Esoteric Christianity

Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

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

A little consideration the other way might not go amiss.

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

Nevertheless, it's the classical definition.

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas,


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

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

--> It is not. Your religion requires certain beliefs, and your religion reserves the right to brand non-believers as heretics. Your religion reserves the right to take people who disagree and throw them out the door. That is dogma. Your defintion says such things are OK, and I say they are not. (At least your religion does not burn heretics at the stake any more.)
"Your whole insistence of the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is a 'Theosophical dogma'...." --> It is not dogma, because anyone can be a Theosophist, can refuse to believe the "us" people are not the Kumara, and no one in Theosophy has the right to tell them they are wrong. --> "Then what's going on?"

--> What is going on is a discussion about dogma. You see dogma as good. I see dogma as bad.
"Why are you and Andrew telling us all the time that we are wrong in what we believe our faiths?
--> (1) In the beginning, you and I have some very good open-minded discussions: It was a case of two people agreeing to disagree, and discussing our differences. As a matter of fact, I was thinking to myself, "I have finally found a Christian who is open-minded, and is willing to have a religious discussion with an "agree to disagree" approach. Finally!"

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




(2) Here is the classic Thomas over-generalization -- You make it sound like Theosophy teaches that everything in your religion is wrong. Here is the classic Nick non-over-generalizating response, saying a specific teaching in your religion is wrong -- a refusal to perform a particular religious ritual will not send any of us to Hell.
"My interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that it is the Trinity speaking in Itself. Is that wrong?"
--> If you had respect for my belief system, I would couch my words with respect. Since you only attack Theosophy, I will answer bluntly -- yes, such a specific interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is wrong. I love to keep pointing out Genesis 1:26, because it is something the writers of the Bible actually got right (humanity was created by a group of beings just like the Bible says -- beings that Theosophy describes as "angels"), while some Christians think Genesis 1:26 contains a mistake.


~~~


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick the Pilot said:
I was thinking to myself, "I have finally found a Christian who is open-minded, and is willing to have a religious discussion with an "agree to disagree" approach. Finally!"
Perhaps we should do our level best to proceed with just this exact assumption, and be equally willing to substitute the word `Theosophist,' `Esotericist,' `Buddhist,' `Muslim,' or whatever else we like for `Christian.' In other words, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt.

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

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

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

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

17th Angel said:
I would say, that perchance these are christians, that have an interest in Pagan and other as you put magical and mysterious groups/ways. But, not wishing to turn from their god, they hold on to christianity but, they want that little more.... They want that ritualistic mystical style in their religion, which christianity obviously isn't
And you see, quite in line with what you have just said, 17th, there is an entire branch of the Catholic Church - the Liberal Catholic Church - which does its utmost to preserve the 7th Ray Ritual, and Ceremony, that forms so great a part of Roman Catholicism.

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

Liberal Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Namaskar,

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

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

b'shalom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- then CONSIDER YOUR MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ b'SHALOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, did he mean drinking heavily? :p

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

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

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

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

Sunny C. said:
I know several people with a distinct bent toward esoteric spirituality. I've never sensed that they hold any sort of elitist point of view regarding their path. If anything it's the folks from established denominations who seem to want to hold themselves aloof and deny the possibility of any legitimacy in non traditional spirituality. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, or why they seem to need to step on the necks of others to prove the worth of their own belief systems.
And alas, I think this is what we've just seen ... yet there will always be a problem, when a person (or group - even spreading to the point of an entire faith) comes to define itself, its worth, or its legitimacy - in terms of one's religion, or spiritual BELIEFS.



I am reminded of Mark 2:27 -
The Law (religion, Sabbath) was made for man, not man for the Law (religion, Sabbath).
Plenty of us could take a lesson in detachment; and I have no room to finger-point in this respect, at all!!!

Some of us rush quick to the defensive, when other angles are offered with respect to our cherished beliefs (to the point of defending people long since dead, reincarnated, dead, and reincarnated again) ... but on the brighter side, we are not eviscerating or decapitating each other about it! ;) :p :) [A few centuries ago, I'm afraid this might well have been my own approach, all supposedly in the "name of God" and "soul-saving." :eek: Yuk ... not a good karma!]
 
I'm sorry. I didn't know that there was an ongoing feud over this stuff. I was thinking of people I know in my real life who are religious bigots, not anyone here. I guess there's a history of bad blood here, but I didn't know. I'll just slowly back away....
 
I'm sorry. I didn't know that there was an ongoing feud over this stuff. I was thinking of people I know in my real life who are religious bigots, not anyone here. I guess there's a history of bad blood here, but I didn't know. I'll just slowly back away....
Lol. You've done more to mend things ... than well nigh any of the rest of us! ;) :)

Peace, and Namaskar (to everyone!)
 
I would say, that perchance these are christians ... not wishing to turn from their god, they hold on to christianity but, they want that little more .... They want that ritualistic mystical style in their religion, which christianity obviously isn't ...

Hi 17th –

Couldn't help myself on this one ... you'll find the process of stripping the Mystery out of Christianity began with the Reformation ... and the modernising and liberal tendency has done its damage even in my own Tradition, which is now under process of repair.

But if someone wants the 'real McCoy' in terms of a Liturgy ordered to the Mysterion (rather than a 'happy-clappy' celebratory self-congratulation), then look at a full-blown Latin Rite, or perhaps even better, an Orthodox (Greek or Russian) Synaxis ... a constant tradition for 2,000 years ... I know of people converted on the spot by the experience, for many a spiritual awakening so profound and so instantaneous as to be almost visceral.

The problem is not that it isn't there ... there problem is that people don't know how to find it, and often the answers in books, and the 'whoo-hoo' glamour of the 'esoteric' seems a short cut to what basically requires a hard work and a metanoia ... or in the case of conversion, metanoia and hard work ...

Thomas
 
Welcome to CR, Bruce Michael! :)

Many people here are quite interested in Esoteric Christianity. I'm the taijasi of the above posts, for instance.

Could you elaborate on what Esoteric Christianity means to you?

Namaskar,

~andrew
Shalom Br. Andrew,
I would be pleased to elaborate on what Esoteric Christianity means. I would first suggest that there be a forum here devoted to it rather than just a thread.
Christianity is esoteric. There really is no such palaver as exoteric Christianity.


Greetings,
Br. Bruce
 
I believe that esoteric Christianity is one of the best kept secrets in the world today and yet its living presence is an essential spiritual influence within the world.
 
I believe that esoteric Christianity is one of the best kept secrets in the world today and yet its living presence is an essential spiritual influence within the world.
Nick, I agree wholeheartedly. Recently I've grown more & more interested in the teachings of Gnosticism ... not necessarily as something that can be neatly sealed between the pages of a book from Borders (or even some kind of collection of texts decided upon by consensus) - but more along the lines of the `living Presence' you speak of.

What are your thoughts about the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity? Especially early Christianity ... though I like to believe that a true Esoteric Christianity, like true gnosis, would be in some sense timeless (?)

Thanks,

andrew
 
Nick, I agree wholeheartedly. Recently I've grown more & more interested in the teachings of Gnosticism ... not necessarily as something that can be neatly sealed between the pages of a book from Borders (or even some kind of collection of texts decided upon by consensus) - but more along the lines of the `living Presence' you speak of.

What are your thoughts about the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity? Especially early Christianity ... though I like to believe that a true Esoteric Christianity, like true gnosis, would be in some sense timeless (?)

Thanks,

andrew

Hi Andrew

Gnosticism as I understand it is dualistic with some sort of a nasty demiurgic being creating the earth. The Universe is actually a triune creation and there is no IMO reason to assume such an evil demiurgic being creating the earth for an evil purpose.

My beliefs run similar to what is described in the following article.

Esoteric Christianity

Esoteric Christianity is a branch of a Perennial Tradition that is timeless. It speaks of re-birth into higher consciousness or conscious evolution.

Christianity has both an outer or exoteric level that must become distorted by society and an inner conscious teaching to help those who need it.

Gnosticism to me seems to be an interpretation of the experience of gnosis while esoteric Christianity seeks the experience of gnosis itself.

But Gnosticism seems to be a very broad term and definitely related to esoteric Christianity but I personally believe that the truth of conscious evolution does exist, it must be a timeless truth in accordance with the "Breathe of Brahma" or the complimentary "being" processes of involution or into creation and evolution or movement back to the source.

Do you find this offensive?
 
Thanks, Nick, for sharing your understanding. I'm pondering the idea these days that we may need to rethink this approach to Gnosticism. Gnosis itself, regardless as to who has it, reveals varying levels and dimensions, aspects of and perspectives within the many worlds. We can learn more about why we are here, how we got here, where it is that we are headed ... and in terms of mythology & symbolism, we can even speak a bit about the various hierarchies of Lives (Greater and lesser) Whom and which - in their & our totality - occupy Cosmos.

The Gnosis that is experienced is meant to assist us as we work our way Heavenward, yet as so well characterized in the various branches of Buddhism, there are a multitude of Nirmanakayas, or helpers ... from the humblest co-disciple and human or Deva server up to Buddha status and beyond, all learning to cooperate as part of something (and Someone, if we like) that is truly, Infinitely Greater.

Our Journey is a shared one, as we come to Know in ways which may not immediately be apparent to the five senses (or even to the everyday insights of intellect), and part of our Dharma -- our Sacred Responsibility to all life and to all beings in Cosmos -- is to assist others (both above and below on Jacob's Laddeer, the Great Chain of Being) as we travel the Path of learning and enlightenment.

The Demiurgos, literally meaning artisan, or "one with special skill" according to Webster, was described by Plato as a "subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas" (Webster). This does not sound like an evil being, or the work of one either appointed to do evil or choosing to do evil. This is a wonderful Angel (or Deva) Hierarchy, serving the direct WILL of God, and faithfully so by bringing LIGHT to the very worlds which have all been created. So when we speak of an evil demiurge, or when we suggest that the material worlds have been created for or by "evil," we are making no different a mistake than has evolved within conventional, mainstream western religion whereby God's world is taught as unredeemed ... or unreemable! :eek:

This is where I think we have misinterpreted the real discoveries of the Gnostics, just as contemporary western religion misinterpets the nature of God, or Godhead. What we had foisted upon us in the latter case is the false image of an angry, wrathful tribal deity of pettiness and jealously, instead of a Loving, Compassionate caretaker -- a Gardener, Whose beautiful garden contains billions upon billions of living, growing Flowers, all unfolding towards a perfection that can be known, and can be attained.

The same distortions and misunderstanding of Gnosis seem to have left us with confusion regarding the worlds of form (where materiality prevails over Spirit, instead of vice versa). Esoterically, the Redemption process that I have come to understand involves manifesting the Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth, which is what Christ, other Christs, the Buddha, other Buddhas, and so many great Sages have taught us from time immemorial. This cannot be done without performing our Sacred DUTY here, the Dharma of Eastern Traditions, and that which the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (Christs) have embodied for us precisely.

There is Christ, crucified upon the Cross of matter Cosmically speaking, or the same exact process mirrored into our own psyche as the individual Soul or Higher Self of an Esoteric Christianity (perhaps even spoken of loosely as "Christ consciousness") ... yet the worlds of material being have been created, just as have the "Higher" worlds, by Devas -- these being Servers, just as ourselves, of Light Itself ... the 3rd Person or Aspect of God. Even the least of the deva-lives that serves to create the material worlds is deserving of respect ... of the same Namaskar (a salute to the Divinity within) which we should properly give whenever we meet another human being.

The Redeemer, in my understanding, is actually the First Person, working through the Second, yet we are more occupied on the whole with learning to work thorugh the 2nd as we literally occupy the 3rd Aspect as our vehicle(s) -- being on a large scale the world and Great Life "in Whom we live and move and have our being." Deity, just as ourselves, consists of Spirit, expressing through an evolving (and conditionally Immortal) SOUL, using a threefold or fourfold personality instrument (lower mind, emotions, vital soul & dense body). The difference is scale, or quantitative, rather than qualitative. Even Christ, as we are taught Biblically, is presented as "the Eldest in a vast family of brothers" (Romans 8:29)... and not some kind of carrot on a stick whom or which will always beckon us, while never quite being approachable.

Perhaps the Gayatri of Hinduism is a good summary of what you're saying, Nick, about our emergence from the Godhead (or Brahman), our Journey through the worlds of form, and our gradual approach or ascent of the `stairway to Heaven' that we find ourselves upon:
O Thou Who givest sustenance to the universe,
From Whom all things proceed,
To Whom all things return,
Unveil to us the face of the true Spiritual Sun
Hidden by a disc of golden Light
That we may know the truth
And do our whole duty
As we journey to Thy sacred feet.
Namaskara,

andrew​
 
Thanks Andrew for your substantial thoughts. Since I believe in a conscious universe, the demiurge is just a part of it that serve to maintain the involutionary and evolutionary flows of being..

You mention Jacob's ladder and I agree it is a good analogy to the connection between earth and the level of reality above. However I'm not sure what you mean by:

The same distortions and misunderstanding of Gnosis seem to have left us with confusion regarding the worlds of form (where materiality prevails over Spirit, instead of vice versa). Esoterically, the Redemption process that I have come to understand involves manifesting the Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth, which is what Christ, other Christs, the Buddha, other Buddhas, and so many great Sages have taught us from time immemorial. This cannot be done without performing our Sacred DUTY here, the Dharma of Eastern Traditions, and that which the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (Christs) have embodied for us precisely.

Here is where we see things differently. Why do you think Jesus was trying to establish a kingdom on earth when he says the opposite?

John 17

6"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

John 18:

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

It is a clear Jesus mission is help those not of the world to atain their conscious potential. The world must hate this message so how could Jesus be expected to try and establish a quality of being on the earth that it must reject?

What do you believe our sacred duty is? Is it the same as our secular duty?

The Redeemer, in my understanding, is actually the First Person, working through the Second, yet we are more occupied on the whole with learning to work thorugh the 2nd as we literally occupy the 3rd Aspect as our vehicle(s) -- being on a large scale the world and Great Life "in Whom we live and move and have our being." Deity, just as ourselves, consists of Spirit, expressing through an evolving (and conditionally Immortal) SOUL, using a threefold or fourfold personality instrument (lower mind, emotions, vital soul & dense body). The difference is scale, or quantitative, rather than qualitative. Even Christ, as we are taught Biblically, is presented as "the Eldest in a vast family of brothers" (Romans 8:29)... and not some kind of carrot on a stick whom or which will always beckon us, while never quite being approachable.
Since I believe God to be ineffable for us I don't see the first person as Redeemer. Jesus paves the way for the Holy Spirit to help in Man's awakening. Jesus receives from the father and gives to Man. The soul of evolved Man can do the same but as we are, our inner chaos and lack of presence denies the growth of the soul that can serve to connect heaven and earth.

Connecting heaven and earth is one thing but establishing the kingdom on earth is impossible. Our collective being cannot allow it.
 
Back
Top