Paradise and The Fall

Hi Nick,

A few quick replies...getting late. :)

Nick the Pilot said:
Luna,

You said,

"The only thing is, to my understanding Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about ... our relationship with God."

--> This is our difference in a nutshell. The value of our discussion for a monotheist (you) and a non-monothiest (me) is to compare ideas.
Click to expand...

Well, this kind of discussion is why I am here at CR. I was just trying to correct a misunderstanding I thought you had...you said: "This Fall into matter is seen as a sin in Christianity." That seems to equate matter with sin, or evil, and that is not an orthodox Christian view. I was just trying to clarify that. (BTW, were you raised in a Christian tradition? I feel a little silly explaining things to you if you already know them...but am still happy to discuss my understanding of these things).

Nick--->I am open to hearing about Gnostic ideas. Are you saying Gnostic ideas do not resonate with you?

I don't really know much about Gnosticism, in spite of having a number of conversations with gnostics here and elsewhere. I get the general gist of what gnosis is, and in that sense I am gnostic, but ask 10 gnostics what they know and you will of course get ten different answers. :) Anyhoo, the idea that creation/matter is evil and spirit is good and needs to be released from this material prison is a Gnostic idea from the first century, I think. As for me, I'm a Christian.

"I have heard of the Fall used as a metaphor for our 'fall' into self-consciousness, the 'moment' when humanity could comprehend that the only way we could be "I" is if there is also "other," and thus the illusion of duality started for all time."

--> This is similar to my belief system, so I would remove the word "metaphor". The concept of duality (a duality that eventually disappears) is basic to many eastern philosophies.
Click to expand...
I think it works this way, although I would definitely call it a metaphor, and I would also say that it falls short (no pun intended) of the full meaning of the Fall.

"My own view of the Fall is that is not something that happened in the past, but something that is part of our own experience now."

[/I]--> I agree. This is why I described the entire experience as a cycle. The cycle continues even today. (I suppose Christianity sees it as only two stages — Heaven and earth. I see it as a seemingly endless ladder of ascending (and descending) of levels of consciousness.
Click to expand...

I think you have expressed another misconception here: heaven and earth as two stages. I don't have time to sort it out right now but I'll try to return to it, or maybe Thomas will have something to say about it. But off the top of my head: Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Reconciliation is for the earth to become heaven. It's inaugerated, and it will be completed in the fullness of time.

"We feel alienated...."

--> This is the duality that you mentioned before.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so.

"Interesting. Please go on."

--> Oh, I could give a lot more detail, but I do not know how much you want. Have you heard of the ideas of various levels of consciousness?
Click to expand...

Well, I think Andrew has talked about it...but I don't really remember it. If you can explain it simply that would be of interest to me.

~~~

Luna, I want to thank you for our discussion so far. It is rare, indeed, for a Christian and a non-Christian to have a meaningful discussion. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...
My pleasure. As I said, that's why I post here. That and the doughnuts. You have tried the doughnuts, haven't you?

good nite
 
Luna,

You said,

"...to equate matter with sin, or evil ... is not an orthodox Christian view."

--> I agree. The idea of "falling into matter" is a Theosophical concept.

"BTW, were you raised in a Christian tradition?"

--> Yes, I was. I even went to a Catholic high school. Our discussions in high school religion class were very "interesting". The day I graduated high school was the day I quit the church.

"I think you have expressed another misconception here: heaven and earth as two stages.... Reconciliation is for the earth to become heaven."

--> This is one of the biggest differences between Christianity and Theosophy. We do not see Heaven happening on Earth. Rather, we interpret the idea to mean this: A high level of consciousness is required to exist on the highest Plane of Existence. It is our task to develop this ability (to be conscious at a high level) while on Earth. (This is our interpretation of "on Earth as it is in Heaven" — a profound concept.) We also do not believe our physical bodies will be taken up to Heaven — a key Christian teaching.

The funny thing is, we believe a lot of the things in the Bible, but we interpret them in a metaphysical way, which changes their meaning completely.

"Christianity does not see the fall as the fall into matter, but it is about ... our relationship with God."

--> This is a key point in our differences. Another way to state our differerences is: To us, it is not about our relationship with God, it is about our relationship with each other. When you and I finally achieve Nirvanic conscious (something I am really looking forward to), all separation between you and I will disappear.

"If you can explain [levels of consciousness] simply that would be of interest to me."

--> For example, we believe we can become fully conscious while on the astral plane. Have you heard of this?

"...that's why I post here. That and the doughnuts."

--> Dang, that reminds me how hungry I am. (I did bring a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, though....)
 
Being Catholic I shall pre-empt Lunamoth in highlighting the differences between Catholic and Orthodox on the subject of the Fall from our side of the fence ... but I hope I have done so fairly.

The main distinction between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the Fall is, I would argue, not a doctrinal difference, but a theological difference, subsequent to the Sacra Doctrina. In making such a claim I declare my conviction that East and West are as 'two lungs' (to use the late Pope John Paul II's term) of the one living and breathing organism.

Orthodoxy denies Augustine's notion of hereditary guilt (or rather never accepted it - Augustine was unknown in the East until the 14th century, by which time theological outlooks had 'set').

For the Orthodox, the act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, as it is for Augustine, but the consequences of that act altered the reality of the Kosmos. Thus the East do not see humanity as sharing in the guilt of Adam, as the West does.

The West holds that the consequence of the sin of Adam is that by a fault of nature, man is inclined to sin, and by sinning partakes ontologically in the original act, not so much guilty of the sin of Adam, but guilty in the sin of Adam, and thus bears some of the burden of culpability.

Thomas
 
As we are on the Esoteric board, I thought I might post some quotes from Frithjof Schuon, who, after René Guénon, I consider to be an esoterist without equal in the realm of Traditional Metaphysics and thereby Comnparative Religion, and who is widely regarded as a foremost spokesman of the Perennial Tradition.

All the following quotes are taken from "Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts"

Existence is to be found symbolized in the story of the Earthly Paradise. Adam's desire — the cause of sins, but according to Islam, not in itself sin — is like the shadow of the principle of contradiction or of nothingness implicit in the Divine infinity.

This principle is not itself evil, but it is the distant metaphysical source of evil since it is the cause of the world considered as a 'splitting into two' of the Real, as separation and estrangement.

The whole problem lies in the fact that the serpent was in Paradise. Had he not been there, Paradise would have been God, or rather it could not have had any separate existence. To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'.
 
The very fact that existence has been called esoterically 'a fault to which no other fault can be compared' shows that the fall of Adam is nothing other than the actualizing on the level of existence of the separative principle of existence.

In Hindu terms one would say that Eve represents the expansive and passional cosmic quality (rajas) and that the serpent — who is necessarily to be found in Paradise since Paradise is created — is the subversive and dark quality (tamas).

In the story of the Earthly Paradise there are four degrees of causality or responsibility, which are represented by God, Adam, Eve and the serpent. Judaism and Christianity include Eve and Adam in the sin, though in different degrees. Islam attributes the sin to Satan.

Metaphysically one could, if one went beyond the level at which the notion of 'sin' has a meaning, attribute the negative cause to God himself, for evil cannot come about by chance.

If Islam denies the sin of Adam — not in the sense of an 'error committed' but in the sense of an intentional transgression — and denies at the same time the culpability of prophets in general, this is for the metaphysical reason that God, of whom Adam and the prophets are direct representatives (Khulafe, from Khali'fah), is without imperfection while being at the same time the final, and indirect, Cause of imperfections.

If the Bible, on the contrary, affirms the sin of Adam, this is for the cosmological reason that he was the first human manifestation of evil without which there would have been no sins in the world.
 
"To exist means to be other than God, and so to be 'bad'."

--> This is not a Theosophical concept. Theosophy sees humanity as basically good, not basically bad.

Also, Sin is not a Theosophical concept.
 
More from Schuon –
(BTW: on the matter of copyright, I am a friend of a friend, as it were, and so exercise certain permissions):

According to Christian doctrine Adam sinned and the fall was the first sin.

For Islam Adam could not sin. He was the first of the Prophets, and they are beyond sin. On the other hand Adam was a man, and human nature implies limitations and so the possibility of faults; otherwise nothing would distinguish it from God. It is a fault (dhanb), that is a sort of inadvertence or confusion and not an intentional transgression (ithm, fulm), which caused the loss of Eden.

The first pair were pardoned for this fault after suffering its consequences on this earth. It is a peculiarity of the faults of prophets that they carry with them sanctions in this life and not in the next life. David and Solomon had to suffer here below and not in the beyond. According to this way of seeing things it is only through Cain that sin came into the world.

Christianity does not concede the impeccability of prophets in general and of Adam in particular. Since however it cannot admit that prophets suffered the pains of fire, even before the coming of Christ, it placed the prophets in limbo. This conception of limbo, a 'non-heaven' which is also not hell, has a theological function analogous to the Islamic conception of a fault, a 'demerit' which is not a sin.

Christianity, with its 'historical' mode of thinking, attributes to original sin what Islam attributes to earthly nature as such. In a sense the Christian perspective is in 'time' and that of Islam in 'space'.

Note:
In itself this Arabic word dhanb designates 'fault' considered in its aspect of being an 'excrescence'. This makes it possible to understand that existence (ex-stare) is, according to a hadith, a 'guilt to which no other can be compared'. A desire is an 'excrescence', but cannot be considered as a 'sin'; on the other hand every sin has by definition an aspect of dhanb, and this authorises the designation of every transgression by this word.
 
The Christian perspective is founded on the fall of Adam, which requires as its complement the messianic redemption.

The Islamic perspective for its part envisages humanity as it is, in its collective state so the speak, and it rests on the idea of the 'message' (risalah), of the 'envoys' (rusul), that is, on the necessarily multiple manifestation of the eternal Word. This line of messengers, since it has a beginning, requires a final synthesis — the Prophet, who is the 'seal', or kheztam, of the prophetic cycle. The 'mythologies' intersect without inner contradiction and the mutual misinterpretations arise from ignorance of their respective points of departure and from the mistake of attributing to others one's own postulates.

The Hindu perspective starts from Reality, not from man, whose fall becomes one cosmic accident among thousands of others.

The Buddhist perspective, like the Christian, starts from man: it is founded on the distinction between suffering and Deliverance, but it speaks of man only to reduce him to nothingness. This apparent nothingness is the sole Reality, the infinite Plenitude.
 
Hey Flow –

Isn't there a link between figs and seratonin, and seratonin and the pineal gland?

Thomas
 
Hi Nick

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

The quote expresses a metaphysical concept.

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

Is there a Theosophical correlate of sin?

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

You said,

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

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

"Is there a Theosophical correlate of sin?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your ideas are very similar to Theosophy.

You said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said,

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

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

Hi earl,

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

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

luna
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"The Abrahamic Traditions see humanity as essentially good also. In fact, very good."

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

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

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

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

2 c,
luna
 
Luna,

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

-- LEARNING GOOD AND BAD --

You said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- REQUIREMENTS TO ENTER HEAVEN/NIRVANA --

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

The road to Nirvana is very difficult — perhaps brutal is a better word. (See Krishnamurti's book, cited above, for details.) One of the first steps is beginning to judge right from wrong.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"We are not here to become 'good,'...."
Click to expand...

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

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

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

--> For the Theosophist, just the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Interesting.

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

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

link to online book — Modern Theosophy: At The Feet of the Master, Alcyone
Click to expand...
Thank you for the resource.

-- REQUIREMENTS TO ENTER HEAVEN/NIRVANA --

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

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

The road to Nirvana is very difficult — perhaps brutal is a better word. (See Krishnamurti's book, cited above, for details.)
Click to expand...
Love is very difficult.
 
Thomas...never heard that before. If so, it makes a lot of sense, no ? The earliest and first medicinal for depression ? Very Interesting.

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

You said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, in conclusion, Theosophists feel that merely understanding and loving the Deity will not get us to Nirvana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top