The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

Thomas said:
Either way, your assertion that you are Absolute shows just how egoically-founded you are.
Click to expand...

Then you say that Jesus is egoically-founded, for he says the same "I and my father are One". In reality, it is that Jesus has dropped ego so completely that he simply isn't, only God is. I know the same to be true of myself, and since I live in a country with free speech, I am able to say my truth without ramification.

I do not even want you to believe me though, if you accept this of me you will worship me as so many worship Jesus. I want to glorify and bring all gratitude back to that which is - God - and wake up as many as I encounter. For me, even Jesus is irrelevant, for without the Father - the unmanifest - he is just a measly carpenter lost to history.
 
Thomas said:
I am not talking 'technique' here, which is in itself a mental exercise.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly correct, and yet why has man been given these mental faculties? Your own scripture teaches of contemplation - using mind to go towards truth. Mind is a tool to go beyond this world; you have said you have encountered true oneness, was this not a result of deep contemplation?

Thomas said:
Yes ... and no ... they are also a contimuum.
Click to expand...

What I describe takes one beyond space and time, in that space there is no continuum. Continuation is a perception of mind, it is the minds way of interpreting what is perceived as change - most accurately perceived through our planets rotation around the sun, and the moon's cycle around us, thus creating our day and month conceptions.

Thomas said:
I question that. Your 'herenow' is conditioned and conditional, so not necessarily transcendent.
Click to expand...

It is not my herenow, and it is utterly free from conditions. When body-mind is not there, how can conditioning come in at all? What I experience is not something I have learned, or an imagination in my mind. It is impossible to imagine or even describe when it has been experienced - words simply cannot give it justice.

What is more, do you realize that everything you believe from the Bible is exactly a conditioning? I find it highly hypocritical that you would accuse me of this when even after apparently being shown truth, you have returned to clinging to the fleshly embodiment of your prior conditioning. Who is important to you? The manifestation or the manifester - who is Jesus if he was never anointed by what you call God? He is an irrelevant carpenter forgotten to history...

Thomas said:
The more precise metaphysical understanding is that God is immanently present in and to creation as the source, the foundation or, if you like, the ground of being ... but as God is not a being as other beings are, God is beyond-being, as the traditions declare, then God is beyond the being-ness of things.
Click to expand...

He is beyond the being-ness of things, because he is the very nature of all things being, he is the one true being of which we are all as expressions. He is without discernible form because he is the very thing which has given it form, that has caused it to be. He is in every atom in creation, and yet he is the sum of them all. You cannot rightfully say "here is God" because by pointing at something in particular you miss his vastness; yet, you cannot say where God is not either, because there is no such place.

Thomas said:
God is not a part of being, but rather beings arise through the creative act of God, who is source and end. It is a common error today to confuse artist and artefact, creator and creation.
Click to expand...

God is not part, God is the whole.

Thomas said:
You look for the part of you that is unchanging, never seeing that 'you' arise from something else, and that 'you' will always be relative and contingent. Only by incorporation and participation can a created nature experience the Uncreate ... and it cannot be attained or achieved by 'technique' but only by invitation (the lower cannot assume the higher) ... that's why we say 'grace perfects nature'.
Click to expand...

The Bible says God is within us and without, that which is within us that is unchanging is exactly that essence which is God. We can look within and touch God, we can go outward and eventually touch God - metaphorically speaking, since it isn't an object. What is important to see is that within and without are not two, God is one and God is all.

Note that I use the Bible as reference only, it is authoritative to you and thus I will use it. What I speak is my own experience, what has been revealed to me personally as truth.
 
Lunitik said:
Then you say that Jesus is egoically-founded, for he says the same "I and my father are One".
Click to expand...
He is the incarnate Logos ... you are not ... you, like I, are logoi

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
He is the incarnate Logos ... you are not ... you, like I, are logoi
Click to expand...

Logoi is the pluralization of Logos, I do not accept this, there was no plurality in my experience - only absolute oneness.

I do not like this wording, at all. It wasn't mine in any way, I melted into it and was no more there - yet I have to possess it to convey it. I feel this could be why I am coming across as egoistic, it is an issue with language not with what I am trying to express.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the space of two posts, you have declared yourself to be Absolute, and now Infallible ... I suggest both are errors of perception.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
In the space of two posts, you have declared yourself to be Absolute, and now Infallible ... I suggest both are errors of perception.
Click to expand...

I have said there is only the Absolute, I am not.

It is your interpretation of my words which is in error.
 
Thomas said:
Actually it's not, it's more subtle and nuanced than that ... but that's within the Christian Tradition.
Click to expand...

All traditions are as poison, God is not in the tradition, God is in the herenow.

It is the tradition which causes war, all kinds of disgusting things. Realize this is the invention of man, the corruption of men. The past is dead, it is no more; the future is unborn, it is not yet. Only this moment contains life, and God is the nature of that life.

Mind won't permit you to touch it though, always it is as a pendulum going from one extreme to the other. Stop the pendulum and God is there - the middle, the perfect balance between perceived duality, the heart of everything, utter oneness.
 
A tradition is naught but the collective ego of an entire peoples.

Ego is naught but the collection of things which define "I" and "my", a conception in the mind of who you are. What I speak of is the discovery of that which you actually are, that in which the notion of "I" has formed and been given power.

What is the nature of that? Who is the observer of all that arises, what is the nature of that which watches all come and go? Who is the one who declares "I am"?

Yahweh - I am that I am, that awareness of what is.
 
Logos simply means "word".

What is the word? We are told in Genesis the word is "be", but who is the one aware of that which is?

This is why Buddha tells you to detach from all which you can observe, you are not that which you are observing - and yet, mind can be observed, body can be observed, everything can be observed. What is the nature of the observer, can it too be observed?

Only with a mirror.
 
When I use the word "I", I mean that awareness of being, not this particular expression.
 
Who are you, the mirror or the one being reflected?

I merely say I am the latter, you say I am in error?
 
If the mirror is smashed into a million pieces certainly its reflection is effected... what of that which was reflected in it though, is it affected at all?
 
Lunitik said:
Logos simply means "word".
Click to expand...
Hi Lunitik —

This is my problem: Logos does not 'simply' mean "word" (that would be lexis) by a long stretch.

You make many assertions assuming the impeccability and infallibility of your own knowledge and experience, but you consistently demonstrate that your grasp of theology and metaphysics is perhaps not quite as comprehensive nor complete as you assume it to be.

On that basis alone, I would be unwise to place any great faith in your own subjective and, it seems to me, somewhat sentimental assertions.

God bless,

Thomas
 
LOGOS stands for the indirect contact with the Divine.

- from another thread I wrote:
Called the Word in the Judeo-Christian Bible, Hindu Scriptures call it Naad and Shruti, Persian scriptures Sraosha, Kalma in Muslim scriptures, ‘the Sonorous Light' in Buddhism, Naam or Shabd by the Sikhs, in Patanjali Yoga Darshan, the God/dess Ishwara is a Being expressed by this original vibration (Pranav) and Madam Helen Blavatsky and the Theosophists call it ‘the Voice of Silence'.

The most popular word for this is OM, and through the influx of vibration all things in the physical Universe were created through sacred geometry such as the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Mean.
Click to expand...
 
Weird, cuz it is the word used in the first verse of John, and yet I bet your Bible says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." It is a very ordinary Greek word, it is unrelated to Jesus directly except that the command "be" has caused the cosmic Son - the Universe.

This is what I mean by traditions of men, you have added another meaning to the text, just as religion itself has been redefined. I also find it interesting that Jesus has called Paul the rock of his Church, who does Ezekiel say the rock is? Yet, most of the Bible is written by Paul, while absolutely none of it is actually Jesus. Just goes to show how much Christians actually pay attention to their own texts...
 
I dunno... one alternative translation of "logos" is "word" (very, very archaic use in the ancient Greek). Usually it is used as (one of my heros) Herclitus used it "a principle of order" in philosophy. In theology, I have to back Thomas. Not contemporary of the Gospel of John would have used "logos" as "word". St Jerome (do I have that right) hated trying to translate it because the term in John meant so much more.

I guess I kinda like "logos" (word, principle, knowledge, inner meaning....) for the same reason that I like "daat'si" (Navajo term meaning yes, no, maybe, prehaps, possibly, do I care.....)
 
Lunitik said:
Weird, cuz it is the word used in the first verse of John, and yet I bet your Bible says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." It is a very ordinary Greek word, it is unrelated to Jesus directly except that the command "be" has caused the cosmic Son - the Universe.

This is what I mean by traditions of men, you have added another meaning to the text, just as religion itself has been redefined. I also find it interesting that Jesus has called Paul the rock of his Church, who does Ezekiel say the rock is? Yet, most of the Bible is written by Paul, while absolutely none of it is actually Jesus.
Click to expand...
Would be very wierd indeed since My Bible would be more a kin the Satanic Bible ;)

The Word in your reference is the Divine emanation manifest into a slower frequency and ultimately into the physical world.
The LOGOS would be more like a telephone line from you to god.
 
Etu Malku said:
Would be very wierd indeed since My Bible would be more a kin the Satanic Bible ;)
Click to expand...

Well, except that I was addressing Thomas.

Etu Malku said:
The Word in your reference is the Divine emanation manifest into a slower frequency and ultimately into the physical world.
The LOGOS would be more like a telephone line from you to god.
Click to expand...

You are expressing something you have read, this is not interesting to me.

An enlightened person is simply one that has realized the nature of their being, thus we can say Jesus is the incarnation of the command "be" - and certainly much of his quoted words are as a slave to the Father.

For me, it is not interesting to address what is reincarnated or incarnated or whatever else. We have never left that which is, we simply do not recall. There is nothing which incarnates, it is merely an expression of that which is. Whatever you call that is utterly irrelevant - it is nameless.

Do you need a telephone line to yourself?
 
Yet, these things must not be believed, it must be realized for it to be a truth - known to be real through direct experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top