taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thank you, wil. This has been part of my grief from the very beginning.
Words are continually being inserted - and quite forcefully, it sometimes feels - into my throat, and I find myself coughing as I ask, "Did I say that!?!"
Indeed, I did not, nor have I ever!
What I have said, and what I will say again, since this is a thread on "Esoterism and esoterica," on the esoteric forum, is that I do, when it comes to religion(s), unquestionably BELIEVE (key word) in an all-embracing Universal spirituality (please note my word choice, and the image it might convey).
This I would simply call Truth, as in Buddhism it is called Dharma, translated as roughly the same (literally meaning to bear, or support).
Sometimes the term applied, in the East, is Gupta Vidya, meaning the knowledge, or wisdom, which is concealed, or preserved. And THIS is where semantics become important.
~+~+~+~
But I should clarify that the term I prefer in speaking of the Gupta Vidya, or Dharma, is not Theos Sophia, or `Wisdom of God,' much as I believe this appellation to be accurate. NOR am I a representative, or representative MEMBER, of the Theosophical Society.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: My membership in the Theosophical Society of America lasted from about Nov. of 1990, for perhaps a year or two, before I stopped paying dues and allowed my membership to lapse.
As for my own spirituality, I prefer the simple, plain English term Wisdom Religion, or as it is also often called by its adherents, the Ageless Wisdom. One could also say, the Wisdom Tradition, or - simpler still - the Wisdom.
~+~+~
Yes, this seems quite presumptuous to some. It is SO presumptuous, in fact, as Thomas most keenly observes, that it begs the very question: IS there, in fact, a "Universal Truth?"
But notice that we have two different ways of approaching this subject.
It seems, that rather than speak of Truth, in some measure, as something we CAN objectively attain, and then looking at WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN, or LOOK LIKE, for us to do so ... Thomas would rather say, "it is all beyond us."
And that, as Mr. Churchill put it, is something up with which I shall not put.
Still, without realizing it, Thomas has stated exactly what the Ageless Wisdom posits as its most CENTRAL and critical tenent! As Thomas puts it:
To quote further:
Precisely what the Ageless Wisdom holds is the position that NO ONE RELIGION is superior over all others ... but rather, that all are methods, or paths, of approaching, communing (and communicating) with the Divine.
And therefore, certainly, is it not the MOST OBVIOUS realization of all - ironically, somehow the stumbling block for so, so many people down through the ages, and even in the world TODAY - that YES (!!!), Love, Grace, Submission and Surrender are common among all people, for they are ALL characteristic of our Universal Human approach to the Divine?
How do we define these experiences, these wonderful, beautiful spiritual verities, which all people, and all peoples have had, ever since our world began ... IF NOT in terms of our direct, human participation IN THEM???
This, I'm afraid, is the tragedy. THIS, is what for me has become, at times, a source of heartbreak, that "my favoured sage," as our friend Thomas puts it, is somehow LESS IMPORTANT than HIS FAVOURED SAGE.
If St. Thomas Aquinas appeals to one man, or the writings of Rene Guenon are inspirational to another, then let that man read those works, and where there is an online discussion forum ... DEDICATED to compartive religion, philosophy and Interfaith, then SURELY there will be room for further investigation and exploration among kindred hearts and minds.
And if another man has found meaning, purpose, guidance and genuine wisdom, true insight in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, or Rudolf Steiner, or Max Heindel, or Alice Bailey, or Lucille Cedercrans, or other modern esotericists who have followed their footsteps ... wisdom which has influenced that man for the better, and led him straight and clear in matters both of the heart and of the soul, then WHAT A FOOL this man would be - to abandon his calling, forsake his greatest Teachers, and begin his search anew, as if he had learned nothing by treading life's path.
Yet we find, again and again, that Thomas is ready to naysay anything having to do with the resurfacing of the Wisdom ... as if there were NOT, indeed, One Universal Truth, GOD'S OWN, plain and simple.
The Wisdom Tradition does not say, there is One Truth, and "we have it." And THIS, you will find, is what upsets Thomas the most. If the Wisdom Religion is indeed, available to all who seek ... and is NOT contained, in Vatican libraries, or secret underground chambers, NOR in the vestments, authority or person of the Pope, the Dalai Lama or the Grand High Mighty Poohbah of Froopaloopa VII, then yes - WHERE IS that Truth, and WHAT is it?
To assert that there is a Universal Wisdom, and that it is GOD's, is really - for anyone who's been paying attention, and not living under a rock, a complete TAUTOLOGY.
As a refresher (for me as well, I assure you), that means "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," says Webster. Needless, because it is so, bleeding obvious!
Sure, several philosophical, not to mention scientific and religious questions are begged in saying, there is a Universal Wisdom ... but most of us would say that we can skip that part, and just get to the angle on things, so to speak.
What is one's angle? Obtuse? (no really, we say that) Or acute? A cute `e,' for wordplay? yeah, groan ... but what is the opposite?
An obtuse person is a difficult, or "thick" person ... sometimes by choice, yet also this can mean someone not so bright, not tremendously intelligent.
And what is the opposite, then? I'd have to say, that "acute" individuals, are folks such as Thomas and myself. Obtuse people are not heartless, or unemotional, and neither are acute folks. Yet the acute sort do indeed have a "sharpened wit," and to make sure we're all on the same page here, Webster's primary definitions of wit include "mind, memory, reasoning power, intelligence, sense, mental soundness, sanity, astuteness of perception or judgment, and acumen" ... only listing "apt humor" WAY down the list.
I will hand the wittiness to Thomas every time, yet while I can certainly be obtuse at times (and I AM such a person, more than I know) ... neither of us is particularly unenlightened. The term people often use, as a compliment, is `sharp,' or of course, `BRIGHT,' which is what I have heard most of my life.
What am I getting at by all of this?
Come on, we even have this expression in everyday parlance as, "what angle of attack do you want to use," as when solving a problem, or approaching a troubling situation.
Now there is more I could say here about aquiline noses, and Rome, and the Masonic Square has - in fact - everything to do with this line of reason, yet I fear even I would chuckle at what I am suggesting, were I in any other frame of mind ... and for those not familiar with certain Theosophical ideas, this could very easily seem worse than farcical, while those who are familiar either "get it," or will - clash noses - as it were.
Suffice it to say, that mental clairvoyance, wherein a man's own thoughtform can be perceived, is a revelatory thing indeed ... whereupon I call recall thinking to myself those several years ago: "Am I THAT!?!"
But no, it was no pretty aura, nor a delightful, glowing splendor that I saw ... when it comes down to one man, arguing his various thoughts or viewpoints with (or even against) another, our own (personality, `ego') thoughtform is a rather matter-of-fact thing, after all.
And the argument does not need to be so vicious, so cutting, antagonistic and intense ... nor even the modern, sportive, fast-paced raquetball echange of ideas which often ends up causing worse injuries than a deadly game of jai alai (or rugby).
~+~
Yes, I am being fairly direct. But I find that, at times, it helps to deal openly with something, rather than keep shoving it under the rug, pretend it is merely a trifle, or yet worse, channel the irritation into all sorts of flowerly, prosaic speech, which is really only so much thinly-veiled swordplay.
I may not have used one on this plane for 8 centuries, but I have had my fair of sharpenings as well.
(seems I'm verboser than ever - pt. 2 forthcoming I guess!)
Thomas said:
Words are continually being inserted - and quite forcefully, it sometimes feels - into my throat, and I find myself coughing as I ask, "Did I say that!?!"
Indeed, I did not, nor have I ever!
What I have said, and what I will say again, since this is a thread on "Esoterism and esoterica," on the esoteric forum, is that I do, when it comes to religion(s), unquestionably BELIEVE (key word) in an all-embracing Universal spirituality (please note my word choice, and the image it might convey
).This I would simply call Truth, as in Buddhism it is called Dharma, translated as roughly the same (literally meaning to bear, or support).
Sometimes the term applied, in the East, is Gupta Vidya, meaning the knowledge, or wisdom, which is concealed, or preserved. And THIS is where semantics become important.
~+~+~+~
But I should clarify that the term I prefer in speaking of the Gupta Vidya, or Dharma, is not Theos Sophia, or `Wisdom of God,' much as I believe this appellation to be accurate. NOR am I a representative, or representative MEMBER, of the Theosophical Society.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: My membership in the Theosophical Society of America lasted from about Nov. of 1990, for perhaps a year or two, before I stopped paying dues and allowed my membership to lapse.
As for my own spirituality, I prefer the simple, plain English term Wisdom Religion, or as it is also often called by its adherents, the Ageless Wisdom. One could also say, the Wisdom Tradition, or - simpler still - the Wisdom.
~+~+~
Yes, this seems quite presumptuous to some. It is SO presumptuous, in fact, as Thomas most keenly observes, that it begs the very question: IS there, in fact, a "Universal Truth?"
But notice that we have two different ways of approaching this subject.
It seems, that rather than speak of Truth, in some measure, as something we CAN objectively attain, and then looking at WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN, or LOOK LIKE, for us to do so ... Thomas would rather say, "it is all beyond us."
And that, as Mr. Churchill put it, is something up with which I shall not put.
Still, without realizing it, Thomas has stated exactly what the Ageless Wisdom posits as its most CENTRAL and critical tenent! As Thomas puts it:
[Truth is] beyond form, beyond definition, beyond distinction ... [but] it manifests itself in varying forms, across time and culture, with greater and lesser degrees of penetration or revelation. (my emphasis)
To quote further:
You end up taking a position which assumes a superiority to all religion, a meta-religion, in which you define terms such as 'love', 'grace' 'submission', 'surrender' etc., according to yourself (what other means have you?) or according to your favoured sage ...
I'll answer this question, since it is a valid one. And for once, Thomas is on the right track here - in seeing to the heart of the Wisdom Religion. Precisely what the Ageless Wisdom holds is the position that NO ONE RELIGION is superior over all others ... but rather, that all are methods, or paths, of approaching, communing (and communicating) with the Divine.
And therefore, certainly, is it not the MOST OBVIOUS realization of all - ironically, somehow the stumbling block for so, so many people down through the ages, and even in the world TODAY - that YES (!!!), Love, Grace, Submission and Surrender are common among all people, for they are ALL characteristic of our Universal Human approach to the Divine?
How do we define these experiences, these wonderful, beautiful spiritual verities, which all people, and all peoples have had, ever since our world began ... IF NOT in terms of our direct, human participation IN THEM???
This, I'm afraid, is the tragedy. THIS, is what for me has become, at times, a source of heartbreak, that "my favoured sage," as our friend Thomas puts it, is somehow LESS IMPORTANT than HIS FAVOURED SAGE.
If St. Thomas Aquinas appeals to one man, or the writings of Rene Guenon are inspirational to another, then let that man read those works, and where there is an online discussion forum ... DEDICATED to compartive religion, philosophy and Interfaith, then SURELY there will be room for further investigation and exploration among kindred hearts and minds.
And if another man has found meaning, purpose, guidance and genuine wisdom, true insight in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, or Rudolf Steiner, or Max Heindel, or Alice Bailey, or Lucille Cedercrans, or other modern esotericists who have followed their footsteps ... wisdom which has influenced that man for the better, and led him straight and clear in matters both of the heart and of the soul, then WHAT A FOOL this man would be - to abandon his calling, forsake his greatest Teachers, and begin his search anew, as if he had learned nothing by treading life's path.
Yet we find, again and again, that Thomas is ready to naysay anything having to do with the resurfacing of the Wisdom ... as if there were NOT, indeed, One Universal Truth, GOD'S OWN, plain and simple.
The Wisdom Tradition does not say, there is One Truth, and "we have it." And THIS, you will find, is what upsets Thomas the most. If the Wisdom Religion is indeed, available to all who seek ... and is NOT contained, in Vatican libraries, or secret underground chambers, NOR in the vestments, authority or person of the Pope, the Dalai Lama or the Grand High Mighty Poohbah of Froopaloopa VII, then yes - WHERE IS that Truth, and WHAT is it?
To assert that there is a Universal Wisdom, and that it is GOD's, is really - for anyone who's been paying attention, and not living under a rock, a complete TAUTOLOGY.
As a refresher (for me as well, I assure you), that means "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," says Webster. Needless, because it is so, bleeding obvious!
Sure, several philosophical, not to mention scientific and religious questions are begged in saying, there is a Universal Wisdom ... but most of us would say that we can skip that part, and just get to the angle on things, so to speak.
What is one's angle? Obtuse? (no really, we say that) Or acute? A cute `e,' for wordplay? yeah, groan ... but what is the opposite?
An obtuse person is a difficult, or "thick" person ... sometimes by choice, yet also this can mean someone not so bright, not tremendously intelligent.
And what is the opposite, then? I'd have to say, that "acute" individuals, are folks such as Thomas and myself. Obtuse people are not heartless, or unemotional, and neither are acute folks. Yet the acute sort do indeed have a "sharpened wit," and to make sure we're all on the same page here, Webster's primary definitions of wit include "mind, memory, reasoning power, intelligence, sense, mental soundness, sanity, astuteness of perception or judgment, and acumen" ... only listing "apt humor" WAY down the list.
I will hand the wittiness to Thomas every time, yet while I can certainly be obtuse at times (and I AM such a person, more than I know) ... neither of us is particularly unenlightened. The term people often use, as a compliment, is `sharp,' or of course, `BRIGHT,' which is what I have heard most of my life.
What am I getting at by all of this?
Come on, we even have this expression in everyday parlance as, "what angle of attack do you want to use," as when solving a problem, or approaching a troubling situation.
Now there is more I could say here about aquiline noses, and Rome, and the Masonic Square has - in fact - everything to do with this line of reason, yet I fear even I would chuckle at what I am suggesting, were I in any other frame of mind ... and for those not familiar with certain Theosophical ideas, this could very easily seem worse than farcical, while those who are familiar either "get it," or will - clash noses - as it were.
Suffice it to say, that mental clairvoyance, wherein a man's own thoughtform can be perceived, is a revelatory thing indeed ... whereupon I call recall thinking to myself those several years ago: "Am I THAT!?!"
But no, it was no pretty aura, nor a delightful, glowing splendor that I saw ... when it comes down to one man, arguing his various thoughts or viewpoints with (or even against) another, our own (personality, `ego') thoughtform is a rather matter-of-fact thing, after all.
And the argument does not need to be so vicious, so cutting, antagonistic and intense ... nor even the modern, sportive, fast-paced raquetball echange of ideas which often ends up causing worse injuries than a deadly game of jai alai (or rugby).
~+~
Yes, I am being fairly direct. But I find that, at times, it helps to deal openly with something, rather than keep shoving it under the rug, pretend it is merely a trifle, or yet worse, channel the irritation into all sorts of flowerly, prosaic speech, which is really only so much thinly-veiled swordplay.
I may not have used one on this plane for 8 centuries, but I have had my fair of sharpenings as well.
(seems I'm verboser than ever - pt. 2 forthcoming I guess!)
