That's "arse" unless your talking about your donkey.As for a brotherhood... brotherhood my ass (can I say ass on CR?)... "they haven't been very effective becuase of what they're up against..."
Let's mention Maitreya again, shall we? Maitreya is the new Krisnamurti and Benjamin Creme and his pals are going to introduce him to the world as the new messiah! Wowzer!
Theosophy is a made up religion created by a fat smelly chain smoking Russian bird who is still playing u all for fools even beyond the grave...
-Steiner"Occultism strips itself entirely of the personal element. Systems of philosophy arise directly out of the personal in man; occultism arises out of the impersonal and is on this account capable of general comprehension. And when it is a question of expressing occultism in terms of theosophy, the endeavour is always made to speak to every human heart and every human soul, and in large measure this can be done....
The secret masters didn't exist... have u not discovered that yet?
It was, for example, a repudiation of the fundamental principle of occultists all the world over, when a theosophy made its appearance among certain societies in Central Europe, calling itself a "Christian" theosophy. As a matter of fact, you can just as little have a Christian theosophy as a Buddhist theosophy or a Zoroastrian."
"The relation theosophy has to assume to religion is that of an expounder of its truths. For theosophy is in a position to understand the truths of religion....."
which kabbalist? what was his name? how curious (and, dare i say, convenient) that this work has not yet been published.AndrewX said:We are told by a Kabalist, who in a work not yet published contrasts the Kabala and Zohar with Aryan Esotericism
you don't find this, well, er, kind of dismissive? kind of contemptuous? "servile copying"? "not original"? "monosyllabic and apparent poverty of the hebrew"? and you wonder why people don't smack their foreheads and cry "of *course*!!! you're right! why didn't anyone point this out before??" surely it's utterly amazing that the Torah managed to be studied for 3000 years without anyone noticing this!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.
even if you accept that (which i don't) how would you actually be able to work out how old it was with any degree of certainty? and the fact that something's in zoroaster doesn't mean he came up with it first and we nicked it. it doesn't take a genius to work out what the universal moral laws are likely to be, after all. there's a "golden rule" in every culture. what's your point exactly?Bruce Michael said:When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?
do you mean humans? if so, the word for "stranger" (ger) in this context means someone not jewish; in other words, everyone else. if you actually mean "all beings", look at genesis 1:28, where the original hebrew does not in fact have the oppressive meaning of "subdue", but something closer to stewardship, including responsibility.But where is the compassion for all beings?
i don't think you mentioned non-violence in the original question. as you know, we're not pacifists - but the passage from isaiah about swords, ploughshares, vines and fig trees ought to pass muster in this respect. that too is older than buddha.Where is the exhortation of non violence?
I am, as bananabrain can testify, a thoroughgoing scoffer of the notion that the Torah came down from heaven at Mt. Sinai and has not changed by one letter ever since, but-- Exodus still being reworked in the 5th century BCE? In my humble opinion, that is utter rot and nonsense.When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?
even if you accept that (which i don't) how would you actually be able to work out how old it was with any degree of certainty?
however... it is a western idea that Buddhism arose around 500 B.C.E. the famous Buddhist historian Asanga (i know, you've not heard of him ) actually cites the arising of the Buddhadharma some 2000 years earlier than the standard date which would place it well prior to the arising of the Judaic system.
Interesting, but how would you have Buddhism long before Siddhartha Gautama? Isn't Buddhism based on his teachings? Is there another enlightened teacher before his time? Would appreciate some cites here.
well, at least you're honest about it. however, i think you might have trouble reconciling this line of argument with your insistence that all this is documented and evidenced. i mean, i ask you: "18m years ago humanity was etheric", forsooth. this is the point at which mrs bb starts going "woo-woo!"AndrewX said:What is demanded, is something which we say, has never existed to begin with. Demanding `proof,' at this point, in the form of empirical evidence, makes us begin to wonder ...
Try it sometime, Francis. You'd be surprised the amazing opinions, and conclusions you can come up with on your own ... when you aren't busy toeing someone else's party line!Francis said:so, thats what all the noise was... it was andrewX thinking for himself!
V, you piqued my curiosity about earlier origins and found this intriguing passing comment about Atisha pegging it at 2100 BCE:Namaste Dondi,
thank you for the post.
Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise in this world system during this fortunate eon nor will he be the last.
Buddhadharma is based on the Dharma rather than any being; recall the word "Buddha" is a title and not a proper name.
Asanga, the historian mentioned, dates the arising of Buddha Shakyamuni to the earlier time frame as for citations i'm afraid that i have never found a copy of Asangas history of Buddhadharma on the web to cite from i have only had a chance to read it one other time and even then i was not able to complete the text as it became rather baroque in some areas dealing with the initial 18 schools of Buddhadharma of which we have one still extant, Theraveda.
EITHER Bruce Michael, OR NICK, will be able to say more, I suspect, and elaborate upon WHY this `Presence and direct influence of the Master' is necessary, both in terms of vibration, for reasons of protection (having to do with Kundalini Yoga/awakening, as well as meditation) ... and for several, equally valid but related reasons.
“It is impossible to penetrate into any domain of the spiritual world without a link having first been made with what has already been fathomed by the Elder Brothers of humanity.”
i would have thought that depends on who was being addressed. wouldn't you? we have a principle: "the Torah speaks in the language of humanity", which also means that things are explained in a manner which we can relate to, not how they are perceived by G!D, which would be incomprehensibly beyond us.Tell me something bananabrain, when God decides to write, which language does He write in?
it's amazing how your own independent thought appears to do the toeing of its own accord, though, ain't it?Try it sometime, Francis. You'd be surprised the amazing opinions, and conclusions you can come up with on your own ... when you aren't busy toeing someone else's party line!
i'm not theosophy-bashing at all. i'm simply pointing out when it gets things wrong about judaism. and i hardly think that someone who can't answer a question without 1000 words of cut-and-paste (to say nothing of the ponderous over-formatting) is in any position to describe anyone else as a "pompous pontificator". but let's not let this get personal again, shall we?Or shall we simply continue to Theosphy-bash because it's in vogue, and will win you points with the pompous pontificators?