Pentateuch Wisdom

[Dondi]

BB, you crack me up. I mean really, I was rolling on the floor.

"ah, so now we come to it, the separation into the "goodies" of occultism and the "baddies" of monotheism. so she's accusing the Temple cultus of being pantheistic? what utter bilge. yet more unsupported assertions."

"here we see two classic howlers:..."

"this is so ignorant it actually makes me laugh out loud"

"and here we have it, the central turd of ignorance."

Lucky I wasn't drinking something on that one, lest my computer would have extinguished in a spark of flames and smoke.

You responses are classic. That's why I love reading your posts.

Man, I can feel you frustration, BB. But you take it with such style. Just so you know, I'm with you on this.

"why do i have to wade through these copious reams of waffle? stick to the point - don't just post chapters and chapters, as if you are hoping i'll give up under the sheer verbosity of it all?"

Hahahahahaha! That's great!

[wil]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

btw, i don't mean to be rude here, but why, for heaven's sake, can't you guys be more concise? why do i have to wade through these copious reams of waffle? stick to the point - don't just post chapters and chapters, as if you are hoping i'll give up under the sheer verbosity of it all?

Namaste BB,

I thought I was...yet you didn't address it.

Ok to narrow it down further than my previous question...Did Moses bring down off Sinai the books that told of his own life and death?

[Dondi]

If I may be so bold. It seems obvious to me that someone other than Moses wrote of his own death and burial. I would surmise that the most likely candidate was Joshua, being Moses' successor. And really I don't think it detracts from the Mosiac authorship of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. It was a necessary addition to bring to a close the life of Moses. God after all spoke to Joshua as He did with Moses. Think of it as sort of in the context of the "spirit of Elijah" that was put upon Elisha.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Thanks for those succinct answers. It gives me an insight into what is fundamental to our systems, their commonalities and their differences. Obviously both our respective schemata go into a lot greater depth, but we have to start somewhere. I think a lot of the difference lies in the understanding of terms, so lexical terms need to be uinderstood in contxet, before the theological or metaphysical.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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.

Working back, the angels in the Christian Tradition are likewise 'usefully engaged', according to their place. Dionysius the Areopagite details the metaphysics of this in his Celestial Hierarchy. Michael the Archangel, for instance, in the tradition is tasked with keeping an eye on the fallen Lucifer. Some mistakenly assume Good and Evil stand equal in opposition – this is more Zoroastrainism than Christianity.

The angels, however instrumental in the process of creation, are not First Principle as such, and the Tradition looks always to the First Principle, and accords the title 'God' to that alone. Anything subsequent can be divine, but by appropriation (by above) or grace (from above), not by its intrinsic nature – 'none is good, but God alone' points to this axiomatic ontology. The angels fashion according to the Divine Fiat, but still we regard God as the First Cause of All, for what is done, to be 'good' arises in Him.

There is an argument that in the Old Testament one can trace a passage from polytheism to monotheism in Abram's call from out of Chaldea, a jorney from there to what one scholar described (of Jeremiah) as 'the supermonotheism of the desert', which I find particularly pleasing.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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).

I can see how you would interpret it so, but this is not how we understand it. For us there is a difference between angel and archangel, and between all angelic orders and God. Again, the idea that the Son only appeared at the start of creation is not Christian doctrine – it had 'been around' in some peripheral sects and became the focus of Christology when preached by the presbyter Arius (3rd century), and the error shows a too-great a reliance upon speculative philosophy and an insufficient grasp of the data of Revelation.

The term 'elohiym' is used, as you note, of the Divine Assembly, but it is also used of angels, men (in their function as judges), pagan gods and fetish carvings, so the term has to be read in context, rather than simply literally.

In the Christian Tradition the Trinity is pre-cosmic or metacosmic, and signifies the principle under which creation can occur. One could argue that God/Absolute/Trinity only 'appears' at the beginning of the universe because prior to that that was nothing to apprehend God, and so from a cosmological perspective that is understandable.

From our perspective God 'knows' Himself as Absolute and as Trinity prior to all or any manifestation. Then, the Creation happens through the Son, according to the will of the Father. Everything was 'in' the Son before the foundation of the world.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

In Theosophy, there is a clear distinction between God (the Son) and the Absolute.

In Christianity, with its emphatic focus on the principle (its heritage in the Greek philosophic tradition) there is not quite the same 'absolute' distinction, but this requires a profound study of Trinitarian metaphysics ... I have offered a precis before, accessible here Is Christianity a Negative Religion?.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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.

Same here. In Christianity we call this Apophatic Theology. The philosophers end up with such terms as 'beyond being' which is another way of saying beyond anything you can conceive. I like Anaximander's Apeiron (Boundless), the Patristic Arche Anarchos (Principle without principle), or simply the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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.

For us, the soul as an uncreated potentiality resides in the Absolute (as everything must), but as such it is undifferentiated and has no 'being' or 'reality'. In simple terms one could say it is an 'idea', but not an essence or an actuality.

When God the soul becomes created, an individuality, but the moment of its creation is also and simultaneously a 'movement' – from nothing to something. The end result of this movement is the source of its arising, which is its perfection, and the perfection of any created thing resides in the mind of its creator.

- A soul knows itself as 'other than' ... it knows itself as other than another soul for example, so a soul is aware of its individuality by its awareness of 'the outside world'.
– A soul, by means of its interiority, (can) communicate and commune with the interiority of all other souls, all other 'things' that are its equal or below (a low thing cannot know the interiority of its higher cause without the higher cause first implanting that knowledge in the thing it causes).
– Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity)
- The soul of a thing can be likened to its own logoi, everything has a logoi, its principle, and that is its soul. The logoi of man, and of creation, issues from the Logos.
- A soul being created, and being the perfect image and likeness of what its creator decides it to be, is 'in heaven' by virtue of the fact that it is its total good, it lacks for nothing nor requires of anything more to be itself (other than the continued will of the creator which holds it in being)

So souls come into existence in 'Paradise' ... the Fall occurs because the tendency of individuation (part of the movement implicit in its creation) is 'away from' and 'down from' its source ... and the soul must resist this by constant reference to its own source (its original and eventual good, which resides in God).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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)

We too hold the waters above as the unmanifested and the waters below as manifested, and the firmament lies between, encompassing the degrees of formless and formal manifestation as such. This accords with the Vedic texts, curiously enough, when one penetrates the veils of symbolism into the metaphysics of the matter.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"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.

Well we have only one Logos, the Principle of Logos as such ... all subsequence are instances of that principle in operation, so are logoi ... as stated before, I think this is an area where Theosophy (as do many other systems) sees Trinity cosmologically, so they pop up everywhere, whereas Christianity focusses on the Divine Principle as such, prior to any cosmological consideration.

My favourite example is the Vedic Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), one can allocate a Person of the Trinity to each quality, and all three to each one, but the Vedic triune describes cosmological principle, that of being, etc., whereas the Trinity is prior to that.

We have not quite so a 'mechanical' or 'structural' separation (as it appears, although I accept that the language is probably symbolic); rather, if one considers Scripture, the cause of separation (the Fall) was moral, and of a free choice, it was not 'required' nor was the world created that way - the fall is not a physical nor metaphysical necessity. As the Moslems say "God (the Absolute) is closer to you than your jugular vein" - what determines separation is the distance between God's will and man's will - once man manages to 'detach' himself from his passions and appetites, he rises 'naturally' to somewhere 'a little higher than the angels'.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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

Indeed and yet - the mystery of being - we can posit it is there.

Eriugena expressed this most succinctly as:
That which is not created and creates;
That which is created and creates;
That which is created and does not create;
That which is not created and does not create.

That last is an apophatic statement which, like the Absolute, can only be arrived at by reason and intuition - a bit like the Void of Buddhism ... a 'negative' space can only be assumed because of what's around it, there can be no knowledge of it Itself ... and yet it communicates Itself ...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

If I may be so bold. It seems obvious to me that someone other than Moses wrote of his own death and burial. I would surmise that the most likely candidate was Joshua, being Moses' successor. And really I don't think it detracts from the Mosiac authorship of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. It was a necessary addition to bring to a close the life of Moses. God after all spoke to Joshua as He did with Moses. Think of it as sort of in the context of the "spirit of Elijah" that was put upon Elisha.

I've read that contention...and then read the insistance of some that it was all written by Moses...which would seem to me have excited the people had they read it then.

We've also touched on some of the other items which bring single authorship into question...the two versions of creation and the flood...I've also read numerous thoughts on that but would appreciate more info.

[Dondi]

I found a link that explores this in a bit more detail.

"On this subject the following note from an intelligent Jew cannot be unacceptable to the reader:- "Most commentators are of opinion that Ezra was the author of the last chapter of Deuteronomy; some think it was Joshua, and others the seventy elders, immediately after the death of Moses; adding, that the book of Deuteronomy originally ended with the prophetic blessing upon the twelve tribes: 'Happy art thou, O Israel! who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord,' &c.; and that what now makes the last chapter of Deuteronomy was formerly the first of Joshua, but was removed from thence and joined to the former by way of supplement. This opinion will not appear unnatural if it be considered that sections and other divisions, as well as points and pauses, were invented long since these books were written; for in those early ages several books were connected together, and followed each other on the same roll. The beginning of one book might therefore be easily transferred to the end of another, and in process of time be considered as its real conclusion, as in the case of Deuteronomy, especially as this supplemental chapter contains an account of the last transactions and death of the great author of the Pentateuch."-Alexander's Heb. and Eng. Pentateuch."

Source: Clarke's Commentary - Deuteronomy 34

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

and that what now makes the last chapter of Deuteronomy was formerly the first of Joshua, but was removed from thence and joined to the former by way of supplement. This opinion will not appear unnatural if it be considered that sections and other divisions, as well as points and pauses, were invented long since these books were written; for in those early ages several books were connected together, and followed each other on the same roll.

This is where it appears to me you can't have your cake and eat it to. As BB inferred to before if you can't produce the P, E, D texts...how can you claim they exist...but then we want to say that Joshua, no Ezra wrote it, no it was the first of Joshua at one time...is there evidence of this?....Several books were connected together? Like the Gen1/Gen2 creation stories or the two versions of Noah? To satisfy the Yahwists and the Elohists? or to satisfy those that followed the Bethlehem v. Jerusalem texts?

[AndrewX]

Hmmm, tell ya what, bananabrain ... it's going to be a whole lot easier if we just agree to disagree - and fageddaboudit!!!


The best I can do, is to quote again, from `The Secret Doctrine,' p. 41:

Once that the reader has gained a clear comprehension of [the basic conceptions of the Secret Doctrine] and realised the light which they throw on every problem of life, they will need no further justification in his eyes, because their truth will be to him as evident as the sun in heaven.

You ask for this justification. You wish me to justify why I do not regard the Pentaeuch Wisdom in the same light you do ... and Thomas puts to me the same challenge, yet he does so from the perspective of a Roman Catholic!

Even Nick, who is a Theosophist, and a member of the Theosophical Society, I believe ... will not likely agree with every statement I make, since my perspective and understanding as an esotericist is not 100% in line with what every Theosophist believes, or what Nick believes!

So, look again ... see what HPB said. I agree, bananabrain, handing you several bound volumes, and saying, "Here, go read this and come back to talk about it!" ... is fairly laughable, and I wouldn't even expect you to read an abridgement of the SD. It's just too much for someone, for anyone, who is already perfectly comfortable with seeing things the way they see them, and not wishing to potentially risk seeing a great deal of what they hold as Sacred, and the word of God, turned upside down!

As for me, I need no further justification ... nor do I feel the need to justify,before another living soul ... that which I have come - to hold sacred, and the inspired word of the Finger of God, via one of His Messengers!

Peace ... Shalom,

and Namaskar,

~andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"Thanks for those succinct answers. It gives me an insight into what is fundamental to our systems, their commonalities and their differences."

--> I think the both of us agree that we are trying to find what we have in common, and it is a valuable search.

"Obviously both our respective schemata go into a lot greater depth, but we have to start somewhere."

--> You would be surprised the detail Theosophy goes into.

"Some mistakenly assume Good and Evil stand equal in opposition – this is more Zoroastrainism than Christianity."

--> I was fascinated to hear of this Zoroastrainism connection only recently.

"The angels, however instrumental in the process of creation, are not First Principle...."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"...Tradition looks always to the First Principle, and accords the title 'God' to that alone."

--> I apologize if I am splitting hairs, but Theosophy separates God from the Absolute for this very reason. The Absolute is called That Without A Beginning, The Causeless Cause. So, we reserve the title First Principle for God.

"Anything subsequent can be divine..."

--> That is an interesting idea and might turn into an interesting thread, but our discussion focuses on "what came before God" (so the Theosophical story goes).

"The angels fashion according to the Divine Fiat, but still we regard God as the First Cause of All, for what is done...."

--> This is strikingly similar to the Theosophical position.

There is an argument that in the Old Testament one can trace a passage from polytheism to monotheism in Abram's call from out of Chaldea...."

--> This is fascinating, especially as Theosophy labels itself as polytheistic.

"For us there is a difference between angel and archangel, and between all angelic orders and God."

--> On this we agree. Theosophy, however, takes it a bit further, and says there are many tiers of angels. A simple two-tiered system of simply angels and archangels is not nearly enough. (I count ten tiers in Theosophy, and there may be more.)

"...the idea that the Son only appeared at the start of creation is not Christian doctrine..."

--> It is, however, as idea Theosophy agrees with.

"The term 'elohiym' is used, as you note, of the Divine Assembly...."

--> I like that.

"...but it is also used of angels, men (in their function as judges), pagan gods and fetish carvings, so the term has to be read in context, rather than simply literally."

--> I think this gets us into the ten-plus tiers of angels that I mentioned above.

"In the Christian Tradition the Trinity is pre-cosmic or metacosmic...."

--> Technically, we agree (I think). "Cosmic" (in Theosophy) applies to the universe, and the Trinity (in Theosophy) appeared before the universe. (I am not sure about the Christian version.) The Trinity is also said to be pre-manifest, pre-differentiated, and "Arupa", which gets into concepts that are probably not Christian.

"One could argue that God/Absolute/Trinity only 'appears' at the beginning of the universe because prior to that that was nothing to apprehend God, and so from a cosmological perspective that is understandable."

--> If so, then Christianity and Theosophy agree.

"From our perspective God 'knows' Himself as Absolute and as Trinity prior to all or any manifestation. Then, the Creation happens through the Son, according to the will of the Father. Everything was 'in' the Son before the foundation of the world."

--> Theosophy agrees, disagress, and kind of agrees. We got 1.5 out of three, which ain't too bad.

"There is no way to describe the Absolute. --> Same here. In Christianity we call this Apophatic Theology."

--> Fascinating!

"...the soul as an uncreated potentiality resides in the Absolute (as everything must), but as such it is undifferentiated and has no 'being' or 'reality'. In simple terms one could say it is an 'idea', but not an essence or an actuality."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"When God the soul becomes created...."

--> You lost me on that one. Please explain.

"Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity)"

--> This will take a lengthy Theosophical response. I am running late, so I will get back to this later.

"The soul of a thing can be likened to its own logoi, everything has a logoi, its principle, and that is its soul. The logoi of man, and of creation, issues from the Logos."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"A soul being created, and being the perfect image and likeness of what its creator decides it to be, is 'in heaven' by virtue of the fact that it is its total good, it lacks for nothing nor requires of anything more to be itself (other than the continued will of the creator which holds it in being)"

--> Theosophy agrees.

"So souls come into existence in 'Paradise' ... the Fall occurs because the tendency of individuation (part of the movement implicit in its creation) is 'away from' and 'down from' its source...."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"... and the soul must resist this by constant reference to its own source (its original and eventual good, which resides in God)."

--> Finally we disagree (hah). The downward movement is seen (in Theosophy) to be perfectly natural and healthy. (Apparantly, Christianity does not agree.)

"We too hold the waters above as the unmanifested and the waters below as manifested...."

--> This is an agreement between the two philosophies I would not have dreamed possible.

"...and the firmament lies between, encompassing the degrees of formless and formal manifestation as such."

--> Theosophy agrees (I think). If Christianity has the concepts of formless manifestation and formal manifestation, then they agree with the Theosophical concepts of Arupa and Rupa, which I find astounding.

"This accords with the Vedic texts, curiously enough, when one penetrates the veils of symbolism into the metaphysics of the matter."

--> As I have stated countless times before, Christianity, the Vedas, and Theosophy all come from the same source (according to Theosophy).

"...we have only one Logos...."

--> This is only a matter of terminology. In Theosophy, the Logos is one, yet each of the three members is also called a Logos. We call the Son a Logos.

"I think this is an area where Theosophy (as do many other systems) sees Trinity cosmologically, so they pop up everywhere, whereas Christianity focusses on the Divine Principle as such, prior to any cosmological consideration."

--> That is an interesting way of looking at it.

"My favourite example is the Vedic Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), one can allocate a Person of the Trinity to each quality...."

--> Theosophy teaches that all religions taught the concept of the Trinity at one time.

"As the Moslems say "God (the Absolute) is closer to you than your jugular vein" - what determines separation is the distance between God's will and man's will - once man manages to 'detach' himself from his passions and appetites, he rises 'naturally' to somewhere 'a little higher than the angels'."

--> Fascinating! Theosophy agrees.

"That which is not created and creates;
That which is created and creates;
That which is created and does not create;
That which is not created and does not create."

From the unreal lead me to the Real.
From darkness lead me to Light.
From death lead me to Immortality.
Krishnamurti, "At The Feet Of The Master"
Modern Theosophy: At The Feet of the Master, Alcyone

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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.

Thank you, Nick! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!

This is wonderful! For quite some time I have felt that I was growing increasingly comfortable being able to ... sort of, describe my understanding of our relationship with `G-d'(s) ... in forward order - that is, in terms of how we go from here, to `there.'

But what I have not understood, in clear, simple terms (without too much heady theology, and needlessly complicated, terminology-laden philosophy) ... is how we've come into existence - "as Monads," to begin with, then proceeded to migrate "downwards," or `matter-wards,' from the Father's House ... as the Prodigal.

Until you shared this contribution from Barborka, I really didn't have a clear picture at all, despite my Sparks of the Flame analogy, which doesn't quite get at what Barborka has explained. And I had to look behind me, at that red, bound volume on `HPB, Tibet and Tulku,' and remember that I love the way G. Barborka describes some of the adventures of Theosophy's greatest Messenger!

I'm inspired to pick up my copy, and give it another look, though I know it won't go into depth on the topics at hand. Do you recommend the book from which you quoted, above, `Man the Measure of All Things?'


The one I recommend for a good Catholic seeking to understand just how it is that we Theosophically-inclined folks can dare to believe what we believe ... is Geoffrey Hodson's `Man the Triune God.' The table of contents (I think the url links are preserved below) from that book, found online here, includes:

THE EVERLASTING LIGHT
THE HEART OF BEING
COSMIC MAN
EARTHLY MAN
OMNIPRESENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
THE DISCOVERY OF SELF .
RULER, SCIENTIST AND PRIEST
SPIRITUAL ARISTOCRACY
THE BRIDGE
THE WAY OF RELEASE
MAN THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND
L´ENVOI THE SPIRITUAL NAME

And again, sadly, bananabrain doesn't feel inclined to touch Geoffrey Hodson's `Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible,' yet it provides exactly the kind of careful investigation and study of how the Penteuch Wisdom is not quite what it seems which (he?) has asked for. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!!

Then again, we can read an account of Emma Coloumb's, in which the Mahatmas are proved to be no more than some stuffed dummies that HPB went and placed here & there ... while our own K. Paul Johnson (?) is quite satisfied that he has unravelled the mystery regarding these bogus chaps quite conclusively.

I still find it humorous, for if you live amongst them, walk and talk with them, even dine with them ... and have the humble honor of serving alongside them ... what are we to do with our K. Paul Johnsons, and our doubting Thomases?

oh well ...

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

Since you are an advanced student, here are some books you absolutely must have.


Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish
Quest Books


Man, Son Of Man, by Ashish
(Sorry, I do not have the link handy.)


The Divine Plan, by Geoffrey Barborka
Quest Books


H.P. Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine Commentary: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge (online)
Secret Doctrine Commentary by H. P. Blavatsky
H.P. Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine Commentary: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge (hardcopy)
"Secret Doctrine Commentary: Stanzas I-IV: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge by H. P. Blavatsky, from Theosophical University Press


Barker, The Mahatma Letters (online)
The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett - comp. A. T. Barker
Barker, The Mahatma Letters (hardcopy)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/mahatlet.htm


Barborka, Secret Doctrine Q&A
eBay: Barborka SECRET DOCTRINE Q&A Occult Esoteric Reference (item 190089583630 end time May-04-07 12:54:45 PDT)

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity"

--> It is time to discuss the Theosophical version of the Creation Story. I will use Chrisitan terminology when appropriate (even though Theosophy does not use such terms) so that the story is more understandable to Christians.

First, we must look at Genesis 1:1

"The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Also Genesis 1:6

"Then God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' "

--> These are key parts of the Theosophical story.

First Spirit (The Father) ("Spirit" in Genesis 1:1) emerges from the Absolute ("Darkness"). Then, Matter (The Mother) emerges from the Absolute. Matter is symbolized as water ("Water" in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6).

(As a side-note both the letters M and W come from the same Egyptian hieroglyphic that means both Mother and Water. But I digress....)

This, then, is the Theosophical picture of Genesis 1:1. Spirit moved across the Waters, and shined Its light on it. Imagine, if you will, that there were billions of tiny waves and ripples on the water. Each ripple caught a part of the Ray, and so there were now billions of little reflections sparkling in the water, looking like tiny sparks. Those sparks were/are us.

Imagine, if you will, that each one of us is one of those billiions and billions of sparks of spirit in matter. The imagery fills me with awe every time I think of it.




“The Ray causes the Eternal Egg to thrill, the breath of life ripples the undifferentiated waters of the Mother, and the surface is covered with a myriad [of] facets in each of which the Sun of consciousness is reflected.” (Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish p. 111)

“Just as milliards of bright sparks dance on the waters of an ocean above which one and the same moon is shining, so our evanescent personalities — the illusive envelopes of the immortal [Soul] — twinkle and dance on the waves of [matter]. They last and appear, as the thousands of sparks produced by the moon-beams, only so long as the Queen of the Night radiates her lustre on the running waters of life: the period of a [billions of years]; and then they disappear, the beams — symbols of our eternal Spiritual Egos — alone surviving, re-merged in, and being, as they were before, one with the Mother-Source.” (Secret Doctrine vol I p. 237).

Now for our departure from Heaven.

The Absolute is a place of Oneness, not of individuality and self-consciousness. Indeed, one name for the Absolute is the One Reality. In order for us souls to experience individuality and self-consciousness, it would be necessary for us to leave Oneness and experience separateness — there could be no other way. So the door was thrown open and out we flew, newly-hatched ducklings thrilled with freedom.

“The sons [souls] dissociate and scatter....” (Stanzas of Dzyan i-3-11)

We immediately felt exhilarated. One fraction of a second later, we panicked at the thought of isolation and separation. But perhaps we knew it the only way for us to go, in order to make progress.

“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 in Mind rush out into separateness.” (Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish pp. 324 & 192)

That is the very beginning of the story. We also need to add the very end of the story — our eventual return to the Oneness.

“The sons [souls] dissociate and scatter, to return into their Mother's bosom at the end of the Great Day.” (Stanzas of Dzyan i-3-11)

This is our ultimate goal.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"I think this is an area where Theosophy (as do many other systems) sees Trinity cosmologically, so they pop up everywhere, whereas Christianity focusses on the Divine Principle as such, prior to any cosmological consideration."

--> Do you mean the Trinity appeared before the universe appeared?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by wil

I thought I was...yet you didn't address it.

oh sorry, wil (and dondi, too), you meant the last chapter of deuteronomy question, right? that's the problem with having to respond to so much at once. well, there are two standard responses, summarised by rashi on deuteronomy 34:5:

5. And Moses… died there.[Surely it isn't possible] that Moses died, and [then] wrote, “And Moses… died there”? But [the answer is:] Moses wrote up to that juncture, and Joshua wrote from then on. [NB - this means moses dictated, whereas joshua transcribed]

Says Rabbi Meir: But is it possible that anything could be missing from the Torah Scroll? For Scripture states (Deut. 31:26),“Take this Torah Scroll” [and Moses commanded this to the Levites; so, according to the above opinion, is it possible that the Torah Scroll referred to there was an incomplete one, up to the juncture of Moses’s death? This cannot be!] Rather, [continues Rabbi Meir, we must say that] The Holy Blessed One, Dictated this [i.e., the verse “And Moses… died there”], and Moses wrote it in tears.

so we see there are two possibilities suggested, but neither of them, you will notice, precludes moses' foreknowledge of his death. to be honest, i don't see why this would actually be a problem, i mean, the guy's old, he knows death is approaching, he writes "and he died there" and trusts in G!D to make it so. according to the rashi on verse 6, G!D actually conducted the burial as well, although he doesn't explain how the Torah scroll got back to the camp afterwards, if "no man knew of his burial place, unless he wrote it and gave it to joshua before leaving to go up mount nebo to die. either way, i don't see a difficulty if one can accept that moses and G!D had that kind of relationship, which is axiomatic for us.

now to return to the main subject of theosophistic, sorry, theosophic discussion... i noted that somebody brought up that old chestnut about the Divine Name ELo-HIM being a plural, thus "proving" polytheistic influence. now one of the things you may not know about biblical hebrew is that it has a number of different rules about person (and personal pronouns) as regards G!D, namely that when G!D appears to be referred to as "HOO" (which normally means "he") this is actually a *neutral*, not masculine form of address, albeit only when used for G!D. there are other places where G!D is referred to in terms that appear to be feminine, such as the the Name E-L ShaDaY, which relates to the term shadayim, or breasts, or the Name Ha-RaChaMaN, the Merciful One, which relates to the term rechem or womb. Elo-him is another such case and can be most usefully compared to the english "royal we", as when the queen says "we are graciously pleased to accept...etc"; biblical hebrew is the original exemplar of this construction. needless to say, this means that all this stuff about it being "gods" or "archangels" or whatever you want to call it is not supported by the actual Text.

Originally Posted by Thomas

There is an argument that in the Old Testament one can trace a passage from polytheism to monotheism in Abram's call from out of Chaldea, a jorney from there to what one scholar described (of Jeremiah) as 'the supermonotheism of the desert', which I find particularly pleasing.

i certainly agree with this - the biblical environment is one of ubiquitous and moreover idolatrous polytheism (not all polytheisms are equal) and this is the case for both the biblical hebrews and the post-biblical jews with widespread effect.

Several books were connected together? Like the Gen1/Gen2 creation stories or the two versions of Noah? To satisfy the Yahwists and the Elohists? or to satisfy those that followed the Bethlehem v. Jerusalem texts?

all of this can be explained by the *function* of the various Divine Names. as i have explained elsewhere several times, the fact that my mother is my mother and i call her "mum" does not change the fact that her grandchildren call her "gran-gran", or that my father calls her "my wife" and other people call her by her various proper names. we do not deduce from this that there are four or five people based upon her multiple identities and roles. furthermore, different writing styles are not evidence of different people. you think i write like this when i'm writing a paper for work, or a d'var Torah for synagogue, or talking to a journalist? not a bit of it. if you want a more concrete example, pick out the "lays" of lord macaulay, who also wrote the imperial law book for british india. the two styles are radically different, yet we do not conclude that there were two lord macaulays. for a detailed refutation of all these theories, i can suggest to you no better text than the soncino "hertz" chumash or pentateuch, which contains a number of essays decisively refuting the claims of the "higher criticism". it's a little dated now but all the more stunning for the fact that it's still valid. i don't know if it's worth buying the whole thing for the essays ( Amazon.com: The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text English Translation and Commentary: Books: Joseph H. Hertz ) but it's actually quite a good place to start in appreciating the jewish approach to the Torah when coming from a normative position of christian and critical scholarship. for the christians, though, rabbi hertz also devotes some effort to refute claims to christological references in the Torah, so you have been warned.

Originally Posted by Thomas

"Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity"

judaism, interestingly enough, kind of does. our tradition says there is a level of the soul known as the "YeHiDaH" which is that infinitesimal part which is actually a part of the Divine - the Divine Spark we often hear about.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

First Spirit (The Father) ("Spirit" in Genesis 1:1) emerges from the Absolute ("Darkness"). Then, Matter (The Mother) emerges from the Absolute. Matter is symbolized as water ("Water" in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6).

we say, rather, that darkness did not exist until G!D Created Light - darkness, as part of that statement became a necessary concomitant. in a real sense, what was being created was the concept of "opposition" itself. darkness, like evil, has no intrinsic reality - it is simply the lack of light, or good, if you like. water, you will further note, is divided into "above" and "below" the cosmos but it is not the same as "matter", as you put it. it is actually closer to an incubatory matrix, the petri dish in which life is created, as it were.

(As a side-note both the letters M and W come from the same Egyptian hieroglyphic that means both Mother and Water. But I digress....)

not at all - this is central to the argument; the hebrew letter "mem" which, when spelt ou