Jesus was a Buddhist

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

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,611
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Hi Andrew and Nick.

    I hope you will excuse me if I conflate your posts for the sake of brevity.

    In short, as at last you seem to agree with me, I just thought I'd post this as an upshot of a somewhat laborious process.
    (I have taken the liberty of inserting some parenthetical reflections, but they all revolve around the same, as far as I can see, contradiction.)

    +++

    It would be unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
    All we can offer is sound reasons why they might.
    (I do wonder then on what grounds both yourself and Andrew can argue against my believing in my texts.)

    Well Catholicism is not quite so dogmatic as that.
    We ask that people accept in faith only that which they can accept by reason.
    In my own case, for example, my 'epiphany' was as a result of an insight into esoteric symbolism at the hands of a Tibetan Buddhist, and then Platonic philosophy.

    As do we.
    Christianity is twofold: Revelation in the Hebraic tradition, and reflection upon Revelation in the Greek tradition (of theosophy, curiously enough).

    No. Nor can anyone.
    Again, all we can offer is sound reasons why they might.
    (I do wonder then on what grounds I am so soundly castigated, indeed vilified and ridiculed, for offering my reasons why I choose not to believe TS doctrine.)

    At last! Nothing other than what I have said from the outset. I'm glad you realise that.

    +++

    That's an intriguing premise ... perhaps you'd like to inform my fellow Christians and I what texts are the ultimate authority with respect to Christianity?

    Oh thank you but no ... I wish I was ... but far from it, or I would not be labouring at the science of theology.

    I glad you've come to appreciate this. I don't believe anyone can lay claim to anything but that which is their own.
    (I am still at a loss to understand on what grounds therefore you can criticise my interpretation of my texts when my interpretation follows the traditional and orthodox understanding)

    A very good point, and one which I endorse.

    In traditional Christianity, we go further, the Spirit (Cap S) then refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. As the Trinity is the Godhead, then the Spirit in our lexicon is above all determination — in terms of cosmologies, nature or man.
    As I have suggested often, and Nick has agreed, Theosophy is primarily cosmic — indeed, Volume One of of "The Secret Doctrine" is subtitled "Cosmogenesis".
    The traditional Christian outlook is primarily metacosmic.

    Correct. This again emphasises the difference of perspective ... we focus on the One alone, not on its subsequent cosmological determinations — we look beyond life itself, or as the Greek philosophers say, 'beyond-being'.

    Brilliant point, Andrew, as your address clarifies a fundamental distinction between our two traditions.
    We believe that the whole cosmic order manifests according to the Will of God ... however our Doctrine of the Trinity speaks not of manifestation at the level of Trinity Itself, which we consider an error of understanding under the title of modalism. The Trinity as such is not manifested as Itself in the cosmic order ... it is Revealed, but not manifested ... and thus any manifesting form is not the Trinity even if it offers a very close analogy it is still an analogy and is limited as such.

    A classic text evidencing this is from Exodus:
    "18:1. And the Lord appeared to him in the vale of Mambre as he was sitting at the door of his tent, in the very heat of the day. And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near to him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. And he said: Lord, if I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant."
    Exodus 18:1-3

    Later Lot sees two men only, and the Fathers had much to say on this, but as yopu say, this is too much of a digression.

    Might I add that this text does not infer The Trinity as such — otherwise Abraham could be criticised for not annunciating the doctrine — only in the light of subsequent Revelation can this text be read as Trinitarian, a view which the Jews, quite rightly, reject.

    I know that, but the point is, you will not accept that I find what she has to say falls short of what my own commentaries inform me ... in the same way that others have pointed out inaccuracies with regard to her interpretation of their doctrines. I know you will not accept this, but even the Hermeticist author of Meditations on the Tarot has, not without some perplexity and sorrow, shown how, in his mind also, HPB operates within a certain confinement, and under a certain limitation, of which perhaps even she was unaware.

    Thomas
     
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,611
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Hi SalamanderRC —

    If you're still here, if we haven't driven you off, a belated welcome.

    Hopefully our extended digressions have come to a close, so let us return to the original question.

    I believe you are right about the Buddhist community, but your other assertions would be difficult to support.

    The Essences were hardline, if not ultra-orthodox, and any involvement with a Buddhist (non-thesist) teaching would have resulted in the exclusion of those concerned ... to have worked, it would be required that all were won over in an instant, or if not, the winning (Buddhist) party eradicated all evidence of any conflict.

    Their insistence on purity and ritual defilement would have placed the Buddhist Dharma 'beyond the pale' ...

    Jesus, of course, would have horrified the Essenes more than he horrified the Pharisees, and the Essenes made the Parisees look charitable by comparison. He was impure on so many grounds (mixing with sinners, wine-bibbers, tax collectors, Romans, prostitutes, etc.) that I doubt the Essenes would allow him anywhere near their community.

    +++

    Travel to India/Tibet/wherever pushes the extreme even further ... and again we can say, bearing in mind He had the Hebrew Scriptures ... what did he lack? Certainly if He did, one could say it was a wasted journey, for His teachings were founded and argued solely on Hebraic terms.

    +++

    The idea that later scribes might have been influenced by Buddhism is also a valid point to raise, and Bruce has suggested some Buddhist influence in the Lucan gospel. I await any further evidence of such ... for my part, I can't see it.

    Certainly the Fathers, from the 1st century on, were profoundly influenced by Platonism. Irenaeus, the first of them all, was the only real exception, as he was thoroughly grounded in the Septuagint.

    +++

    Well that's a view from the Catholic position. I suppose the real question I would ask is, what was lacking from His own scriptures, that he would be required to travel?

    Welcome again ...

    Thomas
     
  3. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Thomas, you asked,
    "I do wonder then on what grounds both yourself and Andrew can argue against my believing in my texts."
    "I do wonder then on what grounds I am so soundly castigated, indeed vilified and ridiculed, for offering my reasons why I choose not to believe TS doctrine.
    I castigate you, not for what you believe, but because:

    You said Blavatsky was a liar.
    You insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies.
    You insinuated I have the brain-power of a horse.
    You commanded me to stop asking questions about the Bible.
    You are offended I point out contradictions in the Bible.
    You said Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.
    "Well Catholicism is not quite so dogmatic as that."

    --> Hmmm.... The idea that people must think freely is a dogma. I do not accept such an idea, but it is fascinating.
    "We ask that people accept in faith only that which they can accept by reason."

    --> You excommunicate people who disagree with you.
    "Theosophy works hard to develop thinking skills in its members, and asks its members to make sure something makes sense before believing it. --> As do we."

    --> You only tolerate questions that you like, and discourage questions you do not like. You, yourself, commanded me to stop asking questions.
    "The idea that I should tell you that you have to believe in karma and reincarnation is preposterous. --> At last! Nothing other than what I have said from the outset. I'm glad you realise that."
    --> I am sorry if you misunderstood me. This has always been the Theosophical position. Feel free to tell me what I said that made you think otherwise. Perhaps an example would help.

    The Bible says there was a battle in which the good guys needed to win before the sun went down, and asked God to stop the sun in the sky. God did so. The good guys won, and then God started the sun moving again. (Does anyone know where this is in the Bible?)

    Let us now make a comparison. Theosophists believe in reincarnation, and Christians believe the sun stopped in the sky.

    Let's pretend a professional, full-time Theosophical lecturer (yes, there are such people) suddenly denounced the idea of reincarnation. What would happen? Theosophists would vote with their feet, stop going to that person's lectures, and he or she would end up without a job.

    Let's pretend a Catholic Bishop suddenly denounced the idea that sun stopped in the sky. What would happen? I firmly believe the Bishop would be in big trouble. He (no she possible) would be told he has to toe the sun-stopping line or else.

    Here, then, is the key difference in the two philosophies.



    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nick: "I am just reading what the Bible says."
    Thomas: "Not really, if you think about it."
     
  4. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Thomas, I just spotted this. You said,
    "Two [human races created in the Bible] would imply two natures, surely? Or one nature, and then a repetition of that same nature again ... neither seems very logical to me, although I do appreciate it appears to be the Theosophical position."
    --> The idea that there are two human races, and that they each have different natures is against Theosophical teaching. Such a teaching does not appear in Theosophy, only in Christianity.

    Theosophy explains why Christianity came up with such an idea, not that it is a Theosophical teaching.




    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nick: "I am just reading what the Bible says."
    Thomas: "Not really, if you think about it."
     
  5. Bruce Michael

    Bruce Michael New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes the Jewish teachings prepared the way for an understanding as did the Greek Wisdom. How would have Mankind understood the Event without the proper preparation?

    You said,
    "then again we must acknowledge that Love and Compassion are Universal in the world's Spiritual Traditions."

    Just where, antecedent to the time of Gautama, do we find such a teaching of Compassion?

    Here is an account of the life of Buddha that is popular among Theosophists:


    THE LIGHT OF ASIA; OR, THE GREAT RENUNCIATION
    BEING THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF GAUTAMA,


    Prince of India and Founder of Buddhism

    (as told in verse by an Indian Buddhist).
    BY EDWIN ARNOLD, M.A.


    Best Regards,
    Br.Bruce
     
  6. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Damn, Francis who took a sh*t in your hat and didn't tell u about it! :confused:
     
  7. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Small world, Thomas! My own epiphany was, also, thanks to an experience of the Presence and the Ashram of a Tibetan Buddhist! :)

    Later that was echoed by an experience with a Kashmiri Brahmin, but a couple of Americans are the ones who proved to me, in the flesh, that sure enough - the New Thought-Form Presentation (of the Wisdom) is what it's all about! No, not for everyone. But for several of us here, it's where our line of Service begins ... :)
     
  8. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I would argue that most Theosophists (and those of related movements, or Schools of Teaching and thought) ... probably believe that Revelation has already been provided, for esoteric students of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (as also for centuries to come) ... and that it is not only accessible, but that we have been studying it all along!

    We really don't have any need to boast amongst ourselves, you see, any more than you feel the need, as you sit down at the Sunday School table to speak with your peers ... reminding each other that, "Oh, by the way, God gave these texts to us as REVELATION!" :p

    You don't feel a need to constantly remind each other of that, do you? Why not? Because it's largely a given. It has everything to do with WHY you're all Roman Catholic (or Christian), to begin with!!! And certainly the various epiphany experiences serve to further reinforce that, and vice versa.

    So, why should it be surprising, when numerous of us here at C-R, echoing a small but growing portion of individuals from every faith, background and spiritual/religious tradition ... come together here (and elsewhere), online, to speak about and discuss esoteric ideas in the Theosophical (and related) traditions ... not ASSUMING, any more than YOU do, but rather, knowing, that our own, Sacred texts (dictations, we often prefer to call them) are - yes - REVELATION ...

    We simply include Christian and Hebraic Scriptures in the largest set, or pool, of Sacred texts ... and sometimes we do study them. However, we are also quite interested in focusing on what those same authors of YOUR Sacred texts have had to say to us SINCE. Specifically, we are interested in their dictations to RECENT Prophets (Whom we prefer to call Messengers), and we find that it is easier to study them in the DIRECT, ENGLISH language, as they were received ... sometimes referencing Sanskrit, Hebraic, Greek or other terminologies (since the CONCEPTS and ideas, the REALITIES we're dealing with have long been treated in THOSE tongues and traditions, as yet LACKING direct cognates in the ENGLISH).

    HPB's own ISIS, and the SD, while WRITTEN in English, provides a MAZE for those who are not at least somewhat FAMILIAR with the Eastern, and even Western (esoteric) traditions ... thus there have been written literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of commentaries, keys, elucidations and discussions ... to assist the sincere and devoted student.

    We do not mind, however, many of us, looking directly at what HPB wrote ... since in some cases we may be observing the direct thought of the Great Ones, while in other cases we are seeing the ideas they wished to communicate, expressed AT LEAST AS WELL AS HPB was able ... keeping in mind that her native tongue was Russian, and that she learned English largely from Master KH.

    You are not unwelcome and unpopular for choosing not to believe the TS doctrine, as you put it ... and I will remind you that it is your Church which has its EXCOMMUNICATION. No one has ever been excommunicated for not accepting Theosophical teachings. :(

    What you do, however, Thomas, is you simply THEOSOPHY-BASH. Then you dare to ask, `Why am I getting fussed at?'

    We are trying to discuss the idea that Jesus traveled far beyond Galilee and Judea. And we are investigating the influence of Asoka's Buddhist missionaries on the Essenes ... and thus, on Jesus.

    If you wish to say, "I don't think there's any solid proof, or evidence for these things," then do so. Or rather, just nod, since you already have. Now, please, move on. To further beat the dead, bloody horse ... is rather unpleasant. I find it highly unproductive.

    Even the Rosetta Stone is useless, without the human MIND (and heart? perhaps a bit of Intuitional insight? maybe ILLUMINATION?) to INTERPRET it.

    We do not believe that the human consciousness is forever sealed, and prevented access to the Divine ... or vice versa. We find, that the very Light, Love and Purpose of God, is a much, much higher authority for understanding the Sacred scriptures of any and every tradition. We have no reservations, and no hesitation, to go to the Source. It is your Lectio Divina, which we are taught, early on, which is the final authority.

    Hence my invitation to discuss epistemology ...

    Well, we are not quite on the same page here, so ... for further clarification:

    We might not go so far as to say, `The Presence of God within every human heart - is his/her own.' We would reverse that, and say, God PROTECTS and KEEPS every human Soul. And that includes the Soul in incarnation, just as well as the Soul out of incarnation.

    There is an occult expression, Taking the Kingdom of Heaven by force!

    And this is precisely what the disciple must learn to do. Do not look to me to explain that, if it is unfamiliar. Neither, if you cannot understand how this is a good thing, do I feel it is my obligation to clarify. If you see and understand the significance, then I will go on to say, hmmm ... actually, we can thus - lay claim - to precisely the kind of Authority, which shows us exactly what ALL spiritual texts are saying.

    And they are not YOUR texts, btw. It would be helpful if you considered that Christ comes for ALL of us, not simply for the Jews, not for the Christians or Roman Catholics more than for ANY other group ... nor for those who cry Holy (`in Jesus' name'), any more or less than those who pray to Sri Krishna.

    We will eventually come to this understanding, and wonder at the ignorance we formerly demonstrated ... rooted, as it is, in separativeness, in exclusivity, and even in greed and ingratitude. :( :eek:

    Do not make the simple error of dualistic thinking, or of assuming that either - `someone (some TRADITION) out there must possess the fully-correct and complete, ACCURATE understanding ... or in fact, NONE do, and all are completely off.' Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Thus, Theosophy teaches us to learn to come to that `authority' - if you like - whereby true understanding MAY be attained ... and we are indebted, as you are, to the contributions from Christian and Hebraic thinkers throughout the dozens of centuries both since and prior to the times of Christ Jesus.

    But we are not limited to what they have to offer, nor must we read even the Canonical Gospels (or limit ourselves to THOSE Gospels alone, either) with that same mindset, and typical interpretation which you do. Thus, Alice Bailey wrote, `From Bethlehem to Calvary' without the dictations or direct assistance of the Tibetan Master, but simply as an esotericist and as a student of the Christ, just as you are.

    Her contribution has helped THOUSANDS of students to understand the symbolic pathway of Initiation which Christed Jesus depicted for us, known, studied, taught and followed by the Greek Mystery Schools, Teachers and chrests/christs ... just as by those in the Hebraic/Kabbalistic and Chaldean/Babylonian ... by the Egyptian, by the Buddhist, by the Hindu - and by civilizations, societies and cultures whom & which we have never heard of.

    Even other planets, while not necessarily observing the exact process of Initiation which we observe upon planet Earth, might be assumed to proceed along similar lines ... for the Wisdom Teachings speak of Initiations of the Planetary Logoi, of the Solar and greater Logoi ... and even of the non-human or sub-human Kingdoms upon this planet.

    The problem is, your only argument, when all is said and done, is, "But this is not what WE understand when we READ the same texts (Bible & related)."

    No kidding? Man that's too bad. :rolleyes:

    Might I suggest you take a couple of deliberate, careful steps back, then ... and RE-EVALUATE how you have become accustomed to seeing things?

    For you see, MY epiphany, and I daresay that/those of Nick, Bruce Michael, enlightenment, SalamanderRC, flow, and others ... apparently has led us all, to see things differently ... and while we still honor the contributions, the teachings and the sacrifice(s) made by Christ Jesus every bit as much as you do (don't think so? just ask us! have you ever thought to? :eek:) ... we have nevertheless come to different conclusions about their significance! :)

    And Thomas, did I mention, we're HAPPY with how we've come to understand things. :) :) :)

    No, Thomas, this is not correct at all. You have not grasped what HPB, and what the Eastern traditions, are saying.

    The Triune expression, `Spirit, Soul and body' (we capitalize both of these `S's - because both express directly, as Aspects of the Divine Presence ... one the 1st, the second, the 2nd :)) ... IS your Trinity. So then LIFE, and I must stick to that terminology so as to preserve my ground in this discussion, IS your Godhead (or ABSOLUTE, as we both may say).

    We may discuss the Triune expression relative to man, we may look within, or `below,' if you like, more microcosmically, and talk about the threefold expression of the ATOM ... and I recommend the book, `Consciousness of the Atom,' by Alice Bailey (again, without the assistance of the Tibetan), if you are interested.

    Or yet, we may move heavenward, in which case the three of Spirit, Soul and body apply to Planetary, Solar or greater LOGOI. Eventually, yes, if you must press the issue (though it isn't directly relevant to this discussion, imho), we will nod in agreement with you, saying,
    Yes, there is One, Supreme, Cosmic LOGOS above and beyond ALL lesser Logoi. This greatest, Supreme Cosmic LOGOS, called Parabrahm in the most ancient, Vedic teachings, Itself has 3 Aspects ... of Spirit, Soul and body. These are known, in esoteric and mystical Christianity as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... regardless of how they may have become co-opted and adapted by later theologians and `doctors' to suit a more mundane and consumer-friendly `churchianity' - needing anthropomorphized teachings to serve as their milk ... lest they find the meat a bit too `chewy.' :eek:
    Now the best I can do, is to ask you to carefully study the chart provided, and see how across THREE major traditions this same sublime Philosophy has LONG been taught. In the Secret Doctrine, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Logos ... and also - The Unmanifest, Spirit-Matter and Creative Wisdom, respectively.

    Your further argument on this point, Thomas, WOULD only demonstrate that you are incapable of reading and of rationally connecting the dots. I give you not only the benefit of the doubt, I take it on good faith that we can put this matter to rest.

    The nail in the coffin, is that what you call, `The Godhead, or Absolute,' is ONE AND THE SAME as what is termed in Theosophy, `The Absolute,' or even sometimes, `The Godhead,' and also the Vedic `Parabrahm.'

    We have no need to beat this dead horse any further, either. ;)

    parabrahm.gif
     
  9. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    You can look, all you like, Thomas, yet what you will see is - NOTHING. That is because, you are looking into PURE (relative to OUR standpoint) DARKNESS. N'est pas, my Brothers Nick, Bruce Michael, et al? :)

    When a man stares into a pitch-black room, he may SPECULATE all he likes, but it will be utterly FUTILE, and absolutely fruitless. Now realize, that our pitch-black room, normally contained within a building or house, is actually - how do we put this, you must reverse the current orientation in your mind.

    I think you get this. Imagine that ALL that we know of, understand, or can even - wildly imagine and speculate upon (even including, yes, God in the HIGHEST - from WHATEVER philosophy or tradition we might choose) - this ALL, is in fact, contained, so to speak, in a LIGHTED room. Now reverse the most immediate `lighting scheme' that will come to your intellectual understanding.

    Instead of saying, God becomes brighter, much, much more Brilliant - even blinding in His Glory - as we move `upward' or Heavenward, try reversing that. In one sense, yes, that was correct, but ACTUALLY, our understanding, our familiarity, our certainty, and our `MAP' of the Universe/Cosmos ... grows dimmer, and dimmer and eventually just FADES out of sight, out of comprehension, out of our capacity to imagine, altogether - as we move in that `direction.'

    NOW we can see, how our entire COSMOS, eventually, becomes like a lighted room, with a still-dark, only gradually-becoming-lighted corner (that is Earth, and the physical/astral/lower mental portions thereof) ... and in fact, the `outside world' (of our real-life, everyday familiarity) - stretching on, heavenward, into INFINITY ... THIS is what is, actually, DARK. And that, if you want to try and wrap your MIND around it, is `God.'

    Remember, however, all bets are off, all speculation is USELESS, and if you dare to stand there/sit there/lie there whatever, and CLAIM or PRETEND that somehow YOU know something WE do not ... HA! We will simply :) and move on.

    THAT is why, in part, we find your assertions that "THIS is how you MUST read MY Holy books ... and commentaries" - PRESUMPTUOUS. THAT is why some people are turned off from reading the Bible, and studying Christianity, altogether! And Francis rightly points out, the same claims can be made by ANYone, including Theosophists ... and THAT is why true enough, some will not TOUCH anything Theosophical - and frankly, I don't blame them! :p ;)

    Yet Thomas, again, we know you for a fool - IF and ONLY if, or when - you dare to say, MY philosophy, MY theology, MY religion, dares to go - where yours CANNOT, and/or does not. Brother, that's just pure, plain, 100% nonsense. It's drivel.

    We not only speak of the same UNMANIFEST LOGOS that you do, call it the Godhead if you like, our Cosmology treats of it, recently, in a rather hefty, bound volume - Vol I (Cosmogenesis) of The SD. Other authors, such as Alice Bailey, writing for The Tibetan, have given us (A Treatise on) Cosmic Fire, which is the `psychological key' to The SD. And Max Heindel and Rudolf Steiner, among others, have also taught us much ... about these precise matters (processes, realms of being, TYPES of Beings and modes of existence) - which you rather foolishly and short-sightedly claim, "are not treated" in our philosophy.

    My friend, it is not that we simply enjoy babbling about Rounds and Races, Schemes and Chains (which do seem a bit metaphysically dry, and outright boring, after awhile) ... but we have found, that as we study the earlier cycles in the history of our Humanity, of this (and other) Planet(s), and of this and nearby Solar System(s) ... we can learn a great deal about the current cycle of growth that all of us are going through, together. ;) :cool:

    And if you wish to focus, primarily, upon the race-history, exploits and holy writings of ONE tradition (or perhaps a handful) among literally HUNDREDS now extant upon the planet, or yet that number multiplied manifold, in terms of those which have disappeared, or have all-but done so ... then you know, Thomas, none of us, is going to even TRY, to get in your way.

    Thus, we'd kindly be most grateful and appreciative, if you'd come down from your high horse, admit that you're simply a student, as are we all, interested in varous matters ... and GET ON WITH IT! :)

    What you shall accomplish, by constantly assaulting us with your shallow jabs and criticisms of philosophical "unsoundness" ... is, I'm afraid, not quite what you seem to have in mind. I'm afraid you're not only getting yourself nowhere, you're beginning to just plain LOOK BAD. I'm not saying this purely to try and embarrass you, believe it or not (although I don't mind if that is what comes of it, if it helps you to GET what I'm saying) ... rather, I'm hoping it WILL bring to the realization, sooner or later, that "Oh, gee, these chaps over here DO understand what we (Roman Catholics, Christians, theologians and Hebraic scholars/thinkers) are saying, AFTER ALL." :eek: :)

    I really, sometimes - and this is certainly one of them - don't know what to say to you! I write, as best I'm able (at least at the moment, and as often as possible), under that same Spirit and Impetus, which both initiated and furthered the Theosophical Movement/Modern Revival ... and which continues to Inspire, Guide and Illumine the lives and efforts (the One WORK), of esoteric students and aspirants EVERYWHERE (worldwide, and beyond).

    There is no ill will, and there is effort or hope to bring YOUR house down ... thus I ask you, please do not keep pretending that you, yourself, have a more solid foundation - and/or that ours may somehow support a mere `house of cards' ... for if you press us, we can and will show, exactly - you bet - THE OPPOSITE. :(

    The returning of an unkindness with another unkindness, however, is not the Teaching and the Royal Philosophy of Lord Sang-gyas, nor that taught by His Great Brother, 500 years later, when He said, "resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Thus, we do the best we can, and try to turn unpleasant circumstances into better ones. :)

    As far as the Trinity "not manifesting Itself," here - again - there is no disagreement. Only an incorrent reading and understanding of The SD (either that book, or any other eludication of Theosophical Principles regarding this subject) ... can leave us with the notion that the Trinity manifests itself directly, as you say.

    Let me show that this is so, with an excerpt from de Purucker's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary, on the Gnostic Ferho:
    Ferho (Gnostic) Used by the Nazarene Gnostics in the Codex Nazaraeus for life per se, which in itself is unknown and formless, because being the productive cosmic vitality behind and within the worlds of form. "Before any creature came into existence, the Lord Ferho was" (Codex Narazaeus 1:45). He is described as the Supreme Lord of Splendor and of Light, manifested as the unrevealed cosmic life which exists in Ferho from eternity.

    In tabulating the Gnostic names into triads, Blavatsky places Ferho heading the first trinity of Ferho, Chaos, and Fetahil, equivalent to the Father, Mother, and Son of the Christian system (IU 2:227). This is the concealed or nonmanifested trinity, equivalent to the unmanifested or First Logos of theosophical literature. At the same time Ferho is "the Life which is no Life -- the Supreme God. The Cause which produces the Light, or the Logos in abscondito" (IU 2:295).

    Ferho, therefore, was at one time viewed as is the Hindu Brahma, the formative and creative cosmic power, and at another time as is the Hindu Brahman. Cosmic life has the same double significance: it is either the root-life or unmanifest source of all, or again the life manifest, the producer and former of the worlds.
    As you can see, HPB clearly refers to the Logos `in abscondito,' Itself THREEFOLD and unmanifested. Again, it is good to clear up these misunderstandings ... and to recognize that we're on the same page, after all. However, there is no rush to go on, but I do think this topic ought to be taken up elsewhere, if we wish, since it has no direct relevance on the OP and thread topic.

    I will accept that you prefer to study more Abrahamic, or Hebraic, writings. That's fine. We like HPB (and other Theosophical authors, or those following in the Theosophical Tradition). That's as much as I will concede, as I have no problem acknowledging that Theosophy is not meant for everyone.

    You may be interested to peruse the writings of Dane Rudhyar, who was quite familiar with Theosophy, and who commented at length on the significance of HPB's contributions and her Charge, from the Great Ones, of establishing the TS ... as compared and contrasted with The Baha'iFaith, as well as with Communism. This can be found in his book, Occult Preparations for a New Age, and there is probably a great deal more said in his other writings.

    This is very interesting, and a puzzling opinion, since I was not aware that the Presence, Influence and behest of the Christ, of the Great Ones, even that of the Buddha Himself constitute a "limitation." If anything, I would think they would assist us in providing the Revelation which we have been charged with providing, in the best possible format, or manner, of which one is capable.

    You are prone to forget, Thomas, as are many writers, that HPB was writing at a time when Buddhism, Hinduism, certainly Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, and other esoteric traditions ... were all but unknown to 99% of the West (certainly to America), except for among the most well-versed of scholars ... or a small handful of immigrants.

    You also seem to overlook the statement, perhaps because you have NEVER encountered it, given by one of the Mahatmas:
    ". . . We employ agents - the best available. Of these for the past thirty years the chief has been the personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come. . . . With occult matters she has everything to do. . . . She is our direct agent. . . . " (source not readily available, a Mahatma Letter, I will assume)
    The italics may or may not be in the original, but I think this statement speaks volumes. Thomas, you try to compare apples to oranges, and you criticize HPB for her imperfections ... while also simply because YOU have not understood her teachings, much less her true personality.

    You can disagree if you choose, but that would be rather foolish, for it's like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is 5 cubed divided by 4 cubed minus 8 cubed. Those who KNOW the Pythagorean Theorem, even if we do not understand ALL the complexities of higher mathematics, are at least able to recognize when a man simply HAS NOT quite hit the nail on the head. ;)

    Thus, we can see, plainly, when you are 'off' ... yet none of us (Nick, Bruce Michael or myself, at least) will deny - that HPB had her imperfections, just as the Apostles, themselves were actually quite a sordid lot, the more you learn about them. Why drag them through the dirt, however, when they did their very best (most of the time, we shall assume), to follow in the footsteps of their Teacher? They, like HPB, were charged with taking the Gospel to the rest of the world, and - all things considered - both sets of Messengers (Christ's Apostles, and HPB, Judge, Olcott, et al) did admirably.
     
  10. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    What this suggests to me, Thomas, and correct me if my induction is wrong ... is that you're saying Jesus would have needed to sit around studying the Hebrew Scriptures, in order to do WHAT, exactly -
    1. Learn the teachings of his own, childhood RELIGION, that which he was BORN into, and which he knew, well enough, by the age of TWELVE, that we find him teaching the scribes and Pharisees ... with the AUTHORITY of ONE WHO KNEW (vs. that of a child of ANY age, or even the GREATEST Biblical scholar you can produce TODAY)?
    2. Drum up the proverbial cajones, the gumption, the motivation ... or to find Inspiration therein (lacking it from within his OWN heart & mind because???) ... in order to begin his Ministry?
    3. Make sure he knew every last word, every last line, jot & tittle of the Hebrew scriptures and tradition, so we wouldn't FLUB UP (this is the polite way to say it), and accidentally destroy some of those Laws that He came to fulfil? You know, so he could GET IT RIGHT?
    Oh dear. Yes, Thomas, I begin to see. It is DIFFICULT not to say this with sarcasm, indeed, because - clearly we DO have a different understanding of Jesus, and of his relationship with `God the Father,' even with `God the Son,' since I find ALL THREE of the above ideas repulsive.

    But again, I can see how and why you have the understanding that you do, and while it may be tempting to look down my nose at you, and say, "Oh, if ONLY you understood," I think it is far kinder to say, "Ah well, many of us have a VERY different way of regarding Jesus, and of understanding his Authority, Mission, Purpose and Training."

    You see, we DO believe, and have plenty of evidence to tell us so, that Jesus was an ordinary human being, just as you and I, not descended from Heaven, on High ... purely to PRETEND to be a `guy like us.' Rather, we believe it was his mission, his purpose, his special undertaking and service to us to actually LIVE, EXPERIENCE and MASTER the SAME circumstances and trials of earthly incarnation which EVERY man must undergo.

    And we note, as the Record notes, that he so overcame, even exceeded the goal ... and that he was able to serve in a capacity which even the greatest of Earth's Initiates have seldom had placed before them. With some discrepancies between what Theosophists, Anthroposophists and various other esoteric students might believe, I can only state that my belief is that Jesus became Christ's Vehicle ... not merely in the physical sense, but by handing over to the latter his entire threefold personality vehicle (the lowest trinity of human expression) - mind, emotional body and physical body.

    Only an Initiate, or a very advanced and pure Disciple, is capable of doing this, and our only examples in recent history, at least those with which many of us may be famliar, are those of HPB, Krishnamurti, and a small handful of somewhat unique, and carefully trained & prepared individuals. One such of these, unlike most others, has even been able to provide the teachings of the Angels, because of his special line of service.

    So, I will post once more, in short fashion, a list of FOUR (or more) reasons (if they all look sound to me, at the present time), for the necessity for Jesus to travel Eastward (and even Westward, as to Egypt).
    1. The PROXIMITY of a PHYSICALLY embodied Spiritual Master, one of the 5th or Adept Degree, is necessary for every disciple and Initiate at certain points of their training. Even for the reasons of normal development, the Nazarene Initiate would understandably have required these.
    2. For the additional purposes of special training, clearly associated with his voluntarily undertaken Mission as vehicle of the World Teacher (Christ), Jesus also needed to visit not only his OWN, direct Adept Master, but he needed to be in the direct Presence of the Christ Himself. Esoteric tradition and specific teachings suggest that this was the Himalayan Brotherhood, specifically - a certain valley in Tibet. It may even be that Jesus' own Master was the Christ; that remains a possibility. Regardless, he would have been receiving two types of teachings: those needed for any and every Initiate, and those for his specific Work with the Christ.
    3. World KARMA (with all the lesser, or more particular constituent groups and parties involved) ... prevents the Christ (or World Teacher) - even today - from simply incarnating directly among us. This has everything to do with the High (or exalted) degree of Initiation which He has taken and represents. One may read a statement to this effect here, provided after the experiments with Krishnamurti proved a failure (which would have essentially repeated the earlier - but successful - work with Jesus).
    4. World Karma, in terms 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 World War). Here, a second - and more specific application of world karma is that condition wherein there has been opposition, since Atlantean times, to the work of the Occult Brotherhood. This necessitated, for reasons that should be clear enough, the direct, physical presence of Jesus among and amidst Those who were capable of Guarding & Guiding the planned-for Work ... with the least possible expenditure of Force. I feel saddened by the natural question which may arise, with some, which might proceed along the lines of - "but surely, if such a `Brotherhood' even exists, God would have guided one or more of its agents, however many required, to visit Jesus ... and see to it that `all this was taken care of.'" I'm glad you asked that question (my mental thought-form friend), for you are exactly right, sort of. Three future Masters, already traveling the Initiatory Path and well aware of their own, occult tutelage, did visit the infant Jesus, and they even walked with him, again, once the Christ was fully overshadowing him, later. You may read some of the direct teachings of Master Morya (Melchior), regarding all of this, beginning here, at this location. At any rate, one thing that the occult student learns is that there is a Divine, economy of energy ... and an understanding of this fact, plus a familiarity with the non-sacred nature of our planet (something that is literally changing as we speak), will provide the key for just why Jesus could not receive ALL of his training at his own doorstep, so to speak.
    5. Somewhat different than #1, above, there is the possibility that on Jesus' special line of development (6th Ray, who knows what other specifics) ... certain texts, objects, even the magnetic influence of certain spots was necessary for HIM ... as a Soul, as an Initiate, in order to move onward in his development.
    6. Now, almost as the reverse of #5, we are told MUCH about how part of the work of the Initiate Jesus, especially in his subsequent incarnation as Appollonius of Tyana (wherein he reached Adeptship) ... was to visit certain assigned locations, and to occultly magnetize various objects and talismans, some of which were already present and needing revivification (via - what else? his own, direct contact with the occult centers of energy themselves - and these, on a planetary scale, not simply a human one). This is a special line of work with which the Brotherhood is involved, and we may literally thank God for it, as this is part of why we even have a world, at present, to incarnate upon & within. A short excerpt from the Agni Yoga Teachings speaks of this work of Appollonius, yet again - Jesus himself (the same Soul), did some of the same work, earlier:
      • During his journeys Apollonius of Tyana would sometimes say to his disciples, “Let us tarry here. This place is pleasing to me.” From these words his pupils knew that a magnet was concealed there or that the Teacher intended to bury a magnet there. The sensing of magnets is accomplished by means of a particular current connected with the power of Agni. In the course of time science may investigate these magnetic waves, for they are not exhausted for centuries. Magnets have been set like milestones in places of special significance. ... An object magnetized by thought, verily, has power. Thus, without superstition, but quite scientifically, one should study the stratifications of thought—they are the work of Fire. -- Fiery World I, 342
      • Stories of Appollonius, too, are recounted in On Eastern Crossroads.
    7. A direct quotatation, if I may, from this same book, may even serve to show a 7th Purpose for Jesus' travels Eastward. Pity it has not even occurred to those who seem to enjoy laughing when Wisdom shows its face:
      1. [​IMG]HUS shall we begin the story of His life, that the unmutilated word shall be inscribed upon earth.
        For thirty years He walked repeating the word so as to impart it to those who would not receive it. The Teachings of Buddha, of Zoroaster, and the old sayings of the Vedas, He learned upon the crossroads. Perceiving pure eyes, He asked, “Know you aught of God?” By river barges He awaited the travelers and asked, “Do you bear aught for me?” For it was need that He cross with human feet and ask with human words.
        When He was told of the starry signs He asked to know their verdicts; but the alphabet had no attraction for Him; people did not exist for this. “How can I calm the devastating storm? How can I disclose the heaven to men? Why are they rent from the eternal existence to which they belong?”
        Such teaching of the essence of life effaced methods of magic because instead of winning the subservience of the minor spirits of nature He razed all obstacles with the sword of His spirit. His teaching guided the people to the possibilities of the spirit. Therefore there were no prophets near Him but only by the stars one knew of Him.
        We knew much and He was all-able. Then we resolved to serve His Teaching.
    Here are seven reasons then, regarding the purpose for Jesus' travels - Eastward, and simply - beyond Palestine. I would like to see some of them, at least, addressed. Let us take up any one, and proceed item by item. :)

    Another note, about Appollonius of Tyana, though a bit off topic, tells us that - "Not always have the Great Souls, who had to fulfil certain missions, entered the Community of the Brotherhood during their earthly life. For instance, Apollonius of Tyana was called to visit the Brotherhood, but He, in his incarnation as Origen, accepted the most difficult task of guarding the purity of the Teaching of Christ, and for this He suffered imprisonment instead of dwelling in the Abode of the Brotherhood and participating in the joyous work there" (Letters of Helena Roerich, v.1).

    You will forgive me, then, Thomas, when I quiety snicker at the irony of your constant accusations that "Origen did not [even] teach reincarnation!" :rolleyes: _ctr=8;
     
  11. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    in the Torah?

    "you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of egypt." - exodus 22:21

    "you shall not oppress a stranger; you yourselves know how a stranger feels, for you also were strangers in the land of egypt." - exodus 23:9

    "the stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you; and you shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of egypt; I Am HaShem your G!D" - leviticus 19:34

    depending on who you ask, this is 500-700 years earlier; not that i'm dissing the buddha of course. and i am sure that other people than us figured it out, too.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  12. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I would have to agree that the Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first to teach Compassion ... but I do think He changed our planet in a rather significant way. The esoteric teaching is that He anchored the 3rd Aspect for us, while Christ - after Him - anchored the 2nd. And Christ's 2nd Coming is what is anchoring the 1st. Thus we have Creative Intellect (Light), Love-Wisdom, and finally, Purpose (or Will) ... the 3 Divine Aspects, literally incarnate within the physical body of the Planetary Logos (or Eloha).

    Finally, we shall be - a Sacred Planet! :)
     
  13. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,611
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Hi Nick —

    I have responded to what I believe to be baseless accusations, as ever you simply ignore my protestations. You are not really interested in anything I have to say, other than try and twist my words to serve your agenda.

    Far from it — I rather think I have answered all your questions so far ... and indeed still am doing so.

    I have sugested you desist from insisting upon what we believe ... but that is another matter.

    There are no contradictions in the bible, so how can I be offended?

    That you might see contradiction is another matter ... and the exercise below would signify why that is so.

    No, for the third time, I didn't say that, I said a Theosophist told me that — big difference — it was presented as a difference between our methodologies, and it was suggested I was naive for believing there is a difference between fact and fiction. 'Go figure' I think is the term young people use.

    Well I believe you said they 'must' in the first place ... and I think you'll find 'must' implies an order ... which is in fact more than a dogma.

    No we don't. As far as I know, even you are not excommunicate!

    I have never ducked a question ... you do so continually.

    Commanded again ... hmmm ... pray show me where ... I do believe I am on record here as saying we cannot command another what to do, say or think.

    +++

    And here we go ... another Nick evasion technique, when unable to respond, switch the direction/topic of the discussion to one of your own choosing ... what has this to do with the topic of this thread, or indeed our discussion? But hey-ho ... once more it is I answering your questions (frankly I've given up waiting for your answers to mine) ...

    You are now about to commence on an exercise to try and ridicule my faith, and you cannot even be bothered to find the text your argument rests upon. I would have thought the least you could do was make an effort to find it for yourself. This is the kind of loose and sloppy scholarship I'm talking about.

    Let me oblige, however. I do believe you are referring to Josue Chapter 10. I assume you do have a Bible to hand?

    This is actually a false comparison. You are comparing a theological principle to an historical recollection ... two different creatures altogether ... but that's probably too nuanced a philosophical point, so I shall let it pass.

    Really? That's very presumptious, isn't it? Supposing the lecturer had discovered something profound? Supposing he was trying to engage his audience by challenging their assumptions? But then I suppose if one is ensconced in one's own opinion and prejudice, that would be the reaction.

    We would ask on what grounds he might make such a statement.

    Well that would be your presumption talking, would it? ... I mean, you have actually bothered to check out the stance of the church on this particular text before launching into your argument? I know you couldn't even find the text to begin with ... but this is the internet, after all ... Pardon ... No? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, this is all based on your prejudice then, is it? That's going to prove something of a big mistake, old son ... monumental, in fact ...

    And thank you Nick! ... You are, of course, completely and utterly wrong ... yet another shining example of your ignorance and prejudice in action!

    If the Bishop did gainsay the idea that the sun stood still, he would probably argue the case of "Sitz im Leben" — a philosophical principle that has been accepted in catholic doctrinal matters for some considerable period of time now.

    Sitz im Leben supplies one of the determinant factors in the interpretation of texts, first introduced by Hermann Gunkel in the nineteenth century, and used by Christian theologians since. In fact it has passed into the secular world, for the examination of texts in general.

    Sitz im Leben translates to "setting in life". At its simplest, it describes what occasions certain passages in the Bible were written for, and is often called the "genres" of the Bible. Simple examples of Sitz im Leben include the classification of material into letters, poems, parables, psalms, songs, histories, genealogies, legislative texts, prayers, credal statements ... However, Sitz im Leben can also involve many other considerations; who the speaker of a passage was, their role in life, the nature of their audience, and so on. Taken out of its original context, the original meaning of a passage is often lost.

    Today the term is also used outside theological research, when it is needed to examine a text for its sociologically relevant aspects. In linguistics the Sitz im Leben is determined by the text pragmatics.
    From wikipedia — my emphasis — something Theosophy apparently is unaware of, or does not practice.

    Sitz im Leben, something you completely ignore, indeed I would assume you refute it, Renders you almost incapable of understanding another's text in any meaningful way.

    For guidance on the interpretation of Scripture, you could do no better than look here:
    Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: Outline
    "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993.

    Without reference to this, or the Constitutional document Dei Verbum, when it comes to what Christians believe, and how they arrive at their beliefs, you don't know what you're talking about.

    The short answer is, we would regard the text as somewhat poetic, a linguistic device. in fact, in many accounts of battles that I have read, there is often a refernece to how long a short period of time seemed to be, or indeed how quickly time passed ... it's all subjective you see, and that's what we take into account ... we call it 'the spirit of the letter'.

    Sorry Nick, but this is a major cock-up of an argument, ill-conceived, ill-prepared, ill-presented, and fell to pieces at the first hurdle.

    +++

    In short Nick, believe what you will, as I know you will, but rest assured that the longer you plough this furrow, the deeper you will be seen by my fellow Christians and others here, to entrench yourself in your own dogmatic and ill-informed opinion when it comes to Christian doctrine, and never moreso than when it comes to what you assume Christians believe.

    +++



    OK. And your response ...

    Again ... if more evidence was needed of your utter failure to accept anything but your own high opinion. You choose to assume such is the case, even when informed it is not, and you choose to assert quite dogmatically that this is what Christianity teaches with no evidence to support your claim ... in short, you contradict yourself at every step of the way, and show that your high-minded Theosophical ideals are all a sham.

    If there were time, I were in the mood, I would go through the alphabet of Christian theologians, theosophists in truth, quoting texts that show the utter ridiculousness and blind ignorance of your assertions ....
    Let me see ... Athanasius, Basil the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, Eckhart (or Eriugena) ... hmm, F eludes me, I must check my sources ... Flavian! of course ... any of the Gregories, Hilary of Poitiers, Irenaeus, John of Damascus ... K's tricky,can I use a Greek with a hard 'C' — Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrystom ... Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor ...

    ... believe me, each of these has written texts on human nature, and not one of them has the slighest hint of the illogical nonsense you, for some reason known only to yourself, believe we teach.

    Really? Does it ... I bet it does ... Theosophy explains something that has no existence outside of their own imaginings ... tell me, what sources do they reference to make the point, I'd be interested, purely from an academic point of view.

    Indeed it is ... we talk about what we know about ...

    Thomas
     
  14. Francis king

    Francis king New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    hey, did u get onto the new diagrams! wowzer!
     
  15. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Two things.
    The problem, Thomas, is that Theosophical investigation does not limit itself to this thing you call Sitz im Leben. You wrongly make the assumption, that modern Theosophists - be they 1st generation, from HPB's day, or later-generation, as those who greet and confront you here - are limited in their powers of investigation to those same CONDITIONS applying to yourself.

    Collectively, we are not. Individually, we may say, here a person hasn't precisely your background - or specific knowledge on x, y & z Roman Catholic Church matters ... yet I think you'll find we do not simply put our heads together to decide what is, and is not, GOSPEL (Truth).

    Some have done this for 15 centuries, precisely because they have lost the Way. Those Whose humble Service and obligation it is to preserve it ... do so, every bit as much for YOU, as for another. I have been taught this since I was a small child. I am sorry that you have not been.

    I assure you, in future generations we will do our very best to correct this problem. Since you insist on `academic,' in the section below, I thought I would move toward that department aforehand.

    2.
    So, now our argument is, "There are no aliens, because I haven't SEEN one." :rolleyes:

    Oh dear. I guess we knew it would come to this, didn't we.

    What's a man to say, but - Go fish.

    Sooner or later, I'm sure you're bound to pull in a catch. :eek:

    Akadēmeia, the root of your adjective, being that location where Plato (an Initiate into the Theos Sophia) taught ... so named for Akadēmos, the Attic hero. Now if we cannot even agree that there was a fabled ATLANTIS, despite the fact that Plato teaches us of it PLAINLY in the Critias, then what shall we say to a man, who asks, "what sources do you reference, from a purely ACADEMIC point of view?"

    Hmm. Plato, who had his ACADEMIA ... this a School, wherein students of the ESOTERIC WISDOM (Theos Sophia) were taught. And this same PLATO fella, he speaks CLEARLY AND AT LENGTH of the `Lost City of Atlantis' in one of his most popular and widely-studied writings for 2500 YEARS ... and Thomas asks us for an "ACADEMIC POINT OF VIEW" regarding the Atlantean phase of Human development, its civilizations, its culture, its art, its religion, and so forth.

    My friend, when a bread crumb is provided, even that should be enough for a hungry man.

    Here you have a full table, of friends and distant family, who would share their bread with you, and exchange tales of all sorts of amazing wonders, yet again and again you are telling us your belly is full.

    At this table, we are not sitting simply to engorge ourselves, or to become fattened, so it may take us many moons, to chew our meat, and taste our bread, and to finish the meal that has been Prepared.

    You ask, what worthy scholar ... taught of such civilizations as Lost Lemuria, and the fabled, Legendary Atlantis. I recommend the readings of Edgar Cayce, if you wish to steer clear of Theosophists. Or yet, try Plato's own Critias, since you seem to at least recognize that the Greek chaps were okay thinkers - if not on par, naturally, with those Hebraic Wizards who practically INVENTED ... Wisdom, Itself.

    But me, I was always kind of fond of the BIBLE, myself. That silly story about NOAH, and the crazy notion of him building a giant - BOAT. Yeah, that one always got me. Too bad the Bible isn't `ACADEMIC,' but then, we know that anything which ISN'T, just amounts to so many, "imaginings," and that's what's too bad about things like Flood Myths.

    Those poor goobs who cooked up that Popol Vuh stuff. Little did they know that some Hebrew guy somewhere was going to record a Flood Myth, too, at some point ... and it's a pity there weren't any white-skinned, upper middle class, decent European crusty old intellectuals on hand, to REMIND them how USELESS their scratchings would be ... since they knew NOTHING, whatsoever, of proper ACADEMICS.

    It's no problem, though. We've got the LORD himself, Chief Academic of them all, right here to set us straight.

    Tally ho, do carry on ...
     
  16. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Even one, simple footnote (!), from vol. 1, p. 115 of The SD, should show PERFECT reason, Thomas, why we both look to the EAST, rather than the WEST, for our Greatest Wisdom ...

    ... and also, why your `academic' standards, and rigeur, though these may be adequate for yourself, just do not quite MEASURE UP (sic) - to the ones we prefer.

    Let us talk, since you wish to be Academic, about the GREAT PYRAMID of Egypt, perhaps starting with - that figure in front of it, The SPHINX.

    You set the ball rolling, any thread you like - preferably a new one. Let us see where that may take us.


    Here, your footnote. This really is becoming a bit embarrassing.
    We are told by a Kabalist, who in a work not yet published contrasts the Kabala and Zohar with Aryan Esotericism, that "The Hebrew clear, short, terse and exact modes far and beyond measure surpass the toddling word-talk of the Hindus -- just as by parallelisms the Psalmist says, 'My mouth speaks with my tongue, I know not thy numbers' (lxxi., 15). . . . The Hindu Glyph shows by its insufficiency in the large admixture of adventitious sides the same borrowed plumage that the Greeks (the lying Greeks) had, and that Masonry has: which in the rough monosyllabic (and apparent) poverty of the Hebrew, shows the latter to have come down from a far more remote antiquity than any of these, and to have been the source (!?), or nearer the old original source than any of them." This is entirely erroneous. Our learned brother and correspondent judges apparently the Hindu religious systems by their Shastras and Puranas, probably the latter, and in their modern translation moreover, which is disfigured out of all recognition, by the Orientalists. It is to their philosophical systems that one has to turn, to their esoteric teaching, if he would make a point of comparison. No doubt the symbology of the Pentateuch and even of the New Testament, comes from the same source. But surely the Pyramid of Cheops, whose measurements are all found repeated by Professor Piazzi Smythe in Solomon's alleged and mythical temple, is not of a later date than the Mosaic books? Hence, if there is any such great identity as claimed, it must be due to servile copying on the part of the Jews, not on that of the Egyptians. The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent, of the old Phoenician and from the Hyksos, their (alleged) ancestors, as Josephus shows in his "Against Apion,"I., 25. Aye; but who are the Hyksos shepherds? And who the Egyptians? History knows nothing of the question, and speculates and theorizes out of the depths of the respective consciousnesses of her historians. (See Isis Unveiled,vol. II., p. 430-438.) "Khamism, or old Coptic," says Bunsen, "is from Western Asia, and contains some germ of the Semitic, thus bearing witness to the primitive cognate unity of the Aryan and Semitic races"; and he places the great events in Egypt 9,000 years B.C. The fact is that in archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought we find a grand philosophy, whereas in the Hebrew records we find only the most surprising ingenuity in inventing apotheoses for phallic worship and sexual theogony. ​
    Here we treat, not of opinion, and speculation, but clear, DOCUMENTED historical FACT. Shall we proceed, in usual, repartee style, to say that no pyramid was ever built, what we are seeing is simply an illusion, and those `nice close tight measurements' don't really exist, after all?
    If you tug at a ball of string ...
     
  17. Bruce Michael

    Bruce Michael New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Banana,
    When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?
    I'm sure you'd find similar lines in the teachings of Zarathustra.

    Hillel had some fine teachings too- but that was later.

    But where is the compassion for all beings? Where is the exhortation of non violence?

    Jesus still had to remind his Jewish listeners with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

    Best Wishes,
    Br.Bruce
     
  18. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Thomas, you said,
    "I do believe I am on record here as saying we cannot command another what to do, say or think."

    --> Let's take a look: Thomas is quoted here:
    "Stop looking at the tree ... Genesis is not about the tree, its about humanity."
    post #87, in this thread:​
    --> You said Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.
    "I didn't say that, I said a Theosophist told me that — big difference..."

    --> Let's take a look: Thomas is quoted here:
    "...the Theosophist sees no reason to make a distinction between what is fact, and what is speculation (I might in some cases say fiction) ..."
    post #10, in this thread:​
    Next,
    "You excommunicate people who disagree with you. --> No we don't. As far as I know, even you are not excommunicate!"
    --> Has the Catholic church stopped doing excommunications? I thought I read about one, about six months ago.


    The "sun-stopping" story:
    "I do believe you are referring to Josue Chapter 10."
    --> Yes, that is it. (I was having trouble finding it.) Let's take a look.

    12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
    “Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
    And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

    13 So the sun stood still,
    And the moon stopped,
    Till the people had revenge


    Upon their enemies.
    "Let's pretend a Catholic Bishop suddenly denounced the idea that sun stopped in the sky. What would happen? --> We would ask on what grounds he might make such a statement."
    --> Because he thinks it would be breaking natural law.

    Do you think the sun stopped in the sky, like the Bible says?


    Next,
    "Theosophists would vote with their feet, stop going to that person's lectures, and he or she would end up without a job. --> Really? That's very presumptious, isn't it? Supposing the lecturer had discovered something profound? Supposing he was trying to engage his audience by challenging their assumptions?"
    --> Your question is a good one, and worth considering. A Theosophical lecturer, no matter how high and mightly, has the right to question any Theosophical teaching. Any lecturer who took the opposite view for the sake of argument would be applauded. However, in my example, the lecturer says reincarnation is bunk. He or she would be free to say it, and the rest of us would be free to think he or she was spouting a nutty idea.


    You have pointed out the correct Theosophical teaching of no-dogma: You have the right to believe what you will, I have the right to think it is nutty, I do not have the right to tell you it is nutty (unless you ask me). This is the very foundation of religious freedom.
    "Theosophy explains why Christianity came up with such an idea, not that it is a Theosophical teaching. --> ...tell me, what sources do they reference to make the point, I'd be interested, purely from an academic point of view."
    --> Theosophy has a source. It is a poem called the Stanzas of Dzyan.
     
  19. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Okay, things seem to be getting a little heated at the moment, so let's try and pull this thread back from a Catholiscism vs Theosophy argument and see if we can return to the original point of discussion:

     
  20. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68

Share This Page