Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter what?

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Neemai —

In the Christian Tradition, suffering is the result of the Fall, it is not intrinsic to man's nature — God did not create a creature with the intention that he should suffer, quite the opposite — God expressly informed him of the suffering that would result if he pursued a specific course of action ... which of course, he did.

Hope that explains it.

Thomas

Hi Thomas, ditto for the beliefs of my tradition... what you say above is in-line with Vaishnavism.

... Neemai

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, You quoted,

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:16

--> I thought it would be good to give the Theosophical version of what this verse signifies.

Theosophy (at least the non-Christian forms of it) do not see Jesus of Nazareth as the embodiment of a divine principle. Rather, the divine principle being referred to is just that — a principle. (We call this principle by many names, and one of those names is Mahat.) According to Theosophy, Mahat is an impersonal, universal principle, rather than something that was condensed and contained within one human being (Jesus).

Mahat is the principle which caused the universe to appear. Indeed, Mahat IS the universe. We see the Father as the principle of super-universal Spirit, and Mother as the principle of super-universal Matter. It is the interaction of these two principles (the ensouling of Matter by Spirit) that caused the universe (Mahat) to appear.

It's really hard to say what the "Christian" version of it actually is, as the New Testament wasn't a manual for its own interpretation, but a collection of narratives and documents discussing the challenges that the various communities (churches) faced.

Sure, when it was first written down, the meaning was clear. Over the ages and generations, however, the intended meaning was lost, and possibly, sadly, not preserved. The various churches that have sprung up have, over the last 2,000 years, formed various philosophies in an attempt to explain what it meant. The oldest churches claim to have a tradition that preserves that intended meaning.

By "divine principle" or even just "principle" that depends on what kind of principle we are discussing. A lot of creeds attempt to explain Christ in terms of his nature, reconciling that with the nature of God, the nature and structure of the universe, etc.

I don't know much about Theosophy so I thought I might find out . . . Perhaps I could present my view of what the passage above might really mean, as since the Christian texts are pieces of literature, they're open to interpretation just like any kind of literature. Often due to a knee-jerk reaction Christians will proclaim, that there is no need to speculate, we know what it means, it means this. Then you could perhaps tell me what Theosophy says . . .

My individual view is that Jesus wasn't talking about the nature or structure of anything when he said that. Yes, Jesus was divine, as it said in John 3:13, where it says, "no one has ever gone into heaven except the one how came from heaven." It seems more likely, to me, that Jesus was talking about what he had been doing for the years leading up to the crucifixion, which is what the Four Gospels recorded. While it was most likely that Jesus was indeed, talking about some "divine principle," it wasn't about the nature and structure of God or the universe, but instead, how his work in the years leading up to his death told about the heavenly kingdom that he came to present. It was more like he was saying, "If you believe in and understand everything I've told you and shown you, you're fit to be in the kingdom." Nothing about the nature or structure of God or the universe. Just a personal understanding.

The passage is open to interpretation, but it seems to me that with all the philosophies Christianity has produced, most have focused on contemplating the nature of God and the universe. I think for the last 2,000 years a lot of us may have been "missing the mark" with regards to understanding what Jesus meant. We've gone down the wrong paths and tried to determine the nature of God, structure of the universe, etc.

The definition of hell is one example. Did Jesus, for example, ever give a definition of hell? Did he say it was 5 metres wide, 5 metres high, or that you spend either eternity or a 5-year sentence in it? Is there fire and hot coals? Do you get parole? Corporal punishment? Do you get to talk to your old-time friends from high school? Oh yes, he gave descriptions. He gave depictions. He didn't go beyond that. Never an exact definition. I don't think it was really all that new. Good and bad people go to hell. Wasn't Jesus just stating the obvious with regards to what people already believed? He described the people who went to heaven and those who went to hell, but there was never a definition. It was more like . . . if you were in that situation then $&*#@*(!!!!!. He wasn't creating labels for people. "Good and bad" was just an abstraction.

But once again, this doesn't have anything to do with the nature or structure of the universe, but our relationship with society, and possibly with God.

This thread spans quite a few pages, and I haven't got around to reading all of them, so I'd be interested in how Theosophy's notion of hell relates to what I've just said.

I think it was the confidence with which Jesus said things, not that they were anything new. Jesus was divine. Not an ordinary man. Being divine meant you had life pretty much all figured out. The rest of us either have screwed up lives or are figuring things out along the way. It meant Jesus knew what to say, when to say it, how to greet people, etc. He was good with people. He could have chosen to be a martyr if he wanted, and he would have been dead sure he was dying for the right and noble purpose.

I believe Justice for Christians was meant to be the same as Justice for all, including non-Christians. In many ways we may have missed the whole point of the crucifixion, that it was really meant to be a sign for the oppressed and persecuted, the meek, the lowly, the poor . . . a sign of divine support for those who were suffering because of their social standing. For a lot of our history we've defined "Christian-ness" or "salvation" in terms of conformity to a creed or philosophy. I don't think that's right. It should not be about conformity but about a pursuit, a pursuit for an answer to a question, a question of what Christianity is and was meant to be. We should be assuming that we don't know or can never know the exact purpose Christianity represents. We should say we're trying to re-discover its true purpose. A Christian, therefore, is not necessarily someone closer to God, but someone who wants to relive the Christian spiritual journey, re-discover the real Christianity buried in all the dogmatic baggage we've created, and explain what he's found and experienced.

It's still Christianity, but more like a Christianity that has not discovered its true purpose and is still groping around in the dark. Christianity may be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn't make it less "Christian" in its pursuit. Christianity is a process, a process of re-discovery, re-discovery of what the NT was trying to say. After 2,000 years we're still trying to work things out. It's not all set in stone unfortunately. Every new generation has to re-learn our struggles. Such a shame I guess. When I die, my descendents are going to have to re-learn what I learnt.

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, you said,

"Sure, when it was first written down, the meaning was clear. Over the ages and generations, however, the intended meaning was lost, and possibly, sadly, not preserved."

--> I contend that some parts were intentionally changed, and they did us a great disservice.

"The oldest churches claim to have a tradition that preserves that intended meaning."

--> I contend that several entire civilizations (and traditions) have disappeared during the history of the world. (Some people say ancient Egypt was merely the remnants of an earlier culture.) It has been said these traditions have changed times over the centuries, and the original meaning has been lost in antiquity.

"A lot of creeds attempt to explain Christ in terms of his nature, reconciling that with the nature of God, the nature and structure of the universe, etc."

--> Other creeds explain nature without using the name Christ.

"I don't know much about Theosophy so I thought I might find out . . . Perhaps I could present my view of what the passage above might really mean...."

--> The Theosophical interpretation of that Biblical quote is that we are all part of a particular cosmic principle. We have been split off of that principle, and we are merely trying to re-unite with it. Theosophy says that principle has been anthropomorphied into Jesus, and such anthropomorphizing was a mistake.

"Often due to a knee-jerk reaction Christians will proclaim, that there is no need to speculate, we know what it means, it means this."

--> I have already been told by one fundamentalist Christian here at this Forum that questions on one particular part of the Bible are not acceptable!

"My individual view is that Jesus wasn't talking about the nature or structure of anything when he said that."

--> I would say he was talking about one universal principle.

"Yes, Jesus was divine...."

--> I would say he was divine, but no more divine than the rest of us. He had merely achieved what I would call divine consciousness.

"...as it said in John 3:13, where it says, "no one has ever gone into heaven except the one how came from heaven."

--> I would agree. To use Christian terminology, I would say we are trying to return to Heaven.

"While it was most likely that Jesus was indeed, talking about some "divine principle," it wasn't about the nature and structure of God or the universe, but instead, how his work in the years leading up to his death told about the heavenly kingdom that he came to present."

--> I think it could be said he did both.

"It was more like he was saying, "If you believe in and understand everything I've told you and shown you, you're fit to be in the kingdom." Nothing about the nature or structure of God or the universe. Just a personal understanding."

--> That is a fascinating interpretation.

"I think for the last 2,000 years a lot of us may have been "missing the mark" with regards to understanding what Jesus meant."

--> I agree.

"We've gone down the wrong paths and tried to determine the nature of God, structure of the universe, etc."

--> I think it is good that we try to determine the nature of the universe, even though it may seem futile and impossible. What little we know of it, the more we know of the nature of the universe, the more we can synchronize ourselves to universal principles around us.

"The definition of hell is one example.... Is there fire and hot coals?"

--> As a matter of fact, some Theosophists say that people in the next life "float" to a kind of "specific gravity" level in the astral world. The "specifc-gravity" level of the worst criminals places them at a level below the surface of the physical world. (It has also been said the astral specific-gravity of the greatest saints in death puts them at a level that really is above the level of the physical world.) Therefore, some Theosophists really do believe in a Heaven literally above, and a Hell literally below. Regarding brimstone, if there are astral criminals floating at a level below the Earth's surface, they would be seeing hot lava around them. This would explain the brimstone stories.

"Do you get parole?"

--> I believe we ascend out of lower levels of Hell as we burn off the vibrations of those levels. This is called Purgatory, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

"Corporal punishment?"

--> Have you heard the story of Sysifus (sp), the guy in Hell, who pushes a rock up a hill, just to have it roll back downhill? I believe this is symbolic of actual conditions for one particular kind of person in Hell.

"Do you get to talk to your old-time friends from high school?"

--> I think we do.

"He wasn't creating labels for people. "Good and bad" was just an abstraction."

--> I like the theory that we cause are own conditions after death, that we do not have a God telling us where to go. If we go to Hell, we cause ourselves to go there, rather than being sent there by a God.

"But once again, this doesn't have anything to do with the nature or structure of the universe, but our relationship with society, and possibly with God."

--> I would say it is due to our relationship with Law rather than with God.

"This thread spans quite a few pages, and I haven't got around to reading all of them, so I'd be interested in how Theosophy's notion of hell relates to what I've just said."

--> Has my explanation here been helpful?

"I think it was the confidence with which Jesus said things, not that they were anything new."

--> It has been said various great teachers reappear on a regular basis, and they are merely re-teaching the same Ancient Wisdom.

"Being divine meant you had life pretty much all figured out."

--> I would use the term Enlightened.

"I believe Justice for Christians was meant to be the same as Justice for all, including non-Christians."

--> In my belief system, that is exactly what happens.

"In many ways we may have missed the whole point of the crucifixion...."

--> Some Theosophists attach to it a whole different meaning than the present Christian interpretation.

"For a lot of our history we've defined "Christian-ness" or "salvation" in terms of conformity to a creed or philosophy."

--> As a matter of fact, theosophy does use the word "saved", but in the meaning that we are saved from required future reincarnating.

"It should not be about conformity but about a pursuit...."

--> For me, it is both. However, I see the rules that we are conforming to as different than the ones Christians put forth.

"We should be assuming that we don't know or can never know the exact purpose Christianity represents."

--> I see the original Christianity as a roadmap to Nirvana.

"We should say we're trying to re-discover its true purpose."

--> I do!

"A Christian, therefore, is not necessarily someone closer to God...."

--> I think different people are at different spiritual levels. Whether they call themselves Christian is immaterial. It has been said that, when we apply for admission into Nirvana, we are not asked if we believe in Jesus, Buddha, etc. (I see the conditions to enter Heaven as quite different than those of Nirvana.)

"...but someone who wants to relive the Christian spiritual journey, re-discover the real Christianity buried in all the dogmatic baggage we've created, and explain what he's found and experienced."

--> You have described my religious journey perfectly.

"Christianity may be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn't make it less "Christian" in its pursuit."

--> I believe a good, pious person is making progress towards both Heaven and Nirvana. It does not matter in the least whether they call themselves a Christian, Buddhist, etc.

"After 2,000 years we're still trying to work things out."

--> I believe it has been going on much longer than that.

"Every new generation has to re-learn our struggles."

--> And new teachers keep reappearing on a regular basis to help us with the learning process.

"When I die, my descendents are going to have to re-learn what I learnt."

--> Each of us must follow our own path to Nirvana and Enlightenment.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Saltmeister, you said,

"I don't know much about Theosophy so I thought I might find out . . . Perhaps I could present my view of what the passage above might really mean...."

--> The Theosophical interpretation of that Biblical quote is that we are all part of a particular cosmic principle. We have been split off of that principle, and we are merely trying to re-unite with it. Theosophy says that principle has been anthropomorphied into Jesus, and such anthropomorphizing was a mistake.

Does that mean that, in essence, we're not really human? Is the humanity of our existence just an illusion?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Often due to a knee-jerk reaction Christians will proclaim, that there is no need to speculate, we know what it means, it means this."
--> I have already been told by one fundamentalist Christian here at this Forum that questions on one particular part of the Bible are not acceptable!

Who? In this thread? Thomas? Thomas is no fundamentalist. He's Catholic. Well . . . I take "fundamentalist" to mean a Protestant who takes a "hard-line" approach to Christianity based on the notion of sola scriptura. Catholics base their beliefs on sacred tradition rather than sola scriptura. Catholics claim prima scriptura.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Yes, Jesus was divine...."
--> I would say he was divine, but no more divine than the rest of us. He had merely achieved what I would call divine consciousness.

I think in Christianity he was divine originally, having been "born" in that state. The rest of us have to "inherit" that nature. I suppose at this point it depends on what one means by "divine." Does "divine" mean an immensely powerful being (like a "demi-god," angel or a superhuman mind), or just a heavenly equivalent of something earthly? In one view, Christ was an immensely powerful being; in another Christ was a human being with human limitations and no superhuman powers, just a heavenly version of one, a person who lived his life with purer intentions (ie. pure of heart, true of spirit). The rest of us are corrupt . . .

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...as it said in John 3:13, where it says, "no one has ever gone into heaven except the one how came from heaven."
--> I would agree. To use Christian terminology, I would say we are trying to return to Heaven.

I guess we could say our ancestor Adam was divine. He tasted the forbidden fruit and was banished to an "earthly" realm. Now we want to go back and become divine again. An area of overlap, possibly with Theosophy? Do you express that differently?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"It was more like he was saying, "If you believe in and understand everything I've told you and shown you, you're fit to be in the kingdom." Nothing about the nature or structure of God or the universe. Just a personal understanding."
--> That is a fascinating interpretation.

Indeed. What if the nature and structure of the universe didn't matter? Just the heart? Scrap the roadmap. Follow the magnetic compass in your head. Like a bird.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"We've gone down the wrong paths and tried to determine the nature of God, structure of the universe, etc."

--> I think it is good that we try to determine the nature of the universe, even though it may seem futile and impossible. What little we know of it, the more we know of the nature of the universe, the more we can synchronize ourselves to universal principles around us.

I suppose if we did try and visualise the nature and structure of the universe, it could just be a tool for understanding. In some religions it's important to see the structure of the universe one way. In others . . . just a means to an end. Just a tool.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Corporal punishment?"
--> Have you heard the story of Sysifus (sp), the guy in Hell, who pushes a rock up a hill, just to have it roll back downhill? I believe this is symbolic of actual conditions for one particular kind of person in Hell.

I recall something like that in Greek/Roman mythology. I can't remember the guy's name. The closest thing to it I can remember with a name is Prometheus who has his stomach pecked out by a bird every day and Atlas who has to hold up the world . . . or something like that. I know these two stories aren't it, as I am convinced that I've heard something in Greek mythology about a guy who has to roll something up a hill.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I would say it is due to our relationship with Law rather than with God.

Are you referring to legalism there?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"This thread spans quite a few pages, and I haven't got around to reading all of them, so I'd be interested in how Theosophy's notion of hell relates to what I've just said."

--> Has my explanation here been helpful?

My goal wasn't actually to just ask one question and then . . . make off!!!! It may not actually be a discussion that involves question and answer. I just thought I might "chime in" and start interacting. What you've said about hell might be similar to what someone posted in the Christianity forum a while back on Near Death Experiences. The mention of hell might have been a cold start to a discussion. Getting one small detail of a religion might please some, but I would find it interesting to see the whole spectrum. Perhaps, for example, I could ask (to change the subject), what role does symbolism play in Theosophy? Is it, for example, essential in Theosophy's view of the universe or just a means to an end?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"In many ways we may have missed the whole point of the crucifixion...."

--> Some Theosophists attach to it a whole different meaning than the present Christian interpretation.

I'd be curious to know . . .

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> For me, it is both. However, I see the rules that we are conforming to as different than the ones Christians put forth.

Rules. Does Theosophy require any essential conformity or is it morally and ethically acceptable for individual adherents to pursue whatever path they desire?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I believe a good, pious person is making progress towards both Heaven and Nirvana. It does not matter in the least whether they call themselves a Christian, Buddhist, etc.

I think if a person decided to be a follower of a particular path it's because they see themselves as a part of a particular story. A Jew, for instance, would see as his role, as part of his sacred duty to uphold the Law and the various other traditions in Judaism. For a Christian, it'd be a question of spreading the Gospel. That would be his sacred duty. For others, it may be the pursuit of Enlightenment.

With regards to spreading the Gospel, I guess it depends what you mean by "spreading Gospel." Does it mean "to convert" or "to inform" (to be messengers). Conversion implies conformity. Conformity implies upholding a banner, chanting slogans, or throwing bumper stickers around. I'm personally not an advocate of conformity as I don't see conformity as being part of the true spirit of the Gospel, or most importantly, anything spiritual.

Adherents of the Abrahamic faiths mostly see things in terms of one's relationship with God. Those pursuing Enlightenment . . . there's either no God or it's a different kind of God. . . . Or you are God. Self-improvement.

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, you asked,

"Does that mean that, in essence, we're not really human?"

--> We are human.

"Is the humanity of our existence just an illusion?"

--> Everything of this universe is just an illusion.

"I think in Christianity [Jesus] was divine originally, having been "born" in that state. The rest of us have to "inherit" that nature."

--> I disagree with that interpretation. The way I see it, he had to "inherit" it, just like the rest of us.

"I suppose at this point it depends on what one means by "divine."

--> I have seen the word divine used many different ways. Some people say that it is any being above the human level. (I disagree.) Some people say that it is any being which is so advanced that it does not reincarnate, etc., during the life of a solar system. (I like this definition.) Some pople say that divine only applies to the single Universal Mind. (This is the theistic definition that is common today.)

"Christ was an immensely powerful being; in another Christ was a human being with human limitations and no superhuman powers, just a heavenly version of one, a person who lived his life with purer intentions (ie. pure of heart, true of spirit). The rest of us are corrupt . . ."

--> I see Jesus as someone who has risen up to a level where he no longer needs to reincarnate. I would say that, just because we still need to reincarnate does not mean we are corrupt. I would describe a person in Avitchi as corrupt.

"I guess we could say our ancestor Adam was divine. He tasted the forbidden fruit and was banished to an "earthly" realm. Now we want to go back and become divine again. An area of overlap, possibly with Theosophy? Do you express that differently?"

--> There is a big difference between the Christian and Theosophical view of the story of Adam and Eve. According to Theosophy, as soon as the human race became capable of having sex, a great deal of "improper" sexual activity began. (Thus the phallic "snake" pursuing the "fruit".) There is a time schedule for the human race to evolve, and our improprieties have put us behind schedule.

"What if the nature and structure of the universe didn't matter?"

--> We are here for one reason -- to help each other become better people. That is what gives us structure.

"I suppose if we did try and visualise the nature and structure of the universe, it could just be a tool for understanding. In some religions it's important to see the structure of the universe one way. In others . . . just a means to an end. Just a tool."

--> Knowing the nature and structure of the universe is a great help. However, for some people, the pursuit of such knowedge distracts them from the work that needs to be done. It is all a matter of keeping everything in perspective.

"The closest thing to it I can remember with a name is Prometheus who has his stomach pecked out by a bird every day..."

--> Prometheus symbolizes people in Hell who overindulge in physical desires while on Earth.

"...and Atlas who has to hold up the world...."

--> Atlas symbolizes people in Hell who are too attached to the happenings on Earth, and are unable to stop thinking about such things after they die.

"...I am convinced that I've heard something in Greek mythology about a guy who has to roll something up a hill."

--> That is Sisyphus (I finally got the right spelling....) His mistake is he was too ambitious. In life, he was always trying to increase the size of his financial empire. (He symbolzes the ruthless millionaires in life.) The rock symbolizes the great financial plans he puts together while in Hell, only to see them evaporate, because financial empires are impossible in Hell. He tries again and again to concoct financial dealings, each one being a total waste of time.

"I would say it is due to our relationship with Law rather than with God. --> Are you referring to legalism there?"

--> No. I am referring to something called Universal Law, which is what Theosophy says exists instead of God. According to theists, God has the power to suspend natural law in order to perform miracles. Such a thing is impossible, according to Theosophy. According to Theosophy, nothing can suspend natural law, which is why we use the word Law.

"...what role does symbolism play in Theosophy? Is it, for example, essential in Theosophy's view of the universe or just a means to an end?"

--> There is a great deal of symbolism in Theosophy. There are various reasons for the use of symbolism. They are used so that uninformed people can participate in deep and profound discussions about cosmic concepts. Sisyphus is a good example.

"Some Theosophists attach to it a whole different meaning than the present Christian interpretation. --> I'd be curious to know . . ."

Oh my goodness, this could turn into a long story, and there are several aspects to the story. I will try to make it as brief as possible. According the Theosophy, we were originally created as Sparks of the Light (another meaning of the story of Adam and Eve.) At that point, we were waaaay too pure to incarnate into physical matter. But we needed all types of experiences, so we plunged down into physical matter. (1) We have encased oursleves in physical matter which is an unpleasant condition, compared to what it was like when we were Sparks. (2) Our entering into matter was a good thing, not the bad thing the story of Adama nd Eve describes it to be. (3) We (we Theosophists who are not Christians) see Christ as the sum total of everything in the universe, not one human being. (Many Theosophists do not use the word Christ at all.)

"Does Theosophy require any essential conformity or is it morally and ethically acceptable for individual adherents to pursue whatever path they desire?"

--> According to Theosophy, a person most certainly cannot pursue whatever path they desire. I am not sure if you are familiar with Nirvana, but Nirvana is the goal of every Theosophist. Some people think Nirvana means floating around the universe for millions of year like some kind of tourist, watching supernovas, etc. Nirvana is not like that at all. Nirvana means going around and doing nice things for others, 24/7, for millions of years. Nirvana requires a person to have no ambition whatsoever. Conforming to such an idea is an "essential conformity", and most people today (for example, Sisyphus) are not anywhere near to such a conformity.

"I think if a person decided to be a follower of a particular path it's because they see themselves as a part of a particular story. A Jew, for instance, would see as his role, as part of his sacred duty to uphold the Law and the various other traditions in Judaism. For a Christian, it'd be a question of spreading the Gospel. That would be his sacred duty. For others, it may be the pursuit of Enlightenment."

--> What do you think of people who change traditions? Are they then breaking that tradition? Do the rules of the Jews apply to others?

"With regards to spreading the Gospel, I guess it depends what you mean by "spreading Gospel."

--> I want to say proselytizing is forbidden in Theosophy.

"Those pursuing Enlightenment . . . there's either no God or it's a different kind of God...."

--> The great thing about Enlightenment is, you can pursue it whether you believe in God or not. The pursuit of Enlightenment does not require the reciting of any dogma. It has been said that, when we apply for admission to Nirvana, we are not asked if we believe in God, Jesus, etc.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Saltmeister, you asked,

"Does that mean that, in essence, we're not really human?"

--> We are human.

"Is the humanity of our existence just an illusion?"

--> Everything of this universe is just an illusion.

That statement could have been contradictory, but I'm assuming here that the notion of "subjective reality" is in force. lol. That's the idea that there is no objective reality, that all reality is subjective, that what is "real" to you depends on your point of view or frame of reference. I first got the idea from a Jew. It was a surprise coming from an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths. It changed not only my view of Judaism (that they must analyse things at a deeper level) but my own views concerning religion and spirituality in general. Up until then it was all legalism, morals and ethics. I suppose I was slowly coming to the same conclusion anyway even before I heard the term, but hearing someone actually mention it made me more aware of such a principle which got me thinking about it more, leading me more quickly to that understanding.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Some pople say that divine only applies to the single Universal Mind. (This is the theistic definition that is common today.)

So what's the Universal Mind? I had a look at the Wikipedia article (not sure how reliable that is) on Theosophy, and the closest thing I could find on all these Universal Concepts was the "Universal Paradigm."

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> There is a big difference between the Christian and Theosophical view of the story of Adam and Eve. According to Theosophy, as soon as the human race became capable of having sex, a great deal of "improper" sexual activity began. (Thus the phallic "snake" pursuing the "fruit".) There is a time schedule for the human race to evolve, and our improprieties have put us behind schedule.

Proper and improper sexual activity? So what would you classify as proper and what as improper? Marriage, sex, sexuality, the emotional/spiritual bond . . . how do you see those things?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Prometheus symbolizes people in Hell who overindulge in physical desires while on Earth.

--> Atlas symbolizes people in Hell who are too attached to the happenings on Earth, and are unable to stop thinking about such things after they die.

--> That is Sisyphus (I finally got the right spelling....) His mistake is he was too ambitious. In life, he was always trying to increase the size of his financial empire. (He symbolzes the ruthless millionaires in life.) The rock symbolizes the great financial plans he puts together while in Hell, only to see them evaporate, because financial empires are impossible in Hell. He tries again and again to concoct financial dealings, each one being a total waste of time.

I see that there's a lesson for each of the stories in ancient religions. Could I infer that Theosophy, therefore, applies a different interpretation (or has a different response) to Bible stories, for instance?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> No. I am referring to something called Universal Law, which is what Theosophy says exists instead of God. According to theists, God has the power to suspend natural law in order to perform miracles. Such a thing is impossible, according to Theosophy. According to Theosophy, nothing can suspend natural law, which is why we use the word Law.

Sometimes when I, personally, use the term "natural law" I mean either the natural physical laws (of the universe) or the Natural (Moral/Ethical) Law, which I often shorten to simply Natural Law. I usually mean the moral/ethical one. I'm assuming by usage that by "natural law" you're referring to natural physical laws and by Universal Law it's what I, up until now, call Natural Law (moral/ethical). Or . . . have I misunderstood things here . . . you were referring to natural physical laws in both cases, even Universal Law? I was assuming Universal Law referred to a moral/ethical principle.

Or else . . . it was by "Law" that you were referring to moral/ethical law. It sometimes gets confusing with all these different "Law" terms. You don't know if it's about physical phenomena or morals and ethics.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> What do you think of people who change traditions? Are they then breaking that tradition? Do the rules of the Jews apply to others?

I suppose I could use marriage and divorce as an example. When married we are bound to one person for life, forbidden to have sexual relations with anyone else. If we file a divorce, we sever that bond and are then free to bond with someone else. With a tradition I suppose it's the same thing. Sever the bond and you are no longer bound to the rules of that tradition. It's like getting a divorce from that tradition. You can then bind with something else.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I want to say proselytizing is forbidden in Theosophy.

Sorry I wasn't referring to Theosophy there. I was just explaining how a person who devoted himself to a particular path might see a particular task as part of their sacred duty. If we took all traditions that have been brought down through the generations, we'd have hundreds of paths with their walkers performing their respective tasks in relation to their sacred duty.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> The great thing about Enlightenment is, you can pursue it whether you believe in God or not. The pursuit of Enlightenment does not require the reciting of any dogma. It has been said that, when we apply for admission to Nirvana, we are not asked if we believe in God, Jesus, etc.

Ideally we wouldn't ask these questions at all, even in religions that traditionally, do ask for these things. Reciting of dogma (ie. conformity) is done more for political reasons (ie. impressing and pleasing people, or letting them know you are on their side) then for actual spiritual reasons. It's much like putting a mark on people's heads. If we express things the same way, it's more likely that we pursue the same goals than if we did not. The reason why I don't agree with such "practices" is that it's not really spiritual. In religions where you have a relationship with God what matters is that you have a proper relationship with God, not whether you can chant the same slogans as another.

I see, however, that conformity is different in Theosophy as it does, actually have a spiritual rather than a political purpose.

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, we discussed,

"Everything of this universe is just an illusion. -->
That statement could have been contradictory, but I'm assuming here that the notion of "subjective reality" is in force. lol."

--> I was just making a point. Some people want to say some things in the universe are more of an illusion than other things. I suppose there is value in that, but it can also be a mistake to make such distinctions. Is the physical world more of an illusion than the astral world? Some people say yes.

"...what's the Universal Mind?"

--> Universal Mind is more commonly called Divine thought. Divine Thought is never defined, but it is an aspect of the Absolute.

“Divine thought cannot be defined, or its meaning explained, except by the numberless manifestations of Cosmic Substance in which the former is sensed spiritually by those who can do so.” (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 327)

Divine Thought is not similar to conscious, human-like thought.

“The Absolute cannot be said to have a consciousness, or, at any rate, a consciousness such as we have here. It has neither consciousness, nor desire, nor wish, nor thought, because it is absolute thought, absolute desire, absolute consciousness, absolute "all." ” (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 15)

Divine Thought is eternal, while Divine Ideation is periodical.

“In the ABSOLUTE or Divine Thought everything exists and there has been no time when it did not so exist; but Divine Ideation is limited by the Universal Manvantaras.” (Transactions of The Blavatsky Lodge, vol 2 pp. 10-11)

--> The word "eternal" is used here in the Theosophical, not Christian sense.

"So what would you classify as proper and what as improper?"

--> There was a great of beastiality at that time. This was the origin of the satyr, minotaur, mermaid, etc.

"Marriage, sex, sexuality, the emotional/spiritual bond . . . how do you see those things?"

--> These are long and involved topics. I assume you are presently interested in their relationship to the beastiality of that time.

"Could I infer that Theosophy, therefore, applies a different interpretation (or has a different response) to Bible stories, for instance?"

--> Yes. There are several examples.

"...you were referring to natural physical laws in both cases, even Universal Law? I was assuming Universal Law referred to a moral/ethical principle.
Or else . . . it was by "Law" that you were referring to moral/ethical law."

--> We can distinguish moral law from the laws of physics. However, at a high level, they all originate from a single source — Universal Law. Neither type of Law can suspended. Bad acts will send us to Hell, as sure as the igniting of hydrogen and oxygen will cause an explosion.

"You don't know if it's about physical phenomena or morals and ethics."

--> That is a fascinating concept. Feel free to give an example.

"Sever the bond and you are no longer bound to the rules of that tradition."

--> I thought the Jews had a contract with God. Do Jews think a person can quite Judiasm and not have to honor the contract any more?

"With regards to spreading the Gospel, I guess it depends what you mean by "spreading Gospel." Does it mean "to convert" or "to inform" (to be messengers). --> I want to say proselytizing is forbidden in Theosophy. --> Sorry I wasn't referring to Theosophy there. I was just explaining how a person who devoted himself to a particular path might see a particular task as part of their sacred duty."

--> This, of course, is a big bug-a-boo in the religious world. I can see how someone thinks prosetylizing is their sacred duty. They are willing to do anything to save me from Hell. It is a case of the ends justifying the means.

"Reciting of dogma (ie. conformity) is done more for political reasons (ie. impressing and pleasing people, or letting them know you are on their side) then for actual spiritual reasons."

--> I think a lot of people think we will be asked if we believe in such-and-such a deity when we try to get in Heaven, and will be refused if we reply in the negative. Theosophy teaches against such an idea.

"In religions where you have a relationship with God what matters is that you have a proper relationship with God, not whether you can chant the same slogans as another."

--> It gets even more interesting when you discuss religions that do not believe in God.

"...conformity is different in Theosophy as it does, actually have a spiritual rather than a political purpose."

--> In Theosophy, it is a two-edged sword. (1) Theosophy lists specific things that need to be done in order to enter Nirvana. Some people says this makes Theosophy as exclusive as Christianity. (2) The things that Theosophy says need to be done are not dogmatic (e.g., reciting the name of a deity) but acquiring personality traits (learning to be calm, not relying on superstition, etc.)

[Saltmeister]

Hello and greetings, Nick the Pilot!!

Sorry for the delayed reply. I kind of tuned out of this topic in the last two weeks. My mind turned elsewhere, but now I'm back.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> We can distinguish moral law from the laws of physics. However, at a high level, they all originate from a single source — Universal Law. Neither type of Law can suspended. Bad acts will send us to Hell, as sure as the igniting of hydrogen and oxygen will cause an explosion.

"You don't know if it's about physical phenomena or morals and ethics."

--> That is a fascinating concept. Feel free to give an example.

I think Paul's discussion of "Law" in the New Testament might serve as an example. In some places "Law" means moral law. In other places, "Law" refers to human nature, and therefore natural behavioural dispositions. I can't think of any other examples at the moment. So Universal Law ties all these different "laws" together?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Sever the bond and you are no longer bound to the rules of that tradition."


--> I thought the Jews had a contract with God. Do Jews think a person can quite Judiasm and not have to honor the contract any more?

Not disputing that they do . . . I don't know what happens with Jews who decide to leave the tradition behind. My impression is that their tradition has become accommodating enough for them to find ways to stay within the path even without conforming to the traditional social requirements (ie. remaining Jewish). My perception is also that there's an attitude where, if you can't keep up, those in the community are quite happy to let you go, in which case you simply become a Noahide. You're still an adherent of Judaism, just not a Jew (if you know what I mean). The standards for Noahides are less strict (7 commandments versus 613). If you're not originally a Jew, you can still become a Noahide without converting to Judaism.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"In religions where you have a relationship with God what matters is that you have a proper relationship with God, not whether you can chant the same slogans as another."


--> It gets even more interesting when you discuss religions that do not believe in God.

A question of finding a substitute I suppose.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...conformity is different in Theosophy as it does, actually have a spiritual rather than a political purpose."

--> In Theosophy, it is a two-edged sword. (1) Theosophy lists specific things that need to be done in order to enter Nirvana. Some people says this makes Theosophy as exclusive as Christianity.

I think a lot of people make it exclusive, not because it actually is exclusive, or was meant to be exclusive. It's exclusive when they see a tradition as the only way of seeing the universe, the only way of being spiritual, being enlightened, etc., rather than just a subjective reality. (ie. they see it as an objective reality, if that's the right way of terming it).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

(2) The things that Theosophy says need to be done are not dogmatic (e.g., reciting the name of a deity) but acquiring personality traits (learning to be calm, not relying on superstition, etc.)

I think a concept is dogmatic when it's repeated again and again with the same or similar words, or by means of slogans, rather than rephrasing the idea and wrapping it around different words. It would be the same concept wearing different coloured clothes. That's very common (ie. dogma) in Christianity. I wish it wasn't that common, but . . . unfortunately it is.

The downside of this approach I guess, is that it might allow chaos, disorder and confusion, due to the fact that people don't have signposts to rally them to a common defined purpose.. . . which is why . . . all religions have signposts.

Dogma makes things unnatural . . . so . . . thumbs up to developing personality traits. If the human mind was a plant that bore fruit, then developing personality traits would be how we'd make that plant grow. Dogma gets the thumbs down because it doesn't help the plant grow. I'm kind of using nature as a metaphor for the spiritual here. I don't know what you'd make of that. It just works for me. Dogma is like a factory that builds machines, while spirituality is like the plants in the natural world.

But anyway . . . pardon me for rambling . . . I'm just not sure where to go from here. Maybe I've run out of questions . . . or maybe there's a bit more to discuss (if you have comments) . . . in which case the amount of discussion will decay exponentially. . . . and I will passively wait for something else to discuss. One step at a time: that's how we learn. I was just getting my foot in the door . . .

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Hi everybody!

I thought I would give a Theosophical response to the question. (I do not give Theosophical responses in Christian threads.)

Theosophy does not see it as God tormenting us. We cause the conditions ourslves. We have no one but to blame but ourselves. (As a matter of fact, I have just been reading a psychic person's story of his visit to one of his pre-mortem clients in Hell, to check up on him. It is a fascinating story.)

Theosophy definitely teaches that Hell happens, but not an eternal Hell. Fortunately, we see the possibility of people spending time in both Heaven and Hell between incarnations.

You base your "theory" upon the "assumption" that there is a second time around. So the question is, upon what do you presume that there is a "second" time around?

And as far as making it clear that you don't post theosophical responses to Christian threads...what does that have to do with the question at hand? Are you discriminatory? If so, you are exactly what you hate in another faith's perceived demeanor...

suggestion, leave the bashing out of your posts. (you set yourself up to be challenged, and now, you have been challenged).

v/r

Q

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, you said,

"My mind turned elsewhere, but now I'm back."

--> Wouldn't it be great if we could spend all of our time on all the things we want to do?

"So Universal Law ties all these different "laws" together?"

--> Yes, they do. It is all one Law.

"If you're not originally a Jew, you can still become a Noahide without converting to Judaism."

--> According to my belief system, Jehovah is the patron saint of the Jews, who was later "promoted" to The Almighty. According to my belief system, yes, the Jews are the chosen people of their own patron saint. It is an interesting question; what commitments does each human have to the patron saint of their group?

"I think a concept is dogmatic when it's repeated again and again with the same or similar words, or by means of slogans, rather than rephrasing the idea and wrapping it around different words."

--> The distinction between dogma and doctrine is a tricky one, and it is one all of us must consider carefully. You know the old joke, what I believe is doctrine, what everybody else believes is dogma (ha). For example, my belief system says we must totally eliminate lust before we can enter Nirvana. (The requirements to enter Heaven are different, but that is another topic.) I would not call such an anti-lust idea a dogma (but I suppose there are people who would). I would say that voicing a particular creed, or particular deity's name in order to get into Heaven is dogma, while doing good deeds and thinking good thoughts is a doctrine.

"That's very common (ie. dogma) in Christianity."

--> Dogma is a significant issue in Christianity.

"Dogma makes things unnatural . . . so . . . thumbs up to developing personality traits."

--> By the way, according to my belief system, no reciting of a creed nor a deity's name is required to get into Heaven.

"I'm just not sure where to go from here."

--> We have a zillion topics we could discuss.

• Do you believe in reincarnation?
• Do you see a difference between Heaven and Nirvana?
• Do you see a difference between Enlightenment and Nirvana?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> We have a zillion topics we could discuss.

• Do you believe in reincarnation?
• Do you see a difference between Heaven and Nirvana?
• Do you see a difference between Enlightenment and Nirvana?

A christian zea