Esoterism and esoterica - Page 5

Bruce Michael · 07-07-2007, 01:29 AM

Shalom Br.Thomas,

>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.

Some (most) theosophists deny the Incarnation. They see the teachings as more important than the Deed. They believe Jesus of Nazareth was Jeschu Ben Pandira ( of the Talmud who lived 100 BC). This has been argued for hundreds of years BTW, right back to early beginnings.

Some believe He was a World Teacher, an Ascended Master, or simple man of Nazareth. Teachers like Alice Bailley, Charles Leadbeater, Benjamin Creme believe He was/is the Maitreya Bohisattva (which is interesting if you're a follower of Valentin Tomberg).

God Bless,
Br.Bruce

RAZOR sharp accuracies, definitively speaking, are as the will-o'-the-wisp, save for fundamental mathematical notations. However, one may hold a sense for accuracy; one which, alike to a focus, narrows in on any given specific and pinpoints it, as such.

It is a complex question: that of defining a true and exact accuracy. Accurate thinking when applied, is both satisfying and stimulating. For the closer one is to a specific, the closer the comprehension, the formula, and the actual sense of the reality and of the pneu one may come to.

-The Brothers

InLove · 07-07-2007, 04:58 PM

Shalom, Bro. Bruce--

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

All occultists on a higher level will agree as to what is true.

I think it is the "higher level" thing that bothers me. Who's to say what is "higher"? I may be misreading the situation, but it seems like there is so much contention between teachers, as if spiritual understanding can only be earned by the most practiced or the most intelligent, and I have even heard it suggested that certain knowledge may only be handed down through bloodlines. It seems to me that this leaves no room for the true mystic who operates on intuition.

Quote:

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.

Again, I may be misunderstanding. I ask with my heart that if my next statement offends anyone here, that you forgive me because surely it must arise out of my own misconceptions? At least, I hope so. But it seems to me that the views expressed by many Theosophists (perhaps not so much with Anthroposophy--I'm not sure) is indeed dogmatically opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity, despite the frequent disclaimers to this end. Am I just perceiving something that is not there in reality? If so, can someone help me with this?

Quote:

Freedom of thought must be respected.

Indeed. For all of us, I would say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InLove

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Did anyone say that it was?

Perhaps I was out-of-line with this observation. The moderation here has been excellent, in my opinion, throughout the time that I have been a member, and I really have no complaints, especially since I have not posted much on the Esoteric board until recently. I think I may just have an individual way of seeing things that doesn't make an easy connection with more widely accepted ideologies. The connection is there, but oftentimes difficult to bring to light. By this, I don't mean that I want so much to teach what I know, but to understand what others are trying to say. It just may be that I am lacking in how I articulate my thoughts.

I will be out of town for the weekend, but I look forward to returning to the conversation. I thought I would not post anymore on this thread because I felt things were getting way too personal. But I want very much to try and understand one more time. I hate giving up.

InPeace,
InLove

Nick the Pilot · 07-07-2007, 07:02 PM

InLove, You asked,

"Again, I may be misunderstanding. I ask with my heart that if my next statement offends anyone here, that you forgive me because surely it must arise out of my own misconceptions? At least, I hope so. But it seems to me that the views expressed by many Theosophists (perhaps not so much with Anthroposophy--I'm not sure) is indeed dogmatically opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity, despite the frequent disclaimers to this end."

--> By the way, I do not find your question offensive. (Thanks for asking if it is.) I think it is a great question, in that it opens up communication between different groups.

Regarding dogma within Theosophy, it is true that some Theosophical teachings are opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity. The only difference is that the teachings are not dogmatic. Let me explain what I mean by dogmatic. No particular teaching is required to be believed by any member. You may be surprised to hear it, but Theosophists do squabble about the meanings of the teachings. Theosophists are required to allow another person to have differences in religious ideas. I may think your ideas are goofy, and I may say so, but I respect your right to have those ideas. This may seem like hair-splitting, but it is not. It is a significant difference.

"I think it is the "higher level" thing that bothers me. Who's to say what is "higher"?

--> Theosophy eaches that there are higher levels of consciousness than this physical plane, and there are humans and former humans who are conscious on these planes. (I have been reading some excellent descriptions another theosophist has been sharing of the higher planes. I think what Bruce means is, when people become conscious on these higher planes, they all observe the same phenomina there, whether thay are Christian, Jain, etc. (Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right?)

"But I want very much to try and understand one more time. I hate giving up."

--> Be like me. Discuss concepts. Ignore personal attacks.

Nick the Pilot · 07-07-2007, 07:30 PM

Bruce, You said,

"Some (most) theosophists deny the Incarnation."

--> I would like to agree with you, and corraborate your description of one Theosophical interpretation in vogue nowadays (although it is not an interpretation shared by all Theosophists.) The story of Jesus is seen as a blending of several stories of that time, just as you say. The idea, then, is that Jesus "of Nazareth" may not have actually existed.

Theosophists, of course, are not required to believe in the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. (There are Christian Theosophists, as well as other Theosophists, who believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. For example, I would say Andrew believes.) But for Theosophists with similar ideas to mine, the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a real possibility.

AndrewX · 07-08-2007, 12:15 AM

I think we're really getting somewhere now in this discussion, at least imho, with your focusing on "higher levels of consciousness," Deb. I'd like to share what this means to me, and explain why it isn't elitist, as has been suggested.

I have Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary handy, to help us get a dictionary definition of `esoteric':

esoteric, adj. 1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions. 2. belonging to the select few. 3. private; secret; confidential. 4. (of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras. [< Gk esôterik(όs) inner, equiv. to esόter(os) inner + -ikos -IC]

What I've highlighted in blue, and especially the bolded part, is what I'd like to come back to ... but I would also like to share a small portion of the Wikipedia entry for `esotericism,' as this touches on what you've said about mysticism, InLove:

Esotericism largely overlaps with "hidden knowledge." Some overlap exists as well between esotericism and mysticism. However, many mystical traditions do not attempt to introduce additional spiritual knowledge, but rather seek to focus the believer's attention or prayers more strongly upon the object of devotion. A mystic is thus not necessarily an esotericist.

"Esotericism" sometimes suggests an additional element of initiation, for example the requirement that one be tested before learning the higher truth. Note however that most "esoteric" teachings are widely available, and indeed often actively promoted. [And have I not said this, all along?]

Another possibility is that such knowledge may be kept secret not by the intention of its protectors, but by its very nature—for example, if it is accessible only to those with the proper intellectual background. ["Cast ye not your pearls before swine ..."]

In basic terms, what we can say after consulting Webster, and also taking a look at the quoted Wikipedia entry, is that esotericism overlaps with mysticism ... but suggests a further progression. Still, just because a person expresses interest in esoteric teachings, does not make that person an Initiate.

{And this begs the $64 million question!}

But the portions of Webster's definition which I emphasized in blue, really do help to clarify where much of the confusion may exist, because something accepted by most Theosophists, and by students of the Wisdom in the 20th and 21st Centuries, is that indeed, there is an objective Path of Initiation. And this is something that we all must tread, regardless of our spiritual (or religious) background, and no matter what our outward spiritual observances (or none).

What this means, in terms of `higher' states of awareness, is that such states are perfectly objective. Arguably, and this is something I enjoy discussing, such states are much more objective than our sensory perceptions, not to mention our intellectual assumptions and conclusions, since both of these - as we all know - are subject to question, interpretation, argument, and error ... not to mention what our current mood is, or what particular emotions we are experiencing.

And just consider: While mystical experiences occur for people around the world, no matter the faith or religious background (every tradition has a mystical component, or even several), notice how subjective these kind of experiences tend to be, as witnessed by a Christian contemplative, vs. a Buddhist, or Sufi. I think this raises an excellent point, Deb.

What would the spiritual path be like, if there were not Those Who have GONE BEFORE us? To whom would we turn, and where would we find the answers that we seek? What would we do about spiritual guidance, if there were no such thing as enlightened, knowledgable, capable and qualified spiritual Teachers?

Am I begging the question? Perhaps. But you think about it. And the challenge that I make, is simple. If you haven't met, or spoken with, or otherwise experienced the plain & simple REALITY of such Teachers (either plural or singular), then the best you can really do, is to keep silent, and hear what others have to share. This, it seems to me, is the most prudent thing to do ... though of course, we are all free to offer our opinions, and to share what we THINK is the most likely "state of reality," despite our NOT having actually experienced it.

So, for example, if I am starting a new job in construction, and I have been assigned to assist with some of the "grunt work," then I am fairly well OBLIGED to take this approach, relative to the construction foreman, as well as the ARCHITECT who designed the structure going up on my job site.

It's not that I'm not free to ask questions, but if I am hired for a particular job, which doesn't involve a great deal of executive decision-making (at the outset), then it's really not my business to poke my nose into the blueprints, and pull on the architect's coattails to tell him he should have added a vaulted ceiling, or used cherry wood instead of pine. These are, perhaps, my opinion, but as I am not the architect, and have only been hired on as a lackey, my work is elsewhere.

Now on my jobsite, as I prove my worth, what will happen (or at least I hope), is that my supervisor will notice my commitment to the task at hand, he or she will notice when I go the extra mile, and in time, if I am careful, I can "prove myself" (testing, trials - what was our definition again?) ... and demonstrate that I am WORTHY (in the truest sense of the word) for promotion.

And has this promotion come because I have done favors for my supervisor, or is it not because I have proven myself? In the ideal world (which is surely God's), this is how things work - or so says the esoterict, because we cannot believe in a God of favoritism, operating according to the motto, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." That is something we must reject, for reasons that I hope should be obvious.

Of course, in time, to take the metaphor further, I will demonstrate that I can perform many tasks at the construction site. I may become a good carpenter, a good painter, a good mason, and even a job foreman eventually, as I show that I can keep track of the big(ger) picture. One day (and with the proper training!), I may even become a junior architect myself! And all of this ... is what a Master does.

Egypt preserved the Teaching regarding such advanced beings in our evolution by speaking of the Master Builder, and a careful screening of Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments will show, clearly enough, that the Wisdom was there, that it has been preserved. Not every Pharaoh in the later dynasties was as well versed in the Mystery Teachings as early on, nor were they all equally enlightened (or spiritually advanced). But is this any different than our leaders today?

At any rate, these teachings are present, within Christianity, within Judaism, within Islam, as they are within Hindusim, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism & Mazdeanism, and as they existed in every ancient religious and philosophical system. The example in Webster, notice, is not even a contemporary, or ancient religion, it is the Mystery School of PYTHAGORAS. And students of the Ageless Wisdom know ... that Pythagoras was not simply "that great mathematician who gave us certain theorems and formulae," as we are often taught in modern schools. Rather, Pythagoras was the head of a full-fledged Mystery School, and this school, like all legitimate schools, had its various orders, or grades of students, who were Initiated into the Mysteries, stage by stage.

One can research, quite easily, the objectivity of what I am saying, and soon it will become apparent, that there is no conspiracy being waged by students of the Ageless Wisdom, unless one somehow feels so self-assured and self-righteous as to make oneself the STANDARD against whom & which all others should be judged - and claim the Golden Key of Truth as, "MY decree!"

In contrast, the goal of the student of the Ageless Wisdom is first to discover, then to enshrine TRUTH, as best as he or she is able, within one's daily life, in all dealings with one's fellow man, and to learn to treat others precisely as indicated by the Golden Rule ... while also seeking to serve that Purpose - for which one believes all Life on Earth has been created.

This is, as some have pointed out, something beyond every single one of us. NONE of us here, knows that ultimate Purpose. We are all, in that sense, students, and seekers. And to the extent that we have dedicated our lives toward serving that Purpose - even as we imperfectly understand, enshrine and embody it - just to such an extent, we might say that we are "on the Path."

~+~+~+~

I think the topic of Initiation, and the various stages of Initiation - as presented by various religions, or even in terms of the Eastern tradition and presentation, compared & contrasted with the Western teachings - might make a wonderful parallel thread to this one. But my posts get lengthy, and I want to wrap this one up.

Initiation, however, will take us straight to the heart of this question of what it means to experience "higher" states, or levels of consciousness, than what we are ordinarily used to. What I really cannot believe, however, is the notion that our individual experiences are "all just subjective" ... so subjective, in fact, that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

We may be opening up the discussion to the idea of spiritual states of consciousness, beyond the physical ... but this DOES NOT automatically mean that we cannot measure such states, or that there is no subjectivity. Today, science does allow us to measure the activity of the brain, both quantitatively, and qualitatively, in so, so many ways.

The boundaries are always being pushed, and new areas explored ... such that non-physical gauges of awareness, which truly indicate our spiritual consciousness (again, qualitatively as well as quantitatively) - may be closer than we think. Frankly, given the trouble we seem to be having here, I wish that day would come really soon ... but I shudder, I cringe to think of some of the horrible applications where this would also likely end up, if we weren't prepared.

The Buddha was said to be able to have ... *snap* - Instant Insight - into ANY past life, of ANYone with whom He came into contact. He could tell them what their current life's situation was, in terms of karmic debts and opportunites for spiritual advancement, as well as provide indication of when, where, and under what circumstances many such individuals would attain to Enlightenment.

We may not, as yet, have anything LIKE this degree of enlightenment, as had Shakyamuni Buddha. But one thing I have come to believe about the spiritual worlds, through direct observation, experience and insight ... is that consciousness operates much the same (according to similar prinicples) as it does - even in the brain, in terms of ordinary physical consciousness.

Some of us have a better memory than others, and sometimes our brain just doesn't seem to be working, so to speak ... while other times (like after I drink a cuppa joe), all the synapses can make the right connections, and all the right neurons seem to fire properly.

Perhaps 99 out of 100 people you randomly stop and question ... will all be using VERY little of the brain's true potential, as science has been telling us for decades. That 100th odd person, might just be a genius, and then the whole darn brain is "lit up," when you hook up all the fancy meters and gauges.

Do such meters and gauges - objective methods of "measuring" spiritual enlightenment - even exist?

I haven't the slightest shadow of a doubt that they do. It is a partial "tapping into" `The Network' which is responsible for our common, everyday expressions like, "Hey, she sure is BRIGHT!," or "Wow, so & so has a real GIFT for inspiring a whole roomful of people!"

If that's not objective "measuring," or observation, of the SPIRITUAL worlds (with our human intellects serving as the least channel, or vehicle, for some of that greater Inspiration - both to and through us) ... I don't know what is!

And again, just because my own "gauges" or Spirit-O-Meter may not function as well as the Buddha's, or the Christ's (how'd He pick those 12, and 70, and 500?), doesn't mean that no meter exists, or that it's completely, 100% dormant.

This, then, is part & parcel of the teaching that we are all on the way, ALL in the process of awakening, as God intends it. One of the abilities that is developing .... is our sensitivity to all varieties of Impression, from within (or beyond us, spiritually), as well as from without (from others, of all stages on the spiritual path, including our NON-human co-inhabitants of Planet Earth, called ANGELS or Devas, etc.).

Deb, others, I've given this my darnedest ... so I hope it somehow helps.

Love and Light,

~Andrew

InLove · 07-09-2007, 02:03 PM

Hi All--Peace--

Just a quick comment, since I had promised to get back to this thread this morning. I appreciate the responses to my questions, and I just want you to know that I am not ignoring them. My poor little dogs have some issues that are apparently causing them a bit of misery, and I can't be very happy until I know I've done what I can to help them out. I don't know what they got into, but maybe a green tea and oatmeal bath is in order (for them, lol, not me, although I must say it does sound pretty good....)

So, Nick and Andrew--I haven't forgotten. I just really want to respond with thoughtfulness, and right now I am too distracted. But my intention is to post those thoughts sometime today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Deb, others, I've given this my darnedest ... so I hope it somehow helps.

Love and Light,

~Andrew

Yes, I can tell, Andrew! And thank you for this.

InPeace,
InLove

InLove · 07-09-2007, 05:01 PM

Okay, doggies are better now.

Again, my apologies for the delay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

By the way, I do not find your question offensive. (Thanks for asking if it is.) I think it is a great question, in that it opens up communication between different groups.

Thanks, Nick. You were actually on my mind when I asked. I do realize that my questions may sound as if I am proposing some kind of gauntlet-type challenge. That is really not my intent, and I am so glad that you recognize this.

Quote:

Regarding dogma within Theosophy, it is true that some Theosophical teachings are opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity. The only difference is that the teachings are not dogmatic. Let me explain what I mean by dogmatic. No particular teaching is required to be believed by any member.

Okay. Please bear with me, though, as I know that getting through to me on this may require some patience. But why is Theosophy particularly opposed to individual interpretations within the Christian Tradition? If no particular teaching is required to be believed by any individual Theosophist, why does Theosophy require the individual Christian to hold to certain teachings? I know that some Christian schools do, but why would Theosophy?

Quote:

You may be surprised to hear it, but Theosophists do squabble about the meanings of the teachings. Theosophists are required to allow another person to have differences in religious ideas. I may think your ideas are goofy, and I may say so, but I respect your right to have those ideas. This may seem like hair-splitting, but it is not. It is a significant difference.

Actually, I am never surprised by arguments within any religious or philosophical organization. I mean, debate appears to be largely what philosophy is all about anyway. And religion, in my opinion, is so closely related to philosophy that I am not sure I can really tell the difference much of the time. And I really don’t mind the splitting of hairs as long as I can see a purpose behind it. There are cases when I think it is counterproductive, but not always.

Quote:

Theosophy eaches that there are higher levels of consciousness than this physical plane, and there are humans and former humans who are conscious on these planes. (I have been reading some excellent descriptions another theosophist has been sharing of the higher planes. I think what Bruce means is, when people become conscious on these higher planes, they all observe the same phenomina there, whether thay are Christian, Jain, etc. (Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right?)

I honestly think it depends on (here I go again) which Christian you ask, but then I may not exactly understand what you mean by “multiple levels of higher consciousness”. Are you referring to this as it relates to the concept(s) of reincarnation? I’ll wait for your response before I continue, as my answer here would depend on it to a certain extent.

Quote:

Be like me. Discuss concepts. Ignore personal attacks.

LOL. Well, there is much about you that I can admire. I do try to do this (I haven’t always been real good at it), but I find no reason to get angry anymore just because someone does not agree with me and throws the proverbial stones my way. However, I tend to be more empathetic than is perhaps good for me at times, and this can lead to worry over someone else’s psyche. Who knows? Maybe this is part of my own calling. It is rather difficult to relate to a fellow being’s situation without worrying, especially if he or she seems worried. Don’t know if that makes any sense the way I have stated it.

InPeace,
InLove

P.S. Andrew, I’ll post a response for you in a little while. I am posting between obligations here at home, and I find that each time I accomplish something on my list, I have to rest a bit. But at least I’m actually getting some things done. Checking these off my list is encouraging, and when I can immerse myself in the mundane, I find that I manage to live in the moment and touch the extraordinary.

Ciel · 07-09-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InLove

and when I can immerse myself in the mundane, I find that I manage to live in the moment and touch the extraordinary.

[/size][/font]

InLove,

This speaks volumes.

Because it would not be possible without the love and care you have for life. Sometimes it seems the world is so full of high speeches, yet without the love coming through how much does it really matter all the esoteric knowledge.....
I was also once involved in an esoteric school, have been shown amazing things beyond the norm...... Andrew says - none of us know the ultimate purpose - well, I say..... it's all about spiritual evolution and consciousness, but it doesn't mean a thing without love and an attribute of compassion.... the basis of all higher consciousness beyond words is love.

love and peace - c -

Nick the Pilot · 07-09-2007, 09:19 PM

InLove, you said,

"Okay, doggies are better now."

"I do realize that my questions may sound as if I am proposing some kind of gauntlet-type challenge."

--> I can recognize an open-minded person and a closed-minded person a mile away. You are definitely the open-minded type. I always find discussions with open-minded people to be enjoyable (even if they may become challenging discussions.)

"If no particular teaching is required to be believed by any individual Theosophist, why does Theosophy require the individual Christian to hold to certain teachings?"

--> Theosophy does not require Christians to hold a particular belief. The problem is some Christian teachings have been (according to Theosophy) intentionally altered. Theosophy was specifically created to point out these altered teachings. If Christians desire to keep believing these altered beliefs, Theosophy does not try to stop them.

"But why is Theosophy particularly opposed to individual interpretations within the Christian Tradition?"

--> Here is a quote from a psychic who is also active in some online Theosophical discussions. This is by a man named Kurt, answering questions about a book he wrote.

"Q: I’m disturbed by what seems to me to be an anti-Christian bias in your book Otherwhere.

"A: I like to make a distinction between the teachings of Christianity as recorded in the Bible--which I believe to be a part of the universal spiritual heritage of humankind, along with The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the sayings of the Buddha, and other such scriptures--and the teachings of the Christian church, in any of its many denominations. The latter it seems to me are often influenced by political considerations that may have little to do with genuine spiritual truths.

"Some of my visits to Otherwhere have provided me with information that goes against the teachings of the church. I do not believe that they go against the teachings of Christ. Some of those teachings, it seems to me, have been recorded by individuals of lesser spiritual understanding who have distorted them. Others may have been translated in ways that accidentally or intentionally distort their meaning.

The content of the Bible itself was a result of decisions made by the church fathers about what to keep in and what to leave out. Such decisions, I believe, were political in nature and may have distorted or at least obscured some of the spiritual truths contained in it."

KurtLeland.com: FAQs

--> It is these alterations of teachings for political purposes that Theosophy speaks out against.

"I know that some Christian schools do, but why would Theosophy?"

--> Theosophy is a set of teachings that promotes certain ideas. For example, as we have discussed before, the Blessed Virgin Mary is seen in Theosophy as not a real person, but the anthropomorphization of a cosmic principle. I feel just as strongly about this belief as any Christian, and if people want to hear them, I will talk about them. The difference (as I have said before), is that, if you disagree with me, I will respect that (and not say you are going to Hell for disagreeing!) Even Theosophists are allowed to disagree, and their disagreeing never leads to any type of Theosophical excommunication.

"Actually, I am never surprised by arguments within any religious or philosophical organization."

"I mean, debate appears to be largely what philosophy is all about anyway."

--> Theosophy encourages debate. I feel it is one of the few philosophies in the world that actually does so.

"And religion, in my opinion, is so closely related to philosophy that I am not sure I can really tell the difference much of the time."

--> The difference between religion and philosophy is actually a fascinating discussion. Maybe we can pick up on it in another thread.

"And I really don’t mind the splitting of hairs as long as I can see a purpose behind it.

--> God for you!

"There are cases when I think it is counterproductive, but not always."

--> I think it gets back to open-minded vs. closed-minded. Some of the best religious discussions I have had, have been with non-Theosophists. As long as respect is maintained, it can be a great experience.

"Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right? --> I honestly think it depends on (here I go again) which Christian you ask, but then I may not exactly understand what you mean by “multiple levels of higher consciousness”. Are you referring to this as it relates to the concept(s) of reincarnation?"

--> No. This is not a Christian concept, so let me try to explain. You may have heard of the Astral Plane of Existence. (It is said that we are actually having experiences on the Astral Plane while we are asleep, and these experiences are brought back as dreams.) The Astral Plane is seen (according to Theosophy) as a higher level of existence. I believe Christianity believes in ghosts and lost souls (Theosophy does too), and these souls are said to be literally wandering about on the Astral Plane.

However, the Astral Plane is seen as only the tip of the iceberg. We say there is something called the Mental Plane above the Astral Plane, with its own set of residents. On and on it goes, Plane above Plane, with "souls" residing on each Plane. It is these souls we refer to as "beings of higher consciousness". (Actually, this fits in with Christianity, as Christianity talks about Seraphim, Cherebum (sp), angels, archangels, etc. It is just that Theosophy is a lot more specifc about defining who is who and where they are.) This, then, is the answer to your question: "Beings of higher consciousness" are the angels, archangels, etc, although Theosphy's list is much longer and more complicated than Christianity's list.

"Discuss concepts. Ignore personal attacks. --> I do try to do this (I haven’t always been real good at it)...."

--> You are doing quite well. Keep up the good work. Every attempt, no matter how small, will show results.

"However, I tend to be more empathetic than is perhaps good for me at times, and this can lead to worry over someone else’s psyche. Who knows? Maybe this is part of my own calling."

--> There are different kinds of people. You are just that kind of person.

Also, please remember that Buddha told us to follow the Middle Way, which means avoiding extremes. This includes being too good!

"It is rather difficult to relate to a fellow being’s situation without worrying, especially if he or she seems worried."

--> I think having empathy is a good thing. I am sure you will make a good Guardian Angel. (Are you ready...?)

"Don’t know if that makes any sense the way I have stated it."

--> It has. Thanks for taking the time to make sure we understand.

InLove · 07-09-2007, 11:41 PM

Hi Andrew--LOL, I am still behind on this thread (not to mention two or three others!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

In basic terms, what we can say after consulting Webster, and also taking a look at the quoted Wikipedia entry, is that esotericism overlaps with mysticism ... but suggests a further progression. Still, just because a person expresses interest in esoteric teachings, does not make that person an Initiate. {And this begs the $64 million question!}

I understand that mysticism is not necessarily esotericism, and I am actually quite happy about that. But as you have pointed out, the two do overlap sometimes. This is what makes me wonder how esoteric knowledge is somehow deemed exclusive to an Initiate with a capital “I”. To me, this is like a Christian saying that one must be baptized with water in a certain way, memorize the catechism, or have last rites administered by a priest before they die in order to be Saved with a capital “S”. (Now before I draw fire from the Christian community, let me just say that I know not all Christians think this, and besides, if you do, it is your business, not mine. I just don’t happen to agree.) Anyway, I am working this post out as I go, so hopefully I will have a better grasp by the time I am finished...

Andrew, you also quoted the following from Wiki:

Quote:

Another possibility is that such knowledge may be kept secret not by the intention of its protectors, but by its very nature—for example, if it is accessible only to those with the proper intellectual background.

But then you added this comment, quoting from Matthew 7:6:

["Cast ye not your pearls before swine ..."]

I am not sure I understand the connection you are making here. Bear with me, please, but I read this verse and the surrounding passage as an authoritative teaching from Jesus about spiritual knowledge, not intellectual. In fact, the last verse of this chapter ends with the following:

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. –Matthew 7:28-29

When I read the Bible, what I often find is that the teachers of the law are depicted as continually quoting other rabbis when they taught. But Jesus, even though He quoted verses from the Old Testament, didn’t refer to the school of this priest or that one. He spoke through His own authority. I realize you may not glean the same meaning from this as I do, but I wanted to address it since I am trying to better understand your reasoning.

Quote:

But the portions of Webster's definition which I emphasized in blue, really do help to clarify where much of the confusion may exist, because something accepted by most Theosophists, and by students of the Wisdom in the 20th and 21st Centuries, is that indeed, there is an objective Path of Initiation. And this is something that we all must tread, regardless of our spiritual (or religious) background, and no matter what our outward spiritual observances (or none).

What this means, in terms of `higher' states of awareness, is that such states are perfectly objective. Arguably, and this is something I enjoy discussing, such states are much more objective than our sensory perceptions, not to mention our intellectual assumptions and conclusions, since both of these - as we all know - are subject to question, interpretation, argument, and error ... not to mention what our current mood is, or what particular emotions we are experiencing.

Okay. I’m really trying here. (By the way, I cannot see the blue type for some reason, Andrew. But I can see the bolded text, and I think I may be starting to comprehend what you are saying.) I do appreciate objectivity. And I agree that in “higher” states of awareness (ßIL chokes and sputters in the sincere attempt to employ this phraseology

), what I might call our “spiritual senses” take precedence over our physical senses and assumptions based on former experience of any kind. I’m wondering just out of curiosity—do you think that moods and emotions may sometimes act as catalysts for increased awareness, even though they would not be a part of the more truly awakened spiritual state?

Quote:

And just consider: While mystical experiences occur for people around the world, no matter the faith or religious background (every tradition has a mystical component, or even several), notice how subjective these kind of experiences tend to be, as witnessed by a Christian contemplative, vs. a Buddhist, or Sufi. I think this raises an excellent point, Deb.

Can we go even further and consider that the individual mystical experience within each of these various Traditions would add yet another layer that might even be more…um…objective.

But I would also say that even when an experience is subject to certain belief systems, it may still be mystical in that a person’s understanding may exceed the limits of those systems (and here we get into areas like faith and perhaps grace—well, I tend to go there, anyway. LOL, I must be one of them there Christians after all.

) So, like I think you have been saying (and I even think Thomas did, too) that both have value, and there are commonalities, but they are not necessarily the same thing? (Oh, please, don’t let that be the wrong thing for me to write—I don’t want to get into all that again.

But I do so want to point out when I see grounds for some agreement there. I could be mistaken, but if I am, we don’t need to re-hash right now.)

Quote:

What would the spiritual path be like, if there were not Those Who have GONE BEFORE us? To whom would we turn, and where would we find the answers that we seek? What would we do about spiritual guidance, if there were no such thing as enlightened, knowledgable, capable and qualified spiritual Teachers?

Am I begging the question? Perhaps. But you think about it. And the challenge that I make, is simple. If you haven't met, or spoken with, or otherwise experienced the plain & simple REALITY of such Teachers (either plural or singular), then the best you can really do, is to keep silent, and hear what others have to share. This, it seems to me, is the most prudent thing to do ... though of course, we are all free to offer our opinions, and to share what we THINK is the most likely "state of reality," despite our NOT having actually experienced it.

Yeah, silence is often worth much more than gold. Sometimes I think we tend to project our own ideas about what a master teacher really is onto other people, and we wind up assuming they have not experienced this reality, either. So then, we have missed seeing a master at work. I think it happens all the time, and I think this is the basis for much of the Wisdom of the ages—we simply overlook it because we are expecting something else. Preconceptions.

Quote:

And has this promotion come because I have done favors for my supervisor, or is it not because I have proven myself? In the ideal world (which is surely God's), this is how things work - or so says the esoterict, because we cannot believe in a God of favoritism, operating according to the motto, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." That is something we must reject, for reasons that I hope should be obvious.

That is my hope, too—and actually not just for the esotericist, but all people. This will probably translate differently in different Traditions. For instance, a Christian’s “test”, I would say, would necessarily start with the faith factor, and then continue from that point. But it would be different for, say, a Buddhist, maybe? (I hope I am not over-generalizing here.)

Quote:

At any rate, these teachings are present, within Christianity, within Judaism, within Islam, as they are within Hindusim, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism & Mazdeanism, and as they existed in every ancient religious and philosophical system. The example in Webster, notice, is not even a contemporary, or ancient religion, it is the Mystery School of PYTHAGORAS. And students of the Ageless Wisdom know ... that Pythagoras was not simply "that great mathematician who gave us certain theorems and formulae," as we are often taught in modern schools. Rather, Pythagoras was the head of a full-fledged Mystery School, and this school, like all legitimate schools, had its various orders, or grades of students, who were Initiated into the Mysteries, stage by stage.

Yes, I have been studying up on the Pythagorean school. Interesting. Can’t say much yet (back to that “silence” thingy

). I keep getting caught up in trying to read all that music theory, which, by the way, was the class I hated most besides math, lol. I do like fifths, though. I understand the idea behind the digital tuners, and that works just fine as long as one is not trying to use one to tune a guitar to play with an out-of-tune piano. Then one must play by ear. I am not sure that Pythagoras would appreciate this, but then, like I said, I do not want to project my assumptions onto him.

Quote:

One can research, quite easily, the objectivity of what I am saying, and soon it will become apparent, that there is no conspiracy being waged by students of the Ageless Wisdom, unless one somehow feels so self-assured and self-righteous as to make oneself the STANDARD against whom & which all others should be judged - and claim the Golden Key of Truth as, "MY decree!"

That is comforting to hear. Interpretation is one thing, but insistence is quite another. And it may not sound like it, but I am very, very aware that there are existing organizations that are much maligned in this world. I cannot go into all that, so enough said on my part.

Well, Andrew, I can't keep up with you! There is so much more that you wrote that I haven't addressed in detail, but maybe what I have written here is enough to continue an exchange of thoughts. It is nice to talk with you again. I hope nothing I've said has been inappropriate.

InPeace,
InLove

Thomas · 07-10-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InLove

He spoke through His own authority.

Hi InLove —

Just wanted to pop in and say that observation, set against the background of Jesus' sociospiritual heritage, is one of the most telling aspects of the New Testament ... and speaks volumes. If indeed He speaks through His own authority, then that authority — in its entirety — is invested in Him. Unwrapping what that means leads one to two conjoined dramatic conclusions, the two mysteries at the heart of the Christian faith, which are themselves one, for the one is inexplicable without the other: Trinity and Incarnation.

Here's a quote from a Christian's blog:

And then Father began his homily. And his homily was about doubt. And he likened doubt to the stone which blocked the entrance to the tomb, and we're powerless to move it away ourselves, we must pray for God to move it for us. How perfect, I thought. And I prayed to God to roll away my stone of doubt.

And I was confirmed. And I received the Blessed Sacrament. And as I received it I was not concentrating on the fact that it was the body and blood of Christ. Nor was I at all doubting whether it was so. My mind was completely clear. I took it, ate it, drank it, and returned to my pew. I knelt, and prayed to God to strengthen my faith.

Many other things rolled through my mind this evening. Such as how unworthy I am to be chosen to enter the Church. So many people, with a faith in God so much stronger than mine, with fire for Christ burning so much hotter, yet they haven't received his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Perhaps they never will. And here I am, an utter wretch, crippled with doubts and confusion, my faith in God forever oscillating between fringes of ecstasy and the brink of nihilism, my fire for Christ is like a trick birthday candle, far too small, but I won't allow to go out. A nanoscopic fraction of a mustard seed of faith. But however weak and crippled my faith is, whatever faith itself means, whatever it is I have that won't allow me give up is pointing toward the Catholic Church, my spiritual home, and the sacraments, my channel of grace. Truly Lord, I am unworthy to receive you. But only say the word, and I'll be healed.

Mysterium Crucis

Thomas

InLove · 07-10-2007, 03:41 AM

Thanks, Thomas and Ciel for your thoughts. You are both very kind and a blessing to me. And I enjoyed the link, as well, Thomas. I am so intrigued by all the different and similar views here.

Thanks to Nick, too. I'm planning on responding to your last post, but it may take me a little while. I love the animated emoticons, too! I'm kind of into that myself....

InPeace,
InLove

Nick the Pilot · 07-10-2007, 04:47 AM

InLove, You said,

"This is what makes me wonder how esoteric knowledge is somehow deemed exclusive to an Initiate with a capital “I”.

--> It is said it must be kept exclusive because it is dangerous knowledge:

"There were portions of the Secret Science that for incalculable ages had to remain concealed from the profane gaze. But this was because to impart to the unprepared multitude secrets of such tremendous importance, was equivalent to giving a child a lighted candle in a powder magazine." (The Secret Doctrine vol 1 p. xxxv)

It is felt only Initiates can be trusted with this knowledge.

AndrewX · 07-10-2007, 06:06 AM

Apologies, Deb, but I had to scrap a reply ... it was too lengthy, and Nick did a marvelous job of answering the Initiate question with brevity. I would only add, that the "secret" of atomic energy (even in its initial, destructive application) was released to Humanity - as an example of just the sort of knowledge which would otherwise not be permitted before we have overcome certain temptations & weaknesses ... and proven ourselves capable and trustworthy of putting such knowledge to positive, creative uses.

What made things different, during WWII, such that the Hierarchy (Christ and the Masters - working especially through the 5th Ray Ashram of Concrete Science) chose to assist the Allies in discovering the necessary formulas in advance of the Axis Powers?

The answer should be obvious enough. So many of us detest

07-07-2007, 01:29 AM	#61 (permalink)
Bruce Michael Executive Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Trans-Himalayas Posts: 762	Re: Esoterism and esoterica Shalom Br.Thomas, >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. Some (most) theosophists deny the Incarnation. They see the teachings as more important than the Deed. They believe Jesus of Nazareth was Jeschu Ben Pandira ( of the Talmud who lived 100 BC). This has been argued for hundreds of years BTW, right back to early beginnings. Some believe He was a World Teacher, an Ascended Master, or simple man of Nazareth. Teachers like Alice Bailley, Charles Leadbeater, Benjamin Creme believe He was/is the Maitreya Bohisattva (which is interesting if you're a follower of Valentin Tomberg). God Bless, Br.Bruce RAZOR sharp accuracies, definitively speaking, are as the will-o'-the-wisp, save for fundamental mathematical notations. However, one may hold a sense for accuracy; one which, alike to a focus, narrows in on any given specific and pinpoints it, as such. It is a complex question: that of defining a true and exact accuracy. Accurate thinking when applied, is both satisfying and stimulating. For the closer one is to a specific, the closer the comprehension, the formula, and the actual sense of the reality and of the pneu one may come to. -The Brothers

07-07-2007, 07:02 PM	#63 (permalink)
Nick the Pilot Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Westmorland, California Posts: 762	*~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~* InLove, You asked, "Again, I may be misunderstanding. I ask with my heart that if my next statement offends anyone here, that you forgive me because surely it must arise out of my own misconceptions? At least, I hope so. But it seems to me that the views expressed by many Theosophists (perhaps not so much with Anthroposophy--I'm not sure) is indeed dogmatically opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity, despite the frequent disclaimers to this end." --> By the way, I do not find your question offensive. (Thanks for asking if it is.) I think it is a great question, in that it opens up communication between different groups. Regarding dogma within Theosophy, it is true that some Theosophical teachings are opposed to individual interpretations within other Traditions, particularly Christianity. The only difference is that the teachings are not dogmatic. Let me explain what I mean by dogmatic. No particular teaching is required to be believed by any member. You may be surprised to hear it, but Theosophists do squabble about the meanings of the teachings. Theosophists are required to allow another person to have differences in religious ideas. I may think your ideas are goofy, and I may say so, but I respect your right to have those ideas. This may seem like hair-splitting, but it is not. It is a significant difference. "I think it is the "higher level" thing that bothers me. Who's to say what is "higher"? --> Theosophy eaches that there are higher levels of consciousness than this physical plane, and there are humans and former humans who are conscious on these planes. (I have been reading some excellent descriptions another theosophist has been sharing of the higher planes. I think what Bruce means is, when people become conscious on these higher planes, they all observe the same phenomina there, whether thay are Christian, Jain, etc. (Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right?) "But I want very much to try and understand one more time. I hate giving up." --> Be like me. Discuss concepts. Ignore personal attacks.

07-07-2007, 07:30 PM	#64 (permalink)
Nick the Pilot Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Westmorland, California Posts: 762	*~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~* Bruce, You said, "Some (most) theosophists deny the Incarnation." --> I would like to agree with you, and corraborate your description of one Theosophical interpretation in vogue nowadays (although it is not an interpretation shared by all Theosophists.) The story of Jesus is seen as a blending of several stories of that time, just as you say. The idea, then, is that Jesus "of Nazareth" may not have actually existed. Theosophists, of course, are not required to believe in the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. (There are Christian Theosophists, as well as other Theosophists, who believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. For example, I would say Andrew believes.) But for Theosophists with similar ideas to mine, the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a real possibility.

07-08-2007, 12:15 AM	#65 (permalink)
AndrewX ex-member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 641	Re: Esoterism and esoterica I think we're really getting somewhere now in this discussion, at least imho, with your focusing on "higher levels of consciousness," Deb. I'd like to share what this means to me, and explain why it isn't elitist, as has been suggested. I have Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary handy, to help us get a dictionary definition of `esoteric': esoteric, adj. 1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions. 2. belonging to the select few. 3. private; secret; confidential. 4. (of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras. [< Gk esôterik(όs) inner, equiv. to esόter(os) inner + -ikos -IC] What I've highlighted in blue, and especially the bolded* part,* is what I'd like to come back to ... but I would also like to share a small portion of the Wikipedia entry for `esotericism,' as this touches on what you've said about mysticism, InLove: Esotericism largely overlaps with "hidden knowledge." Some overlap exists as well between esotericism and mysticism. However, many mystical traditions do not attempt to introduce additional spiritual knowledge, but rather seek to focus the believer's attention or prayers more strongly upon the object of devotion. A mystic is thus not necessarily an esotericist. "Esotericism" sometimes suggests an additional element of initiation, for example the requirement that one be tested before learning the higher truth. Note however that most "esoteric" teachings are widely available, and indeed often actively promoted. [And have I not said this, all along?] Another possibility is that such knowledge may be kept secret not by the intention of its protectors, but by its very nature—for example, if it is accessible only to those with the proper intellectual background. ["Cast ye not your pearls before swine ..."] In basic terms, what we can say after consulting Webster, and also taking a look at the quoted Wikipedia entry, is that esotericism overlaps with mysticism ... but suggests a further progression. Still, just because a person expresses interest in esoteric teachings, does not make that person an Initiate. {And this begs the $64 million question!} But the portions of Webster's definition which I emphasized in blue, really do help to clarify where much of the confusion may exist, because something accepted by most Theosophists, and by students of the Wisdom in the 20th and 21st Centuries, is that indeed, there is an objective Path of Initiation. And this is something that we all must tread, regardless of our spiritual (or religious) background, and no matter what our outward spiritual observances (or none). What this means, in terms of `higher' states of awareness, is that such states are perfectly objective. Arguably, and this is something I enjoy discussing, such states are much more objective than our sensory perceptions, not to mention our intellectual assumptions and conclusions, since both of these - as we all know - are subject to question, interpretation, argument, and error ... not to mention what our current mood is, or what particular emotions we are experiencing. And just consider: While mystical experiences occur for people around the world, no matter the faith or religious background (every tradition has a mystical component, or even several), notice how subjective these kind of experiences tend to be, as witnessed by a Christian contemplative, vs. a Buddhist, or Sufi. I think this raises an excellent point, Deb. What would the spiritual path be like, if there were not Those Who have GONE BEFORE us? To whom would we turn, and where would we find the answers that we seek? What would we do about spiritual guidance, if there were no such thing as enlightened, knowledgable, capable and qualified spiritual Teachers? Am I begging the question? Perhaps. But *you* think about it. And the challenge that I make, is simple. If you haven't met, or spoken with, or otherwise experienced the plain & simple REALITY of such Teachers (either plural or singular), then the best you can really do, is to keep silent, and hear what others have to share. This, it seems to me, is the most prudent thing to do ... though of course, we are all free to offer our opinions, and to share what we THINK* is the most likely "state of reality," despite our NOT having actually experienced it.* So, for example, if I am starting a new job in construction, and I have been assigned to assist with some of the "grunt work," then I am fairly well OBLIGED to take this approach, relative to the construction foreman, as well as the ARCHITECT who designed the structure going up on my job site. It's not that I'm not free to ask questions, but if I am hired for a particular job, which doesn't involve a great deal of executive decision-making (at the outset), then it's really not my business to poke my nose into the blueprints, and pull on the architect's coattails to tell him he should have added a vaulted ceiling, or used cherry wood instead of pine. These are, perhaps, my opinion, but as I am not* the architect,* and have only been hired on as a lackey, my work is elsewhere. Now on my jobsite, as I prove my worth, what will happen (or at least I hope), is that my supervisor will notice my commitment to the task at hand, he or she will notice when I go the extra mile, and in time, if I am careful, I can "prove myself" (testing, trials - what was our definition again?) ... and demonstrate that I am WORTHY (in the truest sense of the word) for promotion. And has this promotion come because I have done favors for my supervisor, or is it not because I have proven myself? In the ideal world (which is surely God's), this is how things work - or so says the esoterict, because we cannot believe* in a God of favoritism, operating according to the motto, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."* That is something we must reject, for reasons that I hope should be obvious. Of course, in time, to take the metaphor further, I will demonstrate that I can perform many tasks at the construction site. I may become a good carpenter, a good painter, a good mason, and even a job foreman eventually, as I show that I can keep track of the big(ger) picture. One day (and with the proper training!), I may even become a junior architect myself! And all of this ... is what a Master does. Egypt preserved the Teaching regarding such advanced beings in our evolution by speaking of the Master Builder, and a careful screening of Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments will show, clearly enough, that the Wisdom was there, that it has been preserved. Not every Pharaoh in the later dynasties was as well versed in the Mystery Teachings as early on, nor were they all equally enlightened (or spiritually advanced). But is this any different than our leaders today? At any rate, these teachings are present, within Christianity, within Judaism, within Islam, as they are within Hindusim, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism & Mazdeanism, and as they existed in every ancient religious and philosophical system. The example in Webster, notice, is not even a contemporary, or ancient religion, it is the Mystery School of PYTHAGORAS. And students of the Ageless Wisdom know ... that Pythagoras was not simply "that great mathematician who gave us certain theorems and formulae," as we are often taught in modern schools. Rather, Pythagoras was the head of a full-fledged Mystery School, and this school, like all legitimate schools, had its various orders, or grades of students, who were Initiated into the Mysteries, stage by stage. One can research, quite easily, the objectivity of what I am saying, and soon it will become apparent, that there is no conspiracy being waged by students of the Ageless Wisdom, unless one somehow feels so self-assured and self-righteous as to make oneself the STANDARD against whom & which all others should be judged - and claim the Golden Key of Truth as, "MY decree!" In contrast, the goal of the student of the Ageless Wisdom is first to discover, then to enshrine TRUTH, as best as he or she is able, within one's daily life, in all dealings with one's fellow man, and to learn to treat others precisely as indicated by the Golden Rule ... while also seeking to serve that Purpose - for which one believes all Life on Earth has been created. This is, as some have pointed out, something beyond every single one of us. NONE of us here, knows that ultimate Purpose. We are all, in that sense, students, and seekers. And to the extent that we have dedicated our lives toward serving that Purpose - even as we imperfectly understand, enshrine and embody it - just to such an extent, we might say that we are "on the Path." ~+~+~+~ I think the topic of Initiation, and the various stages of Initiation - as presented by various religions, or even in terms of the Eastern tradition and presentation, compared & contrasted with the Western teachings - might make a wonderful parallel thread to this one. But my posts get lengthy, and I want to wrap this one up. Initiation, however, will take us straight to the heart of this question of what it means to experience "higher" states, or levels of consciousness, than what we are ordinarily used to. What I really cannot believe, however, is the notion that our individual experiences are "all just subjective" ... so subjective, in fact, that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. We may be opening up the discussion to the idea of spiritual states of consciousness, beyond the physical ... but this DOES NOT automatically mean that we cannot measure such states, or that there is no subjectivity. Today, science does allow us to measure the activity of the brain, both quantitatively, and qualitatively, in so, so many ways. The boundaries are always being pushed, and new areas explored ... such that non-physical gauges of awareness, which truly indicate our spiritual consciousness (again, qualitatively as well as quantitatively) - may be closer than we think. Frankly, given the trouble we seem to be having here, I wish that day would come really soon ... but I shudder, I cringe to think of some of the horrible applications where this would also likely end up, if we weren't prepared. The Buddha was said to be able to have ... snap* - Instant Insight - into ANY past life, of ANYone with whom He came into contact.* He could tell them what their current life's situation was, in terms of karmic debts and opportunites for spiritual advancement, as well as provide indication of when, where, and under what circumstances many such individuals would attain to Enlightenment. We may not, as yet, have anything LIKE this degree of enlightenment, as had Shakyamuni Buddha. But one thing I have come to believe about the spiritual worlds, through direct observation, experience and insight ... is that consciousness operates much the same (according to similar prinicples) as it does - even in the brain, in terms of ordinary physical consciousness. Some of us have a better memory than others, and sometimes our brain just doesn't seem to be working, so to speak ... while other times (like after I drink a cuppa joe), all the synapses can make the right connections, and all the right neurons seem to fire properly. Perhaps 99 out of 100 people you randomly stop and question ... will all be using VERY little of the brain's true potential, as science has been telling us for decades. That 100th odd person, might just be a genius, and then the whole darn brain is "lit up," when you hook up all the fancy meters and gauges. Do such meters and gauges - objective methods of "measuring"* spiritual enlightenment* - even exist? I haven't the slightest shadow of a doubt that they do. It is a partial "tapping into" `The Network' which is responsible for our common, everyday expressions like, "Hey, she sure is BRIGHT!," or "Wow, so & so has a real GIFT* for inspiring a whole roomful of people!"* If that's not objective "measuring," or observation, of the SPIRITUAL worlds (with our human intellects serving as the least channel, or vehicle, for some of that greater Inspiration - both to and through us) ... I don't know what is! And again, just because my own "gauges" or Spirit-O-Meter may not function as well as the Buddha's, or the Christ's (how'd He pick those 12, and 70, and 500?), doesn't mean that no meter exists, or that it's completely, 100% dormant. This, then, is part & parcel of the teaching that we are all on the way, ALL in the process of awakening, as God intends it. One of the abilities that is developing .... is our sensitivity to all varieties of Impression, from within (or beyond us, spiritually), as well as from without (from others, of all stages on the spiritual path, including our NON-human co-inhabitants of Planet Earth, called ANGELS or Devas, etc.). Deb, others, I've given this my darnedest ... so I hope it somehow helps. Love and Light, ~Andrew

07-09-2007, 09:19 PM	#69 (permalink)
Nick the Pilot Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Westmorland, California Posts: 762	*~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~'`^`'~-,._.,-~* InLove, you said, "Okay, doggies are better now." "I do realize that my questions may sound as if I am proposing some kind of gauntlet-type challenge." --> I can recognize an open-minded person and a closed-minded person a mile away. You are definitely the open-minded type. I always find discussions with open-minded people to be enjoyable (even if they may become challenging discussions.) "If no particular teaching is required to be believed by any individual Theosophist, why does Theosophy require the individual Christian to hold to certain teachings?" --> Theosophy does not require Christians to hold a particular belief. The problem is some Christian teachings have been (according to Theosophy) intentionally altered. Theosophy was specifically created to point out these altered teachings. If Christians desire to keep believing these altered beliefs, Theosophy does not try to stop them. "But why is Theosophy particularly opposed to individual interpretations within the Christian Tradition?" --> Here is a quote from a psychic who is also active in some online Theosophical discussions. This is by a man named Kurt, answering questions about a book he wrote. "Q: I’m disturbed by what seems to me to be an anti-Christian bias in your book Otherwhere. "A: I like to make a distinction between the teachings of Christianity as recorded in the Bible--which I believe to be a part of the universal spiritual heritage of humankind, along with The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the sayings of the Buddha, and other such scriptures--and the teachings of the Christian church, in any of its many denominations. The latter it seems to me are often influenced by political considerations that may have little to do with genuine spiritual truths. "Some of my visits to Otherwhere have provided me with information that goes against the teachings of the church. I do not believe that they go against the teachings of Christ. Some of those teachings, it seems to me, have been recorded by individuals of lesser spiritual understanding who have distorted them. Others may have been translated in ways that accidentally or intentionally distort their meaning. The content of the Bible itself was a result of decisions made by the church fathers about what to keep in and what to leave out. Such decisions, I believe, were political in nature and may have distorted or at least obscured some of the spiritual truths contained in it." KurtLeland.com: FAQs --> It is these alterations of teachings for political purposes that Theosophy speaks out against. "I know that some Christian schools do, but why would Theosophy?" --> Theosophy is a set of teachings that promotes certain ideas. For example, as we have discussed before, the Blessed Virgin Mary is seen in Theosophy as not a real person, but the anthropomorphization of a cosmic principle. I feel just as strongly about this belief as any Christian, and if people want to hear them, I will talk about them. The difference (as I have said before), is that, if you disagree with me, I will respect that (and not say you are going to Hell for disagreeing!) Even Theosophists are allowed to disagree, and their disagreeing never leads to any type of Theosophical excommunication. "Actually, I am never surprised by arguments within any religious or philosophical organization." "I mean, debate appears to be largely what philosophy is all about anyway." --> Theosophy encourages debate. I feel it is one of the few philosophies in the world that actually does so. "And religion, in my opinion, is so closely related to philosophy that I am not sure I can really tell the difference much of the time." --> The difference between religion and philosophy is actually a fascinating discussion. Maybe we can pick up on it in another thread. "And I really don’t mind the splitting of hairs as long as I can see a purpose behind it. --> God for you! "There are cases when I think it is counterproductive, but not always." --> I think it gets back to open-minded vs. closed-minded. Some of the best religious discussions I have had, have been with non-Theosophists. As long as respect is maintained, it can be a great experience. "Christianity does not recognize multiple levels of higher consciousness, right? --> I honestly think it depends on (here I go again) which Christian you ask, but then I may not exactly understand what you mean by “multiple levels of higher consciousness”. Are you referring to this as it relates to the concept(s) of reincarnation?" --> No. This is not a Christian concept, so let me try to explain. You may have heard of the Astral Plane of Existence. (It is said that we are actually having experiences on the Astral Plane while we are asleep, and these experiences are brought back as dreams.) The Astral Plane is seen (according to Theosophy) as a higher level of existence. I believe Christianity believes in ghosts and lost souls (Theosophy does too), and these souls are said to be literally wandering about on the Astral Plane. However, the Astral Plane is seen as only the tip of the iceberg. We say there is something called the Mental Plane above the Astral Plane, with its own set of residents. On and on it goes, Plane above Plane, with "souls" residing on each Plane. It is these souls we refer to as "beings of higher consciousness". (Actually, this fits in with Christianity, as Christianity talks about Seraphim, Cherebum (sp), angels, archangels, etc. It is just that Theosophy is a lot more specifc about defining who is who and where they are.) This, then, is the answer to your question: "Beings of higher consciousness" are the angels, archangels, etc, although Theosphy's list is much longer and more complicated than Christianity's list. "Discuss concepts. Ignore personal attacks. --> I do try to do this (I haven’t always been real good at it)...." --> You are doing quite well. Keep up the good work. Every attempt, no matter how small, will show results. "However, I tend to be more empathetic than is perhaps good for me at times, and this can lead to worry over someone else’s psyche. Who knows? Maybe this is part of my own calling." --> There are different kinds of people. You are just that kind of person. Also, please remember that Buddha told us to follow the Middle Way, which means avoiding extremes. This includes being too good! "It is rather difficult to relate to a fellow being’s situation without worrying, especially if he or she seems worried." --> I think having empathy is a good thing. I am sure you will make a good Guardian Angel. (Are you ready...?) "Don’t know if that makes any sense the way I have stated it." --> It has. Thanks for taking the time to make sure we understand.

07-10-2007, 03:41 AM	#72 (permalink)
InLove at peace Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 3,267	Re: Esoterism and esoterica Thanks, Thomas and Ciel for your thoughts. You are both very kind and a blessing to me. And I enjoyed the link, as well, Thomas. I am so intrigued by all the different and similar views here. Thanks to Nick, too. I'm planning on responding to your last post, but it may take me a little while. I love the animated emoticons, too! I'm kind of into that myself.... InPeace, InLove

07-10-2007, 04:47 AM	#73 (permalink)
Nick the Pilot Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Westmorland, California Posts: 762	Re: Esoterism and esoterica InLove, You said, "This is what makes me wonder how esoteric knowledge is somehow deemed exclusive to an Initiate with a capital “I”. --> It is said it must be kept exclusive because it is dangerous knowledge: "There were portions of the Secret Science that for incalculable ages had to remain concealed from the profane gaze. But this was because to impart to the unprepared multitude secrets of such tremendous importance, was equivalent to giving a child a lighted candle in a powder magazine." (The Secret Doctrine vol 1 p. xxxv) It is felt only Initiates can be trusted with this knowledge.