Jesus was a Buddhist

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by SalamanderRC, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. SalamanderRC

    SalamanderRC New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I feel that The essenes were very much influenced by Buddhist missionaries sent out by King Ashoka to spread the Dharma. I also believe that Jesus was influence by the Awakened One while living in Egypt. There was supposably a Buddhist community in that country at about the time Jesus was there. This preludes the thoery that Jesus traveled to India and studied there and on returning to Israel, was baptised by John and then enlightened while meditating for 40 days in th desert.
     
  2. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    53
    SalamanderRC,

    There is also a theory that Gautama and Jesus were both members of a Brotherhood of Initiates. If so, this would also explain similarities in their philosphies.
     
  3. Francis king

    Francis king New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    what we often forget is.... neither Buddha nor Jesus were intellectuals... they did not formally study religion- one was the son of a carpenter, and the other the son of a warrior Lord... they did not google each other... that they both share a similiar message is not a coincidence, but it is not the result of anything more esoteric than they were both men, both of which tried to solve social problems by devising a philosophy for ppl to adhere to which would theoretically end those social problems... As for a sacred brotherhood of initiates...please...

    you can't teach ppl to be saints... you can tell them about the possibilities, you can suggest ways of getting there, but real prophets and saints are not self made men- they are inspired by the Gods, or the powers, and become great almost by accident...

    its a great idea though, that there is a sacred lineage of men and women from different faiths who are all guided to the one truth by higher powers, but if that is the case, they're not doing a very good job, imho...
     
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Hi Salamander RC —

    If you could pinpoint the aspects of the Dharma incorporated into Essene practice, then there would be a matter of some interest.

    From what I have read of the Essenes, they were an ultra-orthodox monastic community of strict observance. As the proscriptions against ritual impurity were very strict, simply mixing with someone from outside the community was enough to render the person impure ... ?

    Surely the incorporation of an 'alien' doctrine, especially one that denies the deity of the God of their ancestors, and the covenant, would undermine the whole Essene ideal?

    I would suggest that if they were influenced in any real way by Buddhism, the community would have broken apart ... not everyone would take to the new and foreign teaching ... those who did would be considered blasphemers ... and the Essenes were quite a militant outfit ... such a transference of doctrine would not have been accomplished without trouble, and probably bloodshed.

    I think you need to present hard evidence to make that claim stick.

    Unlikely. Jesus was a Jew, if He had been preaching anything else, the temple authorities could have brought him down a lot sooner, declaring Him a false prophet. Any taint of a foreign doctrine and they'd have stoned him ... they tried more than once ... the accusation that got Him crucified was the blasphemy of declaring Himself divine ... I don't see how that fits with Buddhist doctrine.

    Then again, of course, in His own words, "Before Abraham was, I am" — Jesus is the Logos of God, eternally one with the Father, in which case He would have known about the Awakened One before the foundation of the world ...

    This is something of a Wizard of Oz scenario ... the assumption that Jesus had to receive a teaching in some strange exotic land that was not available on His own doorstep.

    Yet every Hindu, Brahmin or Buddhist scholar with an open mind will tell you that the Hebrew Scriptures are luminous with all that is required to attain enlightenment. So the counter-question is why travel, when everything you need is right here?

    Have you considered the idea that the Buddha travelled to the West, to study Philosophy under the Greek masters, or perhaps a Master of Philosophy travelled east, and schooled the young man in his father's house?

    The brief lines of Anaximander we have are enough to provide a foundation for the Four Noble Truths.

    Thomas
     
  5. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    Definitely members of a Brotherhood of Initiates ... and yes, Jesus traveled Eastward - into Kashmir, Inida, Tibet, etc. Understandable why a staunch Catholic (meaning Thomas, though there are plenty of others), or a Bible-beating Christian might fail to understand why this was necessary.

    But yeah, no question about the Hierarchy, and I'm pretty sure They are doing Their best! It's not the HIERARCHY that isn't doing a very good job ...

    ... it's just what (and who) they're UP against! :eek:

    So if they manage to cut through the apathy, the ignorance, the dullness and the materialism - they still have the infighting, and the dogmas, and the proud, foolish boastings from those who ought to know better! :(

    Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Amazing how easily those who ought to know this, seem to forget it!
     
  6. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    53
    Andrew,

    You are correct, the Brotherhood is doing a very good job. It is rediculous to even consider any other possiblilty. Have you read of the hurdles that a person must overcome as soon as they join the Brotherhood?
     
  7. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    Nick,

    Yes, I am familiar with the hurdles ... even of the pledged, probationary disciple. Somewhere in her writings HPB speaks of the nature of the tests & trials which present themselves to the candidate, mentioning how the energies which reach him will stimulate all that is undesirable in his character, equally as they will stimulate the virtues. This, precisely, is the nature of the test. We are best to wait until we are well on the way toward self-purification, and then it will be easier to grapple with the forces which make or break the candidate. {Could you share that quote, Nick, if you know the one I mean? I can't recall enough key words to google it ...}

    "Many are called, but few are chosen," as the Bible puts it ...

    SalamanderRC, are you familiar with H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, or with Isis Unveiled? Here is a short excerpt from ISIS (Vol. 2, p.127) on Jesus, John, the Essenes and the Nazarenes:
    We may the more readily credit this friendship between Peter and his late co-religionists as we find in Theodoret the following assertion: "The Nazarenes are Jews, honoring the ANOINTED (Jesus) as a just man and using the Evangel according to Peter." Peter was a Nazarene, according to the Talmud. He belonged to the sect of the later Nazarenes, which dissented from the followers of John the Baptist, and became a rival sect; and which -- as tradition goes -- was instituted by Jesus himself.
    History finds the first Christian sects to have been either Nazarenes like John the Baptist; or Ebionites, among whom were many of the relatives of Jesus; or Essenes (Iessaens) the Therapeutae, healers, of which the Nazaria were a branch. All these sects, which only in the days of Irenaeus began to be considered heretical, were more or less kabalistic. They believed in the expulsion of demons by magical incantations, and practiced this method; Jervis terms the Nabatheans and other such sects "wandering Jewish exorcists," the Arabic word Nabae, meaning to wander, and the Hebrew [[Heb char]] naba, to prophesy. The Talmud indiscriminately calls all the Christians Nozari. All the Gnostic sects equally believed in magic. Irenaeus, in describing the followers of Basilides, says, "They use images, invocations, incantations, and all other things pertaining unto magic." Dunlap, on the authority of Lightfoot, shows that Jesus was called Nazaraios, in reference to his humble and mean external condition; "for Nazaraios means separation, alienation from other men."
    And again, in explaining atonement (and its Pagan origins), we can read more in ISIS (Vol. 2, p.47) on the Essenes, the Gnostics, the Initiatic tradition, and King Asoka's Buddhist missionaries ...
    The Gnostics entertained many of the Essenean ideas; and the Essenes had their "greater" and "minor" Mysteries at least two centuries before our era. They were the Isarim or Initiates, the descendants of the Egyptian hierophants, in whose country they had been settled for several centuries before they were converted to Buddhistic monasticism by the missionaries of King Asoka, and amalgamated later with the earliest Christians; and they existed, probably, before the old Egyptian temples were desecrated and ruined in the incessant invasions of Persians, Greeks, and other conquering hordes. The hierophants had their atonement enacted in the Mystery of Initiation ages before the Gnostics, or even the Essenes, had appeared. It was known among hierophants as the BAPTISM OF BLOOD, and was considered not as an atonement for the "fall of man" in Eden, but simply as an expiation for the past, present, and future sins of ignorant but nevertheless polluted mankind. The hierophant had the option of either offering his pure and sinless life as a sacrifice for his race to the gods whom he hoped to rejoin, or an animal victim. The former depended entirely on their own will. At the last moment of the solemn "new birth," the initiator passed "the word" to the initiated, and immediately after that the latter had a weapon placed in his right hand, and was ordered to strike.This is the true origin of the Christian dogma of atonement.
    I will provide a third quotation from ISIS (vol. 2, p.130), referencing Orpheus (and the poems of Orpheus and Musaeus), telling us more about the Initiatic tradition and the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes ...
    Still we have the oral tradition, and every inference to draw therefrom; and this tradition points to Orpheus as having brought his doctrines from India. As one whose religion was that of the oldest Magians -- hence, that to which belonged the initiates of all countries, beginning with Moses, the "sons of the Prophets," and the ascetic nazars (who must not be confounded with those against whom thundered Hosea and other prophets) to the Essenes. This latter sect were Pythagoreans before they rather degenerated, than became perfected in their system by the Buddhist missionaries, whom Pliny tells us established themselves on the shores of the Dead Sea, ages before his time, "per saeculorum millia."But if, on the one hand, these Buddhist monks were the first to establish monastic communities and inculcate the strict observance of dogmatic conventual rule, on the other they were also the first to enforce and popularize those stern virtues so exemplified by Sakya-muni, and which were previously exercised only in isolated cases of well-known philosophers and their followers; virtues preached two or three centuries later by Jesus, practiced by a few Christian ascetics, and gradually abandoned, and even entirely forgotten by the Christian Church.
    The initiated nazars had ever held to this rule, which had to be followed before them by the adepts of every age; and the disciples of John were but a dissenting branch of the Essenes. Therefore, we cannot well confound them with all the nazars spoken of in the Old Testament, and who are accused by Hosea with having separated or consecrated themselves to Bosheth; which implied the greatest possible abomination. To infer, as some critics and theologians do, that it means to separate one's self to chastity or continence, is either to advisedly pervert the true meaning, or to be totally ignorant of the Hebrew language. The eleventh verse of the first chapter of Micah half explains the word in its veiled translation: "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, etc.," and in the original text the word is Bosheth. Certainly neither Baal, nor Iahoh Kadosh, with his Kadeshim, was a god of ascetic virtue, albeit the Septuaginta terms them, as well as the galli -- the perfected priests -- [[tetelesmenous]], the initiated and the consecrated.

    The great Sod of the Kadeshim, translated in Psalm lxxxix. 7, by "assembly of the saints," was anything but a mystery of the "sanctified" in the sense given to the latter word by Webster.
    One begins to see that there is PLENTY to learn if we are genuinely interested in the subject. Some of us, at least, most certainly are eager to sit At the Feet of the Master ... no matter how many lives of purity, of self-sacrifice, and of HUMILITY are required.
     
  8. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    The Wizard of Oz has been showing on the networks for the past 48 hours here ... and I enjoyed a few of my favorite parts. Have you forgotten, Thomas, what those ruby slippers were for, and the fact that Dorothy wore them all along? :cool:

    Hmmm ... "not available on His own doorstep" ... I see, said the blind carpenter to his deaf wife, as he picked up his hammer and SAW! :p

    Oh, what a conundrum, to figure out why Jesus would have traveled Eastward. It's there, the answer, if we seek it. I'm sure of that. My own curiosity is thus far satisfied with a mixture of information, and speculation. Yet I have already passed the phase of questioning which asks IF, or WHETHER, and I am content, at this point, to seek WHAT COMES NEXT. :)

    Thus, with you, SalamanderRC, and with you, Nick, I think we might continue to explore the connections, and leave others to arrive at them in time - or not.

    ~Andrew
     
  9. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    One further word, for those such as Nick and SalamanderRC, if you are unfamiliar with all that is said in ISIS on this subject. Two of the quotations I provided are continued on p.132 of Vol. 2 of ISIS. You can find that text online, here, and read for several pages more on this matter.

    It is explained that Jesus was not quite an Essene, or a Nazar, but "the founder of the sect of the new nazars, and, as the words clearly imply, a follower of the Buddhist doctrine" ... as told in the Codez Nazaraeus.

    Cheers ... :)
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Hi Andrew.

    Let me try and explain why I simply cannot accept such propositions.

    If we strip out the usual personal stuff, one might reasonably assume the following of the Theosophist argument:

    I could equally respond that if Theosophists actually understood the teachings of Christ, or were at least familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine, then they might understand why such was unnecessary in the first place.

    So there is nothing beyond the strawman and ad hominem argument ... just an opinion. Strike one.

    Then by the same rule I could equally argue that Jesus never left Judea‚ or I could argue that he was with Elvis and John Lennon in a portacabin on the moon ... or indeed, if I trawl around the internet, that He was in fact studying under just about everyone, just about everywhere, from the US to Japan.

    Again, no actual proof, just another opinion. Strike two.

    Surely the point of the film, and the point I was making? is that it was all a dream ... and what's more Professor Marvel (the Wizard) was no more than a genial fraud, a carnival showman.

    The moral of the story? As Dorothy tells Toto, "There's no place like home."

    Strike three, I think.

    If further example were necessary‚ I might insist that the child Jesus was taught everything He needed to know by Bridgid, the Celtic goddess of peace and unity, who according to legend, was transported from the Emerald Isle to act as midwife at the delivery of the Holy Child.

    +++

    What I find more disturbing is that with even a relatively limited training in the philosophical process, it becomes evident from many posts here, that the Theosophist sees no reason to make a distinction between what is fact, and what is speculation (I might in some cases say fiction) ... in the famous Origen/reincarnation argument, the basis seems to be that because the Theosophist in question believes in reincarnation, Origen must have done, even though all the evidence suggests something else altogether.

    To example my point, an extract from your post:


    History finds no such thing. Again, the Theosophist assumes that his or her opinion is sufficient data to be taken as historical fact, or at the very least to be the last word on the matter.

    'History'‚ by which we are to assume the broad concensus of scholarship‚ actually finds more questions than answers, poses a number of hypotheses, shows the arguments for and against, and offers a conclusion.

    Theosophy does not follow this rule, and suffers mightily as a consequence. How much of its speculations would remain in place if it did so is another question. I could show other examples of poor logic from just the brief extracts posted, if pushed.

    Let me say again, your opinion is your opinion ... but please do not accuse me of obduracy or ignorance simply because I happen to think other than yourselves ... especially when the logic of the argument is so faulty. And on the point of logic, if it is a tenet of Theosophy that you are not obliged to accept any of what is put forward, why must I?

    +++

    To bring some chance of reason and logic to the debate, I would suggest the following.

    One:
    Bring forward the material evidence to support any claim made ... (and please not the Nicolas Notovitch story ... ) else accept that the claim is no more than speculation.

    or Two‚ and by far easier:
    Bring forward examples of how and why Jesus incorporated Buddhist teaching into orthodox Jewish doctrine.

    Thomas





    +++++​
     
  11. flowperson

    flowperson Oannes

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Salamander...welcome to CR.

    We've been over this ground before here. But that does not render your questions and observations irrelevant.
    First you might wish to look at this thread which containf some awesome links and information regarding likely crossover points in Bhuddist-Christian beliefs:

    http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/celts-in-china-5661.html

    The other problem operating here is that legends concerning Jesus' surmised travels to India, etc. are probably related to and conflated with historical facts concerning the Apostle Thomas' actual travels to these areas after Jesus' death. Since Thomas was considered Jesus' twin in certain respects in several traditions, this may also be a source of confusing stories and legends. Here's the best researched and written book about the apostle Thomas and his travels that I've run across over the years.

    flow....;)

    The Gnostic Apostle Thomas
     
  12. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    53
    Thomas,

    We do have proof. It is in three books.

    The Secret Doctrine
    Isis Unveiled
    The Mahatma Letters

    There is no more authoritative book in the world.
     
  13. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually, Nick, I would add to the list. I won't even begin to mention titles, however ... and it would probably be considered rude if I quote the Bible as giving ample enough reason not to cite the many, many additional forms and specific instances of proof. Better just to say, these books, and others, and living witnesses all tell us THAT IT IS SO.

    And these, with or without my own, personal experiences, insights and corroborations, are good enough for me!

    Thus it comes down to a case of Sacred Scripture, if one wishes to argue from every bit as sound a foundation as the Abrahamic traditions, or the Buddhistic, Hindu, etc. We can match all of these, and yet also appeal to the eyewitness testimony of those who know -- because they were there :)

    I know the maxim goes: To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent ... yet I think (part of) what this really means is that we shouldn't be about trying to convince others, when it's something they don't want to know. "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind's already made up!" :p
     
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Hi Nick —

    I applaud your fidelity, but again, this is not an argument, rather a statement of faith. Not everyone accepts the authority of your books — each Tradition holds its own sacra doctrina as authoritative.

    St Thomas Aquinas wrote:
    "It must be born in mind, then, that within the philosophical sciences the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them. They leave that task to a superior science. The supreme philosophical science, metaphysics, can dispute against someone who denies its premises only if the adversary will concede something. If he concedes nothing, then debate is impossible, although it may still be possible to show that the adversary's argument is invalid."
    Summa First Part, Question 1, article 8.

    I have highlighted the crux of the matter: That any such dispute cannot be settled if the other party refutes the very veracity of the argument, even if their argument is shown to be invalid.

    St Thomas again:
    "It must be said that, besides the philosophical disciplines which are investigated by human reason, another doctrine based on revelation was necessary for human well-being. Such is true, in the first place, because man is ordered by God to a certain end which exceeds the grasp of reason. As Isaiah says, "Eye has not seen, God, without you, what you have prepared for those who love you" (lsa. 64:4). The end must be fore known to man, however, since he must order his intentions and actions to that end. Thus it was necessary to human well-being that certain things exceeding human reason be made known to man through divine revelation."
    Summa, FP, Q1, a1.

    The Christian theologian treats that metaphysics is the queen of the 'inferior sciences' (being accessible to human reason) and comprises an expression of the fides qua creditur — the faith by which it is believed — which is itself dependent upon Revelation — the superior science — the fides quae creditur — the faith which is believed — as handed down by Our Lord and by Apostolic Tradition.

    The question might arise as to whether sacra doctrina can be considered a science?

    The Angelic Doctor once more:
    "I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God."
    Summa FP, Q1, a2.

    This serves to demonstrate, I believe, that by the arguments of faith and of reason, that no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine.

    Sorry to quote at length, but it is important, as the logic of Aquinas' argument is irrefutable.

    Thomas
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Ad hominem aside ... it is as easy to show that this applies to yourself as to any other ... it's another self-defeating argument.

    Thomas
     
  16. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    Not quite. You could say this, and clearly are saying it. And it's a free world, or a free country, as we tend to say a lot. So - believe as ye so wish.

    But I do think, and I do claim, to "actually understand the teachings of Christ," well enough, at least, to speak on this subject. And, if that comes down to "better than you," since that is what our argument often amounts to, then sure, I'll say it. Neither you, nor anyone else, shall browbeat me out of my understanding. Nor my faith. Got it?

    The best challenge you can offer me, EVER, and AT ALL, would be to MATCH - and suspersede - my demonstration of my grasp of the HEART Doctrine, as opposed to the Eye. If you follow, then by all means, LEAD. Meanwhile, I shall endeavor to do my very best ... along the same lines - as I always have! :)

    Well, here again, you're just ignoring the evidence that we have presented. I can't help you with that one. You know, the horse is standing by the pool of water ... even the PIERIAN SPRING ... not for MY leading, yet thanks to those Giants Whom you've mentioned. Only I call them Theosophists, or Theosophers, actually - having more to do with the Heart Doctrine, again ... and after dear John Abbenhouse, as he preferred to say.

    So, the proof is there, yet you must be the one to investigate. Thus far, the best I've seen you do is read 2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward the New Presentations of Truth.

    You know, sometimes I paste a paragraph or two from ISIS, and from the SD, because I know others will take a look - if it isn't too long - but also because it's the ONLY way I can ever get you to actually contact HPB's ideas ... and those which came through her ... directly. If you skip over them, however, it's wasted effort, as you will fail to see Nick's point, my point, Bruce's point, and that of any, other open-minded individual ... SalamanderRC, et al, ad infinitum.

    For you see, you have your Sacred Scripture ... and certain, SET - or fairly well-established interpretations ... and we have our - Teachings. These, we prefer NOT to look at as finally authoritative, except inasmuch as they are a much, much more accurate, relevant, up-to-date and trustworthy source ... than the Hebrew Scriptures, or even the New Testament & Gospels, could ever be - notwithstanding the comments of Master H. which I have shared on numerous occasions. Bottom line: If you haven't the KEY, then you cannot make complete sense of the ciphers.

    You suggest that you have it, put yourself quite out to tell us of lectio divina - and I am on that page with you. But when you start telling me that Jesus didn't go to Egypt, and Eastward, and so forth ... well then, there's something still missing - and what more can we do, than remind you of the evidence?

    If you thump your Bible, and another fifteen tons of Vatican-stamped testimony, I will ask that we compare apples to apples ... and let us take that up, if you so have the patience. But you see, you will ask me to accept the writings and the authority of WHOM, exactly?

    Ahhhhh. Ah-HA! Yes, now it really does come down to `Lectio Divina.'

    I cannot keep this up. It is at least helpful to realize, that although one is right, it may be - for all the wrong reasons. YOU must do what you believe is right, in YOUR heart ... and so must I. So must we all ... but we do not, always, do that. Wherein, then, does conscience enter in?

    A bit of meat, perhaps ... as I drink my daily bread - I grow weary of this.

    Nope. Once again, only half right. The Wizard, representing in this Theosophist's tale the Master, or Mahatma, is only conditionally a humbug. I like how you turn him into a genial fraud, a showman, however ... as this is exactly what you have called the Masters' Greatest Messenger in the 19th Century, time & time again. But of course, while we forgive you for that, we must go on to clarify the error ...

    The Master, you see, is a HUMBUG, for the same reason that Christ Jesus is. NEITHER can get you from here to there, so to speak. YOU must do it YOURSELF. True, all disciples need the [a] Master, at one point or another, along the Path ... just as Christ Himself is Hierophant, for the Birth and Baptism Initiations (you remember those things? the ones I painstakingly showed you as existing in even the most COMMON of exoteric traditions in both Buddhist countries and Hindu? ah well, no matter - I didn't expect a response, or even an acknowledgment ... just a bit more inconvenient truth, as Al Gore might put it).

    So we do not discard, ignore, or forsake the Master, certainly not abandon the Masters, in terms of the Hierarchy - as esotericists - lest we embark upon Krishnamurti's journey into the trials of Arhatship - lifetimes ahead of schedule! :eek:

    Nor does the esotericist forsake Christ, or even the seeds planted by the stern yet forgiving Nazaraen Initiate ... regardless of what kind of other experiences s/he may seek out, and what other religions s/he may follow. True, many lifetimes might have gone by, yet Jesus stood beside Moses, accompanied him during his work and travels, and even succeeded him, as spiritual leader. IF ONLY we realized - how far back these karmic, and DHARMIC, bonds extend! :eek:

    I dunno, I'd say it's a swing 'n a miss, yeah. Because I don't think you realize what Baum meant by HOME. First of all, the word is even onamatapeic ... as the H is virtually silent, thus OM. But umm (ummm - OMMMMM) - did THAT occur?

    If you say, yes actually, then you will also realize that HOME is in fact, NIRVANA. Or rather, it is even beyond Nirvana - as our origin is technically thus (or thence, if we factor in time). Dorothy has, you see, met THREE friends on her Pilgrimage - that of the Prodigal Son, or Monad. The Monad, which we know of and relate to during incarnation through the SOUL, or Christ principle of later esoteric teachings (20th Century), has for it's vehicles of expression in the form-worlds, a lower mental body (mind), an astral body (emotions), and an etheric/dense physical body. These, of course, are the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, in the EXACT order I mentioned them (from Soul, "downward,"), as also the order in which Dorothy confronted them. Gee.

    The Ruby slippers, even with an occult reference to our earth, and it's auric glow, symbolizes - in the very least - Buddhi/Kundalini ... having everything to do with our spiritual shakti, understood materially and psychically, and of course, our SOUL - intellectually and SPIRITUALLY.

    But then, how atrocious must all this nonsense be, when it doesn't fit our paradigm. Again, darn. Sorry 'bout that. Fuss at ol' L. Frank if you like, but you see, this is the ANCIENT, and AGELESS, Wisdom. HPB didn't INVENT astral bodies, and Souls, or even the specific soteriology in which we place utmost confidence. In that same way, no, Jesus did NOT have to travel to Tibet to find a Soul, either HIS, or that of the CHRIST. But if you would bother to read accounts of why the PROXIMITY - of yes, even a PHYSICALLY embodied Spiritual Master - is necessary (in this case, the WORLD TEACHER ... not just any Master) ... then at least we could come to the table equally prepared, on equal footing, you know? ;)

    Pardon me if I decline your insistence, or belief, in a God Whom and which can literally just do ANYTHING which [emphatically] HE so desires, or wills, merely by WILLING it ... contrary to, and in complete DEFIANCE of - Cosmic LAW.

    For you see, we do not believe in any such chimera. This makes God's Laws ARBITRARY, and your counter that God can REPEAL his own, created LAWS - long enough to "Send forth His only begotten Son," etc. ... will mean little for those of us who accept - ON that very authority of the Law Itself - that GOD DOES NOT BREAK HIS OWN LAWS.

    Yes, I am tired, so please do pardon my impatience. Yet I just cannot grasp how intelligent people can sit there and say things like, "God can do ANYTHING" - without realizing that yes, even God IS a Conditioned Being ... manifesting according to LAWS, and bound - more so by the very NATURE of His OWN Creation, than by some higher authority - to ADHERE to them!!!

    That sounds like some kind of theological paradox, and will befuddle those who are so used to saying GOD ALMIGHTY. Please, I BEG OF YOU, do read Nick's most insightful, clarifying post, recently - on which thread I cannot recall - wherein it is clearly stated, WE DO NOT BELIEVE ... in "Almighty God." It's kind of like saying "ROUND CUBE." But I'll have to leave someone else to pick up that thread, and clarify why GOD COULD NOT JUST MAKE CHRIST APPEAR ... but rather, required the World Teacher to express Himself (and to express God, esp. the Love-Wisdom Aspect), via JESUS, the Initiate.

    If asked, I'll bet I could come up with FIVE more good reasons, nevertheless ... and if you give me a day or two to meditate and ponder, perhaps check a reference or two, I'll give you ten good reasons. But I have here only stated TWO of the most OBVIOUS ... and these should be enough for an open-minded person, one not bent merely on countering an argument with another argument, to take the ideas offered to heart! ;) :)

    More, as hints: World KARMA (with all the lesser, or more particular constituent groups and parties involved), and if we accept World Karma rather specifically, instead of as a catch-all, we can easily add - the necessity of the PROTECTION of the Brotherhood (being also the focal point of Shamballa's Center of contact with Humanity, at that time, and until the 2nd WW).

    Yes, I know, I've now given FOUR good reasons - for Jesus' travels Eastward, all dovetailing with what HPB, and other authors have suggested, though it is my own REASON which hints to me ... that all of this is so, and not the authority of any one source, OR all of them combined, OR some kind of external, inspiring Presence - however lofty and admired, or Divine.

    No, Thomas, I'm using MY OWN Ruby Slippers ... and THIS, is where they have directed me. You may chase your own tail, if you like ... but I think you'll find the Ourobouros has a lesson for us, once we understand Hermes-Buddha-Mercury's relationship to that tail-chaser. ;)

    At least now you are on the right track. :)

    So long as Mary remains "that woman that gave birth to the baby Jesus," however well revered by the Catholic Church (and rightly so!) ... we won't know the half of it!

    Isis, Astarte, Ishtar, Mary ... Brigid, yes, indeed!

    +++

    Origen taught reincarnation.

    Sorry you don't like that. I really do think you've managed to convince yourself that he didn't! :p

    Poor fella. Keep workin at it. Cubes will be round, soon enough. I'm waiting to hear that one, and some kind of valiant defense of flat-earth mush, and geocentric - oops, I know, I know, you have volumes to educate us about how the Church was right, and Galileo was on crack. Ohhh-kay. Whatever!

    I say, Origen was squelched, in part, by the PRIESTHOOD - which is EXACTLY what you'd do with all Theosophists, and all things Theosophical, Brother Jesuit ... because history repeats itself.

    But enough of your red herrings ...

    You may FAULT me, if you like, for quoting BRIEF excerpts rather than multiple paragraphs, amounting to several PAGES, with references ... but Thomas, I THOUGHT you had the good sense, the wherewithal, and the presence of mind to CONSULT the source provided - if you actually wanted to understand, and to pursue the argument.

    Don't have ISIS? Hmm, ever heard of that thing called THE INTERNET? Using a SEARCH ENGINE? Google, as a prime example, but choose your own. We're back to the horse and water, again.

    Umm ... because we can read ... and we bother to do so?

    +++

    Ha ha ... and that from the man who accuses OTHERS of stuffiness, pompousness, and arrogance. Deary me ...

    Oh and - I gave you your ONE and your TWO. I gave you three and four, and I'll also see you ALL THE TEA IN CHINA to prove wrong the evidence that HAS been put forward. What did I say about thristy horses?

    As it's been said, "Argue for your limitations, and they're yours!"

    Enjoy 'em!
     
  17. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    53
    Thomas,

    You have said Blavatsky was a liar.

    You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies.

    You have insinuated I have the brain-power of a horse.

    Now, you are saying Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.

    I would never say such things about you and your fellow Christians.

    In the beginning, you were quite reasonable. I thought to myself, "Finally, a reasonable Christian!" Then, you became very obnoxious. Then, you became very reasonable again.

    Why is your attitude now going down the tubes for the second time? I must say, I am very disappointed in you.
     
  18. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    5
    Aha!

    Now, at least, we're getting somewhere.

    Thomas, you can talk what you like with Nick, Bruce Michael, SalamanderRC, et al ... but now that we're clearing the air, here, let me ask you:

    Have YOU ever met a spiritual Teacher?

    And now I'd like you to tell me something about him, or her. You don't have to give any identifying details, just those qualities, characteristics, or other signifying features/behavior which suggst to you, indicate, or prove - to your satisfaction - that so-and-so was/is a Teacher.

    Let us, however, go ONE STEP FURTHER.

    Without appeal to YOUR `Sacra Doctrina,' and without appeal to MINE, I challenge you to tell me how you know ANYTHING at all. And just to keep it non-personal, and to give you the benefit of the doubt, let us simply ask, HOW can ANY person know ANY THING?

    Remember, NO Holy books ... and NO quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, or Plato, or Iraneaus, or Origen, or the Gospels.

    Nor shall I quote HPB, or Alice Bailey, or Rudolf Steiner, or Max Heindel, or Plato, or the Buddha, or the Book of Dzyan.

    I want to hear what YOU have to say, about HOW WE KNOW THINGS.

    It's time to truly tackle THAT branch of Philosophy ... and see how you fare.

    Start with a few words about a spiritual teacher, if you like, and let that be a segue, by answering the question, and how does S/HE know, or TRULY understand, a SINGLE THING?

    I really want to hear it. Because if you can't give me an epistemology which rests firmly upon a more secure foundation than "Because the Bible says it's so" - where `Bible' is some book, person, or even a HUMAN authority ... such as Christ Himself ...

    ... then Brother, I'd have to say that you don't know which end is up.

    The question will best be answered - if you FORGET, for a moment, what you have said about the Apostolic tradition, since we too, claim that line or source of authority - and date it sometimes, by minutes or hours, rather than thousands of years.

    Forget it. Toss it all, long enough to try and share with me a sensible epistemology.

    I for one, don't believe you can do it. Yet I will meet the same challenge, of giving you MY epistemology, a working one and a sensible one ... which does not violate the laws of sound logic, and of good reason, yet which also has as its authority, source or ultimate frame of reference - something SO SOLID, that it is unassailable.

    Now, meet me there ... if you remember how.

    Namaskar,

    ~andrew

    p.s. - If this needs to be on a new thread, I will entitle it `An Esoteric Epistemology,'
    though a more neutral title might be - `Approaches to Epistemology,' or something of that nature. I don't mean to sidetrack this thread, but having now stated your own, and the `official Catholic' viewpoint on this matter, I fail to see how any additional arguments you make will ADD to the discussion. Rather, I see them as SIDETRACKING it, or attempting, clearly, to DERAIL it. Prove me wrong, by showing that you care enough to discuss epistemology(ies), and not just HAMMER away at anything, anyone, Theosophical.

    p.p.s. - still don't `get it?' Let me assure you, no matter how sharp your blade, no matter how assiduously you attack, the Mighty Yggdrasil - the Tree of Knowledge, the Sephiroth Itself, which so offends you - cannot be felled ... not by you (for no one before you has succeeded), and not even by those arrayed against us, en masse. You still do not understand Kurukshetra, do you ... {Thank God you have your Shield, as I have mine. :) Did you know that He also lives, and move, and breathes, and Thinks, and Loves, and WORKS - as well as Guards, and Guides? Yeah ...}
     
  19. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Likes Received:
    53
    Thomas, you said,
    "...no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine."
    --> You were the one who insulted the authority of my Theosophical books, not the other way around.

    Since you always talk trash about Theosophy, and put up your Bible as superior, we should take a closer look. The Bible says the human race was created twice (once on Day Six, a second time during the story of Adam and Eve), yet it does not give an explanation of how this could have happened. As such, the Bible is not making sense. Theosophy does give an explanation of this "Double-Creation" Story -- and makes sense as it does. We have yet to hear you make sense of your Bible's Double-Creation Story.

    Theosophy's version of your Double-Creation story makes sense, and so has a better claim of being authoritative. I still have not heard how your Double-Creation Story makes sense, which leads us to question the authority of your version of the story, and the authority of the book it appears in.
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Hi Andrew —

    That is all we (as Christians) ask. Our argument rests on the fact that the Theosophical Society seems incapable of presenting its own doctrine without a radical misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.

    I know you do, from the TS perspective. As do I, from the traditional Christian perspective. There we differ. It's all a matter of in whom, and what, one has faith. I, however, do not cite Theosophist sources in support of my arguments, whereas more than once I have been obliged to point out where Theosophists cite Christian Tradition in defence of itself, as it does so erroneously, or out of context, or in ignorance of the mileau from which the tradition arose.

    I have consistently demonstrated the logical inadequacy of the Theosophist presentation of doctrine.

    I am not offended, nor bothered, by your doctrines and dogmas. I am offended, and bothered, when you misrepresent mine.

    I'm not ignoring it ... I'm questioning it, as I find its metaphysical assumptions fundamentally flawed. You choose to ignore the fundamental issue, you don't address it, but simply post more material from a source that is already in question, as if sheer quantity is enough to overcome all interrogation.

    I have investigated, my questions are the fruit of my investigations. I still await answers.

    Strawman argument again ... one could easily say your texts are "2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward" Christian doctrine. HPB is on record as such.

    The critique of Guénon however, is hardly 'second hand', nor uninformed, he being at the forefront of esoteric affairs in France, and an acknowledged scholar, beyond compare in his day, of Hindu doctrine.

    My critique is precisely of the veracity of your 'New Presentation of Truth' — that is your dogma, not mine. If its presentation is dependent upon fabrication, as in the case of Origen, then I have every good reason to doubt.

    Thomas
     

Share This Page