Esoteric approaches to Foundations of Christianity

[Thomas]

Recanted of her works??? ROFL You really do crack me up, Thomas. Back that up, do!

Yes, I thought it would amuse you. Yet, nevertheless, the claim stands, using the same criteria you adopt.

"In her youth she rejected Orthodox Christianity and, in fact, proclaimed “a venomous hatred of Christianity” throughout her whole life (Marion Meade, Madame Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth).

"Although an ex-Theosophist and Orthodox convert told this writer that Blavatsky died repentant and reconciled to the Russian Church in her last days, this has not been confirmed."

“When [H.P.B.] was forty-five, she looked back on four-and-a-half turbulent decades and observed, ‘One cannot remake one’s past, one can only efface it according to one’s strength.’ Actually she took pains to do both, and given her boundless energy, such efforts at revision were not entirely unsuccessful. For the last fifteen years of her life, she worked strenuously to re-create herself, erasing what she regretted having done, inserting new material, continually editing herself into the person she would have liked to have been” (Meade, ibid.). In this Blavatsky was like cult founders or their movements, who try to eliminate or gloss over the unsavory aspects of their founders’ careers."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/bookl...heosophy_e.htm

It seems entirely reasonabble to me, that in the last years of her life, in recreating herself again, she came to understand the errors of her ways, and recant.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Thomas, et al,

Now I would even go one step further, having just come across this letter online, since the contents are most relevant to the question of the how Christians and Theosophists ought to regard each other. The letter dates back nearly some 120 years (!), which is important in & of itself given something that HPB draws attention to. The letter was entitled "Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury" and published in Lucifer magazine. Need I remind you that Lucifer means Light-bearer or Light-bringer ... or must we continue to confound this high calling with superstition (?):

> Ought Theosophists themselves, then, to be regarded by Christians
> as their enemies, because they believe that orthodox Christianity
> is, on the whole, opposed to the religion of Jesus; and because
> they have the courage to tell the Churches that they are traitors
> to the MASTER they profess to revere and serve? Far from it,
> indeed. Theosophists know that the same spirit that animated the
> words of Jesus lies latent in the hearts of Christians, as it
> does naturally in all men's hearts. Their fundamental tenet is
> the Brotherhood of Man, the ultimate realization of which is
> alone made possible by that which was known long before the days
> of Jesus as "the Christ spirit." ... We know that Christians in
> their lives frequently rise above the level of their
> Christianity. All Churches contain many noble, self-sacrificing,
> and virtuous men and women, eager to do good in their generation
> according to their lights and opportunities and full of
> aspirations to higher things than those of earth -- followers of
> Jesus in spite of their Christianity.

> But He told you He would come as a thief in the night; and lo! He
> is coming already in the hearts of men. He is coming to take
> possession of His Father's kingdom there, where alone His kingdom
> is. But you know Him not! Were the Churches themselves not
> carried away in the flood of negation and materialism, which has
> engulfed Society, they would recognize the quickly growing germ
> of the Christ-spirit in the hearts of thousands whom they now
> brand as infidels and madmen. They would recognize there the
> same spirit of love, of self-sacrifice, of immense pity for the
> ignorance, the folly, and the sufferings of the world, which
> appeared in its purity in the heart of Jesus, as it had appeared
> in the hearts of other Holy Reformers in other ages; and which is
> the light of all true religion, and the lamp by which the
> Theosophists of all times have endeavored to guide their steps
> along the narrow path that leads to salvation -- the path which
> is trodden by every incarnation of CHRISTOS or the SPIRIT OF
> TRUTH. (emphasis mine)

The reason this is so important a letter, is that is shows - frankly, in a way I have not encountered of late in my musings over HPB's many writings - that even 120 years ago there were disciples of the Masters who were able to discern the first and earliest approach of the Christ in one of three methods by which He will Reappear. HPB clearly points to the early signs, which the Tibetan Masters later makes plain in his various writings, underscoring in his penultimate work, The Reappearance of the Christ, in 1948 (some 60 years later). The Tibetan tells us in that volume in Chapter 3 on `World Expectancy' that:

"Many years ago, I indicated that the Christ would come in three ways, or rather, that the fact of His Presence could be proved in three distinctive phases.

It was pointed out then that the first move which the Christ would make would be the stimulation of the spiritual consciousness in man, the evocation of humanity's spiritual demands on a large scale and the nurturing - on a worldwide scale - of the Christ consciousness in the human heart. This has already been done and with most effective results.
...
The second indicated move of the Hierarchy would be the impressing of the minds of enlightened men everywhere by spiritual ideas embodying the new truths, by the "descent" (if I may so call it) of the new concepts which will govern human living and by the over-shadowing of all world disciples and the New Group of World Servers by the Christ Himself. This planned move of the Hierarchy is progressing well;
...
Thirdly, we are told that Christ might come in Person and walk among men as He did before. This has not yet taken place but plans are being laid which will enable Him to do so. Those plans do not involve the birth of some nice child in some nice home on Earth; they will not produce the wild claims and the credulous recognition of the well-meaning and the unintelligent as is so frequently the case today, nor will someone appear and say: "This is the Christ. He is here or He is there." I would point out to you, however, that the widespread appearance of such tales and claims, though undesirable, misleading and wrong, nevertheless demonstrates human expectancy of the imminence of His coming. Belief in His coming is basic in the human consciousness. How He will come and in what manner is not yet stated. The exact moment has not yet arrived nor has the method of His appearance been determined. The factual nature of the two earlier and preparatory moves, already made by the Hierarchy under His direction, are the guarantee that He will come and that when He does, mankind will be ready."

Now, all of this follows after a series of experiments, carried out in the 19-teens, and ending sometime after 1925, in which the same Christ Who overshadowed Jesus of Nazareth made every effort to similarly overshadow the disciple Jiddu Krishnamurti ... and with partial success, but not the kind of complete overshadowing to which the Tibetan refers above. The entire episode caused much embarrassment to Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater, and became a source of greatest controversy, after Krishnaji dissolved the same Order of the Star which had been formed to proclaim the World Teacher's 2nd Advent!

And unfortunately, along with plenty of negative media publicity for the Theosophical Society, there resulted a severe blow to many of those who had come to revere the Masters - and still held faith in Besant and Leadbeater as figureheads, the supposed instruments of the Mahatmas, not to mention attendants to the Lord-in-Coming. I confirmed for myself some months ago that the experiment did occur, and this was no hoax or hallucination, but that also, alas, it was what proved to be an early and abortive effort, in light of an unreceptive human karma ... and other astrological factors (not least of all Krishnamurti's!) which proved uncooperative. There is one mention of this in the entire teachings through Alice Bailey, yet it summarizes the salient points efficiently:

"One of the first experiments [Christ] made as he prepared for this form of activity was in connection with Krishnamurti. It was only partially successful. The power used by him was distorted and misapplied by the devotee type of which the Theosophical Society is largely composed, and the experiment was brought to an end; it served, however, a most useful purpose." (Discipleship in the New Age, p.172, April 1945)

The final volume of The Initiate series, by Cyril Scott, entitled The Initiate in the Dark Cycle, goes into some detail about the "Krishnamurti affair" (Ch. 11 on `The Truth About Krishnamurti'),and this became of (passing and historical) interest to me, as I sought to understand the various stages of the Reappearance.

If you have any interest whatsoever in reading the closest things you're likely to see to the verbatim words of the Christ Himself (sic), then consider this short commentary (at www.alpheus.org) which He made after Krishnaji dissolved the Order of the Star. The statement is reproduced in full, along with a pencil sketch of The Christ, made by David Anrias (a pseudonym), a student of the Indian Master Nylghara, in the book Through the Eyes of the Masters. This book sits on my coffee table (of all places), and bears similar statements, all with astrological references (and thus all somewhat beyond my ken), from several of the Masters I have mentioned. Master Jesus is another of Them, but his statements do not appear online - only the full statement of the Christ.

The portraits of these supposedly-imaginary Mahatmas, however, do appear, including one of the Arhat Initiate St. Paul preaching, which can be compared with a portrait of his present incarnation, Master H. A similar comparison can be made with Anrias' sketch from the book Vision of the Nazarene, available from Amazon.com (a small form of the sketch is on the cover, visible online), and the image of Master Jesus found at alpheus.org. This shows that even after 2000 years of evolution, the outward appearance of the individual (several incarnations later) changes but little - so fully does the true Glory of the Inner Man (Greek Augeoides, the Christ within) shine forth in the Arhat!

I do not know, btw, nor can I imagine ... a more beautiful visage - even of a certain ex-girlfreind - than this image of Lord Maitreya, The Christ.

I strayed from my original intent, which was to show that Christ's Reappearance (or "2nd Coming") was recognized directly by HPB (not to mention known and taught directly to her by the Christ Himself!), and later by Alice Bailey under similar circumstances - yet at a much later stage of the Reappearance. In between there were The Temple Teachings of Master H., as well as Master M.'s Agni Yoga dictations (1920s - 1940) via Helena Roerich. AAB's works were not the end of the Tibetan's dictations, as a final set of teachings will shortly emerge. Those of Lucille Cedercrans, however, from the Master R., were given in the 1960s and thereafter, and information can be found here, at the Wisdom Impressions website.

The appearance of so many Messengers is due partly to the different temperament, or Ray composition of esoteric students, but also due to the changing times, and to the very real need on the part of the Hierarchy for a certain invocative effort and response on the part of Intelligent Humanity ... if the Work is to go forth sooner, rather than later. I have at my side the occult diary of Geoffrey Hodson, who was a Theosophical Messenger and sibyl for the Masters - and to the Deva-Angelic Kingdom - for many decades. The final letters were received in early 1983, from the Master M. (one of the original Theosophical Mahatmas, head of all esoteric schools around the world, and one who works in closest cooperation with The Christ).

Yet I have heard instruction from two of those who know the Christ as well as you know the priest of your own Church, having been in His direct Presence - to my great envy, naturally - on more occasions that I daresay any of us could count ... in this lifetime. These are High Initiates capable of clever tricks like bilocation, but far too occupied with preparations for Christ's Reappearance and the future of Humanity to play at simple parlor games like materializations, astral bell-ringing, and the kinds of things that HPB was allowed to emply (even as a non-Initiate) to whet the fancy of potential members of the TS some one and a quarter centuries ago!

You will forgive me, I hope, if I have closed on a note of glamour, but I wanted to try and bring home the notion that all of this points to the present day and to the immediate 2 decades ahead ... and not, ultimately, to the events of 2100 years ago, shrouded in mystery & confusion - or even to the earliest efforts of the Brotherhood as focused through HPB, Judge and Olcott 125 years ago!

Namaskar,

taijasi

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Recanted of her works??? ROFL You really do crack me up, Thomas. Back that up, do!

“When [H.P.B.] was forty-five, she looked back on four-and-a-half turbulent decades and observed, ‘One cannot remake one’s past, one can only efface it according to one’s strength.’ Actually she took pains to do both, and given her boundless energy, such efforts at revision were not entirely unsuccessful. For the last fifteen years of her life, she worked strenuously to re-create herself, erasing what she regretted having done, inserting new material, continually editing herself into the person she would have liked to have been” (Meade, ibid.). In this Blavatsky was like cult founders or their movements, who try to eliminate or gloss over the unsavory aspects of their founders’ careers."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/bookl...heosophy_e.htm

It seems entirely reasonabble to me, that in the last years of her life, in recreating herself again, she came to understand the errors of her ways, and recant.

Well, the article, I'm afraid, is utter nonsense ... but to address the relevant portions directly and sweep away dear Father Young and Ms. Meade's misconceptions - let's find a letter or two written by HPB toward the end of this supposed "fifteen years" of repentance and recanting. I think that HPB's `Fourth Message to the American Convention,' from 1891, shortly before she died, should be sufficient (certainly if read in its entirety) to dimiss this nonsense you have stumbled upon. A few short excerpts, actually, speak plainly:

"To the Boston Convention, T.S. 1891:
For the third time since my return to Europe in 1885, I am able to send to my brethren in Theosophy and fellow citizens of the United States a delegate from England to attend the annual Theosophical Convention and speak by word of mouth my greeting and warm congratulations. Suffering in body as I am continually, the only consolation that remains to me is to hear of the progress of the Holy Cause to which my health and strength have been given; but to which, now that these are going, I can offer only my passionate devotion and never-weakening good wishes for its success and welfare. The news therefore that comes from America, mail after mail, telling of new Branches and of well-considered and patiently worked-out plans for the advancement of Theosophy cheers and gladdens me with its evidences of growth, more than words can tell. Fellow Theosophists, I am proud of your noble work in the New World; Sisters and Brothers of America, I thank and I bless you for your unremitting labours for the common cause so clear to us all.

... [much excerpted]

And now I have said all. I am not sufficiently strong to write a more lengthy message, and there is the less need for me to do so as my friend and trusted messenger Annie Besant, she who is my right arm here, will be able to explain to you my wishes more fully and better than I can write them. (..After all, every wish and thought I can utter are summed up in this one sentence, the never-dormant wish of my heart, "Be Theosophists, work for Theosophy!") Theosophy first, and Theosophy last; for its practical realization alone can save the Western world from that selfish and Unbrotherly feeling that now divides race from race, one nation from the other; and from that hatred of class and social considerations that are the curse and disgrace of so-called Christian peoples. Theosophy alone can save it from sinking entirely into that mere luxurious materialism in which it will decay and putrefy as civilizations have done. In your hands, brothers, is placed in trust the welfare of the coming century; and great as is the trust, so great is also the responsibility. My own span of life may not be long, and if any of you have learned aught from my teachings, or have gained by my help a glimpse of the True Light, I ask you, in return, to strengthen the Cause by the triumph of which that True Light, made still brighter and more glorious through your individual and collective efforts, will lighten the World, and thus to let me see, before I part with this worn-out body, the stability of the Society secured.
May the blessings of the past and present great Teachers rest upon you. From myself accept collectively the assurance of my true never-wavering fraternal feelings, and sincere, heartfelt thanks for the work done by all the workers.

From their servant to the last,
H.P. Blavatsky. . . .
15:4:1891" (emphasis added to nail the point home)

Lol ... I am really only responding out of good humor and because I think we should dimiss this business posthaste! If you are just goofin' around, I can dig it. If, however, whether you realize it or not, you are attempting to suggest that HPB was somehow actually a Christian at heart, and that finally she got around to realizing it, even recanting her life's work and innermost spiritual convictions ... then let's not play that psychological game.

To say that Jesus of Nazareth taught Theosophy through and through is not quite the same as what you're doing. Theosophy does not present itself as God's sole and/or final presentation of the `Wisdom Religion,' and it is asserted, by HPB herself (as I have shown) that Jesus was equally the proponent of this Wisdom Religion as were his antecedent Messengers and those who subsequently affirmed these same truths.

The sincere Theosophist would affirm that Christ taught Universal Truth, and that He did so as openly as the masses would accommodate, while retreating to more secure surroundings for the most sublime aspects of His Doctrine. It is not Christ Who is to blame for the unkind reception with which even His exoteric message (of forgiveness and Brotherly Love) was met by His own people and the Priesthood of the day. The former, at the behest of the latter, did indeed turn and rend Him ... preferring to see their Messiah crucified, than His Gospel promulgated. And Rome was all too happy to oblige them. What does this tell us about the reception of history's Messengers & Messiahs by the masses, not to say by the Church?

Fast forward 2 millennia. SSDD

I REST MY CASE

In love and light,

taijasi

[Thomas]

"Where you speak of the "army" of the deluded – and the "imaginary" Mahatmas of Olcott – you are absolutely and sadly right. Have I not seen the thing for nearly eight years ? Have I not struggled and fought against Olcott's ardent and gushing imagination and tried to stop him every day of my life".
(From Blavaskty's Collected Writings, Volume 3).

I commend the whole article, it's enlightening - on the point that the whole 'Masters' mythos was an elaborate code for connections with anti-Imperialist elements in India, there is this that adds weight to the theory:

"In late 1872, Madame Blavatsky offered her services to the Director of the Third Section, the intelligence agency of the Russian government, saying that she would be useful as a secret agent because of her familiarity with European politics as well as her skills as a medium and actress:

"During these twenty years I have become well acquainted with all of Western Europe. I zealously followed current politics not with any goal in mind, but because of an innate passion; in order better to follow events and to divine them in advance, I always had the habit of entering into the smallest details of any affair, for which reason I strove to acquaint myself with all the leading personalities, politicians of various nations, both of the government factions and of the far Left...I have played every role, I am able to represent myself as any person you may wish."

In A Modern Priestess of Isis, Solovyov claimed that HPB had asked him to convey this message to the proper authorities in Russia:

"My influence on the Hindus is enormous...At a sign from me, millions of Hindus would follow me, I can easily organize a gigantic rebellion. I will guarantee that in a year's time the whole of India would be in Russian hands...I will bring about one of the greatest events in history...I proposed the same thing some years ago when Timasheff was still minister; but I did not receive any answer. But now, now it is much easier for me; I can arrange the whole thing in a year. Help me in such a patriotic cause."

What can be made of all these conflicting statements? The first and most obvious point to be made is that HPB presents herself in whatever political light is suitable for the moment and the person she is addressing. Thus to her family she is a Russian patriot, to Sinnett she is a supporter of British rule in India, and to a New York reporter she is a revolutionary sympathizer.

I suggest she did the same in her spiritual life as well.

Her fraudulent spiritualist practices are a matter of record.

Thomas

[Thomas]

To return to the topic at hand:

The hypothesis, indeed, has met with wide reception in these latter times, that Christianity does not fall within the province of history,—that it is to each man what each man thinks it to be, and nothing else; and thus in fact is a mere name for a cluster or family of rival religions all together, religions at variance one with another, and claiming the same appellation, not because there can be assigned any one and the same doctrine as the common foundation of all, but because certain points of agreement may be found here and there of some sort or other, by which each in its turn is connected with one or other of the rest. Or again, it has been maintained, or implied, that all existing denominations of Christianity are wrong, none representing it as taught by Christ and His Apostles; that the original religion has gradually decayed or become hopelessly corrupt; nay that it died out of the world at its birth, and was forthwith succeeded by a counterfeit or counterfeits which assumed its name, though they inherited at best but some fragments of its teaching; or rather that it cannot even be said either to have decayed or to have died, because historically it has no substance of its own, but from the first and onwards it has, on the stage of the world, been nothing more than a mere assemblage of doctrines and practices derived from without, from Oriental, Platonic, Polytheistic sources, from Buddhism, Essenism, Manicheeism; or that, allowing true Christianity still to exist, it has but a hidden and isolated life, in the hearts of the elect, or again as a literature or philosophy, not certified in any way, much less guaranteed, to come from above, but one out of the various separate informations about the Supreme Being and human duty, with which an unknown Providence has furnished us, whether in nature or in the world.

All such views of Christianity imply that there is no sufficient body of historical proof to interfere with, or at least to prevail against, any number whatever of free and independent hypotheses concerning it. But this, surely, is not self-evident, and has itself to be proved. Till positive reasons grounded on facts are adduced to the contrary, the most natural hypotheses, the most agreeable to our mode of proceeding in parallel cases, and that which takes precedence of all others, is to consider that the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on earth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them; that the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues a real continuity of doctrine; that, as Christianity began by manifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind, therefore it went on so to manifest itself; and that the more, considering that prophecy had already determined that it was to be a power visible in the world and sovereign over it, characters which are accurately fulfilled in that historical Christianity to which we commonly give the name. It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it."

"An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine"
John Henry Newman

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"Where you speak of the "army" of the deluded – and the "imaginary" Mahatmas of Olcott – you are absolutely and sadly right. Have I not seen the thing for nearly eight years ? Have I not struggled and fought against Olcott's ardent and gushing imagination and tried to stop him every day of my life".
(From Blavaskty's Collected Writings, Volume 3).

What can be made of all these conflicting statements? The first and most obvious point to be made is that HPB presents herself in whatever political light is suitable for the moment and the person she is addressing. Thus to her family she is a Russian patriot, to Sinnett she is a supporter of British rule in India, and to a New York reporter she is a revolutionary sympathizer.

I suggest she did the same in her spiritual life as well.

Her fraudulent spiritualist practices are a matter of record.

Thomas

Your suggesting is precisely that. And it is evidence of a most prejudiced, and misunderstood, viewpoint ... although I cannot fault you altogether for being a bit confused. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and despite your being rather astute in other matters - namely, any and all when it comes to the Catholic Church (though certainly, in other areas, to be fair!) - I must diplomatically say that you are mistaken in this one.

HPB was guilty of charlatanism, as best I can gather, for all the best of reasons or with all the best of motivations - but notoriety, personal fame, or material benefit never entered in. I say this, not absolutely certain, yet confident that what she did (which was on occasion, and not as a rule or general practice), she did in order to gain the sympathies of those with potentially genuine occult interest.

HPB was capable of all manner of psychic phenomena. These are well documented. If we actually began a proper discussion of this, we would find the dialogue exceeding all bounds and far overstepping the kind of reasonable exploration that is expected at CR ... not to say dragging on for months or even longer. For I think it is safe to say, that so long as I can continue to draw breath, I shall not cease to defend, where necessary (and why do you make it so?) the GOOD NAME, GOOD CAUSE, and GOOD, SOUND Character of Helena Petrovna Blavatskaya.

You would slander and malign YOUR VERY LORD's first true Messenger of the 19th Century. WHY? You would be embarrassed, were you required to stand before him now and answer for your actions. Well motivated, I can understand ... yet you remain, in error. I have attempted to comment again & again, along semi-personal yet also non-controversial and reasonable enough lines - that I KNOW as simple matter of fact and ABSOLUTE certainty ... that Olcott's Mahatmas were no imaginary figments. I will happily chase down this letter, which I have seen before, and which must be understood in context.

We know for certain that rapport with the Masters is not a guaranteed and forgone conclusion, simply because one raises his thoughts, even his sincere aspirations, to the same! You would attempt to reduce Communion with God's Representatives to an exact science. Do inform me, please, if you yourself have discovered the secret - WHAT IS THE METHOD whereby your EXACT messages are NOT simply transmitted, but RECEIVED!?!

No Thomas, I do not mean any offense or disrespect. But I do not hesitate to state what I know to be true. Catholic or Christian, whichever, the form of rapport with which you are familiar is what we typically call prayer ... I venture to guess - even if you may also be familiar with vipassana meditation, or samatha, or tonglen. Frankly, I don't care what techniques you've practiced, you demonstrate to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have not as yet established that kind of rapport which amounts, in simple terms, to the clear and unmistakable Answering ... as audible, or discernable, in one's interior consciousness as a bright idea on a sunny day, such as, "Let's go to the pool," or, "Hey, I think I'd like an ice cream!"

Now I am still trying to humor you, and to be respectful, and yet at the same time be serious enough to address your objections. I cannot delve any deeper into my own experiences or spiritual life in order to prove my point. I am an honest individual. This I hope you will simply accept. Those who know me, and know me well (certainly where this is true in the inner worlds, as well as the exoteric), know that I do not go on about these things because they are merely of philosophical interest, or because I might like them to be true. Those who are well acquainted with my interior life - and a handful of friends who have gotten to know me over the years - would gladly vouch for my own familiarity, so to speak, with the Elder Brothers or `Great Ones,' as well as with HPB herself, and a number of other reincarnate Initiates of varying degree. In the last analysis then, I rest my conclusions upon, and take refuge in a spiritual understanding that is born from, direct familiarity with the subjects of which I speak.

No, I cannot say that I have ventured to Ancient Egypt, Greece, Palestine, or even out of my own USA, save for a trip to Spain in grade school. My flights in the subtle body notwithstanding, I'm quite a local yokel! I have had former births in each of these mentioned lands (except Spain), however, so that is at least a start ...

AndI have experienced, in one form or another, everything to which I bear witness and give testimony. I no longer know the whereabouts of HPB in her present incarnation, yet for some several years - ah, I must bite my tongue. Anything else would sound a mere absurdity, yet remember, if you have not seen me post it elsewhere, consider ... that I am quite aware of my own prior 7 exoteric lives. I know enough about the interior aspects of these, about the nature, quality, and purpose (sic) of the thread that weaves them together, and I know enough about my karma and Dharma in my present existence - to understand how all of this fits into place.

I can go on at length, ad nauseam (sic), about various incarnations of so-and-so, including the present-day whereabouts of a number of famous folk, though most of these are known only to Tibetan Buddhists, those with related interest, or esotericists. Then again, St. Peter, the Apostle Philip (and the other oft-cited disciple of John the Baptist), plus various others (including the Baptist himself!), are as familiar to most Christians as passages like John 3:16. Do you really want to hear such things ...

Ah, I didn't think so! Nor am I interested in yet more slander heaped upon the imperfect past of H.P. Blavatsky! I would quote from the Masters Themselves, and also from HPB, as hopefully the last thing to be said on this subject. Regarding the imperfections of character of the various Messengers:

“On the evening of January 11 the two Masters paid another astral visit to the bedroom of the dying President. This time it was to give guidance on another vital question. Marie Russak and Miss Renda were again present, and again the honorary secretary made a report for the records.
‘We three,’ she writes, ‘had been discussing the question of whether or not Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater had been under a glamor when they had been studying together...’
‘Suddenly we saw a light at the foot of Colonel Olcott’s bed, which gradually took shape into a form, but very indistinctly.’
Colonel Olcott asked: ‘Who is there?’
Answer: ‘Cashmere.’
H.S.O.: ‘Oh! That is the name I always gave K.H.’ [a Kashmiri Brahmin and Sikh]
Answer: ‘Yes, I am here—wait a few moments, the elements are troublesome.’
After a few moments both Master Morya and K.H. appeared most distinctly, and spoke clearly in natural voices.
The Colonel asked the Masters if Annie Besant had been deluded, as she feared, about her occult work with C.W.L. The reply was most emphatic; there had been no delusion whatever, both she and Mr. Leadbeater had worked together on the higher planes under the Masters’ instructions.
...
The Masters then went on to say that an article must be published for members of the Society, explaining fully that, as it was impossible for the Mahatmas to find perfect instruments to do their work, they took the best available ones whose karma permitted it. Also it must be made quite clear that the Masters were still behind and supporting the Society—and that they had worked through both Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater, precisely as these two had believed." (Howard Murphet, Hammer on the Mountain – Life of Henry Steel Olcott) (emphasis added)

My emphasis is to show that HPB was not perfect, nor even close. She was not a true Initiate in her lifetime as HPB, this being defined esoterically as one Spiritually Transfigured by the 3rd Initiation. HPB was a `Wanderer,' a parivrajaka such as ourselves, prior to her visit to Tibet and time spent with the Masters. In preparation for her future work, HPB passed the 2nd Initiation, or Baptism - a purification on all levels, yet not so complete a transformation (or Transfiguration) that one is no longer capable of error, of all impurity, or of utter sinlessness. Nevetheless, as HPB herself said of her transformation:

"between the Blavatsky of 1845-65 and the Blavatsky of the years 1865-82 there is an unbridgeable gulf." (HPB Speaks, II 58) (emphasis in the original)

I would close on this note ... and if you insist on attempting to cross this chasm, Thomas, in an effort to dig up dirt, and sling mud at this since-redeemed Initiate (Messenger as she was in her life as HPB), I believe you say more about yourself - than you do about her.

Cross ye first this chasm within yourself ... as verily I try to do likewise.

Again, respectfully,

Andrew Stinson

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

All such views of Christianity imply that there is no sufficient body of historical proof to interfere with, or at least to prevail against, any number whatever of free and independent hypotheses concerning it. But this, surely, is not self-evident, and has itself to be proved.

Ahhh, but it is self-evident to those whose pursuit of Truth has led them past religious bigotry and out of the swamp of doctrinal territorialism - after all, only so much pontification and politics.

After this, Mr. Newman merely falls back upon his belief that what has thus far been sufficient for himself - and perhaps for large numbers of the present 2 billion followers, likewise for untold numbers throughout history - must therefore be the same truths which Christ preached to and through the Apostles, unadulterated, verbatim, and exact.

Really now, we can do better than this. Again, it becomes clear - you have not read The Secret Doctrine, nor even sufficient enough portions thereof to have yet shaken yourself free of even the grossest of misconceptions.

Now, I hope you don't mind me taking this approach; it may sound personal, and of course, I'm actually serious - but I'm also hoping you haven't declared outright war, Thomas ... because of course, philosophical argument & debate was a favourite pasttime of the Platonics and Neo-Platonics, and if you've ever seen a performance of debate from the Tibetan Buddhist monks (such as those of Drepung, Ganden, or Gyuto Monastery), you know whereof I speak. It's quite entertaining, and it's my favourite part of their entire presentation, even more than the dungchen (15-feet longhorns that deliver quite an auditory wallop!).

I challenge you, still, to pursue answers to some of your favorite theological conundrums within the pages of The Secret Doctrine. You just might suprise yourself! Give it an honest go, and see if you do not find answers which will stupefy, mystify, satisfy and yet simultaneously intrigue ... as they raise yet further questions, and stir the curiosity to new and previously unimagined heights!

If you really feel brave, try looking into Isis Unveiled. Put aside your Catholic identity badge for a few brief moments and chase down a few questions, as above. But this time, don't be amazed if the answers are even more mysterious, more suggestive, yet altogether far more deeply lodged within the corridors of Humanity's uncertain, unknown, unsuspected past.

By the way, if you do ever decide to take up serious study of HPB's writings, do take careful note of how well documented is her every point and supporting argument. I think that you, of all people, should appreciate this, and also that you will quickly realize that one person, even given today's entire INTERNET of resources, could not possibly have chased down all the references which are made. Even with Olcott's assistance, this would have been a mammoth undertaking, and indeed it was, yet HPB cited references which she could not and did not even have direct access to, even from her New York flat where The Secret Doctrine was written.

sighhhh ....

I go now to appreciate one who showed me every kindness and mercy in this world, who wiped my ass when I was a baby, and taught me what it means to be a good Christian (sic) since the earliest days I can remember!

Peace unto you, and those with whom you spend the day ...

Taijasa, a light, carried through darkness ...

Taijasa (Sanskrit) [from tejas light] Radiant, flaming, bright; sometimes the higher parts of a human being, such as the manasa-rupa, are designated as taijasa. A star is called taijasi, the feminine form. (online Theos glossary)

[Thomas]

You would slander and malign YOUR VERY LORD's first true Messenger of the 19th Century. WHY?

'The Lord said "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine."' (John 10:14)

And I know my shepherd, and I know his servants ... and I know the hireling ... and the wolf in sheep's clothing ...

No Thomas, I do not mean any offense or disrespect.

Yet at every turn you insist that every tenet of orthodox Christianity is in error ... that the apostles, fathers, doctors, saints and mystics were likewise led down the same garden path by a teacher who spoke in riddles and never explained himself ... that every Sacramental Mystery of the Church is hollow ... that the martyrs died in vain, that the millions of devout Christians through the ages were wasting their time chasing a chimera ... and effectively that the promises made by Christ in the Bible have not been delivered ...

... that a simple faith in God does not suffice ...

... You then go on to say that you have an insight into the true meaning of Christian Doctrine that escaped or was supressed by those to whom it was entrusted ... a doctrine revealed to you by those who ever remain anonymous ... a doctrine that turns every accepted norm of Christian understanding on its head ...

No Thomas, I do not mean any offense or disrespect.

You may not think you do ... but you do ... and no amount of honey can hide the taste of your contempt for me and mine:

Frankly, I don't care what techniques you've practiced, you demonstrate to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have not as yet established that kind of rapport which amounts, in simple terms, to the clear and unmistakable Answering ... as audible, or discernable, in one's interior consciousness as a bright idea on a sunny day, such as, "Let's go to the pool," or, "Hey, I think I'd like an ice cream!"

Then again, maybe I'm so enlightened that I have transcended the outlook of your horizon? Maybe my shields are up (I assume you know of which I speak) and I prowl the subtle realms a 'stealth presence' (certainly the heraldic device displayed beside my name is not mine own, but belongs to me by birthright ... I likewise assume you are aware of the true heraldry of the subtle realms ... maybe I travel under the sign of 'a banner and the strange device' ...) Maybe I'm trying to teach you a lesson from beyond even the scope of your Mahatmas, and you have yet to get the point .... might I add that one who's root number is 9, and who's sign is 12, thus draws the number 21 in the arcana of the Tarot ... who walks in the shoes that never wear out ... who has stepped within the red-striped tent that shimmers in the desert sun ... and gazed upon the blue rose of forgetfulness ... who was the Jester in the Theatre of his Hermetic School ...

We can all be arch, but if we're going to start dishing out subtle insult, then let us draw down the curtain here.

Pax,

Thomas

[flowperson]

WHEW !!!!!!

flow....

[Thomas]

Yes, this has gone on long enough, and for my own part I apologise for the distractions that have enticed us from the Way.

In parting let me offer this, truly esoteric, understanding of the foundation of tradition:

"In reality, no tradition stands and endures by itself. Tradition has no other strength than our fidelity; it exists and lives only by our existence and our life. We only have to cease giving it form and practicing it and – instantaneously – it will return to nothingness. It expects everything from us, it is entirely at our mercy. In the same way Bernanos, in his Dialogue of the Carmelites, has the Mother Superior say: ‘Remember, my daughter, that it not the rule which keeps us, is is we who keep the rule.’ "

Jean Borella, The Sense of the Supernatural, p55.

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"In reality, no tradition stands and endures by itself. Tradition has no other strength than our fidelity; it exists and lives only by our existence and our life. We only have to cease giving it form and practicing it and – instantaneously – it will return to nothingness. It expects everything from us, it is entirely at our mercy. In the same way Bernanos, in his Dialogue of the Carmelites, has the Mother Superior say: ‘Remember, my daughter, that it not the rule which keeps us, is is we who keep the rule.’ "

Jean Borella, The Sense of the Supernatural, p55.

Thomas

It is the keepers of the Faith who make the Church, and not vice versa. Absolutely. I believe this is true of tradition, also.

At the same time, either the Church, and tradition, will evolve ... or they shall perish. There are religions that once dominated this Earth, but which are no longer extant (all trace having disappeared, as it were), for precisely this reason. I see no reason why Christianity shall be any different, unless she chooses - unless we choose. And this does not mean simply by upholding tradition, though any radical departure either by individual or by a congregation, sect or branch faith, would be unexpected - and probably unhelpful.

This is not what I advocate, nor do I expect someone firmly rooted in a particular practice or worldview to suddenly turn his back on the same. And I think I would be rather fickle to do likewise. In light of my own firm rooting within the tradition which I have come to hold as sacred and most efficacious in advancing me along my own chosen path ... I would like to respond to a few things:

Originally Posted by Thomas

'The Lord said "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine."' (John 10:14)

And I know my shepherd, and I know his servants ... and I know the hireling ... and the wolf in sheep's clothing ...

Your good Lord (since you deny that He is also mine) also said the following:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

Thomas, whatever else I may say, I would not stoop so low as to call you "wolf," "hireling," or pretender ... nor do I seek to put words in your mouth, twist your words around, or bear false witness against you. I believe Christ asked us not to go about judging one another, lest we, too, meet with the same judgment.

I would be mighty grateful if you would walk the Christian walk, and either meet me on this common ground, or else politely withdraw from the discussion. Either you will make some effort to consider that I belong to another fold, though united through the Christ's efforts to draw us together ... or you are certainly free to hold your own opinions. But it is extremely disrespectful to do what you have done.

Yet at every turn you insist that every tenet of orthodox Christianity is in error ...

Show me where I have said this.

that the apostles, fathers, doctors, saints and mystics were likewise led down the same garden path by a teacher who spoke in riddles and never explained himself ...

Show me where I ever use the word "riddles" or where I say that "he never explained himself."

that every Sacramental Mystery of the Church is hollow ...

NEVER have I said this. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth, or for assuming that this might be what I believe. You are mistaken.

that the martyrs died in vain, that the millions of devout Christians through the ages were wasting their time chasing a chimera ...

I have never said this. Again, you put words in my mouth, and exaggerate my statements that Christianity, as practiced by the masses, does not fully capture the deepest essence of what Christ taught. For the record, we do not need to appeal to the notion of a "Secret Doctrine" to either demonstrate this, or hold it as a reasonable opinion, supported by ample evidence. I can give you a few examples from history along these lines, many of which do involve the Catholic Church, but certainly not all of them!

I am in agreement with G. K. Chesterton on on the following:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." (What's Wrong with the World, ch.5)

I believe Christ said the following in His Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew 7:4-5:

"How wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

and effectively that the promises made by Christ in the Bible have not been delivered ...

I beg your pardon? Where do I say this? Again, you do me the greatest disservice by such empty accusations. NO thank you!

... that a simple faith in God does not suffice ...

Suffice for what??? To make you happy? If so, then that is up to you. That is between you and God.

... You then go on to say that you have an insight into the true meaning of Christian Doctrine that escaped or was supressed by those to whom it was entrusted ... a doctrine revealed to you by those who ever remain anonymous ... a doctrine that turns every accepted norm of Christian understanding on its head ...

WHO must remain anonymous? Please be specific? Show me where I say this, and if you have questions, ask me directly! If something is too private for me to answer openly, I would gladly respond via PM. However, when it comes to "insight into the true meaning of Christian Doctrine" - I can share plenty that I am happy to support directly from my own experiences. If allowed, I can and will back some of my insights by crediting others, yet ultimately I rely upon my own experiences and insights for my position and understanding. I would only hope that you do the same!

Where in this is anonymity? Some of my most private experiences have been posted on these forums, at one point or another in one form or another, some quite directly. However, would you have me share the innermost treasures of my heart, when you yourself demonstrate that you will not hesitate to turn and rend me - if I dare so to do? No, Thomas, I would make every effort not to guard my heart ... but I did also the heed the words of my Master when He warned us.

You may not think you do ... but you do ... and no amount of honey can hide the taste of your contempt for me and mine:

Christ said this best above, in Matthew, ch. 7, so I will only reiterate. First search your own heart, find your own contempt for another (me, in this case), and do not seek to project this, or accuse another of your own transgressions. I am not responsible for your feelings, thoughts, or actions. Not even were I to provoke you!

It does not bother me that you may be more experienced along certain lines, far more acquainted with Church History I dare say, perhaps even by far my intellectual superior ... nor am I afraid or embarrassed to admit that I sometimes "lose my cool" as well. Yet I will not hesitate to apologize, to say mea culpa where this applies, and IF I find that I am engaged in a mere "battle of wits" or intellectual argument (all too often simply an argument for the sake of argument) ... I can admit defeat. Can you?

If you make this the latter, I would rather not press the point. And I will concede, gladly!

What I will not do, is fall down upon my face and pray to your Mother Church, your favorite Bishop, your particular personal conceptions of Christ or Deity ... since I have a faith, an understanding, and a regard for the latter of my own. I'm sorry if this offends - although indeed, it is your own choice to be offended. If you find my ideas uncomfortable, you are more than welcome to say so ... but do please consider the nature of the forum, the thread, and further, the fact that I am quite within the CoC, and have every right so to post - here of all forums!

Were I to post, let alone press my points on the Christian Forum, I could well understand your becoming hot under the collar. Here, I would politely request that you loosen it!

I have no idea what kind of astral predation you are referring to, although ... speaking of wolves, when you say - "I prowl the subtle realms a 'stealth presence'" - I'm afraid you do, indeed, call to mind precisely such an idea. Or was I to somehow draw another inference from the word "prowl?"

I would gladly meet you in astral (emotional) ethers, or other, and I think you will find that as much as possible, my heart shall be unguarded. Ever is this my effort! Mind you, I was not daydreaming when the Master spoke these words:

"Be ye wise, as serpents, and harmless, as doves."

He did not say that either would be easy, but where some have gone far to perfect the latter quality in their being, some of us have developed more of the former. I neither deny this, nor am I proud (of the lopsided development), yet the point here is that even as I understand "turn the other cheek," so do I agree with some here at CR who are of the mind that only a fool would stand and let another strike him.

Prowl if you will, approach me from any side, in any ether ... I seek to defend myself only if and when attacked. With neither a heart that is totally pure, nor with a human nature that is even close to being transfigured, I can only act to the best of my capacity at a given time, in a given situation.

I am not particulary thrilled about having some sort of "falling out" ... but as I remarked to someone recently, it is unforunately the case, that sometimes two people fail to evoke the best that is within one another, and can even go far to do just the opposite. Usually, though not always, I find that this is through ignorance and is inadvertent. If this is what I have done, then I apologize, for it it was neither intentional, nor desirable. As I say, I do not mind a rapport that is largely intellectual rather than emotional, but not at the expense of one another's feelings, sense of dignity, or ability to hold the other party in an attitude of Goodwill.

I hope that we can keep track of all three of these ... if we have continued discussions on this, or any other, forum. I do not hesitate to post this openly rather than via PM, since it was in an open post where the above quotations appeared. I do not feel that moderator action is warranted. I only hope that Genuine Respect can prevail, and not mutual enmity.

Rather Sincerely,

Andrew Stinson (taijasi)

[taijasi]

I will here take the liberty of assuming, and hope that I do not overstep my bounds in saying, that the Master Hilarion would not object to the quotation of a part of His lesson under `The Gift of Healing' in Teachings of the Temple (Lesson 181, pp. 451-425):

The Christian and Mental healers as a rule base the righteousness of their acts of healing on the examples furnished by the Master Jesus, but they do not call attention to the record of His act of driving "the devils" - the elementals - afflicting the sick man into a drove of swine, nor do they perceive in that act a necessity for some similar act on their own part before attempting to heal a disease. Neither do they pretend to put the question asked by the disciples of Jesus, "Who did sin, this man or his parents?" when an inquiry is made as to their willingness to heal the sick, which question in the mouths of those disciples plainly showed belief in karma and reincarnation. Upon the answer received seems to have depended their power or willingness to heal. For it must be remembered that Jesus had been teaching those disciples the secrets of occultism for many days." (emphasis added)

Here then, without anonymity, and without ambivalence or prevarication, is clear enough indication ... for some ... of the notion that Matthew, in one of the synoptic and canonical Gospels, did not lie or err when he reported:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." - (Matthew 13:10-11)

taijasi

[taijasi]

Here is a very clear and useful commentary on history, and tradition, made in 1954 in a short article by Arthur M. Coon entitled `Theosophy in Christianity':

"Much of the criticism leveled against [Christianity] in the past has been due to the particular interpretation or presentation of its teachings by those who claim to be its adherents. The history of organized Chrstianity has many pages which we would fervently wish could be torn from the book. The question is often asked - why should Christianity be split up into so many sects and churches? Why not one denomination? But which one? What single church or group of churches could possibly express the breadth and depth of that system of faith and worship which bears the name of Christianity? The fact that the Christian Church is broken up into many denominations is in a very real sense its strength; for it is upon so cosmopolitan a base that this variety of sects can fill the spiritual needs of the many layers and types of humanity.

And what is Christianity? There are at least as many answers as there are denominations and sects. Possibly as many answers as there are adherents. Is it belief in and a worship of God? Ot