The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... it's just the dire heresy of separateness which I think needs to come to an end.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Agreed. But that does not mean assuming that 'God' and 'man' is the same thing, or that man can enter Union with the Divine on his own terms.

Definitely. We're on the same page here.

Originally Posted by Thomas

With regard to Jesus Christ, put it this way, can you or I say: "No one comes to the Father except by [via] me"?

Thomas

If we oversimplify, then we might say "no." Yet St. Paul's "Christ within, the Hope of Glory," is itself a symbolic, and telling affirmation. It affirms - not what is already an accomplished fact for any of us (obviously) - but what is to be, and what will come, I believe, for all ... once we have applied God's Laws to our own Being.

`Apply,' here, includes all that is meant by Prayer and Invocation, as well as the willing submission, or self-discipline which has been described and laid out in every spiritual tradition. In the East it may look different, while even in the Western world there are three "religions of the Book," even with Christians differing greatly on just what right application of Spiritual Law(s) looks like.

But for `New Agers,' or certainly at least for Theosophists and for many esotericists, there is agreement that there is a Christ within. It is widely accepted that in time, the fullness, or outer Perfection of our entire material nature, as well as of the Indwelling Consciousness (the noetic self) ... is guaranteed, FOR ALL, as per Ephesians 4:13. This is not a question of whether, but when.

I think this is an important distinction, certainly between Biblical literalists and Universalists, or even among flavors of Christian teaching and interpretation. I am certainly a Universalist, but not in the sense that I think "anything goes." The Hundredth Monkey phenomenon, though perhaps true in one sense, does not provide for us any kind of Ideal to follow, spiritually speaking, because in fact it embodies the path of least resistance ...

What `The Secret' is indicating, is that we do not need to wait around for the Kingdom of Heaven to sprout all around us, nor must we seek to manifest it, or help facilitate it (co-Creatively) via a strict and rigorous set of (Christian) Ideals, teachings and principles. [In short, Christ comes for all.]

The Golden Rule, yes. Loving one's neighbor, and enemies, as oneself - which esotericists nudge forward by affirming the Essential (Inner) Unity, or Oneness of all Life - yes. And of course, paying close attention to the fact that "what goes around, comes around," "As we sow, thus do we reap" ... this too, the Law of Karma (inescapable, inexorable, definitely not arbitrary or preferential) ... all of these, we cannot avoid.

But ATTRACTION, I think, and its correlating Law of Repulsion, cannot be overemphasized. We learn, as we misapply (or misinterpret) this Law, that to fail to Love, is to attract to ourself unhappiness, or suffering. This is because what affects the One, affects the Many. We are inseparable, one from another, Humanity from the Earth, and both ourselves and the planet from the Divine ... even if Chief Seattle is often misquoted in expressing this fact.

Distinctions? Yes. Points of study? Of course. But it is largely due to our misunderstanding - and lack of Right Understanding - that we have arrived at much of this mess to begin with. I think that as we strive toward Oneness, toward Synthesis, it is better to err on the side of a bit of excess zeal to Unite, rather than to insist on keeping our differences, and (continue to) focus on division. A "common footing," or Christlike acceptance (a Loving Understanding and Compassionate regard) of all men ... now THIS would be even more Ideal!

Christ said, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw ALL MEN unto Me." This, I think means that we must exalt the Christ not simply in name, nor simply as a Christian figure, a holy leader, a spiritual Savior, or even as the Adept of Galilee. "Lifting up" means that everything which Christ represented ... must find (some measure of) application in our own, personal, even daily, lives. And we are all using the Law of Attraction (or LOVE), as well as that of Repulsion (Hate in a non-pejorative sense, but also "hate" as a negative emotional state and "sin," certainly) ... whether we know it, or are fully aware of it, or not.

What we do, or not do, we must do more consciously, says the esotericist ...

There are many methods, many means, of becoming increasingly conscious of the conditions in which we find ourselves. Some methods concern more so the outer awareness, others go straight to the heart of the matter, and affect the inner consciousness more directly, or at least facilitate our Communion with that Consciousness.

And whether we call it the Christ within, the Soul, or even G-d, the Divine Self ... the reality is one and the same. If it language which present the challenge to get beyond, then we must conquer it, and move on. If it conceptuality per se, or our mortal, limiting intellects, then likewise, we must conquer and more beyond.

Yet as the Buddhist Wisdom has steadily taught us, ego-conception, what esotericists call the Principle of Ahankar/Ahamkara (meaning literally, `I-maker') ... THIS TOO, presents an obstacle, and we must SURMOUNT IT.

ONLY if Consciousness ALREADY EXISTS - Latent, yet Divinely Potential - BEYOND the ego ... ONLY THUS, might we have Hope ... for St. Paul's GLORY.

This is not the `earthly glory' that goes along with fame and fortune. How is this any different than yet more ego-gratification?

So THIS is where I simply find that the message of `The Secret' may not fully appeal, insomuch as ego may end up interfering with some of the lessons which we are really here, as Soul(s), to learn. But for those who deny, or reject, this latter Condition of our Being, then I think `The Secret' actually holds much promise, and a few lessons worth taking time to consider.

The earnest Disciple, well on the way, already attentive to the Rules of the Road, and attentive to the still, small voice ... s/he will perhaps gain little from `The Secret,' save a reminder that there are Many Roads leading back to Godhead. S/he may be reminded, pleasantly so, that many a Soul will start to awaken - so far as the outer, personality awareness is concerned by the method, and teachings, even of our co-Brothers on the Path, NONE of us perfect, save the Great Ones, yet each - in earnest - seeking to assist his fellow man along the Way.

So the Heart, not the Eye, is what matters most - here, as everywhere.

And the Silence is calling to me, I hear it now ...

Namaskara,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Referring to the rest of your post, from a general Christian perspective, as long as Christ is perceived as purely human (and even as an avatara) then these and other verses become little more than sentimental nonsense.

Only as the Incarnate Logos can Christ say what He says with anything more than poetic license – as C.S. Lewis wrote, either this man was Bad, was Mad, or He is God.

Not to suggest you aren't familiar with various approaches to an understanding of the Divine Doctrine of Avatars ... but Thomas, here I'm afraid the entire point is being overlooked - whether intentionally, or not.

The very word, `avatara,' comes from the Sanksrit, avatArah descent, from avatarati he descends, from ava- away + tarati he crosses over (from Webster's collegiate).

It means, thus, He cross over, or descends ... from `away.' And the "Away," here, means the `Farther Shore' of Buddhist teachings, or the (Maha-)ParaNirvana of Hinduism, even Sunya(ta).

To say that this is "sentimental nonsense" is rather disingenuous. It amounts to nothing more than saying, "Your God isn't as great as my God ... so there!"


In order to dialogue about the Divine, and/or various Manifestations thereof, it is hardly friendly to draw a line in the sand, and say to one's neighbor, unless you cross this line, we are not on equal terms, because you don't really understand `God' at all. "Your god, in short, is a fake! Only my god is the real McCoy." Children may play at this, but,

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Though I may be a "babe in Christ, even carnal," please do not speak to me - even as a man of 35 - as if I am yet of childish, unevolved spiritual understanding. For the same God that granteth to you the power to understand, the ability to draw near, granteth to me the same abilities and potential, just as gladly. And I truly believe that He delights when we so approach Him!

Originally Posted by Thomas

My contention with the New Age is twofold:
1: We must be discreet to make sure that we are saying that we are glorified in Him, not He is glorified in us
2: When one talks of the 'God in me' one is necessarily talking of something that transcends the human state, so is not 'me' in that sense – in fact I would suggest that it is a rather naive presentation of the idea that I exist because God wills it, so God's will 'underwrites' my being, but is no part of my being in that sense ... 'I' exist because God wills it, but that does not make what God wills Divine ... although in the human context the creature is called to Union with its Creator ... when the creature dies, God no longer wills its being and in this sense that willing returns to God ... where 'I' go might be otherwise, and this is the death spoken of in Scripture. Again, the New Age makes the error of assuming that the 'God in me' is synonymous with 'me'.

Thomas

As for point #1, the distinction you make is not one that I consider arbitrary ... however, I do think we may have a difference of understanding with regard to the Christ Principle (vide my earlier, if lengthier, post). Specifically, our own Christ Self, just as our lesser, mortal, earthly self (or personality, "ego") - is certainly glorified in the greater, already-Christed `SELF' of The Avatar, or God's Direct, Incarnate Expression Whom Christians know as Christ (Jesus). I'll go with that, yes.

But again, even while we are `little ones' to Christ's Greatness, it is not a difference in Quality, but rather, a difference in "Quantity," which makes the distinction. One Christ, truly, only ONE Christ, just as One God, truly, only ONE God. The Greeks taught us how to deal with this. The problem (conceptually, intellectually speaking) of the `One and the Many' might make for a good discussion. I do no mean or pretend to speak patronizingly, for the Mystery is as new to me, and as beyond as it was when I first pondered it in college, or in a Theosophical primer 17 some years ago!

I daresay, even if we may have some of us been fortunate enough to study with the Greeks themselves, I doubt we have advanced nearly as closely to the full Revelation, or full Understanding of these Lesser Mysteries of Being as have the Greeks!!!

Of course, as Theosophist, many of the greatest names are regarded a the Mahatamas of more recent notoriety ... yet since Jesus himself becomes Appollonius of Tyana (even Ramanujacharya), I fail to see how the HONOR of merely being a "Great Soul" is any less than St. Paul's affirmation of the same in Ephesians 4:13. Or could it be, that recent commentators have done us a disservice by their own clouded, judging minds (and human hearts) ... thus, in their zeal and haste to affirm one manifestation of the Christian Saviour, unwittingly barred the door to the knock, and opportunity, to Know and Receive another?



The Individual Soul, certainly, is glorified in Christ. Christ delights, at the same time, no less, when we lift our eyes, our gaze, our attention and little wills, to the Spiritual. In this, it can truly be said that the Greater doth Glorify the lesser ... while the lesser, in answering, hath reciprocated. Christ delights in our Service to God's Plan - and I prefer to understand this as a Smile. In this sense, one may say that we have evoked this response, just as the Soul (the Christ within) has evoked a response (the Will-to-Serve) from the form, or personality.

It may all seem obscure, but Thomas, I just feel we're splitting hairs at this point. This all comes down to subtle distinctions, yet they're almost academic, and I truly don't think our approach - either as Catholic, or Theosophist/esotericist - makes a hill o' beans diffrerence. Certainly it won't fall under one of those, "subtle but monumentally important points of contention." The contention will be if the New Ager, or would-be chela, asserts that he needs no Master(s), or that, in fact, he is already his own Master ... whether because there is a Christ within, or even because there are many approaches to the Godhead.

Pride, in the last analysis, simply shows up for what it is ... an unsightful blemish, or spot, on the face of the Divine Countenance - and, unfortunately, a shadow, which must be removed (Redeemed, via the Pure Light and Love of the Divine) ere God's Eternal Glory, and full Power, may shine in, and through, that "Individual" [Son of God]. Now this, too, has everything to do with the Aaronic Blessing ... and the battle between the various groups of the Sons of God which took place during Atlantis, and was revisited during the Great War(s) - and which even now plays itself out, in the "final days," as one Era gives way, to the next (and New).

~~~

Point #2 makes clear sense and just underscores the great difficulty with which any of us is presented in attempting to speak of things Divine. Perhaps for this reason the Great Ones have chosen Their Messengers with care, and only those whose natures, both inward and outer, have been properly prepared ... have been fit vessels for the Teaching. One can study this process in terms of the Judeo-Christian Revelation, and Message, as well as various Eastern traditions, and relationships between the Divine and the various Intermediaries.

Some Messages, therefore some vessels, require utmost purity, as well as a certain Transcendence of the very Message, or Divine Principle(s), which They have sought to convey. Thus the Buddha, the Christ, and other Avatars of a lesser nature, all manifest some Aspect of God directly, and this equates (at least in my understanding) with what we mean by "an Incarnation of the Logos," while Nick's point about differences in Christian and Theosophical presentation finds equal relevance. One Master speaks of a few other avatars in recent times, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the original Martin Luther, Christopher Columbus, and Abraham Lincoln.

These are all racial avatars, as was Bismarck, who embodied "evil" or materialism, since this Principle (in a material sense) also has its avatars (unfortunately, if we so wish to comment).

Other types of Avatars, in the esoteric tradtion of Alice Bailey, include: Teaching Avatars, Ray Avatars, Transmitting Avatars, and Divine Embodiments. Not even the Christ, or the Buddha, are technically in this last category ... since the Forces, or Entities involved, are here Cosmic, and not simply Planetary, or relevant to our own Solar System. A Systemic, or even Cosmic Avatar ... is regarded by students of Alice Bailey (and other esotericists) - as today overshadowing our tiny planet (and associated schemes) ... presenting us with rare opportunity, and one means of expressing this occasion has been to say that a new, hitherto unknown Aspect of Deity will be released, or made known, to Humanity.

Frankly, this does make my head spin a bit, since for the esotericist, God is Love, and no Revelation that we will experience while yet within Human incarnation will transcend this "Cosmic Perspective" - affecting as it does, all life within our Solar System. And yet, since esotericists already regard the Christian Trinity, or its equivalent, as being an expression of the Solar Logos, mirroring for us the much, much greater Cosmic Trinity (or Trinities) ... perhaps we have more room for exploration than we recognize.

The problem, Thomas, with which I agree completely, is what Blavatsky referred to when she paraphrased the ancient warning: `The mind is the great slayer of the Real.' This is precisely what I hear you echoing in your second point of contention. But here, there's nothing to contend! My ego gets in the way, so does yours. My tendency to intellectualize, even reify certain concepts gets in the way, perhaps yours does as well. Is any of us really free from the tendency to do this?

We can even imagine a `Tardis,' and see Doctor Who walk into a police booth on the tellie, and understand this notion. But do we really believe such a thing is possible? I find that Truth really is - stranger than fiction. N'est pas?

So what're we to do? Give up the dialogue? Try and clobber each other over the head with yet more doctrine ... affirmed, confirmed, officially stamped and sealed and proclaimed, authoritative nonsense? I say, 'nonsense,' not because I truly think this is what much of Catholic Catechism is, any more than the Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinner, or `The Secret Doctrine.' But you see, if we are speaking with other apparently, while really only talking past each other - for assuming the other is somehow misguided, or just does not "get it," then I've convinced ... we may as well be speaking nonsense, because not Gospel, nor the greatest of Psalms and Commentaries, will strike a resonant chord.

True, at times we're left with one method only of relating, and that is simply to live the Gospel, rather than repeat it. "When all else fails," as it were. And it really shouldn't come to that; it must not, else our little planet, or its present Human society and civilization(s), isn't gonna make it. I'm pretty convinced on this point.

Something about a Silence, still speaking to me ... and waiting.
I know it is there, for everyone, each and all - and not due, to my affirmation, or belief, or the beliefs, teachings, prayers or affirmations, of anyone. It is, yes, the ultimate ego-game, to disengage, and realize how silly it is to play a chicken-and-egg game with `G-d.'

Meanwhile, I hope we do not cease discussing the Path, the Search, the Road and the mileposts ... or find cause to Fellowship along the way, whatever the forum, or circumstances, in which we find ourself.

So ... Namaskara ... and Peace

[AndrewX]

wow, maybe it was meant to be after all! double post! :-P

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

in Theosophy, the Father refers to each person's Higher Self. It does not refer to a monotheistic deity...

Then there is an irrevocable difference between The People of the Book and Theosophy. And it would seem to make most of what other Theosophists write here redundant?

(The problem I have is, if you are not Monotheist, you seem to rely so heavily on re-interpretations of Monotheist religious texts? Are you trying to prove something, or have you an axe to grind with regards to monotheism? Cannot Theosophy offers its own argument without having to work through everyone else's to make its point? ... otherwise it comes across as a rather muddled and inaccurate syncretic derivative.)

... That is the meaning of the statement.

Well, as it stemmed from a Monotheistic Tradition, patently it is not. It might well be your interpretation of the text, but that is because you follow a fundamentally different hermeneutic and epistemology.

When I look into comparative religion, I note that the Great Traditions do not seek to reinterpret the texts of other traditions, but rather accord them a due reverence as the sacra doctrina of that tradition. A Buddhist, for example, might offer an interpretation of the text along the lines you posit (Theosophy being heavily influenced by Buddhism and the Asiatic Traditions generally) but would never assume thereby that their interpretation is what the text actually means. This is where, I hold, Theosophy doth assume too much.

+++

You will find the Theosophical explanations of the Logos easier to understand. Espeically because no anthropomorphism is allowed into Theosophy.

"...the primal issuance of a universe ... first takes place in the unmanifested aspect; therefore the primal emanantion [from the Absolute] is also unmanifested. This is termed the Unmanifested Logos (or First Logos) [The Father in Christianity].

Well this is where metaphysical precision is all important. The term 'Unmanifested Logos' implies a condition of the Logos, and the Father of Christianity is prior to all condition or determination – He is utterly Absolute and Transcendant in that sense – He is prior to Logos.

For a more precise theosophist idea of the Father, one might look at Anaximander on Arche (Logos or Principle) and Apeiron (The Boundless or Absolute), and from thence to the arche anarchos (Principle without Principle) of Patristics – or perhaps to Middle and Later Platonism.

All the potencies for manifestation are synthesized in this Unmanifest Logos
Well that's a contradiction if you then offer different logoi.

and the manifestation takes place because of the potentized emanation of thei First Logos...
From here on, from a Christian perspective, the first error leads to an increasing tangential departure, and ends up tripping over itself.

To clarify:
The Father is prior to all modes and distinctions, is 'simple' and unconditioned.

The Logos comprises in Itself as possible and potential modes of being. Eriugena sums it up nicely:
1 - That which is not created and creates;
2 - That which is created and creates;
3 - That which is created and does not create;
4 - That which is not created and does not create.
from Periphyseon, or De Divisione Naturae by Johann Scotus Eriugena. Note that Eriugena uses 'nature' (natura) in a precise metaphysical sense.

The Logos, or Arche, is therefore subsequent to the Apeiron, the Arche Anarchos, or the Absolute.

It is important to note Christianity regards the Son as the Second Logos, while it actually the Third Logos.
Actually Christianity regards the Son as The Logos, in all its degrees and modes.

It is also important to note Christianity only deals with the manifestation know as this universe ... and speaks of the three Logoi.
Sorry Nick, wrong on both counts. Christianity speaks of the Principle of Logos, of which there can be only one, rather than particular degrees or modes, when one devolves into cosmologies ... and also, thereby, the Principle of Creation, rather than n-number of universes ...

... We're back to where we were before – Theosophy interprets the texts according to a cosmological hermeneutic, Christianity interprets them according to a prior metaphysical hermeneutic.

The part about the Absolute, the period of time between universes, and previous universes has been left out of the Christian story, I guess to makes things easier for the readers.
Has it? Or are you saying because you can't see it, it's not there?

I suggest you take a closer look. I can recommend some books if you like. Eriugena might tickle your esoteric fancy, Aquinas is probably too rigorous, Bonaventure too poetic to be read without informed commentary. De Cusa is philosophical ... St Maximus, of course, and if you've enough time there's von Balthasar ...

I've posted something on symbol on the Philosophy Board ... that might help you understand Christianity and the error of trying to interpret one hermeneutic according to another ...

Thomas

[wil]

in Theosophy, the Father refers to each person's Higher Self. It does not refer to a monotheistic deity...

In a Huna book I am reading it speaks of the higher self also as the Father. It describes attaining the marriage to your feminine and masculine nature, your realizing your connection to everythinng and all that is. The way I read it, each individuals higher self is G-d, is one.

Does that differ largely from Theosophy?

I don't see how it differs much from Christianity's 'I and the Father are one' combined with the thought that G-d is omnipresent.

[Thomas]

Because such doctrines are essentially pantheist,
and Christianity is not pantheistic.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...or have you an axe to grind...."

--> I am surprised you have said such a thing. Why are you being so defensive?

"Are you trying to prove something..?"

--> Yes, although you seem to be saying it in an accusing way. Again, your touchy defensiveness surprises me.

"...if you are not Monotheist, you seem to rely so heavily on re-interpretations of Monotheist religious...."

--> You have it backwards. The pantheistic interpretations came first, and the monotheists interpretations came later. As far as re-interpretating is concerned, that is exactly the task of Theosophy — to point out mistakes in your tradition. Where the mistakes came from , or which came first, does not matter. Father = Atman. The Christian interpretation is mistaken, no more, no less.

"...there is an irrevocable difference between The People of the Book and Theosophy."

By that I guess you mean the Bible. The day will come when everyone will see that both traditions came from the same source. For those who are interested, I can show amazing similarities between Christianity, Buddhism, Judiasm, and Hinduism — because they all came from the same source.

"...a rather muddled and inaccurate syncretic derivative..."

--> Feel free to point out the muddlings and inaccuracies.

"...as it stemmed from a Monotheistic Tradition, patently it is not."

--> It is definitely not from a Monotheistic Tradition. Such an idea could never come from monotheism.

"I note that the Great Traditions do not seek to reinterpret the texts of other traditions, but rather accord them a due reverence as the sacra doctrina of that tradition."

--> Your entire premise is wrong. Seeking the truth, unshacked by dogma, is not irreverence. The very motto of Theosophy is "There is no religion higher than Truth."

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/pnt/pnt9-95.htm
(Motto is at the bottom of the page.)

In Theosophy, when truth butts heads with dogma, dogma always loses.

Certainly, mistakes do not deserve reverence. You wish to hide behind your teaching, even when they contain mistakes. My tradition seeks out what the teachings originally meant, even if that makes your tradition unhappy. You may call my questioning of your tradition as irreverent. I call it seeking the truth, and uncovering cover-ups.

"A Buddhist ... would never assume thereby that their interpretation is what the text actually means."

--> Oh yes they would. I speak from having been a Buddhist for many years.

"Theosophy doth assume too much."

--> Feel free to point out the over-assumptions.

"...the Father of Christianity is prior to all condition or determination – He is utterly Absolute and Transcendant in that sense – He is prior to Logos."

--> I am using Logos as defined by Theosophy, not Christianity. The Chrisitan concept of an Almighty God does not exist in Theosophy. I am aware of the Christian definition of Father, even if I do not agree with it.

"For a more precise theosophist idea of the Father, one might look at...."

--> I have even more precise quotes from Theosophical authors. Feel free to ask for them. As far as the Theosophical view of the Christian Father, it is a (mistaken) blend of Atman and the First Logos.

"...that's a contradiction if you then offer different logoi."

--> You lost me on that one. Can you explain?

"...the first error leads to...."

--> I have yet to see the first "error".

"The Logos ... is therefore subsequent to the ... Absolute."

--> By golly, we actually agree on something! If you can see how Theosophy does not equate the Absolute with the Father, we are really starting to communicate.

"Christianity only deals with the manifestation known as this universe --> Sorry Nick, wrong..."

--> Where, then, does Genesis talk about previous universes? Genesis only talks about this universe. Our universe began with the appearance of the Light. The period before this universe began is referrred to as the Darkness. (The part about Darkness moving across the Water has been called "an inkling of the universe about to come".) The previous universe ended when its Light went out. Genesis does not describe the inter-universal Darkness, nor previous appearances and disappearances of the Light (which is a shame). Genesis is a this-universe story only.

"Christianity speaks of the Principle of Logos, of which there can be only one..."

--> Here we go again, debating whether God is one or three. (Such a debate ripped the church into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox rivals.) Fortunately, Theosophy explains how the Logos can be One yet Three at the same time.

"The part about ... previous universes has been left out.... --> Has it? Or are you saying because you can't see it, it's not there?"

--> Does Genesis describe previous universes?

"...the error of trying to interpret one hermeneutic according to another ..."

--> Using such an interpretation does not automatically mean an error is made or not made. But that is beside the point. Instead of saying that these interpretations should not be allowed, you should point out why the mistakes I point out are not mistakes.

[Nick the Pilot]

wil,

You asked,

"Does that differ largely from Theosophy?"

--> No. They are the same basic idea.

"I don't see how it differs much from Christianity's 'I and the Father are one' combined with the thought that G-d is omnipresent."

--> Theosophy teaches of an Absolute, which is different than an Almighty God. The Absolute/God difference is one the main differences between Christianity and Theosophy.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...Christianity is not pantheistic."

--> Christianity is a pantheistic religion. It has a done a very good job of covering it up over the centuries, but a few Christian pantheistic teachings have inadvertantly leaked out. (A few things got by the Christian censors by mistake.)

I asked you before, and I ask you now: Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I asked you before, and I ask you now: Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

Brace yourself, Nick. You know what spin shall follow. Let me save him the trouble.

He will say, suddenly the copyists have taken a liberty, error even, or perhaps just shifted point of view for some reason which seems arbitrary, but may have made sense at the time.

He will say, "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness" ... amounts to no more than me, saying to you, Let US go get a cup of coffee for OURSELVES.

I expect no greater commentary on the passage ... because I am used to it by now.

[AndrewX]

From the Teaching of Living Ethics:

Each era chooses its new, corresponding Teaching, when all previous Teachings have become distorted. People tend to cling to these twisted distortions of the faith of their forefathers, yet no new Teaching ever excludes preceding ones. Little attention is paid to this fact, for the followers of every Teaching like to build their success on denial of the previous Teachings. But it is easy to prove the continuity of what people call religion. In this continuity is sensed a single stream of one energy. Calling it psychic energy, we speak of the Sophia of the Hellenic world or Sarasvati of the Hindus. The Holy Ghost of the Christians manifests signs of psychic energy, just as do the creative Adonai of Israel, and Mithra of Persia, full of solar power. Certainly, no one doubts that the Fire of Zoroaster is the Fire of Space, which you now study.

Psychic energy is both Fire and Materia Matrix, and the Teaching of Agni Yoga is nothing other than an explanation of today's application of energy, the stream of which is approaching with Satya Yuga. This is not a new awakening of heretofore dormant possibility, but an enlightenment spread over time. I say, the Teaching cannot be given for money, nor can it be imposed; it heralds the New Era. One can ignore it or deny it, but its heralding is inescapable.

The coming era can be understood properly or in a distorted way, but its approach is undeniable. Agni Yoga, 416.


Leaves of Morya’s Garden,
Book I, The Call, 1924
119. My children, the teaching of life
under My Guidance is the straightest path to
an understanding of Cosmos.

161. By your everyday life do I teach you.

417. I give to you the Teaching, karmic messages,
Instructions.
The Teaching is intended for the whole world,
for all beings.
The more broadly you comprehend,
the more truly it is yours.

Something for us all:

543. You may meet people who reject the Teaching entirely. Do not try to persuade them. Our Teaching is not a campaigning one; it is an instructive one, intended for those who already desire to perfect themselves. Some may choose a favorite page for themselves, with which they will abide, but not with the full Teaching. Others will pretend that they respect the Teaching, but will just place the book under their pillow while they sleep. And still others will speak of their love for the Teaching, but will not renounce a single bad habit. Nevertheless, the predestined ones will come!

And more, of relevance:

Infinity II, 1930

95. The Teaching of the East regarding Yoga is incomprehensible to the Western mind, and the heart does not sense its beauty. Hence, the evidence of nonunderstanding bars the approach to the future. It is essential to affirm the new approach by means of the acceptance of the concept of the Teacher. (p. 49)

124. Our Teaching will give the wings to humanity and open the path to Infinity. (p. 63)

Fiery World I, 1932

79. It may be asked in what relation Our Teaching stands to the one already given by Us through Blavatsky. Answer that each century, after the manifestation of a detailed exposition, a conclusive culmination is given, which actually moves the world, along the line of humanness. Thus, Our Teaching includes the "Secret Doctrine" of Blavatsky. Similarly, Christianity was the culmination of the world wisdom of the classic epoch, and the Commandments of Moses were the culmination of that of ancient Egypt and Babylon. However, the significance of the ramiform Teachings must be understood. It is hoped that people not only read Our books but accept them without delay, for I speak briefly of that which must be remembered. When I speak of the need of fulfilling My Indications, I ask you to fulfill them with complete precision. I can see more clearly, and you must learn to follow the Indication, which has in view your own good. A man fell under a train merely because he stepped upon the rails, but he had been forewarned and should not have done so. (pp. 47-48)

Letters of Helena Roerich,
Volume I — 1929-1935

As for the alleged Eastern influence over the Teaching of Living Ethics, let us be objective and ask ourselves if there is any teaching or philosophy that did not originate in the East. Our so-called Western philosophy is a mere reflection of the thought of the East. Christianity itself came from Eastern Hands. Therefore, in order to comprehend the Teaching of Christ completely, it is necessary either to be an Easterner by birth or else to study fundamentally those doctrines upon which the Teaching of Christ is built.
It is quite certain that the Christianity of today and the original Teaching of Christ Himself are two entirely different things. Even as the lamaism of the present time and the original Teaching of Gotama Buddha are complete opposites. (p. 234)

The Theosophist, the esotericist, and most folks at CR ... seem to have Reverence for Sacred Teachings, Sacred Scriptures. Some honor one Tradition, some honor another. Many folks are glad to cognize the common thread of Wisdom throughout all Sacred Teachings.

Here, during the Great Festival of the West, which Christians call `Easter,' and which many esotericists regard as of equal significance to the following two (Wesak, and The Festival of Humanity), I should sincerely hope that differences would be set aside. There are far more important things to discuss, and much higher callings to be followed, than outer differences and the splitting of hairs.

I shall do my utmost to honor my own commitments. The pursuit of Truth, and a willingness to embody the Truth, in whatever small measure I may have found it, are two such commitments. I feel certain that I am in excellent company!

Nasti Paro Dharma -- Tat Tvam Asi -- OM OM OM

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You have pointed out Thomas' complaint that we are being irrerverent. As a matter of fact, today, I was just reading a speech by Annie Besant (a great Theosophist) on the need for us to give service to humanity.

http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200703/tt00131.html

The speech includes this sentence.

"To ... ideals of truth and purity we must add one that is lacking in modern life: the ideal of reverence for what is noble, of adoration for what is higher than oneself."

--> Theosophy teaches us to respect the teachings of all the major religions, especially since they all came from the same source. Theosophy has respect for Christian scripture. But if Thomas is saying that pointing out the true meaning of Christian scripture is irreverent, he is wrong. Pointing out the true meaning of Christian scripture makes it stronger.

I have read many Biblical passages over the years. One of the things that bothers me is how many of them just do not make sense (to me). Time after time, I have read a Theosophical explanation of a particular Biblical passage, which finally allows me to understand what they really meant in the first place. The feeling of "so THAT is what it means!" is a feeling of joy I cannot express.

For example, I wondered for years why the human race was created on the Biblical sixth day of Creation, then created again in the story of Adam and Eve (the so-called "double-creation"). Theosophy has the answer. Day Six is about the creation of humanity's "higher principles", while the story of Adam and Eve is about humanity's astral bodies finally being attached to physical bodies. Now it makes sense. Fortunately, you and I have Theosophy to thank for these explanations.

The more we understand what the Bible originally meant, the more we can respect what it says. Not the other way around.

[AndrewX]

Nick, et al,

Let us consider, for a moment, the path which has been trodden by several of Theosophy's greatest exponents, as well as the Messengers of Esotericism in the 20th Century:

H.P. Blavatsky found an interest in Spiritualism, so popular in the United States from the 1840s to the 1920s (vide Wikipedia on Spiritualism). She found friends within that Movement, but eventually she was forced to move on, because the Spiritualists could not, or would not, distinguish between mankind's astral, and limited psychological principles ... and the Higher, more permanent, Spiritual Principles.

Annie Besant, in the second half of the 19th Century, before discovering Theosophy, was quite a Catholic. But she found that the cause of Women's Rights did not meet with sympathy or favor from within the Church, and she soon became an outspoken secularist ... advocating birth control, Fabian socialism, and worker's rights (again, vide Wikipedia).

Somewhere I came across a pamphlet (or book?) from a talk that Annie Besant gave, speaking in favor of atheism. Having read so many of her later, Theosophically-inspired teachings, coming after her meetings with Blavatsky and the Eastern Mahatmas, I was a bit surprised. In fact, I was almost discouraged. Yet a twinkling of recognition came to me, and I began to see that hers was the process of awakening, and re-acquaintance with the Perennial Wisdom that is so familiar to many of us, as each of our stories is but the variation on a theme.

Annie, who we know was Giordano Bruno in a previous incarnation, simply had to recapitulate what had taken her many, many lives to come to realize. As she answered to the call of her Soul, the Master within, she left Catholicism, embraced these various Causes dedicated to overcoming social injustice, became a national heroine in India, and president of the Theosophical Society for many years. [Not that one cannot answer the call of the Soul, leave off the pondering of The Secret Doctrine, and become a Catholic, yet some among us will insist that it cannot proceed vice versa! ]

No one was more fit to carry on the legacy of the Movement's Founder, than this Noble Soul ... and for all my early interest in Leadbeater's Theosophical primers, I have gradually come to realize that Besant was probably a far more brilliant writer. I am currently reading `Esoteric Christianity,' which can be found online in its entirety here, but I would be happy to divert my attention for a moment to her address on The Supreme Duty - of Service to one's fellow man.


Another of the recent Messengers (Whom Christians and others have traditionally called Prophets, or Sibyls), was Alice Bailey, writing early in the 20th Century. We learn in her autobiography, where she summarizes her faith as a Christian, that as a young woman:

I had a firm belief in Christ, for was I not one of the elect; I believed in a heaven of happiness for those who thought as I did and a hell for those who did not, though I tried not to think too much about them after doing what I could to save their souls. I had a really deep knowledge of the Bible ...

Nevertheless, Alice was already struggling to realize the absurdity of what has been presented - and usually swallowed whole - by the average unthinking person ... hesitant or fearful of breaking away from the pack:

... something within me, inchoate and indefinable, was reaching out after God Immanent, after a God behind all forms, Who could be met everywhere and touched and really known, Who truly loved all beings - good and bad - and Who understood them and their limitations and difficulties. This God was not, at all the tremendous and awful Deity to which the Christian Church, as I knew it, bowed down. Theologically, however, there was no such person. There was only a God to be appeased; Who was jealous of His rights; Who could murder His only Son in some illogical scheme to save mankind and Who was not as truly kind as the average parent to his offspring. These were the thoughts which I thrust away from me as wicked and untrue, but subtly, behind the scenes, they nagged at me. Yet there was always Christ. I knew Him; He struggled and yearned over humanity; He agonized to save them but seemed quite unable to save them on a large scale and had, therefore, to stand by and see them go to hell. I did not formulate all this clearly to myself at this time; I myself was saved and happy to be saved. I was working hard to save others and it was too bad that God had created hell but, naturally, I assumed that He knew what He was doing and - in any case - no real Christian questioned God: he simply accepted what he was told was God's dictum and that was that.

Alice's smugness, her certainty and conviction, would only gradually give way ... and it is a process with which I think many of us are familiar, even if it may take lifetimes in some cases, and find recapitulation during the process of "growing up" that we still find ourselves in today (even as adults):

I was absolutely sure (how wonderful that seems to me today and how delightfully young) of everything - God, doctrine, my ability to do things, the sureness of my knowledge and the infallibility of any advice I might give. I had an answer for everything and knew just what should be [48] done. I handled life and circumstances at that time with the sure touch of complete inexperience and my answer to every problem, and my cure for every ill was always to be found in the answer to the one question: "What would Jesus do in similar circumstances?" Having decided what He would do (I wonder how I knew?) I went ahead and did it or advised others to follow the same rule. At the same time, unrealized and unexpressed, I was beginning to ask questions, though refusing to answer them, and underneath all the surety and dogmatism, great changes were taking place. I know that this period saw me take a definite step forward along the Path. Slowly, and without knowing it in my brain consciousness, I was transiting from authority to experience and from a narrow theological belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the interpretations of my particular school of religious conviction, into a certain and sure knowledge of the spiritual verities to which the mystics of all time have borne witness and for which many of them have suffered and died.

I found myself eventually possessed of a knowledge which has stood the test of time and trouble, as my earlier beliefs did not. It is a knowledge which reveals to me steadily and continuously how much, how very much, more I need to know. Real knowledge is never static; it is but a door opening on to vaster reaches of wisdom, achievement and understanding. It is a process of living growth. Knowledge should lead from one unfoldment to another. It is as if one had climbed a mountain peak and - at the moment of gaining the summit - suddenly there stretches before one a promised land to which one must inevitably proceed; but (across that promised land and away in the distance) another peak is seen emerging, hiding still vaster reaches of territory.

(from `An Unfinished Autobiography,' p. 48)

I believe if we examine the lives of other great contemporary Messengers, Sibyls, and students of the Great Ones, such as Helena Roerich, Geoffrey Hodson, Cyril Scott, David Anrias, Torkom Saraydarian, Roberto Assagioli, Vera Stanley Alder, Lucille Cedarcrans, et al ... we shall find that a similar process may have been undergone by each ---

On some small scale, we find an echo of that great story of the Buddha, wherein the Enlightened One managed to grow up in apparent ignorance of the facts of life (shall we swallow this story, too, whole, and forget to question and see the allegory?). Venturing outside the palace gates for the first time, Siddharta Gautama encountered sickness, old age, and death. Having been protected from these sufferings (and facts of life) by his Father ... the young man set himself to conquering the apparently unconquerable. And in time, although he had to experience life's extremes and prove them ultimately unconducive to the spiritual path, Buddha did find the Enlightenment that he sought.

Legend may tell us that he was the first to do so, yet as one of the earlier quotes from Agni Yoga points out, we know that even the Lamaism of Tibet, the contemporary Buddhism which is practiced 2600 years later by followers of the Great One, is not quite what the Buddha preached. Far, far prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, other Great Ones, other Buddhas even, discovered the Way, and trod the Sacred Path of Self-Knowledge and Self-Mastery. Buddha may have taken that Path farther than any of Earth's Humanity had hitherto traveled ... just as Christ did, likewise, a few hundred years later. Yet the Truth of their accomplishments cannot be revealed, or somehow increased, by seeking to preserve the legends within a glass case inviolable ... or by closing the heart and mind to inquiry.

Buddha's final words indicate to us exactly what is expected of those who seek to travel the Spiritual Path to its logical Earthly conclusion. And Christ as Wayshower, while simultaneously fulfilling the Office of Bodhisattva and spiritual Savior, means far, far more to many of us ... than supreme psychological scapegoat, and payoff - for the multitude of Humanity's errors and sins.


Thus, I celebrate Christ's Resurrection and His Life this Easter, and His Promise - not that blind obedience, or unintelligent lip service shall secure our future ... but that --

"By your own hands will the power of the future be built.
I will help, I will help, but add your own efforts"

Namaskar

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,

You said,

"...Christianity is not pantheistic."

--> Christianity is a pantheistic religion. It has a done a very good job of covering it up over the centuries, but a few Christian pantheistic teachings have inadvertantly leaked out. (A few things got by the Christian censors by mistake.)

I asked you before, and I ask you now: Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

Hi Nick –

Can I just clarify whether or not you are equating pantheism with polytheism? I don't necessarily see the two as synonymous.

Supposing God were addressing the assembly of angels, for instance? The term 'us' would be then a grace, and gracious address, accorded to the angelic function that is their vocation?

Read as such, it is neither pantheist nor polytheist. Nor is there any other text that might gainsay it, in fact the whole Abrahamic angelology supports it. Certainly a possibility that has more in its favour, I might suggest, than the idea that 'a few things got by the Christian censors by mistake.

This is something of a sweeping statement, and without evidence something of a massive assumption that stretches the bounds of credibility. Even hardened secular critics grant the institution more intelligence than that.

Do you mean to say that in 3,000 years of scribes, copyists, metaphysics, theology and exegetics, and a conspiracy of monumental proportions that would be required to say radically divert the meaning of a sacred text from the plural to the singular, that no-one noticed such a basic and fundamental 'error' as leaving a plural in place in what is a founding statement that would unravel the whole 'edifice' in a moment? And right at the very beginning of the Book?

Might I also point out this would require that the Jews would have to be the progenitors of this as you quote a text that pre-dates Christianity by something in the region of a millenia? Or are you suggesting we retro-edited the Jewish texts too ... and if not, then you have just confounded your own argument.

+++

And would require the complicit acknowledgement of every history of the Mesopotamian region that records the Monotheism of the Jews – so now Greek and Roman history would also have to be retro-edited, too?

If you gave evidence (an an interpretation of a text is not in itself evidence) of either polytheism, of pantheism, or both, then please do bring it forward.

Failing that, my answer will always pre-suppose an error (wilful or otherwise) in interpretation of what the text is intended to imply.

Thomas