The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I am not sure of your interpretation of the Theosophical idea of Satan, so I am putting it here.

It's probably best that one distinguishes between the Abrahamic idea, and Theosophic Society's.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You may wonder how the plural concept Kumara bacame the singular concept Satan. The Kumara are the "us" people of Genesis 1:27, which is the issue Thomas and I have been going over and over ad nauseum.

And this is a point you have failed to answer, and which I have demonstrated metaphysically cannot be the case.

I would say, leaving the Abrahamic Tradition aside, that Traditional Theosophy, by which I mean the Western Theosophical Tradition (encompassing Hermeticism, Alchemy and the Mystery Cults – the non-aligned religious speculations, meditations and mystieries of man) might not agree, arguing, from the metaphysical (and thus the traditional philosophical position) perspective of ontology that all caused being necessarily has a First Cause.

I think most if not every school of Western philosphy – Platonic, Aristotelian, Socinian, Stoic and Epicurean for example, agree on this point.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The Kumara were Archangels actively involved in the creation of humanity. This is where the idea of “angel of light” comes from. From this we get the present-day story of Lucifer the Angel of Light rebelling against God and becoming the Angel of Darkness.

Generally perhaps, certainly the Mystery Cults called the gnostics and the Zoroastrians (as I understand it) would argue this.

The problem is the mention of 'Lucifer' ... we might argue that Lucifer, being the translation of the Hebrew heylel – 'Bright-', 'Day-' or 'Morning Star', is not unique to Judaism, as it is also referenced in Chaldean writings and Arabic generally.

But the title has become generically Abrahamic in the West, deriving from the Latin 'lux' (light) and 'ferre' (to bring).

But Lucifer chose to supplant the light he was charged to carry – the Divine Light, the logoi, with his own, and chose to become a light unto himself. The Western understanding of the tendency of occlusion and ossification which is synonymous with Lucifer (Lucifer being the exoteric expression of the esoteric principle) is founded on Scripture.

So if you wish to present a new or different idea, the obligation is to demonstrate either:
1 – How the Kumara relate to the Western understanding, or
2 – How the Western understanding is faulty and should be superceded.

But I would suggest that one cannot say that our understanding and yours are the same, or mean the same thing, which according to your account, the West would say they are not the same thing at all.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We can now look at Thomas’ criticisms.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

“Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualization, of the necessary possibility of evil….”
Thesosophy teaches Lucifer (as described in Christianity) does not exist.

Well then we are radically different. As stated above, Lucifer is the exoteric expression of the principle ('esoteric' in the sense that it is only apprehendable to a penetrative and illuminating intellect) of separation or distinction.

There is a desire in all things to be themselves, but this desire can express itself positively (agapically) – to be oneself for the sake of another (ultimately and ontologically God), as gift to another (ultimately, love) – or negatively (erotically), to be oneself for the sake of oneself (ultimately and ontologically a nihilistic existentialism).

There is agreement philosophically and theologically in the West that all things tend towards their own good, they seek their own perfection. But the tragic flaw is man cannot know his origin nor his end because he is a created being and not self-generate.

The logoi of himself, which is the very foundation of his being, is a gift from outside of himself, and originates in the Logos. To truly 'know thyself' as the Philsophical dictum demands, means to know oneself in the Logos – in Divine Union.

The 'spectrum' of these two tendencies, their 'sacred seven', gives rise to the idea of Seven Vices, Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Virtues etc., which, certain nuances of expression aside, are common to both Western Theology and Philosophy, being cosmological determinations and thus accessible to the reasoning intellect and not dependent upon Revelation.

They are experienced sensibly as 'true', being in their nature infallible, 'infallible' cosmologically and thus relatively (in that they have no reality absolutely), and because they are 'true' they are 'real'. Thus sin is 'true' and 'real' as a principle in the domain of morality, that is the domain of human (and angelic) activity and reason, even though they have no truth nor reality in the Absolute or God, because God does not will other than what He wills.

Thus sin is an inescapable dimension of freedom, being the freedom to will other than the real, the true, the good, the beautiful, and so forth ... and the wages of sin is privation of the real, the true, the good, etc., accordingly.

God cannot sin precisely because God is free – He cannot will what He does not will – but man and angels can, because they can will what God does not will, precisely because they are free.

That they are free is itself a Divine Gift because the only really free thing is God, everything else stands in a hierarchicial relationship of subsistence, of hypostasis, with regard to the One, the Absolute ... were it not the case, were God not free in the absolute sense, then the Absolute would not be absolute, because there exists something other than itself.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

“… does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer…?”

--> She does not. The Logos and Kumara are separate Theosophical concepts.[/quote]
But she argues using the language of the Abrahamic Tradition, and examples from Scripture, so either she doesn't understand what she's talking about (which I could accept out of generosity and forgivenesss) or she does, in which case she is seeking to subvert Scripture to her own philosophy (which I cannot).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

“For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light?”

Because none thinks he was by nature a thing of darkness, which is obvious if you read Scripture closely. His name is The Day Star, he was a thing of light, but his nature is wounded by corruption, and the darkness was occluded. That is the meaning of 'fallen'.

So that argument puts the cart before the horse. As an angelic nature, or as the Fathers would have it, as a logoi, he was not created fallen, nor created evil. Quite the reverse. He suffered from autoeroticism, or narcisism, a moral fault and a perversion of the will.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> This is a fascinating question, and gets into some important Theosophical theory. Lucifer (and everything else in the universe) comes from Darkness (which is the same Darkness named in Genesis 1:1). Darkness is another name for the Absolute, which predates the Logos.

It is a fascinating question, but there seems to be a flaw: If the Logos post-dates the Absolute, then the absolute is not absolute, because there is Absolute, then Absolute and Logos. So the Absolute becomes relative. This is, I think the idea of your argument that the Trinity is not the Absolute?

The counter argument is that the Principle of the Logos – in the Christian Tradition – must exist in the Absolute and, as the Absolute is Eternal, the Logos exists Eternally.

You are not obliged to accept it – it is Revelation and transcends the intellect – but you will have great difficulty in refuting it metaphysically or philosophically.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

To answer Thomas' question specifically, yes, it can be said Lucifer is a nature of Darkness, just as you and I are natures of Darkness, because you and I are Rays of Light that comes from the One Light (The Son) which comes the Darkness (The Absolute).

We need move carefully here. In the domain of the relative (the Cosmos) there are two 'darknesses', the fullness of Divine Plenitude, as in the Areopagite's Mystical Theology, Bonaventure's Assent, or Eckhart's Ground of Being, in effect a Superessential Superabundance of Light, (for God is not 'nothing') and there is the darkness of ignorance, of the lack of that Light, of which St John speaks (1:9).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

To use Thomas' words, The Kumara, You, and I 'arose in the morning' when that first Ray of Light flashed out from inside the Darkness (The Absolute) and began our universe.

OK – nicely put, too.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

“… you confuse the Logos of God, ‘the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world’ with Lucifer….”
No, we do not. Lucifer (plural) is the Kumara (plural), which are Rays of Light blasphemed into being called Darkness because of their mistake.

Well I was countering Andrew, who might have been wrong in his assertions. The point of distinction is that Lucifer chose to serve himself, not God, and seeks to seduce man to do likewise – not to serve Lucifer, necessarily, but to serve oneself – and this sets one in an adversarial position with regard to the Divine, which again shows the exactitude of the Hebraic idea of Satan – 'The Adversary' – being the principle, and Lucifer its actualisation by intellectual embodiment.

I would suggest that because you're dealing in pluralities, you are not dealing with the principle than underlies them, you are continually seeking to balance relatives, and subject to all manner of philosophical paradox. This is the endemic 'fault' in the reasoning of the Theosophical Association, as I see it, it lacks metaphysical and ontological rigour, it's dealing in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and awash in relativities.

Again, Western Theosophy and Theology deals in first order principle that gives rise to things, from what I see and have read, the Theosophical Association floods itself with data, referenced and cross-referenced, to present a very impressive and attractive surface, but lacks rigour; its lacks depth and penetration.

And as others have pointed out, it makes what is 'simple' more complex and confusing than it need be.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Finally, there are the names Satan, Devil, Angel of Light, etc. Here is a Theosohical article that gets into a lot of detail about the origins of these names. Take a look for more information.
"Some
Light on Lucifer" by Ina Belderis

I did, and I think it adds weight to my argument. Lots of esoteric and theological data, thin on the metaphysics, and thus throws up its own confusions as 'proof' that others are confused! The example of the confusion of the Day Star and Lucifer – there is Lucifer – an angelic entity, and the Day Star – an astronomically observable reality – I can see it in the mornings, but it is not Lucifer.

Sometimes Scripture refers to the idea of occlusion (Lucifer), sometimes to illumination (the star) – the author seems to assume that any reference to the Day Star is a reference to Lucifer and vice versa, without bothering to consider the context ... it's not, it depends on which is being spoken about.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Nick, the greatest service I can offer at this point, is to compose myself. I can certainly try to discuss things rationally with you, and Thomas, yet I have been dealing with his unabashed ANTI-Theosophical position for the better part of two years now.

Isn't it interesting, that the moment I set foot into a Christian forum here at CR, even while providing Biblical passage, and explaining that in my own understanding and interpretation, X passage means Y ... I am still accused of being "anti-Christian" - or of just plain hating Christians, as some of our more Fundamentalist brothers and sisters have put it ...

Yet NOWHERE do I SAY, in plain english that I either have anything against the practicing of Christ's Teachings, NOR do I set about demonstrating that Christ's Messengers, the original Apostles, or even the recorders of the Gospels and New Testament writings ... were "in error." I DO NOT say that the metaphysics they based their Teachings upon were unsound, or shallow, or un-rigorous.

Strangely, here on the Alternative forum, under ESOTERIC, we find the staunchest of possible Roman Catholics, pronouncedly and unabashedly ANTI-Theosophical and openly prejudiced to ANYTHING taught or revealed by H.P. Blavatksy ... carrying on as if this were either good Christian behaviour, a fair way to discuss philosophically the very tenets and teachings of an esoteric tradition (whether put forward in `The Secret,' or `The Secret Doctrine'), or even respectable procedure for anyone truly interested in a discussion of comparative religion.

What you are doing, Thomas, is worse than disingenuous. You are doing no less than preaching Roman Catholic doctrine on a thread, and in a forum, which is supposed to be about esotericism ... and from an alternative angle.

Yes, it is true, a diversity of approaches is desired, or desirable. What use is it preaching to the choir, especially if Nick and I simply wish to talk Theosophy? Nick has a forum for that, and I have found it quite interesting, though I have yet to post there. But the whole point of coming to a Comparative Religions website, and forum, is to investigate where traditions overlap and intersect, where there is harmony and sympathy - between teachings and followers ... and to see what wounds can be healed, if such is possible by a discussion informed by one's own past experiences, present practices, and a shared spiritual aspiration.


What I see happening here, is no more than an effort to step on what we (well, one of us here anyway) have decided is out of keeping with what the parent tradition tells us ... and yes, while I can appreciate that much of what is being said does come out of one's own experience, from within one's own tradition, I think we say a great deal when we say that the other person's tradition and teachings:

"lack metaphysical and ontological rigour, [deal] in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and [are] awash in relativities."

or

"lack rigour; lack depth and penetration."

Yes, Thomas, I am genuinely sorry, and regretful, that you have found no more depth of meaning, and of Revelation, in HPB's teachings than you have found ... or that the modern Theosophical Movement, including the teachings of the TSA, do not meet with your approval and favor, or qualify as a "legitmate spiritual path," as you yourself have often put it.

HPB, certainly, did not come to found a new religion, and what dismays me, truly, is that you can say something like, "You should stick to your own, Theosophical teachings or tradition, and leave Christianity alone, and stop trying to steal our thunder, or tell us - where we went wrong ..." and so forth.

What this tells me, is that you have missed the point of Theosophy altogether. This makes is clear, that you are quite happy with your own Roman Catholic tradition, maybe interested in a few others ... but that in your own thinking, there is no, fundamental, or underlying intersection between them all ... no common foundation - as "God's Wisdom," or "a Perennial Tradition" - which underlies all exoteric presentations.


I would make my point by borrowing from an online version of Charles J. Ryan's `H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement,':

H. P. Blavatsky claimed no credit for the teachings in her book, but only for the presentation and comments. In "My Books," dated only a few days before her passing, she closed her life's work with the words:

Nothing of that have I invented, but simply given it out as I have been taught; or as quoted by me in the Secret Doctrine (Vol. I p. 46 [xlvi]) from Montaigne: "I have here made only a nosegay of culled (Eastern) flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them."

Is any one of my helpers prepared to say that I have not paid the full price for the string? -- Lucifer, VIII, 247, May 1891

Our Messenger seems to pay that price to this very day ... while some would seek proverbially to shove these flowers up her very nose.

For others of us, we see a beautiful bouquet, are aware of its fragrance, and we are grateful - eternally in her debt - for the choice and arrangement. We are comfortable with our understanding of their Source, and many of us regard HPB as one Messenger among many from the past 150 years ... not the only one who has taught the Wisdom in its current form, to a needy Humanity.

~~~~~~~~~


I have another post, for later, regarding `The Secret,' yet in the meanwhile, here is my answer to the following false accusation:

Originally Posted by Thomas

I would suggest that because you're dealing in pluralities, you are not dealing with the principle than underlies them, you are continually seeking to balance relatives, and subject to all manner of philosophical paradox. This is the endemic 'fault' in the reasoning of the Theosophical Association, as I see it, it lacks metaphysical and ontological rigour, it's dealing in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and awash in relativities.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Again, Western Theosophy and Theology deals in first order principle that gives rise to things, from what I see and have read, the Theosophical Association floods itself with data, referenced and cross-referenced, to present a very impressive and attractive surface, but lacks rigour; its lacks depth and penetration.

If we open `The Secret Doctrine,' and begin its study, before we even get to the Stanzas of Dzyan, we will come across the Three Fundamental Propositions, in the PROEM. Excerpting from the first, and the third of these (extending, in the latter case, what I have already quoted once on this thread), we find:

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable." (capitilized emphasis in the original)

(c) ... The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations. This is why the Hindus say that the Universe is Brahma and Brahmâ, for Brahma is in every atom of the universe, the six principles in Nature being all the outcome -- the variously differentiated aspects -- of the SEVENTH and ONE, the only reality in the Universe whether Cosmical or micro-cosmical; and also why the permutations (psychic, spiritual and physical), on the plane of manifestation and form, of the sixth (Brahmâ the vehicle of Brahma) are viewed by metaphysical antiphrasis as illusive and Mayavic. For although the root of every atom individually and of every form collectively, is that seventh principle or the one Reality, still, in its manifested phenomenal and temporary appearance, it is no better than an evanescent illusion of our senses. (emphais added in this case, in bold & blue)

We find, then, a very definite statement regarding the ultimate nature of Deity - as an imponderable PRINCPLE - and an elaboration on the most fundamental of relationships between man and that Deity, in terms of spiritual principles ...

... yet Theosophy is accused of failing to deal with underlying principles.

I fail to see what could be more underlying that THIS!!!

~~~~

I am very tired of this discussion. It is going nowhere, and frankly, I already knew the position of the Roman Catholic Church on all this, long before Blazn posted the original article on `The Secret.' If all we're going to hear at this point is that Theosophy is an unsound, inferior metaphysical doctrine ... then please, let's take that elsewhere, and maybe pretend like what we're here to do isn't just beat down whatever doesn't jibe with the dogmas that we are used to.

~andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You said,

"I am still accused of being "anti-Christian" - or of just plain hating Christians...."

--> We Theosophists have the unhappy job of pointing out inconsistenies and changes to all of the instutionalized religions down the centuries. In every case, we point out things they do not want to hear. It is a distastful job, and we do it because it needs to be done, not because it is fun.

I see you are still having trouble dealing with all of this. You think they are escaping punishment for any negativity they may indulge in. I assure they will not. Karma never forgets and never forgives. Just keep doing your job, quietly and with equinimity, and you job will have been completed.

I see you are still willing to get into arguments over these ideas. Please remember that our job is only to present ideas to those who want to hear them. All we can do is present these ideas -- it is then up to the person to listen or not.

Regarding the attacks we suffer, that is just part of the job. Let them slander my ideas. I simply scan their posts, find ideas of substance that I can respond to, respond, and move on. Getting into arguments does not do anyone any good. (However, when I find someone who is totally negative, I just put them on my Ignore List, stop reading their posts, and move on.)

"I DO NOT say that the metaphysics they based their Teachings upon were unsound, or shallow, or un-rigorous."

Good for you. Please do not go down to their level. Even when they attack us or our ideas, we cannot retaliate. It is not the Theosophical way.

[Thomas is] "... doing no less than preaching...."

--> We can only show the error of preaching by our own example.

"...the whole point of coming to a Comparative Religions website, and forum, is to investigate where traditions overlap and intersect, where there is harmony and sympathy - between teachings and followers ... and to see what wounds can be healed, if such is possible by a discussion informed by one's own past experiences, present practices, and a shared spiritual aspiration."

--> You have the right idea. Find the people interested in dialogue, and engage them in dialogue. Ignore everyone else, except for the one exception: There is only one situation that has a benefit to discussing with people who flat out do not want to hear what we have to say. It gives people who do want to read it a chance to read it. Let's take the example of the group of "angels" which created humanity in Genesis 1:27. I have engaged Thomas time and time again on this subject. It is very important to remember that my goal is NOT to convince Thomas of anything. It is only to provide a forum to publicize such ideas. Somewhere out there, there is at least one person who has wondered who the "us" people in Genesis 1:27 are. Now they have an answer, thanks to you and me. There are only two kinds of people in this world: those who are curious as to who the "us" people are in Genesis 1:27 are, and those who are not. For those people in the first group, we have plenty to say. To those in the second group, we only carry on conversations with them because someone in the first group might stumble in on the conversation.

I must emphasize that proslytizing is absolutely forbidden. If you find yourself being tempted into doing some proslytizing, I hope you can spot it, and then redirect your efforts. Even Theosophists can be tempted to proslytize, and that temptation must be fought off.

You have cited examples of other people engaging in name-calling. This is a good sign of the need to disconnect. When the name-calling starts, inter-religious communication stops. Let them get the last word in, and then just drop it.

"What this tells me [Thomas], is that you have missed the point of Theosophy altogether."

--> Our job is not to have Thomas get the point.

"I am very tired of this discussion. It is going nowhere..."

--> I agree. We have achieved our objective regarding the "us" people in Genesis 1:27. I only answered Thomas' last three questions because it gave me an excellent chance to explain where the idea of Satan came from. I am sure one person out there must have benefited from my explanation.

By the way, that link I posted had one fascinating idea -- the Jews never had the idea of Satan untill they learned it from the Zoroastrians. I thought that was very insightful.