Esoterism and esoterica

[Dondi]

"For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:23-28

I wonder if there could be a happy medium here. On the one hand I can appreciate what AndrewX is trying accomplish in getting to the Core Wisdom Teaching, or whatever you want to call it. On the other hand, Thomas has the good point that elitist views do not serve the common man.

Paul in his address to the Athenians recognizes universality of God, though He is not completely understood by Paul's audience. But he also allows the exploration of that search to be accessible to everyone, that is, knowledge of God is never that far away.

Furthermore, if we are to believe Jesus, we are to come to Him as little children, which tells me that that accessibility does not require esoteric knowledge, but simple faith and trust in God.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

I've got a sneaky feeling my last post might upset you. If it does, can you see how it might upset me?

I hope it doesn't, and I get the feeling that the way things are read are not the sentiment you wished to express. Anyway, although we'll never agree, I hope we can keep things on an even keel.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

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

Andrew, You said,

"...the gradual evolution of One World Religion is something which I am convinced is coming about already...."​

--> It has been said a large number of people will become psychic in the next several thousand years. When that happens, the One World Religion will quickly come about (or so they way). It is something I am very much looking forward to.

By the way, regarding psychics telling what is really "out there", I have been communicating with a couple good psychics, and they have been telling me about how close Theosophy gets to saying what really goes on in the next world(s). (Pretty close, they say.) For example, there seems to be widespread agreement on the Astral, Mental, Buddhic, and Atman Levels. They stress the need for us to practice raising our levels of consciousness, in order to become conscious on each of these Levels.

Also, as you probably know, there has been a great deal of arguing among Theosophists as to whether the Etheric Double really eixsts. The psychics say it does (which I am glad to hear). According to them, some people who achieve "astral travel" are only achieving consciousness in the Etheric Double, which is not the Astral Body, and is much more restrictive.

We are fortunate to have these ways of validating Theosophical ideas.

 

[Thomas]

Furthermore, if we are to believe Jesus, we are to come to Him as little children, which tells me that that accessibility does not require esoteric knowledge, but simple faith and trust in God.

That's why I refute the idea of 'esoteric Christianity' as opposed to 'Christian esoterism' — the former regards itself as something elite and special, set apart and better than the poor mutts lining the pews. I have savoured it, and it's not a pleasant taste.

In the early Church we have records of slaves attending services alongside senators — all social distinctions were set aside when entering the sacred space. Sadly, over the centuries, they too often creep back in. I think 'esoteric Christianity' is more often than not just a form of intellectual snobbery.

(ps: Andrew — not in your case — EC it fits in with your wider viewpoint, there are others, not here, I have in mind.)

(pps: Doesn't mean I think you're right, though )

Loving God is easy, loving the person next to you in the pew can be difficult.

My mother had a family heirloom stolen from her whilst at Mass on Christmas Day — can you believe that? Why, for all love, would someone bother to go to church on Christmas Day and then steal a bracelet they saw slip from their neighbour's wrist? What do they think is going on? (My mother knows in retrospect when and how it was stolen).

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Hi Andrew —

We could go through this point by point, but I think that the 'carbon footprint' of our combined posts would actually register somewhere! So I shall just give overview comments, for the sake of brevity.

Good idea. I can never quite follow suit, for some reason ...

not every Christian could explain the significance of the rolling away of the stone and the empty tomb, but with a faith in the Resurrection, it really does not matter.

Here we must differ, and this is an important part of my point. If every Christian (or every Muslim, every Hindu, every Buddhist, etc., ad infinitum) ONLY needed faith, then religion itself would be a farce. I may as well believe that the moon is made of cheese, and regardless of the FACTS, it becomes so for me. Your assertion is a logical fallacy, but I can't remember which one. I think it goes, in common parlance, about like this:

Belief in a thing ... does not make it so! ​

Trying to tell me that religion is the opiate of the masses, are you? Fine. But then let's not pretend that it is anything else.

As an esotericist - or at least, someone with such a background, interest, and commitment to remaining an esoteric student - I must contest the idea that faith alone ... can buy us Salvation (much less lead us any farther, along the Path of Initiation).

Do you yourself not indicate this on your own newest thread on Doxia and Praxis, Thomas?

Likewise, it's better to believe in the incarnation, but not understand it, than understand it, but not believe in it. That's my view, anyway

Horse feathers! Although the Philosopher has sometimes said that to truly understand a thing necessitates belief and capitulation, we should at least be able to agree that understanding is better than ignorance.

Something that must be made clear about the Ageless Wisdom teachings, it is that they provide us a means to overcome our present state of ignorance ... AND they give us good reason to do so - a Purpose, in short.

Your argument, Thomas, seems to be that so long as we pay lip service, then the rest does not matter. If this is not quite what you've suggested, then it's dangerously close. How strange, that you go on to post an entirely separate philosophy, on a different thread, even here on the esoteric forum!!!

The ideal, of course, is - to not only UNDERSTAND a thing (in this case, some of the Lesser Mysteries), but also to act accordingly. Otherwise, the Buddha's parting advice to His Bhikkus is for nought, and He become a fool!

Whatever else the Buddha was, He was no fool. He was surely one of the wisest Beings ... to ever walk the face of this Earth. Let us not make Him into an ignoramus!

I don't see a necessary distinction — one man's esoterica is another man's common stock — I regard esoteric being according to the person, not according to itself

It seems the appeal here, is one of pure subjectivism, or relativism, Thomas, even though you yourself have usually been the one to speak out against such a philosophy ... and the loudest!

One God, One Humanity ... and accordinly, ONE TRUTH. Until we can see eye to eye on this point, our relationship must proceed from, and remain seated within, the Heart. And that is fine (it is THE ideal starting point!!!), but it means we will not be able to discuss much. Every time we try to move toward the philosophical, we will be buying into entirely different sets of assumptions, or theoretical frameworks ....

I hope you will allow me to say, even though it will not coincide with your own viewpoint, that as a student of Christ, the Logos of God, to me He is Wisdom Itself, God's wisdom Incarnate, so I have no need to seek elsewhere than at the source. For me, God is the Core, and is always there.

It would be strange is you did not feel this way, or if you were not at least inclined to SAY IT.

What I simply maintain, since it is my direct observation, participatory experience, finding - and understanding ... is that, indeed, "God is at the Core." And in your own words, nor do I "need to seek elsewhere than at the source."

Therefore, while each of the world's major religious traditions IS of interest to me, and while SEVERAL of the less well known forms of religious practice remain of interest ... and while EVEN a handful of long forgotten, or perhaps underground, Mystery Traditions do peak my interest ... I am a practitioner of NONE of these.

Each and every one of these traditions, faiths, and religions, EACH with its own set of motifs and symbolism, liturgies and holy observances ... was surely the Gift of God to the people - of a particular time, and culture, and geographical location ... and even existing spiritual background.

What is often overlooked, is that God does not simply - step in, as it were, to some SPIRITUALLY DEVOID group of people (a religious tabula rasa, as it were) ... even if, as tends to occur, the rituals and practices, and the very beliefs of a given people have digressed - from the original Inspiration, and Indications, which were provided, at some point in the distant, or not-so distant, history of their culture and religious tradition.

Rather, a `Divine Assessment,' if I might venture to make so bold a statement (and bear with me now, if you will ... so that I may explain!), takes into consideration the Blueprint - which was the Original Inspiration (in the Mind of God!) for the religion, people, culture and scenario in question ... and this assessment goes on to consider, in the intervening centuries (or decades, or millennia, or even aeons - vast ages) - what has occurred (?) ...

This is a rather simplistic presentation, but I am just suggesting that God DOES gauge - the PROGRESS which has been made, in "HIS" Name, as it were ... and as the Bible might put it, separates the Wheat from the chaff. Nor is this a one-time, future event ... for which all the faithful followers of a given tradition must carefully prepare. I'm saying, that this occurs every single day, at least on some small scale, while yet - on a larger scale - there are definite cyclical ASSESSMENTS (plural), wherein adjustments, or changes to a religion, may be made.

And these changes can and do occur, via the Work of the Prophets, as well as great Teachers and Sages ... which are known in the East as Avatars, being somewhat different, technically, than Saviours (as termed in the West), but fulfilling a similar function. And there areWestern Avatars ...

In another post, I want to share what an Armenian esoteric teacher indicates about cyclical appearances, in his book, Christ: The Avatar of Sacrifical Love. This will help to answer much of the question regarding what happens to this initial Spiritual Inspiration, after the Great Founders return to the Spiritual Centre whence They have all emanated.

But you see, Thomas, this is what I believe. And it is a belief shared by many thousands (tens of thousands) of esotericists worldwide. For this group, known unitedly under the moniker NGWS (New Group of World Servers), all outer differences do truly fall away. And thus, while for you, and for many, one's INDIVIDUAL religious choice (and beliefs) may matter - even greatly so, the NGWS sees only UNITY.

The Unity known, does not exist, because differences are not acknowledged. It exists, because they are acknowledged, and transcended. As one Spiritual Teacher has put it, "The Greater always includes the lesser." And no, no matter how much you, or anyone else insists, I cannot - and will not - be convinced ... that Christianity is greater than ANY other world religion, inherently ... or vice versa!

{My own preference may be for the ancient Vedic teachings which are truly foundational in the modern expression of `The Ancient Wisdom,' but I value these primarily for the role they have played in my own quest for Purpose, meaning and spiritual guidance ... NOT as inherently "superior" to any other set of teachings! If THIS is the kind of relativism you are advocating, Thomas, and one of yours points, then yes, we are on the same page here! }

Going on from that, I would say that the Wisdom of God is present, to a greater or lesser degree, in all traditions, but I do not believe that there is an ultimate or absolute deposit, a 'Core' tradition, if I might call it that, which presents a 'pure form' that can be observed apart from those traditions ... somewhere between God and religion ... I would respond by saying I hold that to be an abstraction, an intellectual hypothesis, a bit like Anselm's 'ontological argument' for the existence of God ... it can neither be proven nor disproven.

Here, Thomas, we will differ, though not so much as you might think. Even after I remind you why I maintain some of the things I maintain, I would ask you to come back to my point of agreement ... so let me make that first:

Yes, it is difficult to imagine, or hypothesize, an abstract Core Wisdom which yet (and please note the qualifier) concerns God's specific relationship with His Human Children on this (let alone other) planets. After all, what would that "look like?"

We have a thousand names for God, and the most concrete depictions involve the provision of the Divine with some kind of human or animal form, or another upadhi/means of expression (presumably) found in nature (although human technological advances, especially electronic ones, invite other speculation).

Precisely the argument of the Ageless Wisdom, is that God wishes to become known to His Children, and that although God's highest forms of expression are far, far beyond our ken, we may nonetheless understand ... even while we remain here on Planet Earth, in the flesh.

Our bodies, even flesh & blood, are not, ultimately, an impediment ... for it is ONLY through them (or rather, their right appropriation and mastery) - THAT we may fully come to know God, and fulfil the Purpose(s) for which God has placed us here!

And yet, as we have already agreed, we are more than just flesh & blood, as there are animating prinicples: the "breath of God," even in the most mundane sense - Prana, Chi, Elan Vital, Ruah or the etheric double - plus an astral-emotional body, a mental body (or mind) ... and a SOUL.

Not surprisingly, I find that our agreement starts to break down, as soon as I try to proceed past the astral-emotional princple (and its vehicle, the kama-rupa of Hindu teachings). As soon as I say mind, or lower mental body (its Theosophical designation, while easily half a dozen correlating terms can be taken from various Hindu schools) ... I wonder where you go off to, Thomas.

All that I ask, is that YOU TELL ME - from within the Christian teachings or tradition - WHAT is the correlation? I know I should hardly be one to ask for brevity, but I would hope, that you could perhaps provide a single, definite, precise and indicative term ... whereby the Church Fathers recognized our human, mortal MIND, AS A PRINCIPLE. Or, barring that, at least something definite, without a five volume treatise on it ...

Anyway, in Theosophical terminology, this has often been called kama-rupa, wherein the lower mental body is grouped together with the astral-emotional body ... since, admittedly, these usually function together, as a unit. For the two of us, however, I would think it should be exceedingly clear, that it is possible to be rational-minded, or tending toward the intellectual side, without given over as entirely to the emotional princple as are a great many people we likely know!

Not that we don't all have our moments, nor am I suggesting that we are philosophers after the Greeks, or anything like that. But certainly these are brilliant examples of men who, generally speaking, were exceedingly well-disicplined emotionally, such that the more rational, intellectual princple could shine out. And of course, there were exceptions ...

Clearly, I have not quite gotten to what I wanted to say on the Core Wisdom as it exists - imho - in the abstract form beyond our ken, which is nevertheless 100% perfectly objective ... and thus verifiable (because at least partially observable and OPEN to our experience). But I want to return to this, after I give my brain a chance to vege out in front of the boob tube. I want to see what happened to the Doctor (a few weeks back), after he took human form and fell in love just before WWI.

Incidentally, to prepare for the new Harry Potter movie, I re-watched Goblet of Fire just last night, and observed a number of points in the vein of esoteric teachings and familiar subjects ... some already mentioned in this thread. Dumbledore's Pensieve, for example (wordplay on pensive, being a device to sift out and store various memories), immediately brought my thoughts to the Akash (or Astral Light), yet some of the utterances of the varoius characters - especially toward the end - are powerful, very powerful, and quite deep.

The movie moved me, and I hope it has meaning for others, likewise. Can't say much about the new one though ... I haven't seen it yet!!!

Cheers ...

~Andrew

+++

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Here we must differ, and this is an important part of my point. If every Christian (or every Muslim, every Hindu, every Buddhist, etc., ad infinitum) ONLY needed faith, then religion itself would be a farce.

I don't think so:
"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God..." (John 1:12-13)

"The Divine took on a human nature, that human nature might open into the Divine" to paraphrase St Irenaeus of Lyon. That is what we believe, but that is beyond all proving. That is the 'scandal' of faith of which St Paul speaks.

This text makes no requirement for knowledge, otherwise intellectual capacity would be a requirement for salvation, and only the clever could be saved. But faith does not mean 'a nod in the direction of' but actually living — the praxis — according to what one believes — the orthos.

Faith is simple. Living it is hard.

Trying to tell me that religion is the opiate of the masses, are you? Fine. But then let's not pretend that it is anything else.

You might choose to believe that — I most certainly do not.

I am saying that faith in the datum of Revelation — data which itself lies beyond empirical proof.

I must contest the idea that faith alone ... can buy us Salvation (much less lead us any farther, along the Path of Initiation).

And if you know anything of Catholicism you know that we reject this notion also. It is a Protestant idea — introduced by Martin Luther, by the way — and it was an argument he lost when he tried to present Augustine as saying as much.

Do you yourself not indicate this on your own newest thread on Doxia and Praxis, Thomas?

There you go then. I am suggesting you misunderstand me.

Something that must be made clear about the Ageless Wisdom teachings, it is that they provide us a means to overcome our present state of ignorance ... AND they give us good reason to do so - a Purpose, in short.

This assumes the 'Ageless Wisdom' is a better way ... if you truly wish to make them clear, show them to me — apart from their borrowed forms. Until then I am certain that in every tradition that means is already actively present ... that some might not have found it does not mean it is not there, and the examples of the saints and sages suggests that it is.

Your argument, Thomas, seems to be that so long as we pay lip service, then the rest does not matter. If this is not quite what you've suggested, then it's dangerously close. How strange, that you go on to post an entirely separate philosophy, on a different thread, even here on the esoteric forum!!!

You know me better than that ... I fully accept your right to believe my faith is ill-founded, but please do not try and insinuate it is so because I am being dishonest or ingenuous ... I am arguing that one has to open oneself to truth to receive it, and this is not an intellectual exercise, but a Way.

I could easily, and as wrongly, accuse you of paying lip service to religion by just collecting the facts rather than observing the wisdom.

It seems the appeal here, is one of pure subjectivism, or relativism, Thomas, even though you yourself have usually been the one to speak out against such a philosophy ... and the loudest!

I am saying that man's capacity to know is relative ... otherwise everybody would draw the same conclusion from the same text. One man reads a text and understands the universe, another reads it, and is baffled ... are there two texts? No ... only two people ... 'esoteric' is relative to the individual...

... I am coming close, by the way, to a provisional acceptance that one who has attained a degree of insight in one tradition has a degree of insight into the wisdoms of another ... but it is far from as simple as that.

Therefore, while each of the world's major religious traditions is of interest to me ... I am a practitioner of NONE of these.

Then your understanding will only ever be distant, as you have argued above, surely? Is this not lip service? If you follow not these ways, which every tradition states is God's given way, then you are following your own ways?

Is this not the meaning of the message of the Tower of Babel?

Each and every one of these traditions, faiths, and religions, EACH with its own set of motifs and symbolism, liturgies and holy observances ... was surely the Gift of God to the people - of a particular time, and culture, and geographical location ... and even existing spiritual background.

Agreed. But I do not believe they are limited by those conditions, but that the voice of God speaks from the Eternal, and eternity, about Eternal Truth ... so that the allusion you make, to religion outlasting aa sell-by date, seems faulty to me ...

... you might also not know that whilst Catholicism states there will be no further relevation (note: this does not preclude personal relvelation), it also points out that we have yet to fully unpack what has been revealed, and God, in His infinite Wisdom, has so ordered things that what we discover in this Treasury of the Divine is always, and ever, timely ... and will be realised in time, according to God will and His Plan ... what we call oikonomia ... it's unpacking we call theologia.

Yes, it is difficult to imagine, or hypothesize, an abstract Core Wisdom which yet (and please note the qualifier) concerns God's specific relationship with His Human Children on this (let alone other) planets. After all, what would that "look like?"

What would they look like indeed?

This is where apophatic theology comes in, in every tradition, as in the neti-neti of the Vedas, 'not this, not that'. It is my contention that every tradition accesses this abstract, or the Absolute, in its own, unique way. But all agree ... it cannot be seen, it is beyond forms.

It is accessed, veertically and interiorly, through its subsequent esoteric and exoteric forms — these are its 'presence' in the world. I therefore think that any extra-traditional presentation of the Absolute must necessarily and unavoidably invent its own forms — its own esoterica and exoterica, its own orthos and praxis, and in so doing it falls foul of the very thing it tries to circumnavigate, and in a worse way.

If a 'Core Wisdom' is presented independent of Revelation, then it rises in the mind of man, and my fear (and my experience) leads me to understand this is a human abstraction, or rather the data of an a priori fallible device — its unique data is assumed. The risk is on invention, and there is no objective means of verifying the data — that abstraction could be an illusion.

All that I ask, is that YOU TELL ME - from within the Christian teachings or tradition - WHAT is the correlation? I know I should hardly be one to ask for brevity, but I would hope, that you could perhaps provide a single, definite, precise and indicative term ... whereby the Church Fathers recognized our human, mortal MIND, AS A PRINCIPLE. Or, barring that, at least something definite, without a five volume treatise on it ...

Can you simplify that question — what correlates are you looking for, or what are you trying to correlate, precisely?

Clearly, I have not quite gotten to what I wanted to say on the Core Wisdom as it exists - imho - in the abstract form beyond our ken, which is nevertheless 100% perfectly objective ... and thus verifiable (because at least partially observable and OPEN to our experience).

If it is beyond our ken, it may well be objective — but surely we have no way of knowing — apophasis again?

It is in the reasoning why one should assume that any given religion is insufficient is not enough to attain that which it promises that I find unsound and unproven.

The Core Wisdom we would say, the Source, the One, is expressed as accurately and effectively as the inexpressible can be expressed, in the apophatic dimension of any tradition. So again I argue that why look elsewhere, why the necessity to posit an abstract, when the reality is already soundly present and supported?

Pax,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

This text makes no requirement for knowledge, otherwise intellectual capacity would be a requirement for salvation, and only the clever could be saved. But faith does not mean 'a nod in the direction of' but actually living — the praxis — according to what one believes — the orthos.

Faith is simple. Living it is hard.

I can agree with your last sentiment, Thomas, but that is all (from the above).

Intellectual capacity IS a requirement for Salvation. This is something I maintain, out of my own belief ... because the contrary runs counter to all that I hold sacred and dear. It is, for me, absurd - that God would put us here to stupidly blunder our way into Heaven (let alone in one short lifetime). There is ample evidence in the world around us to indicate that this is not so.

We must LEARN while we are here, and put all that we learn into practice - ultimately, for the service of God (and our fellowman, these coming together as One in the Innermost). It is not the requirement that each person become a genius, or a great scientist, philosopher or statesman, in the present lifetime. But inevitably and eventually, it is so.

This can take us longer, or shorter, depending as we choose. But then, you know good & well that I believe in no such thing as your Roman Catholic ideas of Salvation, Thomas. I cannot believe in a God so incompetent and inept as to flubb things up and accidentally allow a state of things to eventuate whereby great portions of the Human Family might actually perish ... or suffer an eternal torment of hellfire and damnation.

Free Will is one thing ... but Solidarity, Brother, Solidarity!

Something that must be made clear about the Ageless Wisdom teachings, it is that they provide us a means to overcome our present state of ignorance ... AND they give us good reason to do so - a Purpose, in short.

This assumes the 'Ageless Wisdom' is a better way ... if you truly wish to make them clear, show them to me — apart from their borrowed forms. Until then I am certain that in every tradition that means is already actively present ... that some might not have found it does not mean it is not there, and the examples of the saints and sages suggests that it is.

In connection with what I've said above, whereby it is part of God's PLAN that we proceed from ignorance to Wisdom (vide the Upanishad) ... I will address this by moving on to what I didn't finish from my last post.

But first ...

I am saying that man's capacity to know is relative ... otherwise everybody would draw the same conclusion from the same text. One man reads a text and understands the universe, another reads it, and is baffled ... are there two texts? No ... only two people ... 'esoteric' is relative to the individual...

We are definitely on the same page here.

... I am coming close, by the way, to a provisional acceptance that one who has attained a degree of insight in one tradition has a degree of insight into the wisdoms of another ... but it is far from as simple as that.

And perhaps here ...

Therefore, while each of the world's major religious traditions is of interest to me ... I am a practitioner of NONE of these.

Then your understanding will only ever be distant, as you have argued above, surely? Is this not lip service? If you follow not these ways, which every tradition states is God's given way, then you are following your own ways?

Is this not the meaning of the message of the Tower of Babel?

By no means. With all due respect, this is precisely what I hear you saying, Thomas.

How is my understanding necessarily distant? This is a fallacy in your thinking, Thomas ... an assumption and an incorrect one, if also quite understandable.

Just because I do not bow down and pray five times a day facing the Kaaba, does not make me unpious. Just because I may not ever have received the exoteric Christian Sacrament of Baptism, does not mean that I am impure ... either of body, mind or spirit. And just because I am student of comparative religions yet attend no formalized religious services (as Mass, Synagogue, Mosque or Temple) ... does not mean that I am not a member of the Sangha.

The mistake here, and one which the Wisdom Religion eschews, is to mistake the form for the Spirit .. to confound Truth with any one of its many outward expressions. Deny that that TRUTH exists inwardly, as the support, lifesource, Spirit - the very raison d'etre - of them ALL ... and you immediately invalidate every outward tradition.

This does not lessen the importance of exoteric religion, and notice that I have said nothing about Theosophists or the modern Theosophical Movement here. Ammonius Saccas, living eighteen centuries ago, knew, taught and lived the Ageless Wisdom ... or THEOS SOPHIA - but he did not discover this Wisdom by borrowing or stealing it from the Hindus. Plato, even eight centuries prior, did likewise, as an Initiate into these very Mysteries ... just as St. Paul after him. But none of these great men considered RELIGION ITSELF as more important than the God Who gave it, in all its many forms and functions.

It is up to us to honor and receive this gift, respect its origins and Purpose, and put it to good use. And what did the Buddha say to do with the raft, once we have cross the shore?

So, do I imply or mean to suggest that I have traveled so far, and attained to so much, that I, like the Arhats, do not need the raft? By no means.

But the metaphor applies to each stage of the Path, in a way, and this is something we must tread cyclically, over & over, much as we have incarnated life after life, cyclically. The final set of lifetimes are in many ways - those in which we garner, or harvest, the results of dozens, hundreds, even thousands of lifetimes of sowing. Some of this has been intentional, and yields favorable results, other sowing has been in error, and these are a bitter harvest ... but it is all part of the Learning Experience. It's up to us how soon, how well, and how determinedly we choose to cooperate ...

Agreed. But I do not believe they are limited by those conditions, but that the voice of God speaks from the Eternal, and eternity, about Eternal Truth ... so that the allusion you make, to religion outlasting aa sell-by date, seems faulty to me ...

Many factors contribute to such a possibility. Humanity's overall karma, as one might expect, may ultimately condition whether or not a given Revelation can survive what we may as well call `religious entropy.'

But other factors also affect us. There is the Karma of the Lord of the World Himself, which even relates to other Planetary Schemes. Were it not for the Venusian Kumaras, for example (the Greatest of these BEING our Lord of the World ... `Melchizedek,' or the Archangel Michael), Humanity would presently be lucky to have made it to the Neanderthal stage.

Probably the greatest of the shortcomings, as you and I are likely to agree, rest not with some presumed karmic imperfection of the Logoi, but with Humanity Itself, both collectively and individually. St. Paul, for example, although he eventually became an Arhat like Jesus before him, did much damage to the early church ... and gave a different impulse to Christ's intended Work, prior to Saul's Conversion, and later spiritual awakenings. The Tibetan Master also speaks of the great failing of the Twelve Apostles, suggesting that NONE of them, save John the Beloved (and later, Paul), were able to truly sense, or intuit their Master's intent. They ultimately failed Him, and the greatest burden of the blame probably rests with them, not with the later errors of the early Church, much less the Roman Catholic ...

... you might also not know that whilst Catholicism states there will be no further relevation (note: this does not preclude personal relvelation), it also points out that we have yet to fully unpack what has been revealed, and God, in His infinite Wisdom, has so ordered things that what we discover in this Treasury of the Divine is always, and ever, timely ... and will be realised in time, according to God will and His Plan ... what we call oikonomia ... it's unpacking we call theologia.

Still, while I can agree with the latter portion of this sentiment, you cannot possibly expect me to buy into the idea that true Revelation, from the One God to His Children, the Human Family, is not in fact continually forthcoming!

I mean, you have, with one fell swoop, echoed exactly the sentiment of Domine Iesus, with such a statement, Thomas. And this is precisely what ol' Joe Ratzinger is catching so much flak for ... around the WORLD. Here at CR, where the audience, contributors, and lurkers represent a group and a cross-section with greater than average spiritual awareness, religious commitment and philosophical background ... is it any surprise that you are witnessing a shrieking crescendo of near-OUTRAGE - which only you and Joshua are brave enough, and ballsy enough, to either counter ... or seek to soften?

Islam, Mormonism, Protestantism, the Baha'i Faith, Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Sikhism, (modern) Theosophy, 20th Century Esotericism, just to name a few of the better-known religions and Revelations from the past 2000 years! ALL of these traditions, ALL of these teachings, are known to their followers as GOD's REVELATION to Humanity. Notwithstanding the differences of terminology (Freemason's require belief in `a Supreme ARCHITECT' - but only a fool would quibble), any ONE of these authentic Revelations is enough to knock the ill-founded and presumptuous Catholic assertion on its proverbial arse!

But while I won't babble about having leapt across the Buddha's brook (a raging torrent, actually) ... I will gladly say, that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this nonsense about "no further religious Revelations" is precisely that!

While Christ may have come with a Revelation, an Instruction, and a WAY for all of Humanity, 2100 years ago ... so has the same God sent His Prophets, Teachers and Wayshowers, MANY, many a time - in the intervening centuries. To pretend otherwise, is just plain ... damn, I want to say stupid, but I suppose ignorant, vain, or foolheaded would be about what I'm after.

I think the only word which might actually apply here, Thomas, is STUBBORN. And I couldn't care less if you did have the Heavenly Genius otherwise overshadowing you ... to even suggest that Divine Revelation has not come to us, since Christ, save for an individual here or there ... man, that's just plain dumb. You're far too smart to actually believe this, even if your Pope does tell you you mustn't question it! Thus, WHY the stubbornness? I don't get it ...

And you say that I'm the one making claims to spiritual superiority, or that I'm supposedly saying that only the Theosophists are in a position to gauge whose Revelation is correct!?! Come now. Let's stop the charade ... who is claiming what!?!

(cont'd)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Intellectual capacity IS a requirement for Salvation. This is something I maintain, out of my own belief ... because the contrary runs counter to all that I hold sacred and dear. It is, for me, absurd - that God would put us here to stupidly blunder our way into Heaven (let alone in one short lifetime). There is ample evidence in the world around us to indicate that this is not so.

Christianity works differently. Some of our greatest saints were by no means intellectuals, and some of our greatest intellects were by no means saints. We go for wisdom, more than intellect. It's heart and soul for us ...

It is not the requirement that each person become a genius, or a great scientist, philosopher or statesman, in the present lifetime. But inevitably and eventually, it is so.

Well, what can I say? That's not the Christian way at all.

Free Will is one thing ... but Solidarity, Brother, Solidarity!

Oh, we're big on that ... but we see people differently, perhaps. Christianity is a Way of the Heart, and we just take 'em as they are:
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Matthew 11:28-30

But then, you know good & well that I believe in no such thing as your Roman Catholic ideas of Salvation, Thomas.

Evidently.

Which brings this to a close, I think ... as anything subsequently will be ancilliary to that fact, and neither of us is ever going to shift the other.

But it has been a pleasure, Andrew, and I'm glad we've managed to 'rewrite the record' (this being an esoteric thread) of our dealings by fairly lengthy exchanges that did not result in us coming to blows! If we can do it, then by golly there's hope for the world yet!

Peace be with you,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

It is my contention that every tradition accesses this abstract, or the Absolute, in its own, unique way. But all agree ... it cannot be seen, it is beyond forms.

Careful, though, here ... or soon you'll have us all living in our own little, bubble worlds, water-tight, air-tight - with God living in the greatest bubble world of His own, again water-tight, air-tight. Except that what you're saying is that God's worlds are Truth-tight, Wisdom-tight and experience-tight.

At best, we can think ABOUT them, or perhaps IMAGINE them ... is that it?

These aren't your words, Thomas, so show me how I've misinterpreted!

I will affirm precisely the opposite. I will say, and I do say, that there is NOTHING, NO THING, which you or I can set our eyes upon ... which IS NOT GOD'S. And I mean that most literally.

If every single atom of substance belongs to God, including those which compose our bodies, emotional bodies, minds and Souls ... then quite literally, there is NO THING which "is not God." God cannot be defined (as you will be so quick and keen to point out - LEAPING like a frog out of a box to make the assertion) simply by imagining or conceiving ALL SUBSTANCE, because "the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts." True, quite true.

And all this is equally true of energy, of Spirit, or of LIFE Itself. But this is where, if you insist that somehow, the Christian Revelation is unique, and quite different than say, the Hindu one ... then just between you and me, I will be forced to make the admission. That which means much more to me, however, will in the last analysis be the Hindu ... or the doctrine of Hylozoism, panpsychism.

I simply cannot accept as ultimately meaningful, significant or relevant, the notion of the clockmaker god, standing above and aloof from His Creation. I will affirm an ABSOLUTE, about which there can be NO profitable speculation whatsoever ... and use the METAPHOR of sleep (Mahapralaya) for the period of NON-manifestation of said Absolute (from OUR point of view, of course!). I can then find it completely acceptable that DURING (Duration being a key aspect of the Ageless Wisdom teachings) the period of manifestation of a Kosmos or Universe (Mahamanvantara), there exists a Godhead, a Trinity - Three in One. And the terminology, from there, matters not.

I say tomato, you say tomahto. It's a red, juicy fruit, often found in salads, varying in texture, size, appearance and taste. But for the tomato, an archetype exists. And THAT'S what Plato was onto (okay, "onto" being an understatement!) ...



What is the Soul? It is Augeiodes:

The most substantial difference consisted in the location of the immortal or divine spirit of man. While the ancient Neoplatonists held that the Augoeides never descends hypostatically into the living man, but only more or less sheds its radiance on the inner man – the astral soul – the Kabalists of the Middle Ages maintained that the spirit, detaching itself from the ocean of light and spirit, entered into man's soul, where it remained through life imprisoned in the astral capsule. This difference was the result of the belief of Christian Kabalists, more or less, in the dead letter of the allegory of the fall of man. (H.P. Blavatsky)​

And it can be defined in plenty of other ways. But you see, here I will feel more at home to agree with the Neoplatonists, while you will perhaps side with the Kabalists. Your experiences may tell you that your interpretation is "the correct one," yet I can contest your belief - and will gladly do so, from my own experiences, understanding and insights.

Who is right, at the end of the day? I may not be certain, yet if I do not feel that my own understanding is more likely the correct one, I will not find it profitable or prudent to (philosophically) argue the point. The Soul of the esoteric teachings which I have studied, is literally incarnate, yet NOT in the man of the flesh, nor in the man of the astral-emotional plane, or even within the realm of lower mind.

The Soul, though having taken what equates, for us, to A PHYSICAL FORM ... has done so from the point of view of Atma, Buddhi and Manas, these being ITS Triadal Self (as ours likewise exists, on a lower turn of the material and spiritual spiral), and it uses the `Causal envelope' (Karana-upadhi, Karana Sarira ... Augoeides) for its vehicle of manifestation in the world of Higher Mind.

All of this seems, and is, a divergence, but it provides the framework for my assertion that, Thomas, man literally MEETS with God ... not so much in the outer, material worlds of body, emotion and mortal mind - but in the Interior Worlds of Higher Mind, Spiritual Intuition (Buddhi), and Power, Peace or Spirit (Atma).

It is not that we cannot experience the Divine, here and now, within the physical world ... as we witness the wind, blowing in the trees ... see a flock of birds, flying over a lake ... or stroll through a well-tended garden, and witness a myriad variety of beautiful, blooming flowers. Nor can we assume that that very fullness of the Majest of Godhead is not present, right before our very eyes.

I am saying - that it is so!

But I will also be willing to be, that neither you, nor I, can necessarily and AT WILL experience it ... in the wink of an eye, as it were.

The Master of the Wisdom, because he has united his lesser self with the Greater, can do this ... and as easily as you or I can redirect our attention from a flower in the foreground to a mighty oak off in the distance, the Master can turn his consciousness inward, and access the world of Higher Mind (wherein all thought, all ideas, and Ideation Itself, are as an OPEN BOOK). Plato's World of Forms, to him, is as objective as your stamp collection, or butterfly collection would be, spread out upon a well-illumined table.

More than that, his natural state of consciousness, even while walking about, within the apparent body of flesh and blood, resides within or beyond the world of Buddhi, of Spiritual Intuition. There, he knows the Unity which transcends the "you and I, us and them" - ego consciousness, and he is also aware of the Divine Life which pulses throughout all of Creation as the blood which animates our entire body, yet moves freely throughout ... vitalizing and energizing it. The Master IS this Unity; it is (a part of) his very Self.

A Master, above all this, abides eternally within the Peace which Passseth Understanding, and there is NOUGHT which can disturb his calm. He knows, quite well, that His Spirit is one with YOUR Spirit, and with My Spirit, and with ALL Spirit ... because He is Spirit. And if you think - because you have not understood - that somehow this attainment has caused him to LOSE something (that he needs) ... then I encourage you to ASK Him. ASK him - what it was, He had to be MORE than willing to lay down. Ask him what he found it necessary to forever part with, ere he became Master. What was it, which he gladly - though with great difficulty - SET ASIDE ... in order to attain to the Oneness, which is Eternally His.



The word Kumara ... is from the Sanskrit [from ku with difficulty + mara mortal], meaning `Mortal with difficulty.' They are defined philosophically as:

"pure spiritual beings, unself-conscious god-sparks uninvolved with matter who, destined by evolution to pass through the realms of matter, become mortal, i.e., material, only with difficulty because of their lofty spirituality" (Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary, Ke-Kz, Theosophical U Press)​

One group, a lesser of these, are our Souls ... or so I have learned. Does this Soul lose a part of itself, does it forget? Or does it not lend a hand, incarnate - just we do - in the worlds "in between" (Higher Mind, the `anchor' for Atma, Buddhi, Manas) ... and from there, gently fan into flame the Higher Spiritual Principles which are the true, Inner Man?

And, when once Transfigured, a man has become able to stand on the Mountaintop alone, unaided ... and see the even-as-yet DISTANT Spiritual Goal which shines the Light for us all, calling to us with Love Eternal ... does the Soul not, finally and at long last, Itself depart - and continue on It's own Way of Higher (much Higher) evolution? Having left the man to stand, is he not asked "to lay down his very LIFE for his friends?" If only it were understood what this entails ... for no words can convey the nature of this sacrifice, the yielding up of the `pearl of great price.'

Such is the Wisdom Teaching, in plain-english terminology, borrowing only where we as yet lack an English equivalent! SOUL is the term now used by most students, rather than Agnishvatta, Manasaputra, Pitri, Kumara, Amesha-spenta, Dhyani, Elohim, and so forth.

You complain, Thomas (as did Francis, and BananaBrain), when some of us borrow the Sanskrit, or ancient Greek terminology, or dare to suggest that `Elohim' has the meaning I have provided (as one of its many, valid definitions). Yet you issue the challenge to SHOW that there actually existed a single Wisdom Tradition, present within EVERY exoteric religious system alike. But this is EXACTLY what I attempt to do, treading lightly in the footsteps of students who have gone before me ... and well aware that I have not always their adeptness or adroitness.

I can but TRY ... and so, to return to my point:

A middle ground, so to speak, is what I have been describing. One does not need to be a Master, or an Arhat, to experience something of, or within, these Interior worlds ... where Spirit dominates the form, and where Inspiration, Illumination, are the normal operating `modes' of our Higher Consciousness. This is where the Soul is at home, yet not sitting around, rapping its proverbial fingers on the table, waiting for us to turn our attention inward, and Heavenward. The Soul lives a life of which we know nothing, and is also pursuing its own evolution ... even while it has voluntarily accepted the AGELONG post of overshadowing us, thorughout or series of incarnations - almost as a loving master sees to the needs of a beloved pet.

This is a poor comparison, but if we could envision the most Ideal of owners, then this ... is what our Soul is like, for we shall never be abandoned, and there is NO crime, no error, no sin so grievous that the Soul would forsake us, and leave its post. Christ came and spoke as the Soul of all Humanity (embodied in one Man), and it is no surprise that only a truly select few could understand Him - because only these few were anywhere near the point in their evolution where His teachings could make sense.

Does that mean all the rest of us were dolts, and that He had nothing to say to us? DEAR GOD NO! PLEASE stop stuffing these words down my throat ...

The Torah, the exoteric presentation, EVEN THAT WHICH WOULD SAVE OUR PLANET, and advance us light years toward the Divine Purpose ... THIS we have not even heeded, as G.K. Chesterton, Gandhiji, and others, have so aptly spoken. But what of the Mysteries of Being, even the Lesser or least of these? I could just cry, to hear someone say, "These do not exist, save what Christ spoke to the masses." This does not just show ignorance, it shows hopelessness. It shows a kind of despair which has sapped away our very knowledge of WHO WE ALL ARE. And it cannot be objected that this is a knowledge we have never truly possessed. We DO have this awareness, even now, and we HAVE been told how to access it ... and many people are doing just that.

If the Celestine Prophecy does not float your boat, then enquire within and find out about Freemasonry ... Ask one to be one. There are Rosicrucians, Baha'is, Unitarian Universalists, Theosophists, Unity Churches, Mormons, Tantric Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists, Mandaeans, Zoroastrians, Valentinians, Anthroposophists, Ophites, Kabbalists, Pythagoreans, modern-day Gnostics of every flock and flavor ...

... and what we're finding, more and more, is that most of the people belonging to these traditions are quite willing to come together, sit down at the table, and look at what's shared in common between their various spiritualities. Obviously, if the Freemasons wanted to be Buddhists, they'd just go up and convert! And if the Zoroastrians felt more comfortable as Mormons, they wouldn't bother to be Zoroastrians!!!


If a given person's chosen tradition, or belief system, is meeting the need for them, at this time ... and especially if it's also helping other people in their life via the ripple effect ... then we ought not knock that person's religion, or spiritual path, or way of believing.

If it's the Pope, and he's making a general fool of himself, and worse still - infuriating non-Catholics worldwide (and probably a good number of Catholics, too!) ... then he deserves the criticism he gets - and I sure WISH he could be impeached, though we see how effective that idea works in American politics .

I think time will tell on us, what idiots we were, for allowing all this nonsense to take place ... and while we look, today, on the Dark ages as just that - a blot on the collective human consciousness and otherwise spirit of Progress - a brighter day is yet to come when, if we survive this crisis, our future progeny will wonder, How did they EVER put up with such crap (much less believe it)?

Oh Dark Aaaaages ...

 

[taijasi]

Christianity works differently. Some of our greatest saints were by no means intellectuals, and some of our greatest intellects were by no means saints. We go for wisdom, more than intellect. It's heart and soul for us ...

We tend to think that both are important. "Be ye wise, as serpents, and harmless, as doves."

It is not the requirement that each person become a genius, or a great scientist, philosopher or statesman, in the present lifetime. But inevitably and eventually, it is so.

Well, what can I say? That's not the Christian way at all.

It is not, because it is inconvenient. It is so, so much easier, to pay the man lip service ... and get a free ride. Why should I bother to work, or struggle, or earn my place & keep? Christ did it all FOR me. Now, all I gotta do is reach out and take the package ...

No, Thomas, he did NOT say that. Nor anything close. It is just, plain SCARY that this is what words, what message, have been stuffed in Christ's mouth.

THAT is what I meant by an opiate for the masses. Faith is one thing; sloth is another.

Christianity is a Way of the Heart, and we just take 'em as they are:

Now you're just coming across elitist and self-righteous. And you know it. Only one person here might be fooled, Thomas. But I think you know you better than that ...

by golly there's hope for the world yet!

There is, but what about for those who would force their beliefs, on others, at swordpoint? Have we really changed that much?

Not just you and I, look around. You are in a bit more of a northern latitude, but you are as close to the conflict as I am, every bit. And every bit as well part of it, I dare say. This is not about whether or not you or I might pick up a sword (or a rifle), it's about those who do, and why.

Is this just a simple thread about esotericism, or was it not about the much deeper, much more important idea that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS?

I would gladly die for the Ideal of Brotherhood in which I believe, though I've no wish to be a martyr ... and I know I'm almost certain not to have to (as far as the conflict in Iraq goes).

Would you die for the same Ideal? Define it. Upon what is it based?

You may think I've confused you with the other Catholic here at CR. But I haven't.

I just think you may not see that spiritual elitisim, religious chauvinism, is the very thing I oppose. (And whatever HPB may have said, modern day Theosophists have no Domine Iesus. The RCC, however, DOES. And you seem to be digging in your proverbial heels. )

As Christ is known to have said, Satan cannot cast out Satan. This means I cannot defeat my enemy, at present. I can excise my hand, or my arm, even a leg, if it offends me ... but a body, divided against itself, cannot stand. I will mutilate myself, if I do not take another approach.

What is that approach. By what authority CAN I "cast out Satan?"

This has been my point ALL ALONG. And I think you've yet to understand it.

You want me to believe, or somehow agree with you, that only through Catholicism - can I find the same Christ as you have. And that's just plain dead wrong, Thomas. It's disengenuous, and rather underhanded.

You aren't here to talk about YOUR spiritual or religious experiences, you are here to tell me that MINE (or those of anyone likeminded) are not authentic, accurate, legimate, or otherwise - `valid.'

And I'm here to tell you, you're dead, flat wrong.

So, when you can walk up to me, pull up a chair, sit down BESIDE me here at the table, look out at the world from the same side of life as I live on ... then I think you might be surprised - at just how much we can actually agree on, without compromising our own spiritual vows or views, traditions, backgrounds, loyalties, allegiances, and so forth.

Friend, I don't know how I've known you, or if I've known you, before. It's a big world, 60 billion souls, and it's quite possible that we've never crossed paths, till now. I really can't see into it these days as I once could, and it usually requires vis a vis anyway, often getting to know someone on a personal level, before such insights come to me. But I'll tell you one thing, when they do, I know that the person I'm with (in such situations) is a `friend of old,' regardless of what karma may have developed or stacked up between us since.

Karma that we heap upon each other now, will only be there in the future ... waiting, as it always does, for us to resolve it. We might just wish it would go away, but that's how it is with people sometimes - we confuse the issue with the person, or allow specific beliefs (opinions, viewpoints, etc.) to get in the way, and muck things up.

Pretty soon, a man is an actual enemy, though we're not quite sure where, along the way, this occurred. But it doesn't matter, because an enemy has his own friends, and family, followers of the same tradition, and so on ... until the zealotry would have us go to war over it - and I'm not speaking of some kind of silly clan rivalry here. I mean all out jihad ... and the determination to SEND YOU to your maker, and all of that nonsense ...

... except I wouldn't exactly say it's nonsense, because right now people are dying by the thousands for just such "ideals" as these. They're hardly "spiritual" ideals, yet it will almost all be done in the name of religion, and for the glory of God, even as it was 1000 years ago, and long, long before that.

I can't remember an incarnation anywhere near the British Isles, but what I have suspected, even if I can't validate it, is that somewhere in there while I was galloping around decapitating Saracens ... wearing out the highways between the Holy Land and France - maybe, just maybe, the two of us were acquaintances. If so, I have to wonder, would you have been a Templar, on horseback ... or would you have been, more likely, a servant of the Holy See, as now? I know you were no Saracen, and as they say, history repeats itself!

I'm just rambling now, but I have long wondered about such things, and have often asked myself, "what does it matter, what Thomas thinks!"

What does it matter, indeed. Worth a read, these little tractates of Bishop Leadbeater like `Thoughtforms,' and such contributions of Annie Besant's as `Esoteric Christianity.' See, someday, what an outspoken Fabian feminist, India's national heroine and a former staunch atheist had to say ... about the historical, the mythic, the Mystic Christ.

I feel disheartened only to the extent that maybe you would truly be open to the evidence, if just the right set of it were put before you, or if perhaps, something I might have said could have been done so, in just such a way as to evoke a different reaction ...

... and if, for all that, the error is solely mine, then I lament that I did not get it right. I know all too well of my own failings, and I own them, even over-own them, but I really haven't looked at our dialogue in this way, and have resisted even that possibility.

Most often, I have had the impression that you really don't want to be convinced, and I think it's been quite evident that very little I could have said might possibly evoke sympathetic understanding.

It does, actually, make me feel like a bit of a fool, because I know quite well that this is not at all what the Masters would want, it is not the method in which they, or their more effective disiciples choose to work, and in fact, it is really a lot more like two schoolyard braggards playing the familiar game of one-upmanship, in which there can never be a resolution ... just the ourobouros, forever chasing its own tail.

I think I've chased my tail for long enough, so I'm pretty much with you, at this point ... and though I'm disappointed that we didn't find the common ground we were seeking, that may just be because it really wasn't possible. I dunno, if it wasn't, then this will not always be the case.

I need as much convincing as you do; that's part of the problem. I'm not trying to save face, just being candid. I'm going to post again, with an excerpt from Torkom Saraydarian, because it addresses the doctrine of Avatars ... and what kind of challenges the Hierarchy continues to face.

Either we're for Christ, or against Him ... this is ever, and increasingly so.

Like the Knight in Indiana Jones advised, Choose Wisely ...

 

[taijasi]

An excerpt from Christ: The Avatar of Sacrifical Love, by Torkom Saraydarian:

It is amazing to notice that all the Great Ones who visited the earth gave the same message, according to the level of the people and the conditions of life.

We see a very close similarity in Their language of symbolism, the major life events through which They passed, and even similarities in Their births, struggles, services, deaths and victories.

In the history of world religion you can find the names of the Great Ones and parts of Their message are scattered throughout the pages of tradition, from east to west, from north to south, in all ages.

Most of Them were born at the winter solstice of virgin mothers who were endowed with great virtue, wisdom and power.

Each time They appeared, They came to meet a human need. In the Bhagavad Gita we are told that They appared "whenever men became indifferent toward their duties and resonsibilities, and whenever unrighteousness and disorder increased ... to protect the virtuous, to destroy the wicked, and to re-establish the sense of duty and responsibility."

We see in all ages that the message of the great Teachers gradually loses its true note, and it is eventually used for human vanities.

We are told that every time a great Teacher came to the world, He faced dark crystallizations and wide degeneration of the Teaching and His main task came to be, with real fearlessness, to stress the simplicity and the beauty of the Teaching.

When crystallization and degeneration occur in the Teaching they create the worst enemies of the new Teaching or of the new revelation of the original Teaching, with new age appraoches.

The new Teaching immediately mobilizes its enemies, who fight against it until it loses its original purity and starts to crystallize. Immediately after such a crystallization, the persecution starts and the Teaching serves to increase the vanities of the so-called teachers, who acquire great wealth, high positions, authorities, dogmas and doctrines.

Although this continues age aftger age, it does not mean that the Teaching has failed. Every time it hits the shores of human consciousness, it draws to itself awakened Sons of Light, initiating them into simplicity, beauty and fearlessness. Thus, one by one, here and there, dedicated souls enter into the Holy Place, and join the Hierarchy of Light.

At the time Jesus was born, conditions in the civilized world were at their worst. The Teaching, the mystery religions, were crystallized, and they were being used to exploit the poor and the innocent. The political field was full of corruption and the morals of the majority were very low. Man was seeking only physical and emotional satisfaction through the misuse of energy, power and authority.

The program for humanity was in danger. Advanced souls cannot reincarnate and hold positions in a world where corruption and crime prevail and where the teachers are dominated by low urges and drives. Whenever the birth of such souls is prevented, the progress of humanity slows down and for the time being stops.

In those rare cases where advanced Souls have been born, they find insurmountable difficulties on their paths, and eventually they find themselves under the command of the forces of materialism, selfishness and fear. Only Chosen Ones who have the shield of Hierarchy can survive and shed Their light notwithstanding adverse conditions and the attacks by the dark forces.

We are told that "the civilized world, at that time, was plunged into an indescribable orgy of immorality, treachery and wickedness.

Selfishness, egoism and animalism reigned supreme ... The life of average humanity was so evil that almost the entire period of the after-death state was spent in the purgatorial regions with little or no time for the heaven-world experience. Human evolution had come almost to a standstill.

Herod, the Great, died in 4 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Herod Antipas ... He attmpted extermination of all things that were virtuous and holy. The spiritual life of the world was at low ebb." (The New Age Bible Interpretation, Corinne Heline, pp.28-29)

It was under such conditions that Jesus was sent to be the vehicle of a great Spirit and Light to protect the Teaching of the Hierarchy and the Path of Salvation to humanity.
​

And that Path is still protected, still guarded, even to this day ... while also being open to more of Humanity than every before.

The Master R. indicates this in the book Creative Thinking, saying:

To the initiate consciousness, transmutation is the redepemption of substance, the conversion of a solid form into a body of stable, fluidic energy that is responsive to the will of the soul.

Transmutation is accomplished when that divine note of harmony inherent within love is applied to the lower frequences of the form. That note strikes the true note of the form, calling forth from its many parts an harmonic response. Thus, the form is tuned, so to speak, its many parts one to another, and its total to the Divine Purpose for which it was created.

The foregoing presupposes a technique that can be applied only the initiate, or the applicant to initiation, after a certain degree of attainment is reached, and this was once the law. Now, however (as the evolutionary process is speeded up and as humanity as a whole enters a new realm of approach and response), such techniques can be stepped down for use by anyone whose right motivation attracts the new presentation of the Wisdom into his or her awareness. Thus, those who read and apply this series of instruction, regardless of the degree of previous development, may successfully use techniques that were once reserved for the more advanced applicants to initiation. Such is the evolution and the present evolutionary moment of opportunity within which humanity lives today.
​

One quotation, taken from the student of a Tibetan Master, an Adept writing in the 1920s, 30s and 40s ... the student writing - in 1974 - under that aura of inspiration, and aegis of protection. Another student, writing as amanuensis for one of the highest ranking Masters of the Hierarchy, the Christ's great Brother, the Lord of Civilization ... and indicating changes and progress within our Planetary Life affecting all of Humanity, and affording us an opporunity to Serve the Plan which has not hitherto been available, save to Initiates of a certain degree.

And yet, One Wisdom, just in two of its relatively-recent, modern Presentations.

I doubt very seriously that Master DK and Master R play ego games about whose presentation is better, clearer, more rooted in such & such a tradition, or more direct a path to Enlightenment. That would be nonsense!

But even student of the Ageless Wisdom know that there are different presentations, for students of different temperaments, with different astrological influences, Ray makeup, and varying level of spiritual background or awareness.

This is a mirror of the differences between exoteric religions, precisely the same benevolent presentation of a Loving God to His Children, of the needs for our walking of the Spiritual Path, and for the living of the Spiritual Life.

As above, so below; as within, so without.

NAMASKAR

 

[InLove]

Hi Nick. Once again I apologize for my delayed responses. (I shouid maybe just start heading all of my posts with these words, as it does seem to be a growing characteristic of mine these days.)

The difference between religion and philosophy is actually a fascinating discussion. Maybe we can pick up on it in another thread.

I might enjoy reading the various comments on a thread of this nature. I have decided to cut down on initiating new threads because my offline existence must take precedence right now, and this interferes with my ability to maintain them properly. But if you ever want to do so, I would look forward to participating when possible.

Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right?

I honestly think it depends on (here I go again) which Christian you ask, but then I may not exactly understand what you mean by “multiple levels of higher consciousness”. Are you referring to this as it relates to the concept(s) of reincarnation?"

No. This is not a Christian concept, so let me try to explain. You may have heard of the Astral Plane of Existence. (It is said that we are actually having experiences on the Astral Plane while we are asleep, and these experiences are brought back as dreams.) The Astral Plane is seen (according to Theosophy) as a higher level of existence…

I have always been certain of astral existence. I guess just never with capital letters. (What is it with me and capitalization?

) To me, the word “higher” tends to paint a mental picture of maps and charts and even Dante’s Divine Comedy. When I say this, I am not ridiculing Theosophical terminology, please understand. I love maps and sometimes even charts, and I know that Biblical literature employs the suggestion of higher domains. I just don’t necessarily think that astral experiences are all traveled in such confines. It draws a picture in my mind’s eye of something like a flat Earth. However, I can understand how the approach is helpful to many people of various religious backgrounds.

I believe Christianity believes in ghosts and lost souls (Theosophy does too), and these souls are said to be literally wandering about on the Astral Plane.

Christianity certainly ascribes to the spiritual existence. “Ghosts and lost souls” sounds a bit foreign to my way of thinking, but again, I know that some versions of the Bible, as well as many Christians do use this terminology.

Also, may I ask you to elaborate on what you mean when you say that these souls are “wandering about” there? I would assume you mean that they are searching for their way to a spiritual “home”? I’m sorry I keep putting words in parentheses, but I am obviously struggling with Theosophical language. I appreciate your patience with me in this area, and as both Thomas and Andrew can testify, it isn’t just Theosophical terminology with which I wrestle—there are Christian phrases and Buddhist words and Islamic, Hindi, Jewish,…the list is a long one!

However, the Astral Plane is seen as only the tip of the iceberg. We say there is something called the Mental Plane above the Astral Plane, with its own set of residents. On and on it goes, Plane above Plane, with "souls" residing on each Plane. It is these souls we refer to as "beings of higher consciousness". (Actually, this fits in with Christianity, as Christianity talks about Seraphim, Cherebum (sp), angels, archangels, etc. It is just that Theosophy is a lot more specifc about defining who is who and where they are.) This, then, is the answer to your question: "Beings of higher consciousness" are the angels, archangels, etc, although Theosphy's list is much longer and more complicated than Christianity's list.

Maybe, as you said, you have just answered my question. Honestly, I should study up on angels. While I am certain of the existence of angels, the description of heirarchical structure has always been kind of confusing to me. I guess I have a hard time with linear thinking. And if Theosophy’s list is much longer and more complicated that Christianity’s, I may get a bit bogged down.

I think having empathy is a good thing. I am sure you will make a good Guardian Angel. (Are you ready...?)

Guardian angel sounds good. There are actually lots of things I would like to do. I am not sure how all that works, but I tend to think that the possiblities are endless. Am I ready? In many ways, yes. In some ways, no. But I am where and how I am for a reason, and that is what matters the most to me, whether I am fully aware of that reason or not. I will understand it all at some point, just as I may have before.

<---

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Nick the Pilot]

InLove, You said,

"I have always been certain of astral existence."​

--> I am glad to see we have this idea in common.

"To me, the word “higher” tends to paint a mental picture of maps and charts and even Dante’s Divine Comedy."​

--> Theosophy agrees with Dante in the idea of various levels, although the levels we draw are different than Dante's. Just to give you an idea of where Theosophy is coming from, Theosophy sees a Heaven, then a level even higher level than Heaven, then another even higher level, etc., etc., going on seemingly into infinity.

"When I say this, I am not ridiculing Theosophical terminology, please understand.​

--> I do not perceive it as ridicule.

"I know that Biblical literature employs the suggestion of higher domains."​

--> I am glad to hear we also have this in common.

"It draws a picture in my mind’s eye of something like a flat Earth."​

--> The Theosophical "picture" is different, We see these various levels as concentric, inter-penetrating spheres, all centered on the center of the Earth. You may be interested to hear that some Theosophists (myself included) believe Hell really is subterranean, and Heaven really is geographically above us (in the outer edges of one of those concentric spheres I just mentioned.) It is based on the idea of specific gravity, and it makes perfect sense to me.

"I would assume you mean that they are searching for their way to a spiritual “home”?"​

--> Yes.

"I’m sorry I keep putting words in parentheses, but I am obviously struggling with Theosophical language."​

--> Feel free to ask for clarifiations. The more the better.

"I appreciate your patience with me in this area...."​

--> My years as a Buddhist taught me to value patience.

"...it isn’t just Theosophical terminology with which I wrestle—there are Christian phrases and Buddhist words and Islamic, Hindi, Jewish,…the list is a long one!"​

--> Theosophy has the same problem. I am presently putting together an exhaustive list of equivalent terms.

"Honestly, I should study up on angels."​

--> I will be curious as to what you come up with. Fortunately for you, your list of angels is a lot less complicated than my list of Buddhas.

"And if Theosophy’s list is much longer and more complicated that Christianity’s, I may get a bit bogged down."​

--> Just take it one step at a time.

"Guardian angel sounds good. There are actually lots of things I would like to do."​

--> Give me a list of, say, ten.

"I am not sure how all that works, but I tend to think that the possiblities are endless."​

--> I am surprised how many people never sit down and think of what they will specifically doing at the next level. (I hope everyone is not planning on sitting on clouds and playing harps for the next 311 trillion years...) I imagine the vast majority of us will end up as guardian angels at the next level, so I am curious as to what you will come up with.


I want to mention the Theosophical idea that Heaven will be a place of rest, while Nirvana will be a place of great activity. (Most people, especially Christians, have never considered such an idea before.)

"Am I ready? In many ways, yes. In some ways, no."​

--> I am sure you will do just fine. I want you to go watch the movie "It's a Beautful Life" and imagine you are Clarence!

"But I am where and how I am for a reason, and that is what matters the most to me, whether I am fully aware of that reason or not."​

--> I remember getting answers to these questions from a psychic (and being surprised how accurate the answers were.). Maybe someday you will get your answers.

"I will understand it all at some point, just as I may have before...."​

--> Of this I have no doubt.

 

[InLove]

Thanks for your post, Nick.

The Theosophical "picture" is different, We see these various levels as concentric, inter-penetrating spheres, all centered on the center of the Earth.

The concept of spheres is a much easier way for me to relate than the more linear view. I must admit, though, I do not necessarily see them as converging at the center of the Earth. I may be mistaken, but doesn't Theosophy hold forth the possibility of intelligent life on other planets? If so, how does the above concept tie in with this?

You may be interested to hear that some Theosophists (myself included) believe Hell really is subterranean, and Heaven really is geographically above us (in the outer edges of one of those concentric spheres I just mentioned.) It is based on the idea of specific gravity, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Specific gravity is also an easy idea for me to grasp (that is, without all the algebraic equations.) I mean, it is self-evident, physically speaking. So do you believe that there will be souls actually living in Hell at the center of the Earth in endless torture? This does not seem to be in line with what I have read in your posts. Forgive me, if I have seen your answer to this somewhere before, but if I have, I have forgotten what you wrote. (Not a reflection on your writng, but on my memory!) Would you mind addressing it again?

My years as a Buddhist taught me to value patience.

I very quietly study certain concepts from Buddhism (as well as Hinduism), and while I am not well-versed in the "nomenclature", they have become part of my daily spiritual life. Many more people than not, both Christians and Buddhists, have declared to me that this is impossible, but I know better. It may sound strange, but it is where Christ has led me. I don't talk much about it at this point simply because I don't know how. But like I said before, I am where and how I am for a purpose, so I accept this and keep mostly silent out of respect for the convictions of others. (And I would like to add that Christianity has also played a big part in its own right toward my understanding and appreciation of the virtues of being patient.)

Guardian angel sounds good. There are actually lots of things I would like to do.

Give me a list of, say, ten.

Really? Okay, and it is something I have thought quite a bit about lately...

1. I just thought of this yesterday--nothing big, just always thought I'd live long enough to see my hair turn all white. I always thought I'd like that, so maybe in some dimension, somewhere, for some reason, it will. Not really all that important, but just a thought I had.

2. I'd like to make life easier for other people. I try to do that now, and sometimes I succeed. But I'd like to feed the hungry, rescue the children, set political prisoners free, assist those who suffer from physical pain or mental anguish....haha--I want to do all of those things....

3. I'd like to see my loved ones again in a place where we never need separate again. I know this place exists, and I believe that some, and maybe all of them may already know this existence. Maybe I am already there with them, but I just have not literally seen it yet.

4. I'd like to have an eternal place where I can create good things through music, art, poetry, etc., without always feeling a sense of time being "too short". I have always said that there are no deadlines in "Heaven".

5, I'm going to borrow from path_of_one here for a moment. Somewhere she wrote something along the lines of 'I'd like to be the wind, because the wind travels where it will, but I'd like to have a choice, too. After all, how can I enjoy feeling the wind if I am the wind?' I know this is not exactly what she said, but I don't know where that post was. I have always meant to respond to it, though, because it did resonate so completely with me.

I know you asked me to list ten things, but it is late and I am tired regardless of the hour these days, so I know you will understand if I stop at these I have listed. I could go on forever, anyway.

I want to mention the Theosophical idea that Heaven will be a place of rest, while Nirvana will be a place of great activity. (Most people, especially Christians, have never considered such an idea before.)

Do you think of Heaven as something like Paradise? Or more along the lines of Purgatory? Something else entirely? (As far as how most people, especially Christians, look at these ideas, I guess I like to give them credit for thinking about things like this, even if they do not always vocalize these thoughts. I know this is true for me, so how can I say that it is not the same for others?)

I am sure you will do just fine. I want you to go watch the movie "It's a Beautful Life" and imagine you are Clarence!

I'm sure you mean "It's a Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart and company? I love Clarence--I wonder, when you got your pilot's license, did you think of Clarence? I sure hope my hearing gets a bit better by then, in fact I am counting on it--haha--ever since the chemotherapy treatments, I have "ringing in my ears" due to the side effects. But so far, I have sprouted no wings! Seriously, though, many people believe that we will not be angels, as angels are supposedly of an entirely different spiritual substance. I'm curious as to how Theosophy treats this question.

But I am where and how I am for a reason, and that is what matters the most to me, whether I am fully aware of that reason or not.

I remember getting answers to these questions from a psychic (and being surprised how accurate the answers were.). Maybe someday you will get your answers.

I am glad you found what you were looking for, Nick. I, too, have already received many answers, but there will be more to come.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Nick the Pilot]

InLove, You said,

"I may be mistaken, but doesn't Theosophy hold forth the possibility of intelligent life on other planets? If so, how does the above concept tie in with this?" ​

--> They tie in nicely. There are other "creation stories", in that entirely different human-like races exist in other places. However, our "creation story" here on Earth is a separate organization. 99% of Theosophical teachings only deal with conditions here on Earth.

"So do you believe that there will be souls actually living in Hell at the center of the Earth in endless torture?"​

--> You are using the word "endless". Why? Theosophy teaches that nothing is endless. Even people in Hell can/will eventually reach Nirvana. This is the beauty of Theosophical teachings.

"I very quietly study certain concepts from Buddhism (as well as Hinduism), and while I am not well-versed in the "nomenclature", they have become part of my daily spiritual life."​

--> That is very Theosophical of you! One of the reasons Theosophy was created was to show that all religions come from a single source. I believe that the deeper you dig, the more commonality you will find between the religions. Theosophy spends a great deal of time showing commonality between the teachings of the different religions.

"Many more people than not, both Christians and Buddhists, have declared to me that this is impossible, but I know better."​

--> This is the very message of Theosophy.

"I am where and how I am for a purpose, so I accept this and keep mostly silent out of respect for the convictions of others."​

--> This is a core Theosophical teaching.

"...I'd like to feed the hungry, rescue the children, set political prisoners free, assist those who suffer from physical pain or mental anguish...."​

--> This is exactly what your Guardian-Angel-ship will allow you to do. Although I believe Guardian Angels work more on the astral plane than on the physical plane.

"I'd like to see my loved ones again in a place where we never need separate again."​

--> This is a key Theosophical teaching. According to Theosophy, Heaven is one big illusion. Within that illusion, you will all of your loved ones. You will also see them in Nirvana, but the conditions there are quite different.

"I'd like to have an eternal place where I can create good things through music, art, poetry, etc., without always feeling a sense of time being "too short". I have always said that there are no deadlines in "Heaven".​

--> Heaven deadlines, yes. Nirvana deadlines, no. Earthly life has been described as being on a field trip, and Heaven is then the time we spend going over the data. Once we have finished going over the data, it is time for another "field trip".

"...I'd like to be the wind, because the wind travels where it will, but I'd like to have a choice, too."​

--> This is similar to the Nirvanic condition of the removal of the sense of separateness. Here in the physical world, I cannot understand what it means for you to be you. In Nirvana, all separation stops, so I will become you. Also, I will become one with every other entitiy in the universe. One way of understanding this is, all we will have to do is think of a person or a place, and we will immediately be there. This sounds better than being the wind!

"Do you think of Heaven as something like Paradise?"​

--> Yes.

"Or more along the lines of Purgatory?"​

--> Purgatory is completely different. Actually, I do not think of Hell, Purgatory, and Hell as separate places. It is more like, all of these are part of one continuous sliding scale. The further up the scale, the more blissful the experience.

"I know this is true for me, so how can I say that it is not the same for others?"​

--> Heaven has been desribed as mainly an illusion. If you expect to see Jesus, you will see Jesus. If you expect to see Buddha, you will see Buddha. I was told, it will be an illusion, so make it a good one!

"...when you got your pilot's license, did you think of Clarence?"


--> No, I thought about flying to another island. (I got my license in Hawaii.)

"But so far, I have sprouted no wings!"​

--> Uh..., no witches broom, neither? (ha)

"...many people believe that we will not be angels, as angels are supposedly of an entirely different spiritual substance. I'm curious as to how Theosophy treats this question."​

--> I am not sure what you are tallking about. Can you be more specific?

"I, too, have already received many answers, but there will be more to come."​

--> The best is yet to come.

 

[InLove]

Nick, it sounds to me like we do actually hold many hopes or beliefs in common. But then, I knew this, anyway. I do look for commonalities wherever I can find them. The reason I focus on differences sometimes is because some of them catch my eye, and either curiousity or concern prompts me to ask questions.

So I am still curious about how Theosophy treats the concept of Hell. I think you are saying that Hell is a literal, physical place deep in the earth, which coincides, if I'm not mistaken, with certain conservative Christian literalist views. But you believe this Hell is temporary? Do you believe that these souls are tortured, and how so?

"...many people believe that we will not be angels, as angels are supposedly of an entirely different spiritual substance. I'm curious as to how Theosophy treats this question."

I am not sure what you are tallking about. Can you be more specific?

I'd like to be more specific, but I don't really understand it myself. I'll try and do some research. I have seen conversations here in C-R about this, but I don't remember where they were. In the meantime, maybe someone who knows more about the subject will be compelled to add some thoughts.

The best is yet to come.

I'm counting on it.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Nick the Pilot]

InLove, you said,

"I do look for commonalities wherever I can find them."​

--> I am curious as to which religions you belonged to, in your various past lifetimes. Your interest in religious pluralism makes me wonder where you got such interest. (If you had been a Christian in all of your past lives, I believe you would not have such an interest today.) No doubt you have had many reincarnations in various religions, so now you wish to bring them together.

"The reason I focus on differences sometimes is because some of them catch my eye, and either curiousity or concern prompts me to ask questions."​

--> I wonder if you sometimes run across a Hindu or Buddhist dogma that you followed blindly in a previous life, only to finally have a chance today to set the record straight.

"But you believe this Hell is temporary?"​

--> I do. There is no reason to believe it is eternal. (I am not a follower of the Christian "eternal" doctrine, a doctrine which makes no sense to me.)

"Do you believe that these souls are tortured, and how so?"​

--> The way you have phrased your question, you make it sound like these people are perhaps being tortured by an angry God. Theosophy does not see it that way. Hell is a set of conditions they have created themselves, and they are merely living out the conditions they have put into motion.

"So I am still curious about how Theosophy treats the concept of Hell. I think you are saying that Hell is a literal, physical place deep in the earth, which coincides, if I'm not mistaken, with certain conservative Christian literalist views."​

--> I do. A. P. Sinnet, in his book In The Next World, has listed specific characteristics for each of the seven astral sub-planes. Here are my comments on Sinnet's descriptions of Level Five (the second level from the bottom).

~~ Level 5 ~~
Level 5 is a place of varied discomfort. It is a place where the newly-dead must come to terms with being entangled with undesirable thought-forms. They had surrounded themselves with these undesirable thought-forms while on Earth, and now they must go through the unpleasant task of separating themselves from the very thought-forms they created. Level 5 is just above the surface of the Earth.

“ The [fifth astral sub-plane] lies just above the surface of the earth, and is still a region of varied discomfort, in which those whose personal characteristics are such as to require purification before they are qualified for existence on any of the superior regions, spend a time greatly varying in duration.” (In The Next World, page 10)​

Here is the case of G. R., from Sinnet's book. G. R. gave into excessive sexual gratification while alive, and is now plunged into such a world, against his will, causing him to feel continued (and inescapeable) disgust.

[G. R.] “... describes himself as having been in life a man with a very ardent feeling for the other sex, though with refined tastes and habits. But he was now [in the after-life] plunged in the midst of the coarsest manifestations of that feeling. Without seeking the experience, he was drawn, sucked as it were, into the consciousness of a man of very gross nature and habits, and shared, though with loathing and disgust, his emotions as he gratified his desires. My friend was irresistibly tied to this man for a long time, till at last, with a horrified cry for help, he was enabled to break away, with a sense of extraordinary relief.” (In The Next World, page 19)​

G. R. relates another fifth-level story.

“... I seemed to be surrounded by a peculiar cloud which seemed to obscure my sense of sight, a cloud of a reddish tinge; and it seemed to be drifting upon me, as far as I could judge. I did not appear to be the origin of it myself, and became conscious of an extraordinary sense of damp heat and that I was slowly drifting I knew not whither. How long I drifted I know not, but at last I found myself in a dense kind of fog. I became conscious of voices, at first dim and far off. Also aware of an acute, uncomfortable sensation of choking. All of a sudden the mist cleared away and I found myself in a room with a number of men and women. [The graphic sexual descriptions are ommitted, but the scene was one of very degraded debauchery.] I saw foul shapes of an extraordinary order floating round the room, one exactly like a large jellyfish. As it passed me it gave me an indescribable sensation of disgust and horror. I prayed to be delivered from this wretched condition ....” (In The Next World, pages 22-23)​

G. R. is then taken away from that horrible place, and a Guide gives him some good advice.

“ ‘My friend, I have been permitted by my Master to help you. You must rest in this place for some little time. Remain patient. Do not long for those scenes that I have relieved you from.’ I thought at the time that was a strange remark, as I felt a powerful loathing for the scenes I had just left. He read my thought, for he went on to say: ‘You do not realise for the moment what this means, but those conditions will again recur, and unless you put them from you your sufferings will continue.' ” (In The Next World, page 24)​

G. R. had not yet realized that it was his own desires that were transporting him to such a place. Only by removing those desires from himself could he escape.


Sinnet gives a final analysis as to why this was happening to G. R.

[G. R.] “ ... had great volumes of spiritual karma behind the unsatisfied passions of his last life. Moreover, I am inclined to believe that the disagreeable period described must have been to some extent traceable to unfulfilled tendencies of earlier lives. When he was finally free of all this, he ascended into lofty realms ....” (In The Next World, page 25)​

InLove, now you can see how the Theosophical Hell is not a place of vengeful divine torture, but a place of burning off negativity that we have put upon ourselves.

 

[Bruce Michael]

On the subject of percepts, Goethe said something like: our senses were never wrong, it's the judgements we make which are wrong.

There is a difference in the knowledge we have from soul, (the Ancient Wisdom) and that we gain from our efforts (egoic).

Here is a more detailed description of the difference between the ego and soul:

"The ego of Man is generously given, because it is the sum-total of the experience which has gone before and of all of the good which was to be harvested therefrom.
Whilst the soul is so characterised, it also is not.

"Our soul selves are primarily angelic in their desires and in their attractions and perceptions. The soul is moreover satisfied with the enjoyment of Creation as it is.

"The ego of Man, on the other hand (which it does contrast right from left) advances into aspects of newness, which enables the being of man to take into himself much of the future.

"The soul embraces the past and reveres it. The soul is joyous with simple and humble pleasures of spiritual ecstasy, whilst the ego, to a great extent does tire of them. The ego pleads to take to itself more, and to be known to be more it has to be different to what it already contains in ways of experience and comprehension.

"And so we are introduced to a dissatisfaction from which we are prompted out into betterment and further development. The parcel of the two - of both will and ego contained and made active within our selves brings also the consequence, and knowledge of consequence, personally revealed. What we will and conjure, in action or by active thought, is consequently offered to us, in the opportunity to perceive the outcome and effect of our doings and to answer them. "

-The Brothers

-Br.Bruce

 

[InLove]

Hi Nick--I just stopped by to let you know that I haven't forgotten the conversation. I've just been preoccupied lately. I have also been meaning to tell Andrew the same....

I just didn't want to be rude, so I thought I'd let you know. I appreciate your patience.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-----====ooo000ooo====-----

InLove,

You remembered! I am so happy, I could dance.