Esoterism and esoterica

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

You gotta help me here...Jesus called Paul what??

I meant called Paul as in the 'road to Damascus' experience.

And I meant Jesus chose Paul because of the uncompromising nature of the Apostle, who stood for the faith as revealed to him, and spoke out whenever he saw it being watered down, diverted or usurped.

Originally Posted by wil

Lukewarm Christians?? I'm baffled Jesus was Jew...there weren't any Christians were there? talk about hidden knowledge...I've missed it all!!!

OK. Lukewarm anything, then ... Jesus was not 'lukewarm' in any sense of the word, nor had He any time for such...

Originally Posted by wil

Whatever your goal is, my question remains, does the tack that is currently being followed move toward the goal or away from it, and in the end will it achieve it?

I'm not interested in winning or losing. I'm only interested that the generations of the orthodox who have gone before, the 'communion of the living and the dead' of which I count myself a member, has at least one person willing to speak out on their behalf. One person willing to say, "I believe what you believe, and I will defend that belief — If I don't how can I count myself among them? 'Where were you', they will ask me, 'when ... '

But let's not get sidetracked - I have posted my 9-part proposition, I would be interested to read replies to that:

Is it Universal?

Is it common to all?

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Ciel

... it is the very essence of your tradition I hear speaking through your words. When it is so strong, why does it need to be so defensive?

Hi Ciel —

If that is how you see it (you are generous, and I can claim no such authority for myself), then I ask that you understand it is the tradition which speaks, not I.

Thomas

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Ciel —

If that is how you see it (you are generous, and I can claim no such authority for myself), then I ask that you understand it is the tradition which speaks, not I.

Thomas

Then I ask - Does the tradition wish to be understood by those outside it's faith? Or is it's strengh only in it's refusal to allow others their own perspective.

It is possible to understand many things when we rise above the mental framework of thought......... but then also not so easy to give the acceptable translation.

- c -

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Then I ask - Does the tradition wish to be understood by those outside it's faith? Or is it's strengh only in it's refusal to allow others their own perspective.

Hi Ciel —

We can't skirt around the issue on this topic. The issue under discussion is deeper than understanding. If I am to agree with, aaccept, or allow the Secret Doctrine of the Theosophical Society, then I have to agree that the Christian Scriptures are fabrications of a truth we no longer possess, the product of a conspiracy by corrupt church bureaucrats to overthrow truth and enslave the large part of humanity. That is their claim, and their accusation.

So any claim I make on behalf of the Christian Tradition, Andrew feels honour-bound to refute and belittle, both myself and the tradition in question, and replace the articles of faith that we hold as true, with articles according to his own doctrine.

On the larger question, the Catholic Church has come under enormous criticism from other Christian denominations for its stance towards other religions, in that it acknowledges them as authentic and viable 'Ways' ... and seeks always to increase the dialogue between the Ways, for the benefit of mankind as a whole.

+++

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

While the trinity doctrine is prevalent in Christianity it isn't in all denominations...and various denominations have various interpretations..so their esoterica varies?

Yes

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

If I am to agree with, aaccept, or allow the Secret Doctrine of the Theosophical Society

Do you agree or accept...JW beliefs? Bhuddist? Matrixist? Marxist? Branch Davidians? Unitys? Unitarians? Protestants? Atheists?

I don't think you do, not completely and fully...and I don't think it is upto you to allow or disallow anyone's beliefs. You can agree they are there beliefs and accept that they are different than yours....but Theosophists are not the first nor the last to indicate that the bible is full of fabrications and the Catholic church is untold evil....When JFK was running, the whole Catholic in the White House debate was stronger then than the discussions about a Mormon running now.

[Thomas]

Hi Neemai —

Originally Posted by Neemai

Okay, I'm not expecting anyone to agree that these are necessarily refering to the exact same things, but I can list similar beliefs to some of the above from the Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism which could make for an interesting comparison?

Thanks for that.

Yes indeed, the comparison is there, and interesting, and in the comparison we can begin to discern the difference. I am loathe to go through the points on a step by step basis, because I think this topic is too involved to discuss,
but it might give some ideas:

1. There are Three who give testimony of the Godhead:
Bhagavan (the Supreme God), the Guru (pure representative of God), and the Paramatma (God within the heart).

I would only say that if we correlate the Christian Son with Hindu Guru, then there is a major difference. The Son is not a representative of God,m bbut is God.

2. From the Father is, eternally, the Son. [Not entirely sure what this means?]
3. From the Father and Son is, eternally, the Holy Spirit.[Again, not entirely sure what this means?]

There was a doctrine that stated that God is eternal, and uncreated, but the Son is created, and thus not eternal. A kind of demigod. This was refuted.

Another stated that the Trinity is cosmological, three views or aspects of the one God according to the divine-human dynamic. Again, this was refuted. The Trinity exists in and of itself. God was never not Trinity.

Originally Posted by Neemai

4. Bhagavan is the One God.
5. The message of the Pure Guru is non-different from the message of Bhagavan.
6. The message God instructs from within (as Paramatma) is non-different from that of Bhagavan.
7. Bhagavan is different from both the Guru and the Paramatma.
8. The Guru is not God (Bhagavan) nor the Paramatma.
9. The Paramatma is different from both Bhagavan and the Guru.

There are very strong correlations here, and were we to discuss it, then we would have to consider 'different' and 'non-different' and such terms.

But I think we can both agree that there are similarities, and there are differences. My only point initially was that people tend to look at the similarities and gloss over the differences, by saying it's just another way of saying the same thing. It isn't, and to assume it is reduces one or both to a gererality.

For example:

I recall reading somewhere that the Vedic texts are not 'revealed' texts, but 'remembered' ... this presents the texts, before one even looks at their content, in a fundamentally different hermeneutic with a consequential difference of epistemology.

I believe that in esssence, both implies the same thing — the source of the truth contained in the text emanates from the Divine (I hold the Vedic texts as 'above' the work of a speculative philosophy) ... but what the difference between 'revealed' and 'remembered' says everything about the development of doctrine.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Wil —

I have two joys in my life, my family, and my faith.

I delight in talking about both. To draw an analogy, it seems that if I say 'my wife is beautiful, my children are my delight' then that is read as 'everyone's else's wife is ugly ... and their children idiots ...';

and furthermore when someone says 'according to us, your wife is unfaithful, and your children not yours', I am scolded for defending her virtue.

If I am truly at fault, then that is my blindness. Mea culpa. But having drawn this analogy, It seems to me that this is not a place I want to be.

Thomas

[InLove]

I think there is esotericism (or esoterism, if one prefers) in every Tradition. For the Theosophists, or the Anthroposophists, or the Roman Catholic esotericists or anyone else to insist that theirs is the only esoteric knowledge of any value is just wrong, in my opinion. And I may be mistaken, but I think this is what you have been trying to say, Thomas? My apologies, again, if I am inadvertently misrepresenting your view. Or anyone else's for that matter. I was only about half-kidding when I joked about "Baptist esotericism". For I remember starting a thread along these lines at one time, a discussion which did not go very far, but that was not because of differences between our positions, Thomas, but something else entirely.

The Esoteric Board, in my opinion, should not be the sole property of the Theosophists. I love the Theosophists and similar thinkers here in C-R, and I find their viewpoints intriguing. But theirs is not the only esoteric knowledge there is in this world. That's all I am trying to say.

InPeace,
InLove

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have two joys in my life, my family, and my faith.

I delight in talking about both....

'according to us, your wife is unfaithful, and your children not yours'

Namaste Thomas,

First I can agree with you...incredible joys they are as well.

Second, I hear you, but do you not see where the exact same analogy could be used by the other side with comments you've had on their beliefs? Yes your beliefs are at odds but must that preclude discussion?

Let's see, Judaism and Islam deny Jesus as Son of G-d. Does that preclude you from discussion with BB, Dauer, MW....??

Not trying to place blame...just wishing to see discussion...maybe that is my issue.

[AndrewX]

9th Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness

And you see, InLove, others, this is exactly what Thomas has done, and continues to do, regardless of what effort is made to engage him.

Originally Posted by Thomas

But how is one to respond when told that a group possesses the full and authentic truth of a tradition, and that what I hold in faith is a pack of lies and distortions? Am I not continually being told that I do not hold nor understand the reality of my tradition.

IF one were told that, then it might make sense for us to ask this question. But NO ONE has been told this.

NO Theosophist, or student of the Ageless Wisdom that I've ever met, has ever even suggested such an absurd and preposterous thing! To do so would evoke immediate laughter and dismay. Certainly that person would not be taken seriously if they themselves believed that they knew "the full and authentic truth of a tradition," while we ourselves, know only "a pack of lies and distortions."

Thus, NO, Thomas, you are NOT being told, continually, or even occasionally, that "you do not hold or understand the reality of your tradition." No one that I know of has said this, and if you insist on twisting and distorting the discussion that we have had, then the only person here who will look the fool, is YOU.

I may be arrogant sometimes, and seem self-righteous or like a first-class know-it-all to others, but people will only roll their eyes (as I'm sure they sometimes have, and do), when I cross that line which divides the faithful, loyal, sometimes-zealous spirit ... from egotism, vanity, self-righteousness - and thus, from time to time, utter bullshit.

Thomas, the stench is the same, whether I'm shoveling it, or when you are. Here and there, it's just possible that a bit of subtle legerdemain and skullduggery may allow you to put one over, but your tricks are getting old. I'd say folks can see right through you.

You try to straw-man me at every opportunity you get, and when that doesn't work, you just go about demonizing the entire, modern Theosophical Movement, slandering its Founders, contributors and every last constituent member - or even those, such as myself, who are not even Theosophists, per se.

Well I am tired of it. I'm just glad that folks are paying attention ... and can see what has been taking place.

~Andrew

[wil]

Andrew.....sure doesn't look like an olive branch to me...

as he turns and sulks away looking a lot like eyore and sighs...oh bother...

[AndrewX]

wil, my olive branch has been spit on, urinated on, trodden on and ground into the dirt ... not to mention shredded before my very face, more times than I can count.

Turning the cheek is one thing, but if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we become the fool.

Sometimes, it is a mistake to expect, or even ask, more from a man than he is capable of, or ready and willing to commit.

I think this is one of those times.

But if you want to let him piss on your own olive branch, go right ahead. I refuse to be kept on the defensive, and I'm tired to answering up to Thomas' Spanish Inquisition. I've got another fish to go fry.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Neemai —
I would only say that if we correlate the Christian Son with Hindu Guru, then there is a major difference. The Son is not a representative of God, but is God.

Hi Thomas - I'm intrigued which Christian faiths believe this and which don't? For example my Mother was brought up, and remained a Catholic, yet she never agreed with the opinion that Jesus was God?

Originally Posted by Thomas

2. From the Father is, eternally, the Son.
3. From the Father and Son is, eternally, the Holy Spirit.

There was a doctrine that stated that God is eternal, and uncreated, but the Son is created, and thus not eternal. A kind of demigod. This was refuted.

Another stated that the Trinity is cosmological, three views or aspects of the one God according to the divine-human dynamic. Again, this was refuted. The Trinity exists in and of itself. God was never not Trinity.

If both of the above have been refuted then what is the accepted theory? Is the Holy Ghost created, or is it an eternal part of God? Also are souls in general believed to have been created at some point in time? This would be a major philosophical difference when compared to Vaishnava belief.

For example in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna states: "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." (B-Gita 2.12) and there is a similar verse in the Katha Upanishad describing two eternals: the many eternals (souls) and the Supreme eternal (God).

Originally Posted by Thomas

I recall reading somewhere that the Vedic texts are not 'revealed' texts, but 'remembered' ... this presents the texts, before one even looks at their content, in a fundamentally different hermeneutic with a consequential difference of epistemology.

I believe that in esssence, both implies the same thing — the source of the truth contained in the text emanates from the Divine (I hold the Vedic texts as 'above' the work of a speculative philosophy) ... but what the difference between 'revealed' and 'remembered' says everything about the development of doctrine.

You have identified the two main criteria which are, in fact, used to categorise the texts of Hinduism. One is Smirti (remembered) and the other is Shruti (revealed). Shruti are texts where a revelation has been heard directly, or where a revelation is given. The Bhagavad-Gita is classed as Shruti in the tradition I follow, another example would be the Upanishads. Smirti is where a story or tale is being passed on, such as the Puranic texts and Ramayana. I would say that both are equally useful when studied in conjuction.

Best Wishes,

... Neemai

[Bruce Michael]

Hi InLove,
>I think there is esotericism (or esoterism, if one prefers) in every >Tradition. For the Theosophists, or the Anthroposophists, or the Roman >Catholic esotericists or anyone else to insist that theirs is the only >esoteric knowledge of any value is just wrong, in my opinion.

All occultists on a higher level will agree as to what is true. There may be philosophical differences however.
There are plenty of Catholics who are anthroposophists. Such esoteric understandings have gone right to the top. There is a photo somewhere of the last Pope with a copy of Meditations on the Tarot on his desk. I have read that he had some contact with anthroposophy in his youth- acted in plays. The foreword was by Hans Ur Balthasar.

This is not so hard to understand.

Anthroposophy and Theosophy are not meant to be dogmatic religions. Anthroposophy is really just meant to be a method rather than a series of dogmas.

Freedom of thought must be respected.
Charles Leadbeater did remake/revamp an old church and made it his own:

The Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) sprang from the Dutch Old Catholic Church. The Dutch Church became separated from Rome after giving refuge to a group of accused heretics called Jansenists, who were being persecuted by the Jesuits. The Dutch Church later began to be called "Old Catholic" when other European Catholic Churches joined with it as a result of the "new" dogma of Papal Infallibility declared in the First Vatican Council. The Liberal Catholic Church came into existence as the result of a complete reorganization in 1915-1916 of the Old Catholic movement in Great Britain upon a more liberal basis.

about -- LCCI

There is a church based on some of Rudolf Steiner's indications (it wasn't stated by him, as he wished to remain free from such things). Lutherans were behind it (though Steiner "begged down" a tenth century version of the Mass).
The Christian Community - Movement for Religious Renewal

The Christian Community is part of an international movement for the renewal of religion, founded in 1922 in Switzerland by the eminent Lutheran theologian and minister Friedrich Rittlemeyer, with the help of Rudolf Steiner, Austrian thinker and mystic.

The Christian Community is a church centered around the seven sacraments in their renewed form.

The text of our Creed, is a metamorphosis of the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. Members are not required to sign articles of faith, and are encouraged to form independent judgments in religious matters. Nor do we have any formal written dogma. Each priest has the freedom to teach anything which does not contradict the content of the sacraments whose texts form the "bedrock" of The Christian Community . As a result, the teachings are rich, varied and evolving. They are inspired by traditional Christian theology, the original work of Rudolf Steiner, and by independent research and insights of priests and members.

>The Esoteric Board, in my opinion, should not be the sole property of the >Theosophists.

Did anyone say that it was?

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce