Pentateuch Wisdom

[AndrewX]

Agreed, Nick. I must admit that I tend to get quite caught up in some of the details, so when it comes to astrology ... and some of the far-reaching implications of Theosophical and esoteric teachings, I can get a bit lost.

But I find this whole notion of God, the Infinite and Boundless, stooping down to whip up a batch of Sol, Terra, humanity, bees and ants - ex nihilo ... as if William Blake's `Ancient of Days' was some kind of early `still life' - uggghhh!

It's horrific!!! (And I love William Blake, both his poems, and his artwork!)

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



So that Thomas does not think I am dodging the bullet, I'll include a selection from an article by HPB, from Lucifer Magazine, May 1892, that more directly addresses the topic of Pentateuch Wisdom. I would commend the entire article to further study:

The last quarter of our century is witnessing an extraordinary outbreak of occult studies, and magic dashes once more its powerful waves against the rocks of Church and Science, which it is slowly but as surely undermining. Any one whose natural mysticism impels him to seek for sympathetic contact with other minds, is astonished to find how large a number of persons are not only interested in Mysticism generally, but are actually themselves Kabalists. The river dammed during the Middle Ages has flowed since noiselessly underground, and has now burst up as an irrepressible torrent. Hundreds today study the Kabalah, where scarcely one or two could have been found some fifty years ago, when fear of the Church was still a powerful factor in men's lives. But the long-pent-up torrent has now diverged into two streams – Eastern Occultism and the Jewish Kabalah; the traditions of the Wisdom-Religion of the races that preceded the Adam of the "Fall"; and the system of the ancient Levites of Israel, who most ingeniously veiled a portion of that religion of the Pantheists under the mask of monotheism.

Unfortunately many are called but few chosen. The two systems threaten the world of the mystics with a speedy conflict, which, instead of increasing the spread of the One Universal Truth, will necessarily only weaken and impede its progress. Yet, the question is not, once more, which is the one truth. For both are founded upon the eternal verities of prehistoric knowledge, as both, in the present age and the state of mental transition through which humanity is now passing, can give out only a certain portion of these verities. It is simply a question: "Which of the two systems contains most unadulterated facts; and, most important of all – which of the two presents its teachings in the most Catholic (i.e., unsectarian) and impartial manner?" One the Eastern system – has veiled for ages its profound pantheistic unitarianism with the exuberance of an exoteric polytheism; the other – as said above with the screen of exoteric monotheism. Both are but masks to hide the sacred truth from the profane; for neither the Âryan nor the semitic philosophers have ever accepted either the anthropomorphism of the many Gods, or the personality of the one God, as a philosophical proposition. But it is impossible within the limits we have at our disposal, to attempt to enter upon a minute discussion of this question. We must be content with a simpler task. The rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law seem to be an abyss, which long generations of Christian Fathers, and especially of Protestant Reformers, have vainly sought to fill in with their far-fetched interpretations. Yet all the early Christians, Paul and the Gnostics, regarded and proclaimed the Jewish law as essentially distinct from the new Christian law. St. Paul called the former an allegory, and St. Stephen told the Jews an hour before being stoned that they had not even kept the law that they had received from the angels (the æons), and as to the Holy Ghost (the impersonal Logos or Christos, as taught at Initiation) they had resisted and rejected it as their fathers had done (Acts vii.). This was virtually telling them that their law was inferior to the later one. Notwithstanding that the Mosaic Books which we think we have in the Old Testament, cannot be more than two or three centuries older than Christianity, the Protestants have nevertheless made of them their Sacred Canon, on a par with, if not higher than, the Gospels. But when the Pentateuch was written, or rather rewritten after Ezdras, i.e.,after the Rabbis had settled upon a new departure, a number of additions were made which were taken bodily from Persian and Babylonian doctrines; and this at a period subsequent to the colonization of Judea under the authority of the kings of Persia. This reëditing was o£ course done in the same way as with all such Scriptures. They were originally written in a secret key, or cipher, known only to the Initiates. But instead of adapting the contents to the highest spiritual truths as taught in the third,the highest, degree of Initiation, and expressed in symbolic language – as may be seen even in the exoteric Purânas of India – the writers of the Pentateuch,revised and corrected, they who cared but for earthly and national glory, adapted only to astro-physiological symbols the supposed events of the Abrahams, Jacobs, and Solomons, and the fantastic history of their little race. Thus they produced, under the mask of monotheism, a religion of sexual and phallic worship, one that concealed an adoration of the Gods, or the lower aeons. No one would maintain that anything like the dualism and the angelolatry of Persia, brought by the Jews from the captivity, could ever be found in the real Law, or Books of Moses. For how, in such case, could the Sadducees, who reverenced the Law, reject angels, as well as the soul and its immortality? And yet angels, if not the soul's immortal nature, are distinctly asserted to exist in the Old Testament,and are found in the Jewish modern scrolls.3

This fact of the successive and widely differing redactions of that which we loosely term the Books of Moses, and of their triple adaptation to the first (lowest), second, and third, or highest, degree of Sodalian initiation, and that still more puzzling fact of the diametrically opposite beliefs of the Sadducees and the other Jewish sects, all accepting, nevertheless, the same Revelation – canbe made comprehensible only in the light of our Esoteric explanation. It also shows the reason why, when Moses and the Prophets belonged to the Sodalities (the great Mysteries), the latter yet seem so often to fulminate against the abominations of the Sodales and their "Sod." For had the Old Canon been translated literally, as-is claimed, instead of being adapted to a monotheism absent from it, and to the spirit of each sect, as the differences in the Septuagint and Vulgate prove, the following contradictory sentences would be added to the hundreds of other inconsistencies in "Holy Writ." "Sod Ihoh [the mysteries of Johoh, or Jehovah are for those who fear him," says Psalm xxv. 14, mistranslated "the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him." Again "Al [El is terrible in the great Sod of the Kadeshim" is rendered as – "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints" (Psalm lxxxix. 7). The title of Kadeshim (Kadosh sing.) means in reality something quite different from saints, though it is generally explained as "priests," the "holy" and the "Initiated";for the Kadeshim were simply the galli of the abominable mysteries (Sod) of the exoteric rites. They were, in short, the male Nautches of the temples, during whose initiations the arcanum,the Sod (from which "Sodom," perchance) of physiological and sexual evolution, were divulged. These rites all belonged to the first degree of the Mysteries, so protected and beloved by David – the "friend of God." They must have been very ancient with the Jews, and were ever abominated by the true Initiates; thus we find the dying Jacob's prayer is that his soul should not come into the secret (Sod,in the original) of Simeon and Levi (the priestly caste) and into their assembly during which they "slew a man" (Genesis xlix. 5, 6).4 And yet Moses is claimed by the Kabalists as chief of the Sodales! Reject the explanation of the Secret Doctrine and the whole Pentateuch becomes the abomination of abominations.

Therefore, do we find Jehovah, the anthropomorphic God, everywhere in the Bible,but of AIN SUPH not one word is said. And therefore, also, was the Jewish metrology quite different from the numeral methods of other people. Instead of serving as an adjunct to other prearranged methods, to penetrate therewith as with a key into the hidden or implied meaning contained within the literal sentences – as the initiated Brahmins do to this day, when reading their sacred books – the numeral system with the Jews is, as the author of Hebrew Metrology tells us, the Holy Writ itself: "That very thing, in esse,on which, and out of which, and by the continuous interweaving use of which, the very text of the Bible has been made to result, as its enunciation, from the beginning word of Genesis to the closing word of Deuteronomy."

So true is this, indeed, that the authors of the New Testament who had to blend their system with both the Jewish and the Pagan, had to borrow their most metaphysical symbols not from the Pentateuch, or even the Kabalah, but from the Âryan astro-symbology. One instance will suffice. Whence the dual meaning of the First-born, the Lamb, the Unborn, and the Eternal – all relating to the Logos or Christos? We say from the Sanskrit Aja, a world the meanings of which are: (a) the Ram, or the Lamb, the first sign of the Zodiac, called in astronomy Mesha; (b) the Unborn a title of the first Logos, or Brahma, the self-existent cause of all, described and so referred to in the Upanishads.

3 This is just what the Gnostics had always maintained quite independently of Christians. In their doctrines the Jewish God, the "Elohim," was a hierarchy of low terrestrial angels – an Ildabaoth, spiteful and jealous.

4 To "slay a man"meant, in the symbolism of the Lesser Mysteries, the rite during which crimes against nature were committed, for which purpose the Kadeshim were set aside. Thus Cain "slays" his brother Abel, who, esoterically, is a female character and represents the first human woman in the Third Race after the separation of sexes. See also the Source of Measures, pp. 253, 283, etc.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... this was Bananabrain's original challenge (to Nick and myself) - to show that there have been alterations (I think this was it, anyway ... was that right, bananabrain?).

I have gone through your posts, and at almost every paragraph my answer was 'evidence, please' so to avoid long and repetative posting, and in the absence of any actual evidence, we're back where we started.

The book is still open ... you have yet to substantiate a case ...

Might I add:
1 – Theosophical interpretations do not in themselves demonstrate that nothing has been changed, just that you read things differently.
2 – The notion that 'it must have been removed' because what exists does not conform to your ideas or your favoured texts, or moreover your syncretic reading of favoured texts, is not evidence nor even good practice.

As I have stated before, and I think Nick agreed, Theosophical Doctrine appears to me to be largely cosmological (that's why there's so much of it, as you so amply demonstrate!), whereas Abrahamic is primarily metaphysical, dealing with the First Principles of things, and in that sense 'minimal'.

But again, the argument is not whether the Pentateuch is more or less esoteric, but more or less authentic to the teaching of the Abrahamic Tradition.

(And yes I did read your last long post, and no, it's imprecise methodology of throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something sticks – of suggesting many things without actually validating most of what is suggested – is not good technique and doesn't stand scrutiny ...)

Thomas

[AndrewX]

In this case, Thomas (bananabrain, et al), we have nothing more, nothing less, than a disagreement ... for as you say, Thomas, we definitely read things differently.

As for my testimony, I do not NEED to see the original texts (which is impossible, in most cases), nor that which has been permanently destroyed (which IS impossible, save for one with a developed ability to "read the Akash" ... and NOT the lower astral light, as you have mentioned before).

I will post something more about how HPB comes to know what she knows, since she does not fabricate it, nor is she speculating, regarding her assertions - except where she explicitly admits that it is so (and then she does so on solid ground).

Your claim that it is "unfair" or somehow metaphysically unsound, or philosophically untenable that HPB would suggest that the Pentateuch Wisdom is "less authentic to the teaching of the Abrahamic Tradition" ... is equally unfair - since part of the very assertion is that the EVIDENCE you are seeking is MISSING!!!

It's like saying, PROVE TO ME that there used to exist some kind of record here in this safety deposit box ... when what is being asserted is that - not only was the box emptied, but the entire bank has been destroyed in a fire, records and all - such that the building now stands almost a complete ruin!

Except, here at least, Theosphists maintain that additional copies of the transactions have been kept, EVEN in the physical form, in some cases, but safeguarded from those who would destroy them ... since that is exactly what has ALREADY happened with anything and everything that does not "fit the facts," or rather, "the tradition at hand."

So, this statement - "'it must have been removed' because what exists does not conform to your ideas or your favoured texts" - may as well refer to you, as to me ... and I assert that this is precisely the case.

How can I PROVE it? I can't. And I don't have to. A mind (and a heart), open to reason ... will either prove it, for one's own satisfaction, or else the Truth will be just one more day in making its way outward, and its own self known.

But other than sharing what I've already shared here, plus a post I'll make later on the Senzar which HPB provided as the Stanzas of Dzyan, I think I've said all I have to say. I can't do your homework for you, NOR can I prove ... that that which is missing, IS missing - since how does one go about that, exactly, Thomas?

You may say, ah, but it's my assertion, thus - let me worry about that ... and I say, it cannot be done - unless perhaps, Nick has a different approach to it all.

What I CAN show, is the testimony - NOT simply of HPB - but of half a dozen ... no wait, perhaps a dozen, maybe DOZENS of other individuals, even since her time ... testimony that these Stanzas, and similar teachings which do contradict the Abrahamic Tradition, as such, are not spurious, nor ill-founded, but in fact MORE accurate, more revealing, more on the mark.

This all comes as TESTIMONY ... and to it, I will gladly add my own, whether in the simple form of a `Yea,' or through some kind of account, at length, of my own search, and discoveries thus far.

Beyond a short post on Senzar, and the Stanzas, I shall not waste your time, nor mine ... for obvious reasons.

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

I have decided to bring up again the subject of the world Elohim. I did not want to discuss it while the discussion over the "us" people was raging, because there was a danger of mixing the two, and getting everything confused. However, since the discussion over the "us" people has finished, we can now revisit Elohim.

Elohim is the word translated from the original language into the English word God. Elohim is a male, plural word, meaning gods not God. If that definition is used, Genesis 1:1 translates as

"In the beginning, the gods created the Heaven and the Earth"

...which fits Theosophical teachings exactly.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"In the beginning, the gods created the Heaven and the Earth"
...which fits Theosophical teachings exactly.

Can I clarify, does that mean Theosophical Society is a polytheist doctrine, not monotheist? Or are you saying there are gods, but One God above all?

You have spoken of 'the Absolute', and I am unsure how you define the relation between God, gods and the Absolute in your schemata?

Thomas

[bananabrain]

good idea starting a new thread, chaps. perhaps now we can have a proper discussion. let me state my position straight out:

if you wish to demonstrate that a hebrew text says something other than what we say it says, you will have to offer some kind of proof for it other than mere assertion.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

you want to know why the Hebrew Old Testament is not the "unadulterated, perfectly preserved, untainted and utterly precise Word of G!D," then we will need to do more than trot out two or three little examples of alterations in the script. Give me a freakin break already, will ya?

considering you are addressing the fundamentals of my faith, i don't think i will give you a break. i would say that since our position is that the Torah (as opposed to the rest of Tanakh, incidentally) remains as it was Revealed in terms of its *consonantal sequence* (as opposed to vowel-pointing or consequent interpretation for example) then all you have to do for a start is produce a document that demonstrates a variant reading of just one letter. of course the difficulty is that it cannot be reliably demonstrated that the said document is the "original" and that the masoretic text we rely on has been "doctored".

Argue from an Orthodox Jewish position, and watch how fast I can vacate the proverbial room and leave a vacuum

well, that's the problem, isn't it, since the assertion that the Torah itself is a "composite document", known as the "documentary hypothesis", remains academic theory and a pretty daft one at that, even if it remains, astoundingly, the view of the "scholarly consensus", at least the ones who can't bring themselves to admit the possibility of agreeing with traditional scholars more learned than themselves, or the possibility of Divine Revelation. nobody has so far produced a single one of these spurious "source texts", be it J, E, P, or Q, so why anyone should "believe" in their existence without any evidence is beyond me, at least in my understanding of the laws of evidence work.

I would say this, however. If you seriously want to know a bit about even the first book of the Torah, as far as what Theosophy has to say about it, then either order, or borrow, any of a set of several books by Geoffrey Hodson entitled, `The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible.'

sheesh. it always seems to be a bit of a red herring when someone says "oh, deary me, read this four-volume book, it'll prove that i'm right." i am at liberty to suggest that you first read the book "the written and oral Torah" by r. nathan lopes cardozo (at the very, very least) and study the whole of chumash with rash"i before you suggest anything about what the Torah means. i understand this geoffrey hodson chap was a leading light of the theosophical society for decades - but did he study with traditional jewish teachers? did he study the Oral Law? did he know hebrew and aramaic? in short, was he jewishly literate? if not, it is hard to see how he is qualified to comment on the plain meaning of the text, let alone its "hidden wisdom", which is a matter that requires at the very least, more facility with the Text than the ability to pick apart an english translation.

In English, it means that our Souls are all Individual Beings, each with its own history, spiritual evolution and destiny - apart from our own in the sense that the Soul is one full turn ahead on the evolutionary spiral. In a former cycle, they were as we are, and they too, had to overcome the tests and trials of life incarnate in form (the same types of form as we are experiencing).

in other words, classical soul theory, as i'd call it. you live as a worm, then get promoted as you go on. although the transmigration of souls (gilgulei nefesh) is a well-established esoteric belief within judaism, nobody claims that their opinions are demonstrably factual, although there are a number of rabbis of the "wonder-working" schools, both hasidic and sephardic, who claim to be able to identify the "hosts" of previous transmigrations at least in human terms, although needless to say and regardless of my own beliefs, this could hardly be said to stand up to a laboratory test. in other words, all of this is speculation, so one opinion is likely to be measured against another, so no resolution is really possible.

many human beings were - literally - animals, in the pre-Atlantis, or Lemurian period (Root Race) on planet Earth. This concerns a time in human history before G!D Divided the sexes, and if you don't like the fact that we can speak frankly of [G!D] as Jod-Hevah, male-female, then again, I suggest we take that up elsewhere, as it would only serve to derail this thread.

i am well aware of the gender dynamics of the Divine Names, so you needn't worry about that. in terms of dividing the sexes, this is, as you may know, a long-established tradition we have from the midrash. in terms of "root races", this process is described in some detail within the book of genesis, although it should not be understood literally, as i have pointed out in several places - although we don't use names such as "atlantis" or "lemuria", nor does anyone claim to possess a tradition that goes that far back - we would obviously treat claims of this nature with deserved scepticism. the oldest traditional claim we have is that certain texts (for example the sefer yetzirah, or the sefer raziel hamalach) contain traditions from abraham and adam respectively) but nobody seriously suggests this can be verified. we are a conservative bunch and we have a very, very conservative approach to non-provable beliefs.

But bananabrain, when it comes to New Age things, you of all people should know and appreciate where terms like this come from. What did the people do, while Moses was upon Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments? What was the nature of their reversion, and why? WHAT was it they crafted, in gold, to worship and adore?

to quote freud, unusually for me, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". although i appreciate that there are "seventy faces to Torah" and an almost infinite number of ways to interpret each verse, word, letter and symbol, we have a principle that we cannot *separate the Text from its plain meaning and context*. so interpretations, as i have seen many times, purporting to interpret this or that symbol in purely astrological terms, violate this plain meaning and context. although there is a long-established tradition of jewish astrology (based in part on the sefer yetzirah) there is also a principle that "ein mazal le-yisra'el", meaning that we are not subject to astrological determinism. to trawl through the Torah picking up anything that looks vaguely astronomical and building a house of cards around it appears to me to be a futile venture if it ignores the normative meaning of the *exoteric* Torah. the two simply cannot be divorced.

Originally Posted by Thomas

A late Greek tradition has it that Aristotle on his travel to the lands of the eastern Mediterranean met a very wise Jew from whom he learned much wisdom.

interesting - never heard of that. where's it from?

Besides, in Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, one feels a return to a polytheistic astral religion.

i don't know about that. if that were the case, surely the likes of the medieval church, to say nothing of al-ghazali, al-farabi, ibn ezra and maimonides, would have been unlikely to defend him.

We also don’t know of any “wise and knowledgeable man” approximating Ezra’s stature in the next few generations.

actually, we do. the "leaders of the generation" are pretty well documented in the Oral Law so, we could say that according to both josephus and the babylonian talmud, we have sources which say that shimon ha-tzadiq ( Simeon the Just - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) went to meet alexander the great on his progress through the near east. another candidate would be his disciple antigonos of sokho ( Antigonus of Sokho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) both of whom were alive during the life of aristotle, i believe. failing that, if aristotle himself travelled to the area, he could have met any one of the men of the "great assembly" established by ezra himself.

we're told that Moses had mastered all Egyptian learning, a passage that I think draws on the scene in Exodus where Moses engages in that battle of sorcery with the Egyptian wizards.

we certainly might conclude that moses, as an adoptive egyptian prince, was instructed in egyptian sorcery, although that was probably more of a priestly thing. however, there comes a point where the sorcerers can no longer keep up with the miracles moses performs under Divine sponsorship.

Originally Posted by Andrewx

we have the Kabbalistic (and ancient) idea that:
"The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god."
Nick shared this same quote recently, and it is relevant here, as this is a universal teaching, save where it has been excised from the Scripture, or amended, or concealed.

again, show me an ancient kabbalistic document where this sequence exists and another where it has been removed and you have a case; without it, this is nothing but the purest speculation, despite its superficial resemblance to kabbalistic thought.

i'll write more when i've got time, but it seems to me that all you've got here is HPB's take on the contemporary wellhausian higher criticism, most of which has been decisively debunked by the likes of driver, to say nothing of our own scholars.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Hi Bananabrain:

"Plato derived his idea of God from the Pentateuch. Plato is Moses translated into the language of the Athenians," wrote Numenius and was quoted by Eusebius.
Clearchus of Soli, quoted in Theodore Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme (Paris, 1895), pp. 10-11.

Re Aristotle: checking sources...

Besides, in Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, one feels a return to a polytheistic astral religion.
I'm with you on that point. Aquinas admired Aristotle for his method, but not the assumptions he drew from it. I think Aristotle is technically better than Plato(?), but he is also a precursor of empiricism.

surely the likes of the medieval church, to say nothing of al-ghazali, al-farabi, ibn ezra and maimonides, would have been unlikely to defend him.
Agreed.

Thomas

[Prober]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would say that since our position is that the Torah (as opposed to the rest of Tanakh, incidentally) remains as it was Revealed in terms of its *consonantal sequence* (as opposed to vowel-pointing or consequent interpretation for example)

b'shalom

bananabrain

Greetings, BB!

What is your position on the rest of the Tanakh as far as accuracy. I mean, how much does that vowel pointing and whatnot affect its accuracy.

Just curious...

Thanks,
Mark

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'll write more when i've got time, but it seems to me that all you've got here is ... contemporary wellhausian higher criticism, most of which has been decisively debunked by the likes of driver, to say nothing of our own scholars.

Hi bananabrain –
If you find time, as a Catholic I would find that really useful. Current Catholic theology 'accepts' the idea of J,E,P,D under the proviso that nothing is proved, but above all, the work is a work of Divine Revelation, in this instance the Pentateuch is regarded as the product of a 'Mosaic Tradition', if not authored by Moses himself, the work was produced 'in the spirit' of Moses, much like those (you know better than I) whose exegesis of the text is itself, to some degree, inspired.

(Big Catholic area with me - revelation ... inspiration ... we've developed quite a nuanced theology, although it still needs work)

On my course it's acknowledged that Protestant scholarship outstripped Catholic and they seem to have set some of benchmark for criticism, but there seemed precious little reference to Jewish scholarship, which I find surprising.

Anyway ... any direction you can point me in would be warmly received. Driver, for instance? Not S.R., I thought he was pro-Higher Criticism?

Thomas

[wil]

Namaste BB,

You gotta help me understand the simple stuff.

Moses brought down the five books complete...including the future history of all of his life after he brought them down...and this:

5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

And G-d buried him...and he wrote of his death, in sight of heaven, but would not reach it... and then some of the midrash talks about him being buried with the stone...and bubbling up later in the Nile, and Joseph having the stone...

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You asked,

"...does that mean Theosophical Society is a polytheist doctrine, not monotheist? Or are you saying there are gods, but One God above all?"

--> It is an interesting question. Theosophy is polytheistic as far as the creation of the Earth and humanity is concerned. The group of gods who created us (for example, Michael the Archangel) are still very much involved in what is going on here.

Now to your other question. Yes, there are gods, but they are part of a hierarchy of Archangels. At the top of the hierarchy is one creator deity (the Son), but this creator deity (so the Theosophical story goes) only appeared at the beginning of this universe (which agrees with the Christian story).

"You have spoken of 'the Absolute', and I am unsure how you define the relation between God, gods and the Absolute in your schemata?"

--> This is a wonderful question that strikes at the very heart of the Theosophical theory. In Theosophy, there is a clear distinction between God (the Son) and the Absolute.

As stated before, God (the Son) appeared, and then created the universe. But the Son only came from within the Absolute.

Which brings us to the question of the Absolute. There is no way to describe the Absolute. Its characterists are nothing but a mystery. The only way the Absolute can be described is in the negative — The Absolute is not this, not that, etc.

This now brings us to an important part of the story. In the Theosophical version of the creation story, we souls were let out (not forced out) of Heaven (not a Garden) in order to learn individuality.

At that time, it is said some of us souls tried to return to Heaven because of the fear of individulality and separateness. As a result, a veil was drawn between us and Heaven, keeping out those souls who wished to return to Heaven before they were ready.

That veil was the Firmamant of Genesis 1:7 — a veil that was drawn between Heaven and us. Here is that part of the story, as told in Theosophical literature.

[The Son] "...turned the Upper [greater light of Genesis 1:15] into a shoreless Sea of Fire, and the One Manifested into the Great Waters. Those who have won the vision of this Mind know well that shoreless Sea of flaming Light and those turbulent Waters [Genesis 1:2]. All that is ‘above’ the Universal Mind [the Son] (i.e. all that is unmanifested) appears simply as an impenetrable wall of Light, while the One Manifested (i.e. Mind itself) becomes the great ocean of manifested existence." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 147-148)

Such is the journey a soul makes from Oneness to separated awareness.

"Every [soul] feels itself to be separated because the divine self-affirmation of the Logos is forcing it to look outwards into the vortices of form; thus it ceases to pay attention to the inner unity. ... under the influence of the third Logos, the points [souls] in Mind rush out into separateness." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 324 & 192)

The Wall of Light (the Firmament) ensures we souls will not return to the Oneness until we are ready.

In conclusion, the Absolute is on the other side of the Firmament, causing us to know nothing about it.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

all you have to do for a start is produce a document that demonstrates a variant reading of just one letter. of course the difficulty is that it cannot be reliably demonstrated that the said document is the "original" and that the masoretic text we rely on has been "doctored".

Ah! THen bananabrain, you are saving us much trouble ... by making it clear - that your mind is already made up, and sealed, airtight, against any possibility of change. You see things one way, and even could I produce `proof,' you would only laugh, and walk away anyway.

Let's just skip all the bit in between, what say?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i understand this geoffrey hodson chap was a leading light of the theosophical society for decades - but did he study with traditional jewish teachers? did he study the Oral Law? did he know hebrew and aramaic? in short, was he jewishly literate? if not, it is hard to see how he is qualified to comment on the plain meaning of the text, let alone its "hidden wisdom", which is a matter that requires at the very least, more facility with the Text than the ability to pick apart an english translation.

As a matter of fact, Geoffrey's Teachers included perhaps every one of the Theosophical Mahatmas, at one time or another ... or darn near close, as well as numerous advanced members of the Devic (or Angelic) Kingdom (forgive my unfamliarity with a cognate term in the Hebrew tradition).

Further, Geoffrey's own Master was Philo Judeaus, with whom I suspect you will be at least somewhat famliar. As much high regard and respect I have for H.P. Blavatksy, and although I do maintain that her own contributions are unequalled along certain lines, and unparalleled in terms of what they represented at the time (or even today, in a certain context) ... I have long suspected that Hodson's clairvoyant and sibyllline gifts, his esoteric training and associations, and thus, in some ways, his own contributions to the modern esoteric movement - perhaps eclipse, or supersede, those of HPB.

The Light that he has cast, retrospectively, upon the Judeo-Christian, Egyptian, Hellenic, Hermetic, Kabbalistic and related traditions ... stands, or shines, for Itself. Either you can investigate along lines I have suggested, or do your own seeking, but we already know that it is a waste of time.

Please don't be impelled to feel slighted in the least simply because we are discussing the Hebrew tradition out of the context in which you are used to considering it. Certainly on the Comparative board we could look into this further, and if I were posting under `Judaism,' insisting that x, y and z is what the authors of the Pentateuch really meant ... and going on about how copyists have most certainly altered the meaning, not to mention the text ... then I could understand anything from defensiveness, to even outrage (though neither is productive, and one is really uncalled for).

Bananabrain, on this board, in this thread, I don't need to prove anything to you ... or to anyone else. AND WHY TRY???

Regarding the above, I'm not sure there's anything else to say ... but let me go on to the part where we actually engage something substantial, instead of quibbling over the less essentials.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in other words, classical soul theory, as i'd call it. you live as a worm, then get promoted as you go on. although the transmigration of souls (gilgulei nefesh) is a well-established esoteric belief within judaism, nobody claims that their opinions are demonstrably factual, although there are a number of rabbis of the "wonder-working" schools, both hasidic and sephardic, who claim to be able to identify the "hosts" of previous transmigrations at least in human terms, although needless to say and regardless of my own beliefs, this could hardly be said to stand up to a laboratory test. in other words, all of this is speculation, so one opinion is likely to be measured against another, so no resolution is really possible.

Theosophists and quite a number of modern esotericists maintain that there are indeed authorities (mentioned above, in relation to Geoffrey Hodson) who can and do have insight into any given Soul's previous incarnations ... at least relative to the Human Kingdom. The insight of a Buddha would quite possibly, if not likely, direct his gaze even backward into the Animal Kingdom - but the study quickly becomes difficult if we are seeking to trace the evolution of a particular `Monad' (this being the Theosophical term for the `Father Who Art in Heaven' of Christianity, though not quite a literal equivalent to an `elohim' in the Hebrew tradition ... I think the term may be bnei 'elohim).

There is much confusion, and I still have far more questions than answers, when it comes to the distinctions between even what esotericists, in their own, evolving understanding, call, the Soul, the personality, the Solar Angel, the Triad, the Spark, the Monad, the Planetary Logos (or Logoi), and so on ... including distinctions between Major and minor Logoi, etc.

The existence of a strictly individual, human soul, is not said to "properly exist" until an ANIMAL Monad reaches `Individualization' ... and for some of us, this is only a few million years ago, here on this planet - while for others, it was on THE MOON. Despite the best efforts of gifted Theosophical seers such as Leadbeater and Besant, it is my own humble opinion that far, far more accurate studies have been done, and that much of the description we find, even of Lemurian or Atlantean Humanity, on this planet, is subject to glamour and inaccuracy.

Yet if some of us were incarnating as equivalent `Humans' on the moon (quite different in appearance during our earlier evolution from that dead planet which now decays, billions of years later, before our very eyes) ... if this was so, who will remember it? We cannot usually even recall what happened last time around (!), so why should something so obscure, and remote in antiquity, be either easily verifiable, or necessarily easily comprehensible?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in terms of dividing the sexes, this is, as you may know, a long-established tradition we have from the midrash

Nope, didn't know!

I willingly, openly, even blithely confess my ignorance ... for if I don't start somewhere, I will never have the opportunity to move any closer to enlightenment!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

terms of "root races", this process is described in some detail within the book of genesis, although it should not be understood literally

Why not? Theosophy certainly does regard all of this as literal. Even the various Adams, symbolic as they may be, represent literal phases in Humanity material, and spiritual, evolution!

A snippet from An Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary:

Adam 'adam (Hebrew) [from 'adam to be red, ruddy] Used in Genesis for man, original mankind; the Qabbalah enumerates four Adams. The Archetypal or Heavenly Man ('Adam Qadmon) is the prototype for the second, androgyne Adam. From these two emanates the third Adam, preterrestrial and innocent, though still further removed from the divine prototype Adam Qadmon. The fourth Adam is "the Third Adam as he was after the Fall," the terrestrial Adam of the Garden of Eden, our earthly sexual humanity (Qabbalah Myer 418).

With regard to the elohim bringing man forth "in their own image" (tselem), Blavatsky says: "The sexless Race was their first production, a modification of and from themselves, the pure spiritual existences; and this as Adam solus. Thence came the second Race: Adam-Eve or Jod-Heva, inactive androgynes; and finally the Third, or the 'Separating Hermaphrodite,' Cain and Abel, who produce the Fourth, Seth-Enos, etc." (SD 2:134).

Again, "finally, even the four 'Adams' (symbolizing under other names the four preceding races) were forgotten; and passing from one generation in to another, each loaded with some additional myths, got at last drowned in that ocean of popular symbolism called the Pantheons. Yet they exist to this day in the oldest Jewish traditions, as the Tzelem, 'the Shadow-Adam' (the Chhayas of our doctrine); the 'model' Adam, the copy of the first, and the 'male and female' of the exoteric genesis (chap. i); the third, the 'earthly Adam' before the Fall, an androgyne; and the Fourth -- the Adam after his fall, i.e. separated into sexes, or the pure Atlantean. The Adam of the garden of Eden, or the forefather of our race -- the fifth -- is an ingenious compound of the above four" (SD 2:503). See also `OLAM; SEPHIRAH

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nor does anyone claim to possess a tradition that goes that far back - we would obviously treat claims of this nature with deserved scepticism. the oldest traditional claim we have is that certain texts (for example the sefer yetzirah, or the sefer raziel hamalach) contain traditions from abraham and adam respectively) but nobody seriously suggests this can be verified. we are a conservative bunch and we have a very, very conservative approach to non-provable beliefs.

Now you see, while I can understand this - and certainly appreciate that it is your right, and your prerogative to believe as you so choose .... Theosophical and other esoteric teachings do maintain that far, FAR more ancient sources have been preserved. Some of these are physical, some are in the subtler ethers of one world or another.

I am aware of Lemurian-era documents, or Wisdom, impressed into the ethers via means that most of us would quite likely find intriguing, if we believed them at all ... and then of course, there are other seers besides HPB (the Messenger of the Mahatmas) who have glimpsed various portions of the Akash with regard to early human evolution.

Edgar Cayce, for example, though he was a `Sleeping Prophet,' and thus mediumistic (in a way that HPB and the Theosophists would never approve of, or advocate (but then, Cayce did not SEEK to develop his gift, he simply applied it in service to others)) ... Cayce, was able to read some portions of the Astral Light, and/or Akash, or at least, various of his sources were. Thus, he too made his contribution in this field, whatever the accuracy of his insights may have been (and we know from scientific confirmation how accurate were most of his "home remedies," or homeopathic prescriptions).

But in short and simple terms, Blavatksy was taught by the Eastern Adepts how to access both them, and the sources for her Work, in the subtle ethers ... so that she could serve as amanuensis (Messenger for the Masters, or Prophet - as per the Hebrew Prophets). The source of The Secret Doctrine is the Stanzas of Dzyan, translated from the Senzar language. Read as neutral a description of `Senzar' as you are likely to find, here, on Wikipedia.

To say that HPB created either this language, and its translations as the Stanzas of Dzyan, OR the 2 (or 3) volume Commentary (`The Secret Doctrine') and explanation which supports every assertion that she makes ... is purely absurd! A gifted writer, and a very creative woman she was, psychically gifted from the earliest age, and always watched over by her Master (Who knew her future work, or course).

Yet a liar, an intentional plaigiarist, a charlatan or fraud (yes, there are always examples to disprove the rule) ... all this she was NOT. And let those who slander her now, kiss her feet in the hereafter ... for the Light of her Soul will be blinding, and her Spiritual Will - her Strength of Soul - will only be surpassed by the Compassion and tenderness which she learned from The Source (sic), and demonstrated toward ALL.

I just get so tired of seeing Hypatia dragged, over and over again, while Cyril struts around like a pompous arse, smiling wryly ... as if this is no crime! But, this is all an aside ...

(too long, had to post more ... on Senzar, to follow -->)

[AndrewX]

Regarding Senzar, and the Stanzas of Dzyan, we can learn best from the source ... though, actually, I'm just going to go with a brief portion from the Proem (of `The Secret Doctrine,' p. 42-43), as I think this is relative to something you said above, Bananabrain:

The Stanzas which form the thesis of every section are given throughout in their modern translated version, as it would be worse than useless to make the subject still more difficult by introducing the archaic phraseology of the original, with its puzzling style and words. Extracts are given

from the Chinese Thibetan and Sanskrit translations of the original Senzar Commentaries and Glosses on the Book of DZYAN — these being now rendered for the first time into a European language. It is almost unnecessary to state that only portions of the seven Stanzas are here given. Were they published complete they would remain incomprehensible to all save the few higher occultists. Nor is there any need to assure the reader that, no more than most of the profane, does the writer, or rather the humble recorder, understand those forbidden passages. To facilitate the reading, and to avoid the too frequent reference to foot‐notes, it was thought best to blend together texts and glosses, using the Sanskrit and Tibetan proper names whenever those cannot be avoided, in preference to giving the originals. The more so as the said terms are all accepted synonyms, the former only being used between a Master and his chelas (or disciples).

Thus, were one to translate into English, using only the substantives and technical terms as employed in one of the Tibetan and Senzar versions, Verse I would read as follows: — ʺTho‐ag in Zhi‐gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch‐hog not; Thyan‐Kam not; Lha‐ Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not; Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho‐og Yinsin in night of Sun‐chan and Yong‐grub (Parinishpanna), &c., &c.,ʺ which would sound like pure Abracadabra.

As this work is written for the instruction of students of Occultism, and not for the benefit of philologists, we may well avoid such foreign terms wherever it is possible to do so. The untranslateable terms alone, incomprehensible unless explained in their meanings, are left, but all such terms are rendered in their Sanskrit form. Needless to remind the reader that these are, in almost every case, the late developments of the later language, and pertain to the Fifth Root‐Race. Sanskrit, as now known, was not spoken by the Atlanteans, and most of the philosophical terms used in the systems of the India of the post‐Mahabharatan period are not found in the Vedas, nor are they to be met with in the original Stanzas, but only their equivalents. The reader who is not a Theosophist, is once more invited to regard all that which follows as a fairy tale, if he likes; at best as one of the yet unproven speculations of dreamers; and, at the worst, as an additional hypothesis to the many Scientific hypotheses past, present and future, some exploded, others still lingering. It is not in any sense worse than are many of the so called Scientific theories; and it is in every case more philosophical and probable.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

to quote freud, unusually for me, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". although i appreciate that there are "seventy faces to Torah" and an almost infinite number of ways to interpret each verse, word, letter and symbol, we have a principle that we cannot *separate the Text from its plain meaning and context*. so interpretations, as i have seen many times, purporting to interpret this or that symbol in purely astrological terms, violate this plain meaning and context. although there is a long-established tradition of jewish astrology (based in part on the sefer yetzirah) there is also a principle that "ein mazal le-yisra'el", meaning that we are not subject to astrological determinism. to trawl through the Torah picking up anything that looks vaguely astronomical and building a house of cards around it appears to me to be a futile venture if it ignores the normative meaning of the *exoteric* Torah. the two simply cannot be divorced.

But bananabrain, you make this sound like Earth came first ... and that all else simply unfolded, or evolved around us - the most important planet, part, aspect, Creation, or spot, in Cosmos.

You didn't say that, but it is my opinion that at some point, sooner or later, we all must come to a rather simple, visually and experientially verifiable (sic!) understanding of our role in the scheme of things ... based even on modern astronomical science - and not dependent alone on the ancients, or even esoteric astrology ... and this realization seems crucial to properly understanding what the more gifted, ancient seers, astrologer-astronomers (Persian Magi, for example), et al simply took as granted.

How do I/we know? How can we say such things? Well, there are traditions, teachings (some from these very Magi, writing NOW, or in more recent centuries) ... and very clear indications, and these alone could be the topic of another thread. The other way we can KNOW what the Ancients believed, I'll mention below.

But as for some of these basics - in other words, what on earth am I talking about (it's late, I'm parched, I must wind this down) - we could start with sujch ideas as:

• The verifiable existence of a 25,900 year Zodiacal cycle, during which OUR SUN (and entire Solar System) ORBITS another stellar body, or center ... and yes, we can clearly see that this was understood millions of years ago (by some).
• The division, therefore, of this cycle - according to at least one method of astrology (the Study of the Stars) into 12 equal arcs, or portions, in the sky ... each 30 degrees in measurement, for the total of the 360 degree CIRCLE we call the Greater Zodiac.
• Further, according to varying mythologies and religious or spiritual teachings (varying based on culture, already-established traditions, geographical and other factors) ... each zodiacal position through which our System passes, for an approximate duration of 2158 years, can be thought of in terms of the major and minor constellations, as well as stars & other celestial bodies, which can be observed and studied (as well as esoterically `registered').

And so on. What does this have to do with the Torah, or with the idea that not quite all of the ancient Revelations from `Father God' are bound between the pages of the Hebrew - or any other - Scripture? EVERYTHING

Because a Theosophic, or esoteric doctrine, will indicate that Messengers have come to Humanity - from our earliest days upon this planet (or any other, for that matter) - to Teach and Guide us, with respect to everything from our material (or physical, psychic and physiological) evolution ... to our more cultural, and intellectual evolution ... to the development of civilization itself, and advancing technology ... to spiritual and religious evolution, and the gradual establishment of a state-supported (and sometimes "church-sponsored") educational institution ... and leading, inevitably & eventually, to a system of (global or worldwide) government worthy of direct, Divine "endorsement" - or ratification.

Much confusion exists, especially among those who have really never taken the time to read what is asserted regarding the Theosophical Messenger, H.P. Blavatksy, as to what it might mean when we say that God sends forth "His" Messengers, or Prophets, along several `Ray lines' ... such that HPB represents the First Ray emissary, coming at the close of the 19th Century (such efforts