice, by way of significant importance, that even at the end of sloka 17, we are still missing something quite necessary.

The word `Bhuta,' in this stanza, is quite like chhaya, or again, shadow, even rupa. All of these are related, perhaps with slightly different connotations, and sometimes the difference is just a reference to which plane of consciousness, matter or being is under consideration.

Yet the bottom line, and the point of emphasis and importance - in my mind - is that even after this collaborative, co-creative work of the Elohim (plural) and the Creative Hosts in Nature (Intelligent, Spiritual POWERS - plural, operating on various levels or planes of existence) ... Humanity is STILL without `Manas,' or Mind, at the advent of "the third" (3rd Root Race, or Lemurian Humanity, 18+ million years ago).

What happens next? Well that's the part I think is really most important (!!!), because this is the `recent' history of the race, which traces our spiritual and evolution (in Theosophical teachings) through the second half of Lemurian times, through the Atlantean (4th) Root Race, and into the current, Aryan (5th) Root Race, up to the present.

As for, how does mankind RECEIVE the gift of Mind ... (which is where we're left at the end of sloka 17), it will take the rest of the 49 slokas of The Secret Doctrine to explain this - yet such is the story, in the Ancient Wisdom, of mankind's Spiritual Legacy ... and it corresponds, roughly speaking, with what Christianity calls the Fall from Grace, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and even `Original Sin.'

Of course, just as there may be a Catholic, or Christian emphasis on Humanity's Creation by a Monotheistic God, which Theosophists will speak of as Humanity's origin by the co-creative, collaborative efforts of a Pantheon of Intelligent Beings expressing the Divine Will ... so in Theosophical teachings we will regard `The Fall,' `The Expulsion from Eden,' and `Original Sin' as but symbolic terms, conveying an allegorical rather than a literal truth.

Again, Theosophists and Catholics/Christians may not see eye-to-eye here, but in the interest of Interfaith discussion and dialogue, I would return to the quoted passage earlier in my post, from your presentation of Catholic Catechism, Thomas, wherein Theosophists and Catholics may mutually celebrate the good fortune (or blessings) of a life, incarnate in the material world(s) ... in which we are afforded every opportunity of spiritual growth and progress - regardless of differences in terms of outward observances of thankfulness, or worship, when it comes to recognizing these opportunities.

I guess that's a wordy way of saying that we may all be thankful (!), but then, Grace in a Christian context is not something that has ever quite signified the same to me, as it does to most other people at CR. Since I believe in Karma, Rebirth and Cycles of Necessity (or Incarnation), and reject a monotheistic God of chance or whim (certainly one who does or doesn't "show favor" on worshippers vs. non-worshippers) ... I just don't know what to make of this notion of Grace. {Perhaps you have thoughts, as a Theosophist, Nick?} Nonetheless, our accord seems more important, here, than our differences, n'est pas, Thomas?

Love and Light,

andrew

Thomas · 02-22-2007, 10:42 AM

Hi Nick –

There are two issues here. (1) The Bible as it exists today, in English. (2) The original language of the Bible.

To both points, Bible Scholars work in the original Hebrew, not in translation. My course tutor, for example, is fluent in English, Hebrew, Greek and Ugaritic (and possibly others).

I would suggest that most erroneous assumptions, such as the idea of polytheism or pantheism in the Bible, are because people are working from translations, and are unaware of the Hebrew, its lexicon, linguistic forms, genres and narrative styles.

But the over-arching issue is: If the Sacred Text of the Jews is Pantheistic, why are the theologians and sacred scribes, who so painstakingly composed and copied these texts for posterity ... so fiercely monotheistic? Are we to assume they don't understand the plain text before them?

I'm sorry, but this is no argument, this is just opinion flying in the face of reason, a common experience for me in such discussions.

Christianity teaches a monotheistic creation of humanity. Theosophy acknowledges, nay, celebrates a pantheistic creation of humanity.

Our doctrines are different, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Pax,

Thomas