Pentateuch Wisdom

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> These (Gen 1:2 & 1:6) 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).

In Christian terms I'd say you were 'jumping the gun' here. In our metaphysics:
1:2. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
This, in somewhat poetic and mystical terms signifies the priority of the Kosmos as an idea (thus void and empty) in the mind of God before it comes into actuality – what is to be actualised is a Divine Decision – this is suggested by the relationship of dark and deep (both negative connotations, signifying the Absolute) and spirit and waters ...

'Water' and 'deep' in Christian metaphysics symbolises 'All-Possibility' (as it does in many others) and is the feminine (interior) aspect of the spirit, whereas 'fire' and 'light' are the masculine (outward) aspects ... so the 'waters' signify the totality of all, in all its modes of being – manifest and unmanifest, subtle and gross – we're still in the domain of the principle of manifestation, not yet into the material.

The light then (1:3) is the principle that all creation is imbued with the Divine Spirit (this should not be assumed – God could have made a creation in which he is utterly absent and unknowable) and thus can know its Creator.

The separation of light and darkness is the necessity of interiority and exteriority required for individuation. One might say objectivity and subjectivity. Also hierarchy – the light is good, and darkness, by its separation, is other than this good, although not evil, but stands in relationship to and with it.

So we have an order of distinction, and of relation, prior to any material creation (monad, dyad, henad... ).

The 'firmament' is the domain of manifestation, above is unmanifest manifestation, below is manifest manifestation - between are all the different degrees, domains, orders ... above is essence, below is substance.

Note here: by essence we mean that which receives and radiates the light, by substance (the materia prima of the scholastics, or prakriti of the Vedas) we mean not matter as such, but rather the blueprint of things, their pattern or form, in a Platonic sense ... how they are perceived, and necessarily a body...

So before discussing the particular forms ... be it 'planet' or 'person', the Christian speculative theologians asked 'what determines the material form?' and thus investigated such things as 'spacing', 'distance', 'movement' etc.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

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.

Christianity sees it differently. If the Absolute is One absolutely, then there cannot be anything other than ... so no creation ... so we say everything that is, has to be prefigured in the Absolute, else the Absolute is not absolute as such.

We're into 'not this, not that' land ...

So multiplicity is contained within it, and manifested 'outside' of it – a paradox resolved in Union in and with the Divine. So it is possible for souls to experience individuality and self-consciousness without separation from the source, and these are the Paradisical and Beatific states.

Take Eckhart, St John of the Cross, St Teresa ... a number of examples ... experiences this sublime state of Oneness ... and then returns to multiplicity ... technically, for a moment, the individual ceases to exist, then exists again ... this is either some quantum phenomena, or the person is held in God, even though God has dissolved all and any difference momentarily ...

The greatest gift of God is that sense of the absoluteness of self, something that only God has, but has given a sense of it to favoured creatures (men and angels) – that absoluteness, experienced interiorly, is Divine Union in the Principle or Logos, experienced 'outwardly' it is the desire to be the cause and source of our own light and existence ... to be self-determining ... the consequence of which is separation from that which sustains and in which we subsist, so the outcome is a fall toward extinction ...

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

DING!!! Wrong answer ...

Elohim 'elohim (Hebrew) [from 'eloah goddess + im masculine plural ending] The monotheistic proclivities, not only of the Jews but of Christian translators, have led to this word always being translated as God; yet the word itself is a plural form, nor is it in any sense necessarily a plural of majesty, as suggested by some monotheistic scholars. A correct rendering should denote both masculine and feminine characteristics, such as androgyne divinities. (ref)

Scholar or not, you are clearly in sympathy with this approach, bananabrain. I am not.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

Ah, but this is a different form of darkness entirely, a different use of the word. Forgive me if Nick, or someone else, has explained it since you posted. I just take these discussions up mid-stream sometimes, so I'm sure this confusion has probably already been cleared up.

(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....)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

not at all - this is central to the argument; the hebrew letter "mem" which, when spelt out as a word, is related to the word "MaYiM", which means "water" and to the word "ShaMaYiM", meaning "heavens". the letter mem itself is also "womb-shaped", having a cavity with a lower entrance, also having a numberical value of 40, which corresponds to the forty(ish) weeks of pregnancy. i don't know if the same is true of this egyptian hieroglyphic but if it's the one i'm thinking of (looks like \/\/\/\/ ) then i suspect not.

I'm not used to what you're saying here, bananabrain, but what's Nick talking about is something I have come across recently. If I find the link/source, I'll share it. Nick? (again, sorry if you've already responded)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

Neat!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this appears to me to be a direct derivative (although no doubt one could claim the opposite) of the kabbalistic doctrine of the scattered "nitzotzot" or sparks.

Neat!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in other words, you yourself have already made up your mind and, equally, nothing i can say is likely to change it. all i can say is that there's a *lot* more evidence for my point of view, which is derived from a 3000-year-old living culture and continuous tradition with millions of adherents around the world, than for your point of view, which is derived from what a bunch of occultists said they discovered a mere 100 years ago.

Horsefeathers! Show me where the Spiritual Hierarchy contradicts what They Themselves taught, via HPB, and THEN ask me to buy into his supposedly better evidenced viewpoint of yours.

What, you don't believe in, and accept, this Spiritual Hierarchy - even though they include such figures among Them as your own Moses, Aaron, Joshua ... Joshua again later, Benjamin, et al?

That's your problem, not mine.

i'm not saying there's no wisdom in what you're saying, but you can't expect to use the arguments of the C19th of all times to debunk the other point of view when you are far more likely to get debunked yourself. it's like trying to attack an elephant armed with a toothbrush. and claiming that you're going back to an even older tradition from the dawn of time (for which, conveniently, there is not a shred of evidence that anyone other than your "initiates" have ever seen) is not exactly persuasive, to put it mildly. i could, if i wished, appeal to our own mystical tradition which is argued by some to come directly from the wisdom of G!D Revealed to adam ha-rishon himself - but that's just one-upmanship. i prefer to go on the unfeasibly tenuous claims that you've made about a Text which we clearly know better than you and the other occultists do.

You are full of yourself, and I'm a bit disappointed that you don't have any more enlightened a point of view than that of a supposedly "chosen people," this entire nonsense about a "god" that plays favorites ... although, indeed, without a proper perspective, I think I do see why you feel that way.

It's no different than the same hogwash that informs the contemporary Christian mindset (Fundamentalists especially) ... and I really don't see much different in the end result when it comes to how all this jibberish affects them psychologically. But as I say, I have no need to justify one word of what I believe - to you, bananabrain - or to anyone.

So why don't you go on, practice what your tradition proscribes, and I will do likewise. Our paths will cross again, yet here, we each follow a different branch ...

Namaskar,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

The problem I see, Thomas, especially in such statements as "signifies the priority of the Kosmos as an idea (thus void and empty) in the mind of God before it comes into actuality" ... is (Christianity's) anthropomorphism.

Let me illustrate, by quoting directly from the Stanzas of Dzyan, which HPB provided from her Teachers ... and which bananabrain will have to just write off as fancy, since they've got all this stuff figured out, and invented God to start with.

The first three lines, of the First Stanza, will make my point:

1. "THE ETERNAL PARENT (Space), WRAPPED IN HER EVER INVISIBLE ROBES, HAD SLUMBERED ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVEN ETERNITIES.

2. TIME WAS NOT, FOR IT LAY ASLEEP IN THE INFINITE BOSOM OF DURATION.

3. . . . UNIVERSAL MIND WAS NOT, FOR THERE WERE NO AH-HI (celestial beings) TO CONTAIN (hence to manifest) IT.

In bold blue, you will see at least part of the problem that Theosophy has with this tendency to anthropmorphize. As Voltaire put it:

"If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor."

So let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's resist the temptation to fancy God as a giant person ...

Prior to even the first faint flutterings of Activity at Mahamanvataric Dawn ... there is no Universal (Divine) Mind.

Elaborating on this, on p. 38 of `The Secret Doctrine,' we read that:

(a) Mind is a name given to the sum of the states of Consciousness grouped under Thought, Will, and Feeling. During deep sleep, ideation ceases on the physical plane, and memory is in abeyance; thus for the time-being "Mind is not," because the organ, through which the Ego manifests ideation and memory on the material plane, has temporarily ceased to function. A noumenon can become a phenomenon on any plane of existence only by manifesting on that plane through an appropriate basis or vehicle; and during the long night of rest called Pralaya, when all the existences are dissolved, the "UNIVERSAL MIND" remains as a permanent possibility of mental action, or as that abstract absolute thought, of which mind is the concrete relative manifestation. The AH-HI (Dhyan-Chohans) are the collective hosts of spiritual beings -- the Angelic Hosts of Christianity, the Elohim and "Messengers" of the Jews -- who are the vehicle for the manifestation of the divine or universal thought and will. They are the Intelligent Forces that give to and enact in Nature her "laws," while themselves acting according to laws imposed upon them in a similar manner by still higher Powers; but they are not "the personifications" of the powers of Nature, as erroneously thought. This hierarchy of spiritual Beings, through which the Universal Mind comes into action, is like an army -- a "Host," truly -- by means of which the fighting power of a nation manifests itself, and which is composed of army corps, divisions, brigades, regiments, and so forth, each with its separate individuality or life, and its limited freedom of action and limited responsibilities; each contained in a larger individuality, to which its own interests are subservient, and each containing lesser individualities in itself.

Even bananabrain, if he will set aside his prejudice for a moment, can get something out of this ... yet since we have neither produced Moses himself, nor a new set of stone tablets - much less the Burning Bush of legend, I truly don't expect him to raise an eyebrow.

Anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism ...

- it will get you every time!

Please note that it is Cosmo-Genesis which precedes Anthropo-Genesis ... not vice versa. `Cosmos,' is from the Greek term κόσμος meaning "order, orderly arrangement, ornaments," being the antithesis of chaos (vide Wikipedia for more).

Now, we know good and well that in Hinduism, there is a disctinction between Nirguna Brahman, and Saguna Brahman ... and again, Wikipedia summarizes this for us nicely:

Advaita Vedanta philosophy says that for human eyes Nirguna Brahman is viewed as Saguna Brahman, or Brahman with personal attributes ...

So, in order to avoid the the tendency to anthropomorphize, as we see done both by Jews, and by Christians, Theosophists revertto an earlier understanding of Deity (the Supreme, or Ain Soph) ... as Nirguna Brahman.

And `The Secret Doctrine' will speak of this in great depth, with commentary, support, and evidence both from within every great world religious tradition ... as well as with scientific, philosophic, mathematical, and other evidence.

Bananabrain, you would find this too, but only if you take your own time to read HPB's writings - and look up the references yourself. I won't make that any easier for you.

~andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"This, in somewhat poetic and mystical terms signifies the priority of the Kosmos as an idea (thus void and empty) in the mind of God before it comes into actuality...."

Theosophy agrees. And, I must say, we are finding more and more that we agree upon, which is the true goal of Theosophy.

"...the feminine (interior) aspect of the spirit, whereas 'fire' and 'light' are the masculine (outward) aspects..."

--> Theosophy agrees, but we would say that Spirit is male and Matter is female, not that they are aspects of each. (Your philosophy would seem to say there is also a female aspect to Spirit if there is a male aspect, and the same for matter.)

"... so the 'waters' signify the totality of all, in all its modes of being – manifest and unmanifest, subtle and gross – we're still in the domain of the principle of manifestation, not yet into the material."

--> That is an interesting way of looking at it. By the way, Theosohy says the First Logo (Father) is unmanifest, the Second Logo (Father-Mother) is partially manifest and partially unmanifest, and the Third Logos (Son) is fully manifest. (I am not sure if we have any commonality here.)

"..we're still in the domain of the principle of manifestation, not yet into the material."

--> That is an interesting distinction that Theosophy does not make. We do say that, at this point that manifestation has occured, but everything is still "formless" — which may have the same meaning as you. (And if it does, this is fascinating!)

"The separation of light and darkness is the necessity of interiority and exteriority required for individuation."

--> I suppose this comes from the separation of light and darkness in Genesis 1, but Theosophy does not hold a similar teaching. In Theosophy, it is the only the separation from the Absolute that is necessary for individualization.

"One might say objectivity and subjectivity."

--> These are key Theosophical concepts.

"Also hierarchy – the light is good, and darkness, by its separation, is other than this good, although not evil, but stands in relationship to and with it."

--> Again, this is something Theosophy disagrees with, but I feel this goes back to Christianity teaching the idea of Satan and an evil universal darkness, while Theosophy teaches neither.

"So we have an order of distinction, and of relation, prior to any material creation (monad, dyad, henad... )."

--> Theosophy does too, but in a different way. I suppose it is only a matter of interpretation.

"The 'firmament' is the domain of manifestation, above is unmanifest manifestation, below is manifest manifestation...."

--> What is it that holds the two apart? The Firmament? Are you making a distinction between manifestation and manifest manifestation?

"...between are all the different degrees, domains, orders ... above is essence, below is substance."

--> This seems to be getting into the Theosophical idea that there is a lot more than a simple two-tier distinction of Angel and Archangel. (As I said before, Theosophy has at least 10 tiers. If there are domains, orders, etc., then how many tiers are there in Christianity?)

"...by essence we mean that which receives and radiates the light, by substance (the materia prima of the scholastics, or prakriti of the Vedas) we mean not matter as such, but rather the blueprint of things, their pattern or form, in a Platonic sense ... how they are perceived, and necessarily a body..."

--> Theosophy has the same concept, but a quick review of terms is in order. In Theosophy, Prakriti means Nature.

Link--> L

We also use the word Mulaprakriti, which literally means the Root of Nature.

Link--> PHX

Mulaprakriti, then, is a more basic "substance" than Prakriti. Theosophy would say Mulaprakriti corresponds to the Christian "essence".

In review, Mulaprakriti (in Theosophy) is the exact Waters that interacts with Sprit in Genesis 1:1, although that does not seem to be the Christian interpretation.

"Christianity sees it differently. If the Absolute is One absolutely, then there cannot be anything other than ... so no creation ... so we say everything that is, has to be prefigured in the Absolute, else the Absolute is not absolute as such."

--> Theosophy has several responses. One is that the Creation is just an illusion, a non-reality, which is what it is. Also, this another case of finite minds trying to understand the infinite, which is impossible.

A question: Isn't the Christian God also One absolutely? Or is God "over there" while we are "over here"?

"So multiplicity is contained within it, and manifested 'outside' of it – a paradox resolved in Union in and with the Divine."

--> The Christian position is just as paradoxical as the Theosophical position.

"So it is possible for souls to experience individuality and self-consciousness without separation from the source, and these are the Paradisical and Beatific states."

--> Here is the very paradox Theosophy speaks of.

"Eckhart, St John of the Cross, St Teresa ... [experience] this sublime state of Oneness ... and then returns to multiplicity...."

--> I need to clarify the difference between the two philosophies. Theosophy describes these experiences as the entering of Nirvana, which (according to Theosophy) is the removal of separateness, but is no way a reunion with the Absolute. (Obviously, Christianity disagrees.)

"... technically, for a moment, the individual ceases to exist, then exists again ... this is either some quantum phenomena, or the person is held in God, even though God has dissolved all and any difference momentarily ..."

--> A perfect description of Nirvana, except for the God part.

"The greatest gift of God is that sense of the absoluteness of self, something that only God has, but has given a sense of it to favoured creatures (men and angels)..."

--> I would like to highlight a Theosophical teaching that disagrees with Christianity. In Theosophy, humanity will become angels and then archangels (and many more levels in between), but getting there will take many more levels of existence. The three levels of nothing to human to angel are way too few for Theosophy.

"...that absoluteness, experienced interiorly, is Divine Union in the Principle or Logos..."

--> ...which is something Theosophy also teaches, but says it will take untold millions of years to get there. In Theosophy, one lifetime is not nearly enough time.

"...it is the desire to be the cause and source of our own light and existence ... to be self-determining ... the consequence of which is separation from that which sustains and in which we subsist, so the outcome is a fall toward extinction ..."

--> ...which is exactly what Theosophy says is the story of Creation, as opposed to what is told in the story of Adam and Eve.

[AndrewX]

More metaphysics ...
H.P. Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine 1, p. 130:

... in occult metaphysics there are, properly speaking, two "ones" - the One on the unreachable plane of Absolute-ness and Infinity, on which no speculation is possible, and the Second "One" on the plane of Emanations. The former can neither emanate nor be divided, as it is eternal, absolute, and immutable. The Second, being, so to speak, the reflection of the first One (for it is the Logos, or Isvara, in the Universe of Illusion), can do all this.

H.P. Blavatsky, Coll. Wr. Vol. III, p.63"

True pantheists do not say that everything is God -"... "but that God is in everything and the whole in God.

H.P. Blavatsky, Coll. Wr. XI, p. 277-78

God ... Is Nothing , without name and without qualities; it is for this reason that it is called Ain-Soph, for the word Ain means nothing.

It is not this immutable and absolute Principle, which is only the potentiality of being, from which the gods, or active principles of the manifested world, emanate. As the absolute has no relation to the conditioned and the limited, and could not possibly have any, that from which the emanations proceed is the "God that speaks" of Basilides, i.e., the logos which Philo calls "the second God" and the Creator of forms. "The second God is the Wisdom of the One God" (Quaestion. et Solut., Book II, 62). "But this logos, this 'Wisdom' is an emanation nevertheless?" will be the objection. "And to make anything emanate from Nothing is an absurdity!" Not at all. First, this "nothing" is so because it is the absolute, consequently the All. Then this "second God" is no more an emanation than the shadow our body casts on a white wall is an emanation of that body. In any case, the God is not the effect of a cause or of a premeditated act, or a deliberate and conscious will. It is merely the periodical effect of an immutable and eternal law, beyond time and space, of which the logos or creative intelligence is the shadow or reflection.

H.P. Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine Vol. i, 220-21, Adyar Ed.

And they [the adepts] tell us plainly:

Whenever you are able to attune your consciousness to any of the seven chords of 'Universal Consciousness,' those chords that run along the sounding-board of the Kosmos, vibrating from one Eternity to another; when you have studied thoroughly the 'Music of the Spheres,' then only will you become quite free to share your knowledge with those with whom it is safe to do so. Meanwhile, be prudent. Do not give out the great Truths that are the inheritance of the future Races, to our present generation. Do not attempt to unveil the secret of Being and Non-Being to those unable to see the hidden meaning of Apollo's Heptachord, the lyre of the radiant god, in each of the seven strings of which dwelleth the Spirit, Soul and Astral Body of the Kosmos, whose shell only has now fallen into the hands of modern science...

Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 43

The Secret Doctrine teaches the progressive development of everything, worlds as well as atoms; and this stupendous development has neither conceivable beginning nor imaginable end. Our "Universe" is only one of an infinite number of Universes, all of them "Sons of Necessity," because links in the great Cosmic chain of Universes, each one standing in the relation of an effect as regards its predecessor, and being a cause as regards its successor.

The appearance and disappearance of the Universe are pictured as an outbreathing and inbreathing of "the Great Breath," which is eternal, and which, being Motion, is one of the three aspects of the Absolute -- Abstract Space and Duration being the other two. When the "Great Breath" is projected, it is called the Divine Breath, and is regarded as the breathing of the Unknowable Deity -- the One Existence -- which breathes out a thought, as it were, which becomes the Kosmos. (See "Isis Unveiled.") So also is it when the Divine Breath is inspired again the Universe disappears into the bosom of "the Great Mother," who then sleeps "wrapped in her invisible robes."

Most of the discussion that you guys are having is far too abstract for me ... but I do think it tremendously important what assumptions we have about Deity, and about Cosmogenesis.

Unfortunately, I think `the Adepts' are probably right. Even 125 years later, we may not be ready. I'm pretty sure I'm not ...

~andrew

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The problem I see, Thomas, especially in such statements as "signifies the priority of the Kosmos as an idea (thus void and empty) in the mind of God before it comes into actuality" ... is (Christianity's) anthropomorphism.

Actually I can understand that from the perspective of Theosophical anthropomorphism, but in the Christian hermeneutic it is a poetic term rather than a doctrinal one, but again I do acknowledge the assumption you make. So let me be more accurate:

- For the Kosmos to exist, something must cause it.
- The Kosmos was caused intentionally.
- The intention is prior to the act.

That's all I'm saying. I will acknowlewdge that 'the mind of God' is an anthropomorphism, but it was used for simplicity, not doctrinally.

I hope that clears it up.

By the way – Nick seems to agree on this, whereas you do not ... ?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

I feel we have a minor issue here, regarding the cosmos as an idea. Both Christianity and Theosophy agree the entire universe is nothing more than the figment of someone's imagination — it is just a question of whose imagination.

In Christianity, it is the mind of Almighty God, in Theosophy it is not. A bit of explanantion is in order. Theosophy uses the two names, God vs. Almighty God. "God" stands for the Son (the Second Logos). However, "Almighty God" stands for the Christian concept. (As a review, then, Theosophy accepts the idea of God while rejecting the idea of Almighty God.)

As a matter of fact, the Son is often called the "Universal Mind" in Theosophical literature.

“... we come to the most dramatic point of the whole creation, namely the flashing forth into full and conscious manifestation of the Universal Mind [the Son]....” (Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish, page 138)

“From the Unknown One, the Infinite TOTALITY, the manifested ONE, or the periodical, Manvantaric Deity, emanates; and this is the Universal Mind....” (Secret Doctrine vol I p. 110)

Therefore, Christianity and Theosophy actually agree that a Universal Mind does the ideating that causes the universe to appear. The two philosophies disagree in where that Universal Mind comes from; Christianity sees it as the mind of Almighty God, while Theosophy sees is as idential to the Son, which is only a manifestation of the Absolute.

Regarding the issue of anthropomorphism, technically speaking, the Christian version of cosmic ideation is anthropomorphism, whereas the Theosophical version is not.

Thomas; anthropomorphism is an accepted part of Christianity, is it not?

Andrew; how do you indent your quotes like that? That is cool.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> That is an interesting way of looking at it. By the way, Theosohy says the First Logo (Father) is unmanifest, the Second Logo (Father-Mother) is partially manifest and partially unmanifest, and the Third Logos (Son) is fully manifest. (I am not sure if we have any commonality here.)

No, I think not.

Here's a point. The Greek word logos has a number of meanings, but all relate in some way to the idea of order, ratio, reason ... and this we ascribe to the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is the First Principle of all things (including creation) and thus prior to all things.

But for us the Father signifies the Absolute, above logos ... we ascribe all the qualities of the Absolute to Him, the distinction is based on Greek philosophical idea of Aperion (Boundless) and Arche (Principle) or the Patristic dictum of the Son as Arche (or Logos) and the Father as Arche Anarchos (the principle without principle) – so the Father is beyond all comprehension, beyond definition – what we know of the Father is revealed in and through the Son ...

I am assuming you read Father/Mother/Son as Logos and subsequent to the Absolute? This, then, is where I think we would 'agree to differ'


"..we're still in the domain of the principle of manifestation, not yet into the material."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> That is an interesting distinction that Theosophy does not make. We do say that, at this point that manifestation has occured, but everything is still "formless" — which may have the same meaning as you. (And if it does, this is fascinating!)

Agreed.

"The separation of light and darkness is the necessity of interiority and exteriority required for individuation."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I suppose this comes from the separation of light and darkness in Genesis 1, but Theosophy does not hold a similar teaching. In Theosophy, it is the only the separation from the Absolute that is necessary for individualization.

I can see that. It's a very fine point, but if the Absolute is indeed Absolute, it is not determined by anything, including individualtion ... So we say broadly the same ... to be individual must be separate ... it's in the relation between the two that our primary differences probably arise.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said:
"Also hierarchy – the light is good, and darkness, by its separation, is other than this good, although not evil, but stands in relationship to and with it."

--> Again, this is something Theosophy disagrees with, but I feel this goes back to Christianity teaching the idea of Satan and an evil universal darkness, while Theosophy teaches neither.

Christianity is not quite that ... but I agree that many present the idea of dark=bad ... rather I was suggesting that any separation implies distinction, and is therefore less than Absolute, so yes, in such sense light and dark are equal, but both are not quite as 'good' as the Absolute, without either being evil ...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said:
"The 'firmament' is the domain of manifestation, above is unmanifest manifestation, below is manifest manifestation...."

--> What is it that holds the two apart? The Firmament? Are you making a distinction between manifestation and manifest manifestation?

Only by degree ... one axis of spirit to matter, another of unmanifest to manifest ... so everything has its place according to its mode of manifestation.

"...between are all the different degrees, domains, orders ... above is essence, below is substance."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> This seems to be getting into the Theosophical idea that there is a lot more than a simple two-tier distinction of Angel and Archangel. (As I said before, Theosophy has at least 10 tiers. If there are domains, orders, etc., then how many tiers are there in Christianity?)

There is no fixed number, no doctrine or dogma on that point, but classically there are nine 'choirs', in three tiers:
First Hierarchy
- Seraphim
- Cherubim
- Thrones or Ophanim
Second Hierarchy
- Dominions or Dominations or Kyriotites
- Virtues or Dynameis
- Powers or Exousiai
Third Hierarchy
- Principalities or Archai
- Archangels
- Angels
(you can read Dionysius's The Celestial Hierarchy' on my site.)

... some proposed there would be other choirs, for example those who have no dealings with the world, and thus of which we are unaware, some reorder the structure to seven, rather than nine.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Theosophy has several responses. One is that the Creation is just an illusion, a non-reality, which is what it is. Also, this another case of finite minds trying to understand the infinite, which is impossible.

I wonder ... sometimes I think we understand a lot of things we don't know, and know a lot of things we don't understand ...

We would argue that if God is real, then His works are real ...
Or put another way, if the world is not real, how do you know what is real?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

A question: Isn't the Christian God also One absolutely? Or is God "over there" while we are "over here"?

That is a Mystery...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"So multiplicity is contained within it, and manifested 'outside' of it – a paradox resolved in Union in and with the Divine."
--> The Christian position is just as paradoxical as the Theosophical position.

Yep. They all are, in the end ... actually a word I prefer to inside/outside is 'enfolded'...

... the same paradox is in the idea of 'infinite' ... is the finite and the infinite the same? No, but is the finite other than the infinite? Again no, if it was, the infinite is not totally infinite ... so finite is a mode of the infinite, under certain conditions ...

... and the world is an Act of God, under certain conditions ...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I would like to highlight a Theosophical teaching that disagrees with Christianity. In Theosophy, humanity will become angels and then archangels (and many more levels in between), but getting there will take many more levels of existence. The three levels of nothing to human to angel are way too few for Theosophy.

Poor old you!

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy also teaches, but says it will take untold millions of years to get there. In Theosophy, one lifetime is not nearly enough time.

Poor old you's ... !

For the Christian, in God 'nothing is impossible'.

But I am surprised at this, even the 'reincarnation religions' allow that all can be achieved in one lifetime.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...it is the desire to be the cause and source of our own light and existence ... to be self-determining ... the consequence of which is separation from that which sustains and in which we subsist, so the outcome is a fall toward extinction ..."

--> ...which is exactly what Theosophy says is the story of Creation, as opposed to what is told in the story of Adam and Eve.

Don't understand you there ...

In Christianity it is axiomatic that creation is a 'good', and all in it, including man ... separation, yes, but fall, no ... the fall signifies a free-taken moral choice to do other than the good ... there was no evil in the world until someone said "I'll ignore God" to serve one's own end.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

DING!!! Wrong answer ...

gosh, you sound happy about that. as you chaps say, man, i am soooo *busted* - congratulations! yes, you've produced, as evidence, a dictionary definition from the theosophical society!! (which, yet again, presents its *assertions* as if they were *facts*. it's not even categorical - it says "necessarily", which doesn't preclude its possibility. i further note that the entry itself points out that this Name should include both male and female characteristics, yet it seems to earlier suggest that it does precisely that! i think that's known as self-contradiction. i mean, seriously, do you really think that thousands of years of jewish scholarship have failed to notice something as basic as this??)

Horsefeathers! Show me where the Spiritual Hierarchy contradicts what They Themselves taught, via HPB, and THEN ask me to buy into his supposedly better evidenced viewpoint of yours.

horsefeathers, eh? now the gloves are really off. as you know perfectly well, this is still a request, in effect, for me to read everything that HPB says that this "spiritual hierarchy", whoever they might be, says, whilst at the same time assessing whether HPB reported it accurately and whether any of what she says contradicts anything by the aforementioned spiritual hierarchy and, furthermore, whether any of the a.s.h. contradict this "they themselves", whoever they are supposed to be. again, this is nothing but the "read this entire library of stuff, some of which doesn't appear to exist and then you'll agree i'm right" - to which i must respond that the burden of proof is not upon me. the burden of proof, if you are making assertions about jewish texts, to demonstrate that HPB's position on them (regardless of these mythical spiritual hierarchies and themselves and lord high grand shambhalic poobahs) has some ground of evidence. why on earth should i treat any of these rather grandiose, inflated assertions as anything approaching a serious piece of insight?

and, furthermore, duck soup!

What, you don't believe in, and accept, this Spiritual Hierarchy - even though they include such figures among Them as your own Moses, Aaron, Joshua ... Joshua again later, Benjamin, et al?

it is a common tactic of many belief systems to attempt to co-opt the patriarchs, prophets and great spiritual leaders of preceding traditions in order to demonstrate their own pedigree. in this sense, getting judaism on board appears to be some kind of equivalent of ISO9000 certification. the more sensible of these do not attempt to graft on a supercessionary viewpoint, but this is not much different to the standard christian and muslim triumphalism of spiritual disqualification. we, in contrast to you, do not make sweeping and unsupported generalisations about other traditions. what's it got to do with us? the point at which i get interested is when someone says, oh, you know, what the bible *really* means is x, y and z, the jews have just falsified it and covered it up. leaving aside the monumental conceit and prejudice that this reveals for a moment, do you really think we ended up lasting as a civilisation by falsifying the only thing that distinguishes us? what would be the benefit of that?

You are full of yourself, and I'm a bit disappointed that you don't have any more enlightened a point of view than that of a supposedly "chosen people," this entire nonsense about a "god" that plays favorites ... although, indeed, without a proper perspective, I think I do see why you feel that way.

*i'm* full of myself? i don't see judaism making smug, patronising remarks about how other traditions are cheats and we have the only real Truth. it may have escaped your notice that we don't proselytise - this is because we believe there are many ways to live a good life and worship G!D. we are not forced by insecurity to impose our views on others. i am not the one with the breathtaking arrogance to inform others that they do not have a "proper" perspective.

It's no different than the same hogwash that informs the contemporary Christian mindset (Fundamentalists especially) ... and I really don't see much different in the end result when it comes to how all this jibberish [sic] affects them psychologically.

ah, the lump-all-the-horrid-sky-beard-worshippers-together defence, haven't seen that one for at least a month. it's good to see that occultists and militant atheists can agree on one thing, namely that judaism is a lie.

But as I say, I have no need to justify one word of what I believe - to you, bananabrain - or to anyone.

perhaps not, but i think you owe it to yourself to find out whether what you appear to believe is based on evidence or wishful thinking. personally, when somebody tells me something uncomplimentary about a belief system, i prefer to check with a believer from that belief system whether that is in fact true. apparently, you would rather believe a bunch of tendentious, prolix, borderline anti-semitic twaddle than actually ask an educated jewish person - which, of course, you are free to do.

Let's resist the temptation to fancy G!D as a giant person ...

no sophisticated monotheist thinks this. it is simply a function of our own humanity that we perceive, insofar as we can, Divine characteristics and attributes as being easiest to contemplate when expressed in terms of human interaction. when G!D Acts in a "kingy" way, we use the name "King", when the Act is one of compassion and nurture, it is more likely to be "All-Merciful" or "G!D full of Compassion", in terms of wrath, "Man of War" and so on. a name, even a Divine one is not the essence itself but merely a label, although it may act as a conduit or interface at times.

Prior to even the first faint flutterings of Activity at Mahamanvataric Dawn ... there is no Universal (Divine) Mind.

really? well, Who is there to determine that if not the Infinite Divine? what a lot of nonsense.

Even bananabrain, if he will set aside his prejudice for a moment, can get something out of this ..

prejudice aside i seriously doubt that. what we still come down to, in the end, is this - what you have said amounts to nothing more than HPB 'providing':

a) the "secret doctrine"
b) the "Stanzas of Dzyan, which HPB provided from her Teacher", apparently

nobody's ever heard of this language, nobody's ever heard of these teachers and pretty much everything i've ever seen of HPB's appears to be cobbled together from a hotch-potch of hindu, iranian and buddhist clichés, together with a fair dollop of christian "cabala", european occultism, hegelian historical inevitability and C19th pseudo-scientific chauvinism. i have read hundreds of overblown epic cosmologies of dubious provenance and i reckon i could write one myself by now if i spent a couple of months in an ashram with nothing to eat but tofu. i understand erich von daniken (he of the randy alien builders theories) is a great fan of this dyzan schmyzan stuff by all accounts but as carl sagan said to him and i say to you: extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary proof without which it would be inappropriate to believe the claims.

Bananabrain, you would find this too, but only if you take your own time to read HPB's writings - and look up the references yourself. I won't make that any easier for you.

here you go again. it has taken me decades of study to learn what i know about judaism, which is not a great deal, but enough to know you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. i'm not telling you i know better than you what theosophical texts say, let alone mean. what i *am* telling you is that HPB doesn't appear to have the faintest idea about how judaism or its texts actually work so for her to presume to inform others about the "truth" that she says lies behind judaism is laughable to an extraordinary degree. as for you trying to dismiss Torah without knowing any, it is hardly calculated to impress. here's an aposite example of this sort of self-satisfied fatuity:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...it is the desire to be the cause and source of our own light and existence ... to be self-determining ... the consequence of which is separation from that which sustains and in which we subsist, so the outcome is a fall toward extinction ..." --> ...which is exactly what Theosophy says is the story of Creation, as opposed to what is told in the story of Adam and Eve.

ok - ma'aseh bereishit 101 coming up:

1. it's the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", right?
2. if you don't know whether something is good or evil, you can't choose whether to do it or not in any meaningful sense, right?
3. and once you know and you choose, you are consequently *self-determining*, right?
4. once you are self-determining, you can hardly remain in the edenic state which requires perpetual equilibrium and precludes change and development, hence you leave the garden, have to work to survive and, as a subject to linear time, eventually die.

only someone completely ignorant of how judaism views the adam and eve story would make such a woefully inaccurate statement. now i have "enlightened" you, would you care to retract it? somehow i doubt it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Hi everybody!

I feel we have a minor issue here, regarding the cosmos as an idea. Both Christianity and Theosophy agree the entire universe is nothing more than the figment of someone's imagination — it is just a question of whose imagination.

No. We regard that statement as couched in an extreme anthropomorphic manner which is bound to lead to error ... unless you prefigure it with a metaphysical explanation of 'imagination' ... I would suggest, for example, that there is a metaphysical argument (not necessarily Christian) that the First Cause does not 'imagine' anything, because to do so would require that it conceive of something that it is not.

Christianity holds the Kosmos is a creation by an act of the Divine Will, and as it is willed, it is willed as a reality ... or put another way, why can the Absolute not will something to be real?

The fact that we talk in anthropological terms, and sometimes in paradoxical terms, is to do with theological, pastoral and ecumenical considerations. Itr does not mean we necessarily are 'contained' or 'deluded' by what we say.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

In Christianity, it is the mind of Almighty God, in Theosophy it is not. A bit of explanantion is in order. Theosophy uses the two names, God vs. Almighty God. "God" stands for the Son (the Second Logos). However, "Almighty God" stands for the Christian concept. (As a review, then, Theosophy accepts the idea of God while rejecting the idea of Almighty God.)

Then why adopt a Christian concept to reject it. I know of no 'revealed' tradition which requires it to beg, borrow or steal its hermeneutic from others ... it's a fundamental criticism I have against the American Thelogical Association. If you cannot be original, be informed, and if you are neither, better that you were quiet.

Full marks for invention, though.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Therefore, Christianity and Theosophy actually agree that a Universal Mind does the ideating that causes the universe to appear.

No we don't. You only say such because it suits you to do so ... we don't agree on those terms, or hold the understanding of that particular term in common, as our discussions on the Trinity evidence beyond any doubt.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Regarding the issue of anthropomorphism, technically speaking, the Christian version of cosmic ideation is anthropomorphism...

Who's technique, precisely? I mean, who possesses the technical knowledge of Christianity to pronounce such? Neither you nor Andrew have shown a grasp of theologiy or metaphysics sufficient to make such a statement, and from my own Theosophical readings, I have yet to come across anyone who has.

Actually, and 'technically', Christianity is theomorphic ...

Thomas

[Francis king]

u all know that theosophists rip off hebrew texts as well as indian ones... why the big deal? lots of lovely words in ur posts, though... I feel intelligent just basking in the rays of u combined great wisdoms..lol

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

"But for us the Father signifies the Absolute, above logos...."

--> This, of course, is the differenece between us. Theosophy sees Father as the First Logos, and the Absolute above that.

"...what we know of the Father is revealed in and through the Son ..."

--> Theosophy agrees, using the Theosophical definitions.

By the way, I did previous refer to the Son as the Second Logos. That is wrong, the Son is the Third Logos.

"I am assuming you read Father/Mother/Son as Logos and subsequent to the Absolute? This, then, is where I think we would 'agree to differ' "

--> You've got it!

"...classically there are nine 'choirs', in three tiers:

First Hierarchy
- Seraphim
- Cherubim
- Thrones or Ophanim
Second Hierarchy
- Dominions or Dominations or Kyriotites
- Virtues or Dynameis
- Powers or Exousiai
Third Hierarchy
- Principalities or Archai
- Archangels
- Angels"

--> The Theosophical structure is much more rigid, and is much more focused on a single point (The Son). The Theosophical structure is called a Hierarchy, and everyone fits into a clearly-defined tree. Here is the Hierarchy more clearly defined: