Esoteric Christianity

[AndrewX]

Joshua should know better. If you don't know what I mean, try reading this - Dominus Iesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[Sunny C.]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Does this have something to do with the filoque clause?

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Does this have something to do with the filoque clause?

It boils down to being Christian - and by some readings Roman Catholic - or "not saved."

Of course, Esoteric Christianity reinterprets the whole "fallen from Grace" bit, and shows things in a different light - one which, I personally, find a bit more favorable.

So the idea that only through exoteric, conventional, even Roman-Catholic Christianity can I "find Salvation" ... becomes quite ridiculous.

Instead, it becomes a matter of the Christ within, and the entire focus on my spirituality turns to developing, or unfolding, this latent potential ... instead of placating some kind of earthly authority, or institution - via tithing, church/mass attendance, and so much, empty ritualism.

Still, for some, all that is necessary is the profession of one's "faith" - and suddenly - LO! - the Heavens open, and Salvation descends, like a Dove. Oh - would that it were so simple ...

*sighhhhhh*

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

What is the essential difference between Christian esoterica and Christian mysticism?

None, in that Christianity is a Mystery ... a fuller etymology of the Greek verb 'muo' (to close the mouth) from which 'mystery' and 'mystical' derive explains it better. The Latin translates 'Mystery' as 'Sacrament' – and the 'Sacramental Mysteries' are at the heart of traditional Christianity – 'that all might be one'.

The modern argument is between a 'Christian esoterism' – which is entirely natural according to the order of things (some people see and understand better than others) – and 'esoteric Christianity', which posits those with natural or supernatural gifts as belonging to an elite, a class apart from the common herd, distinct and superior not only in form but in eschatalogy.

The 'real' Christianity is then nebulous, immaterial, invisible, which only 'appears' in the material form of the earthly Church but is actually something other and quite distinct from it.

It is a form of institutional docetism.

Of course, this appeals to those who view themselves as belonging to a spiritual elite, and they ever try to distance themselves from the idea that the person sitting next to them in the pew might be, for all their visible faults, more in Christ than they.

For the 'exoteric' or 'conventional' Christian, the heart is enough – "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name" (John 1:12).

Not for the pseudo-gnostic, there must be more to it than that. What matters is what one 'knows', not who he loves. It puts the human intellect prior to the Divine Will ... (in fact it's an inverse dualism, it puts the substance of knowledge – a body of knowledge – above the essence of knowledge).

Many like to present 'Roman Catholicism' as the villain of the piece, such an institution never existed in the 2nd century (nor the 3rd, nor the 4th ... and a survey of the major opponents of gnosticism, Irenaeus above all, show them to be Greek.

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Something you just evidenced, Joshua! WTG!!!

Clearly, here is a man who has never read his Bible. He has no faith in God, or in his creation (man, for one). This will become apparent in the next comment ...

And who said we're in a pickle? (YOU did.) Who said God "can't get us out?" (YOU did.)

Yet, in the image of the Elohim were we fashioned, and thus we have Their potential. "Greater things than this, YE shall do." Something about Faith the size of a grain of mustard seed ...

But indeed, Joshua, these are difficult concepts - Faith, and Trust and such. Better leave that to the Esotericists ...

Aherm, uh, err, here, let me SMASH open the very idea that there's anything of WORTH or value in Esoteric Christianity, but then try to CMA by saying "I'd like to hear your thoughts." Ummm, non sequitur?

Joshua likes to introduce himself in a roundabout way, but I think his True Colors are showing through quite nicely.

yeah, they're red, white, and blue...i like you too, Andrew.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Of course, this appeals to those who view themselves as belonging to a spiritual elite, and they ever try to distance themselves from the idea that the person sitting next to them in the pew might be, for all their visible faults, more in Christ than they.

This, you see, Thomas, is precisely what I meant by bringing up Dominus Iesus. Exactly what you accuse myself, and others of doing, you are doing right here.

Esoteric Christianity presents a framework within which one does not even need to be traditionally Christian, or Christian at all! - in order to partake of God's Greatest Mystery.

Yet it also provides a vehicle, for those who embrace it fully, to actually reach the innermost Mysteries, via the LESSER Mysteries, which are ALL that are capable of being taught by ANY Earthly Institution.

The Sacraments can approach the role of a vehicle, symbolically veiling an inner Truth, but they no longer fulfil that role utterly, exclusiviely or completely. And there is a reason for this is taught to students of modern esotericism, while the right relationship between Spiritual Church (or Inner, Mystical Church - the `Church Invisible'), and outward, earthly church, is revealed and restored. It can be summed up in one word:

Community

As for the Christ within, all men, all women, EVERYWHERE - and of every time - do have, have had, and will have access. Nor, I must clarify, because of your Church (affiliation, participation or standing), or even because you are (a) Christian.

All but the most blind can understand something of the Church Invisible. You don't have to be a Christian, a Roman Catholic, or a Gnostic ... to be, or become, a member. And the book you buy at Borders may or may not indicate something of the Way.

Strange, Thomas, that in distinguising between the Intellect and the Will, you left entirely out of the picture, our own, Spiritual Soul, the "Christ within" of St. Paul ... an Innate Principle of our Spiritual Nature, part of our Inmost Being.

The Eastern Teachings have known and taught this for tens of thousands of years, and folks like Nick and myself have attempted to summarize and present relevant portions, in demonstration of that fact. If, however, that is not good enough ...

READ THEM FOR YOURSELF.

~+~+~+~+~+~

True Gnosis is the operation of the 6th Principle - Buddhi (the "Christ within," viewed as a Faculty, or PRINCIPLE of Consciousness - of BEING). It is not the Manasic quality of either the lower, mortal mind, nor even the Higher Manasic Principle, Spiritual Intellect (Itself a reflection of the Divine MIND) ... in operation.

The awakening of the `BUDDHI,' simply put, is a summation of Christ's entire PURPOSE with regard to the Human Kingdom. It sums up for us exactly what the Christ and Masters remain on Earth to assist with.

If you want to speak about "the Church Invisible," and the Inner, Mystical Church of Christed Jesus, and so on, then fine, we can do that. But we need to do so on equal ground, and not with some kind of pretended monopoly on the Truth, or on Christ's Teachings.

~+~+~+~+~+~

If God does not meet us within the silent spaces of the (Spiritual, or Inner/Interior) Heart ... then where? Even God, must meet us on common ground.

I submit that even the (Spiritual) Intellect, can be a meeting-ground for the Divine. It may even be the first meeting-instance, though it is not the "last," or the Greatest. When the Intuitition (the Spiritual Heart, or "Christ within") is in operation, we truly begin to understand. And this comes to us from a realm beyond words; it is the world of pure Understanding.

Nevertheless, there is a Peace which passeth Understanding ... and that is found within the world of Atma, Nirvana, or PURE Spirit. We must not be blinded by the differing terminologies of another religion or ideology, so thoroughly that we miss the point entirely, and either deny the reality on the one hand, or insist that our sect, ALONE, "possesses it," on the other.

ATMA, Buddhi, Manas ... to a practitioner of Esoteric Christianity, may as well be The Mystical Father, the Christ Within, and Divine Mind - the Illumination of the Holy Spirit. In Roman Catholicism, or exoteric Christianity, I would HOPE that there is an equivalent understanding.

That there is a "Christ with you, the Hope of Glory" ... this much, yes, I do KNOW.

Namaskar,

~andrew

[Sunny C.]

"If this inner doctrine was always concealed from the masses, for whom a simpler code had been devised, is it not highly probable that the exponents of every aspect of modern civilization--philosophical, ethical, religious, and scientific-are ignorant of the true meaning of the very theories and tenets on which their beliefs are founded? Do the arts and sciences that the race has inherited from older nations conceal beneath their fair exterior a mystery so great that only the most illumined intellect can grasp its import? Such is undoubtedly the case."

Manly Palmer Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages


The problem, from my perspective anyway, is that I don't know how one can distinguish between a genuine master of the mysteries and a very slick charlatan. That's especially true when the material of the teachings is purported to be channelled from some incorporeal being. I've never been one to close my eyes and open my mouth. Not the trusting type I guess.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

The problem, from my perspective anyway, is that I don't know how one can distinguish between a genuine master of the mysteries and a very slick charlatan. That's especially true when the material of the teachings is purported to be channelled from some incorporeal being. I've never been one to close my eyes and open my mouth. Not the trusting type I guess.

Sunny C.,

I have met some of these "Incorporeal Beings," in the flesh. Not all of them are maintained - by Theosophists and Esotericists - as being Incorporeal ... or at least not all the time. Many of the Masters, certainly the ones revealed to the world in the past ~125 years, do inhabit physical bodies.

Some of these bodies are created, via Kriyashakti, while others are the "natural bodies" in which the Master was born ... as a 4th Degree Initiate, or Arhat. Once a Master leaves incarnation after having attained the 5th Degree of Initiation, his next manifestation will presumably occur via Kriyashakti vs. the normal method of Incarnation. He literally creates his body directly!

Interestingly, Jesus of Nazareth did not manifest in this manner, nor presumably would have Appollonius of Tyana - who was Jesus, reincarnated.

Esotericism teachings that the purity and degree of evolution of the very matter of the lower vehicles (mental body, astral-emotional body, and etheric body - the physical vehicle of the `vital essence') ... is so great in the case of an advanced Initiate (4th Degree Arhat), that if an immediate rebirth is selected, we may assume that all of these vehicles accompany the arhat into that new birth. The dispersal of the atoms would be a tremendously inefficient waste of energy and effort, otherwise.

Moreover, an Arhat, such as "Christed" Jesus, will have parted with the Causal Body (or Karana Sarira of Hinduism) - having completed the Work which he has been engaged in throughout his long series of incarnations. He has "completed the Temple of the Living God," the Esoteric Temple of Solomon - "not built with human hands."

Christ (or rather, the Initiate Jesus) spoke of this PLAINLY, but the exoteric presentation is that he simply "rose from the DEAD." The thinking Christian will have long ago put together the many accounts of those who have had NDE's and OOBE's, and realized that death is not the end of our evolution, or `life.' It is, as we will all discover, merely the beginning of another phase of our life. And indeed, all people survive physical death, not just a "chosen few."

Gandalf says this, to Peregrin Took, when they believe that death is upon them near the end of `Return of the King.' And he smiles, as he tells Peregrin of the White Shores ... since he himself [Gandalf] has already been there, as `Gandalf the Grey,' after he defeated the Balrog that killed his earthly body.

Here, Tolkien has depicted beautifully and wonderfully for us the Crucifixion, or RENUNCIATION Experience, the 4th Initiation, which has been taught as part of the Ageless Wisdom for millennia (and by Manly Hall, of course, last Century). Note that George Lucas also showed us this tranformation ...when Ben (`Obi Wan') Kenobi allowed himself to be "struck down" by Darth Vader - that he could RISE again (hmmmm), being "more powerful than Vader could imagine."

This is what the Phoenix symbolizes to us, also, in the Harry Potter series (as Dumbledore's pet), straight out of Mythology. J.K. Rowling does a marvelous job of re-introducing this generation to the Mysteries, through this vehicle ... and C.S. Lewis, too, showed us the 4th Initiation, as Aslan the Lion rose after being murdered at the Stone Table.

ALL OF THIS is part of the Mystery Teachings, and has been with Humanity for thousands of years PRIOR to Christianity's appearing on the scene. The latter co-opted the former, repackaging various of the Eastern and Pagan doctrines, even borrowing their very symbolism, yet re-branding it ... and claiming it as "a new, unique Revelation."

An UPDATE, it most certainly was ... but a tree does not put forth its branches without a TRUNK, and ROOTS.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

As your quote from Manly Hall demonstrates, Sunny C., it has been necessary to show that the very same Wisdom presented via the Christian Message has ALWAYS existed ... as it transcends form, and is in fact, the very LIFE, the ensouling Principle, or Essence, of all World Religions.

One cannot BOX THIS UP, and SELL it. One cannot CLAIM this Inner Reality as "one's own," save for the degree to which we all participate in both the Lesser and the Greater Mysteries. We may as yet - most of us - know almost NOTHING of the latter, as we are even ignorant (clearly so) of much of the former ... yet the WAY is open to every man, every woman - and this is what Esotericists are glad to emphasize.

The Spiritual verities are available not simply to "the chosen, privileged few," but to ANY man or woman who is willing to put others before oneself, and is ready to sacrifice worldly ways in exchange for righteous living.

And the Guidebook for what we must DO in order to reach the Inner, Mystical even Occult awareness (states of being, levels of Consciousness, and eventually conditions of existence) ... has already been presented. IT is the exoteric portion of the World's Religions - the Sacred Scriptures, tenets and moral Code of Right Living of every religious tradition. Without this, any esoteric Reality that may exist would be essentially meaningless, because unknown, and unapproachable.

But every exoteric tradition POINTS TO the Inner, Esoteric Reality, and those who are quickest to deny its existence, are those who merely seek to protect the status quo (at any cost, we sometimes see) ... lest they lose temporal and worldly power.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

An excerpt from `Visions of the Nazarene' will help speak to the esoteric portion of the Christian teachings:

And the Master said:

To my first disciples did I teach the eternal verities, and instructed them in the way of Realization and the finding of the mystic Christ. And I taught them of the true nature of man, and of his subtler bodes and of the inner worlds; and of the doctrine of Re-birth, and of Cause and Effect, or Sequence and Consequence, and of other truths and sacred doctrines given only to the chosen and the few.

And after I had passed from their midst, my disciples taught others those same doctrines, so that each genereation of initiates instructed the next, as decade followed decade. And these initiates wrought good works and communed with initiates of other schools, and revelaed more of those doctrines which had hitherto been secret, so that the minds of the nescient should be enlightened, and men should know that Religion was a science and not merely a belief.

But while the lovers of truth sowed the seeds of Divine Wisdom which sprang up and blossomed into beautiful flowers, the enemies of Truth sowed noisome tares which choked those beautiful flowers with the evil growths of greed and cruelty and superstition; and lo, what erewhile had been a garden became as a wilderness; for the flowers of Truth were overgrown and hidden by ugly weeds.

Ah, great indeed was the persecution of my spiritual progeny by the enemies of Truth; and many of them perished as the result. Yet the memory of my name did not perish, and as years pursued their onward course, from traditions and hearsay scribes fashioned stories relating of me and my teachings.

And some of these scribes I sought to inspire with the Light of Truth, but oft-times did they obscure it by the clouds of their own imaginings, so that my Gospels became an admixture of verity and falsehood. Moreover, those inner teachings which I had given to my disciples anent the means and the way to Realization were either omitted or so distorted as to be of no avail.

So did my religion become, as it were, a casket with windows of glass through which many precious jewels might be seen but never obtained, for the key thereof had been hidden away: until finally it came to fulfil alone the needs of the simple-minded and the young of soul and the trusting of heart; while the erudite and the more aged of soul did perforce turn elsewhere in their search for Truth.

After this, the Master speaks of `The Bridge that was Never Built,' yet those for whom exoteric Christianty is a closed book (or at best, an open Bible, which often amounts to the same) ... will not be able to imagine what this might suggest.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

HOW does one determine whether it is the Master Jesus who speaks in the above passages, or merely a disciple, even "a charlatan?"

One must use the Inner Discernment, whose highest function is Buddhi. And for outward tools, many a sincere and well-motivated aspirant, or Seeker, has used tools for Divination, such as the Tarot, Pendulum Dowsing, visits to spiritual mediums, and so forth. The esotericist will forsake these tools, after a certain point, as once the Intuition has begun to function, such outward means are not nearly as effective and direct. Yet, even as crutches, they serve a purpose ...

As an example of discernment, and learning certain things by error, consider that once upon a time, I was fascinated by the "I AM" teachings of Elizabeth Clare Prophet. I was just delighted that Masters M, KH, etc. had given out more teachings for me to enjoy. At the time, I could not discern between fact and fiction, truth and falsity, astral glamour and well-rooted FACT (let alone, Wisdom) ...

I had to become more mentally polarized in order to move past the "I AM" stuff, and see that it was a distortion. Master DK states quite plainly that upon the astral and lower mental planes, there is a powerful thoughtform of himself, a parody, which masquerades as the real McCoy. Many an unthinking disciple has received all manner of spurious teachings from that thoughtform, not to mention god-knows-what types of praise, flattery, and so on.

The Masters are not in the habit of showering the student with such flattery ... as a word of encouragement, when received, goes plenty far. And teachings, which are usually given out to the Group, will not feature the student in the spotlight, as it were, which is usually the case as so-and-so claims to be "channeling" such-and-such "Ascended Master" ...

The Masters work by dictation, yet the number of students who might be receiving dictation, say right now, in 2007, is very small ... certainly as compared to the number of books we find in the New Age section of Borders Books, claiming to have originated with x, y, or z "master."

Discernment takes lifetimes, and students who are first coming to the Work, it can be a difficult road. Word has it, that assistance will be provided, such that the 'little ones' (as the Elder Brothers refer to us) will receive every opportunity, under the LAW, to bypass the pitfalls and distractions - and come straight to the Heart of the Teachings.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

DO the Elder Brothers, in fact, exist?

That is something we must each answer, for ourselves, on our own. Perhaps in another thread we can address the Theosophical presentation, and what has been said by other organizations and Messengers in the 20th Century ...

My own decision, upon first coming to such an idea (in this lifetime) some 17+ years ago, was that certainly there are Masters, or Mahatmas. Several dozen of them, in fact, have been VISIBLY, physically OBSERVED, by people of all varying religious backgrounds, national origin, vocations, social status, etc.

There are even sworn testimonies in which NUMEROUS people were present ... having all WITNESSED things ranging from the mundane to the apparently miraculous - and these not only vindicate the Masters' Messengers from the false and spurious claims put forth by the disbelievers,they also speak directly to the fact that the Masters do exist.

When someone says to me (and it is rare), "I have met such-and-such a Master," my curiosity is certainly piqued, but my discernment radar is also automatically activated. And while I do not seek to judge, nor to solicit my opinion as to the authenticity of the claim, I am quite interested in hearing how a given experience has affected or inflenced the life, spirituality, and so forth of the person in question!

I can speak volumes about how this pertains to myself, my own experiences and my own spiritual path, choices, etc. But I think it all comes back to the necessity for each of us to develop spiritual discernment (viveka, in the Sanskrit), whose ultimate authority is the Principle of Consciousness which Theosophists, and Hindus alike call `Buddhi.'

We can acknowledge this, if we choose ... and in so doing, my own preference is to speak of "the Christ within," and what that looks like, when it is "functioning," as a Principle. How, for instance, is such a person any different than the average Joe, someone within whom this faculty is NOT - at present - functioning, or beginning to awaken?

THAT is something I think would be worth exploring ...

[Nick the Pilot]

Sunny,

You have asked a good question. I believe the answer is this: The ideas of a genuine master would make sense even after years of scrutiny, while those of a charlatan would eventually show major flaws and their charlatan-ism would show through.

A true master teaches us to think for ourselves, and take us down the road to open-mindedness instead of dogmatism. This is the best way to distinguish a true master from a charlan, and it has worked well for me over the years.

[AndrewX]

I need to correct a fairly glaring error from several of my posts - both on this thread, and others. It comes by way of a clarification, which I just now observed in perusing Volume II of `The Secret Doctrine.'


As concerns the relationship between Buddhi and Christ, or "the Christ within," here is what HPB says in a footnote on p.231 of The SD:

It is not correct to refer to Christ - as some theosophists do - as the sixth principle in man - Buddhi. The latter per se is a passive and latent principle, the spiritual vehicle of Atman, inseparable from the manifested Universal Soul. It is only in union and in conjunction with Self-conciousness [Manas, and specifically in its ahamkaric aspect] that Buddhi becomes the Higher Self and the divine, discriminating Soul. Christos is the seventh principle, if anything.

It would seem, that in my zeal I have erred by equating Buddhi and Christos ...

We should be so lucky for the true Christos to be active within us, and this is exactly what esoteric Christianity aims for, as a lofty (but attainable, because inevitable) goal.

As for Masters ... according to the Theosophical tradition via HPB, Alice Bailey, et al, there are only 63 Adepts in Earth's Spiritual Hieararchy. That there are Arhats, and High Initiates (of the 3rd Degree, equivalent to the `Transfiguration' experienced by Jesus of Nazareth), numbering perhaps in the several thousand ... is quite likely.

And these, says esotericism, are the "elite," or avant-garde. But they are not in the habit of referring to themselves in this respect, or looking down their nose at others. They are, by and large, without ego.

Thus, not only will their teachings stand the test of time, as Nick puts it, but they will be immensely practical, infinitely valuable (even if we do not immediately recognize them as such), and utterly selfless.

A Master exists in the world - quite like the Bodhisattva of the Eastern Traditions. He lives 100% for the Way of the Higher Evolution - which means that he exists to serve others. In Christian terms, he is the perfect man of Ephesians 4:13, being precisely what St. Paul meant in this Epistle. His life is Service to God, utterly and completely.

Again, I will bear witness, that such Beings do exist.

That we must learn discernment, so that we can learn to identify them (especially if we wish to draw closer to them, learn from them, and cooperate with Their spiritual work) ... is exactly what is asked of us.

~+~+~+~+~+~

Hmmm ... I'm quite tempted to nominate Nick for starting a thread on `Spiritual Masters - Who Are They?' - or some such. I know I'd have some commentary, and I could pull quotes from literally dozens of sources, some Theosophical, some written in the 20th Century, others penned by the ancient Greeks, or the Indian Rishis writing 10,000 years ago and more.

The subject veers off a bit from esoteric Christianity ... and we still don't know quite what Bruce Michael might want to explore. He was the one who rekindled this thread, after all!

Namaskar,

~andrew

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Sunny,

You have asked a good question. I believe the answer is this: The ideas of a genuine master would make sense even after years of scrutiny, while those of a charlatan would eventually show major flaws and their charlatan-ism would show through.

Maybe. But the further one immerses themself the less likely they are to admit to being taken in. Anyway, don't mind me. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.

Sunny

[Nick the Pilot]

Sunny,

You are correct, in that we need to be constantly on guard against blind dogmatism. Fortunately, my belief system encourages questioning, and forbids dogmatism (except for one example). For me, it is a least-objectionable situation, and I have yet to find something in my belief system that does not make sense (maybe you can find something).

However, I understand where you are coming from, where you have a need to remove all dogma, no matter what the cost. I can see how some people would want to go down that road.

[Thomas]

Oh, Nick, you claim too much!

Is not your foundational work called "The Secret Doctrine"?

Your whole insistence of the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is a 'Theosophical dogma', and of the sort you decry when you:
a - refuse to discuss or accept any possibility of other definition;
b - present your argument as if everyone was in agreement with you;
c - present no supporting or corroborating evidence for the claims you make;
d - present doctrines of your own profession without any supporting or corroborating evidence for the claims they make;
e - state those who do not agree with you are in error because they do not possess your superior spiritual insight
... and I could go on.

So balance, please!

If we are going to decry dogmatism, let us get the definition right:

The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein 'to seem') in the writings of the ancient classical authors, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Dogma

Sorry it's from the Catholic, but two online dictionaries gave rather meagre and not-quite-technically-accurate definitions, but actually implied the common popular misconception!

"Contrary to popular assumptions, the terms “dogma” and “doctrine” are not intrinsically bad or evil words. No doubt, they can, in popular parlance, stand for a kind of rigidity in which careful consideration or reconsideration of an argument or a truth is rejected. The motive of this refusal is often traced to an unwillingness to frankly admit that problems concerning the presentation or meaning of a subject are at issue. But essentially, a dogma is intended to clarify, to state what can be stated about an ultimate issue or with something connected to it."
HPR | The Meaning of Dogma, by James V. Schall, SJ

Just a point - in the discussions of esoterism especially, 'terminological exactitude' is all important!

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

At lease you did not insult me or my belief system this time. I appreciate that.

"Oh, Nick, you claim too much!"

--> I do not.

"Is not your foundational work called "The Secret Doctrine"?"

--> It is.

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky

"The Secret Doctrine" by H. P. Blavatsky, from Theosophical University Press

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd-ascii/sdcor.zip

You are bringing up the issue of dogma vs. doctrine. Dogma is something that is a required belief, and the questioning of it is not allowed. Such dogma does not exist in Theosophy (with one exception), while dogma abounds in your religion.

"If we are going to decry dogmatism, let us get the definition right...."

--> I reject your definition of dogma. Just because you give a Catholic definition, it carries no weight with me.

"... the common popular misconception!"

--> Your belief system says dogma is a good thing. Mine does not.

"Contrary to popular assumptions, the terms “dogma” and “doctrine” are not intrinsically bad or evil words."

--> Bingo. Dogma, by its very nature, is evil. This, clearly, is the main difference between my belief system and yours. Theosophy was specifically created to fight dogma.

This is an important point worth repeating. Your religion says that anyone who refuses to perform a particular religious ritual will go to Hell, no ifs ands or buts. To this, Theosophy has three reactions. (1) Theosophy is dedicated to refuting such reliance on religious rtitual. (2) Such dogmatic ritual is not allowed in Theosophy. (3) Theosophy teaches anyone who refuses to perform your particular religious ritual can still get to Heaven. Theosophy teaches that no religious ritual here on Earth is requred for admission into Heaven. None whatsoever.

I believe you consider the holding of dogma to be a good thing. I do not.

"Your whole insistence of the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is a 'Theosophical dogma'...."

--> It is not dogma, because anyone can be a Theosophist, can refuse to believe the "us" people are not the Kumara, and no one in Theosophy has the right to tell them they are wrong. (Yes, this type of prohibition is actually in writing.) This is the beauty of Theosophy.

"...refuse to discuss or accept any possibility of other definition...."

--> I have considered other possibilites. (I have already considered and dismissed your claim of "royal plurality-language" as unacceptable.) Do you have any other possibilities you wish to present?

"...present your argument as if everyone was in agreement with you...."

--> Ya know, I think you actually believe such a thing. Such a statement shows your closed-mindedness.

"present no supporting or corroborating evidence for the claims you make...."

--> If you wish me to quote other Theosophical authors, feel free to ask.

"present doctrines of your own profession without any supporting or corroborating evidence for the claims they make...."

--> If you wish me to quote other Theosophical authors, feel free to ask.

"state those who do not agree with you are in error because they do not possess your superior spiritual insight...."

--> Now this is the insulting Thomas we have come to expect. What, you have given up insinuating that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies?

"...and I could go on."

--> That is true. It has been several weeks since you accused me of being arrogant.

You go ahead and keep promoting dogma. I will keep fighting against dogma.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Sunny,

You are correct, in that we need to be constantly on guard against blind dogmatism. Fortunately, my belief system encourages questioning, and forbids dogmatism (except for one example). For me, it is a least-objectionable situation, and I have yet to find something in my belief system that does not make sense (maybe you can find something).

My main interest is in understanding my own thought processes. My skepticism arises from observing my own motivations, not picking apart others. I'm happy for anyone's good thing.