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

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"Even from my distant perspective, a lot of what passes for 'Buddhism' in the West is far from what a Buddhist of the East would recognise."

--> Theosophy would add one more layer to that. Buddhism as practiced today in many parts of the world may not be (according to Theosoph) what Buddha actually said. Theosophy also advances the theory that Buddha (and Jesus) taught ideas to their inner circle of students that were not taught to the public. All of this leads to quite a mish-mash of arguments about who taught what.

"That I make no comment does not mean I have ignored them...."

--> What, you do not have enough hours in the day, either??

"Books! More books! Books, the bane of my life!"

--> People keep telling me, "You have just got to read this book." Yeah, right. Put in on the pile....

"...the symbol can be interpreted accurately, if one is cognizant of the hermeneutic and epistemological structure that contains it."

--> Ah, but that is the trick, isn't it? Unfortunately, I think this is much more difficult to do in Theosophy than in Christianity.

"...I once read an exegesis of the parable of the camel and the eye of a needle that was pages of rich information on Hebrew pun and linguistics."

--> Have you read the Lamsa Bible version of that story?

"...Tradition begins with the call of Abraham...."

--> I see Abraham as one more Guide in a long line of Guides. My very curiosity would make me wonder what Guides there were before Abraham. (You feel there were no Guides before Abraham that were at the same level as Abraham?)

"...The 'real' story for us begins with Abraham, and the Covenant between God, and Abraham and his seed...."

--> I am not trying to criticise, I just want to know. What of the people before Abraham? They did not have access to this Covenent?

~~~

I did want to revisit two of your previous questions, and add to my answers.

"...How does one contact an Initiate?"

--> Here is one quote that I cannot find the author of:

"...We should not seek out [discipleship]. We should work hard at improving ourselves, and let [discipleship] suddenly descend upon us one day from above."

You previously asked,

"If sex is the issue ... are you saying the act alone is forbidden?"

--> Sex, itself, is not bad. What I failed to say before is, having a burning desire for anything is bad. It is bad because it causes us trouble (according to Theosophy) in Purgatory. According to Theosphy, no one can enter Heaven until their lower desires have been burned out — the newly-dead simply cannot bring these lower desires into Heaven. It is not that such a thing is forbidden, it is simply physically impossible.

[Different parts of a human] "...die more or less with what is called the physical death.... [Lower-Desires] has [Purgatory] for its abode, where it suffers the throes of disintegration in proportion to the intensity of those lower desires...." (Five Years of Theosophy, p. 92)

The key phrase here is, "in proportion to the intensity of those lower desires." According to Theosophy, we will spend more time in Purgatory (and that time will be more uncomfortable) according to the number and strengths of burning desires we had in physical Life. Sex is fine, but when we allow it cross over into burning desire, we automatically reserve a special place for ourselves in Purgatory (according to Theosophy).

[AndrewX]

I will enjoy reading the ongoing discussion between the two of you, Thomas and Nick.

As for me, I know what I have experienced, and much as Socrates is supposed to have said, I know how little I actually know.

One of the things I shall not relinquish, however, is an understanding of the Initiatory tradition which has gotten me this far ... until I have something better to replace it with. And I am 99.9% confident that NOTHING which exoteric Christianity has to offer can give me better insight - than that which I have already experienced.

I do leave room, plenty of room, for the insights which Gnostic, or Esoteric Christianity has to offer. And I mean EXACTLY what I say, not `an Christian esotericism,' or some such.

Thus, Thomas, we shall part company here. Enjoy your discussion with Nick, and if you happen to realise, some time down the road, that the Syrian Master is indeed - but one of several dozen, with numerous other Teachers of equal standing, all serving the One Christ in the One Occult Brotherhood ... ahhh, well THEN we can resume our dialogue, and perhaps at long last have some things to exchange with each other.

Till then, Best of Luck in your search, in your research, and in your spiritual endeavors. We are on two, very different pages, and I know that I do not have the inclination in the least - to continue shouting across the divide.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy also advances the theory that Buddha (and Jesus) taught ideas to their inner circle of students that were not taught to the public. All of this leads to quite a mish-mash of arguments about who taught what.

Well, if you'll allow me to wax lyrical for a moment, sadly that is no new theory to us. The idea of a secret transmission of Christian doctrine is not unique to Theosophy, the Apostles found themselves having to deal with such speculation almost from the word go! St John's Gospel was written against Cerinthus, who although not himself a gnostic, pre-empted many of their speculations.

St Irenaeus provides most of the data on the arguments then, in refuting their errors. Recent scholarship has softened some of his views, but his central arguments stand ... for the authentic and unbroken tradition of transmission through the Apostles and their chosen successors.

Origen was another genius in unravelling the false doctrines of his day, as were all the Fathers ... curiously many of our greatest mystics were also great reformers, their luminous charism itself illuminating the Way for those who had gone astray.

We've been tried on that front for 2,000 years, and never found wanting. If you're under no obligation to accept the theory, I would at least in friendship ask you to put it to one side. We've had centuries to practice and refine our arguments, it'd be a long haul for anyone wanting to take it on, and dare I suggest too much of a diversion?

Even the most secular social theory of the development of cultures observes that what is considered the 'orthodox' history of Christianity is most probably the authentic tradition. It used to be argued that orthodoxy won out because it was stronger ... now its understood that stronger cultures are such because they deviate least, if at all, from their source.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

What, you do not have enough hours in the day, either??

Too many spent here!!!

"Books! More books! Books, the bane of my life!"

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> People keep telling me, "You have just got to read this book." Yeah, right. Put in on the pile....

I known, and I've sorted my birthday and Christmas present list for the next 18 years.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Ah, but that is the trick, isn't it (deciphering symbols)? Unfortunately, I think this is much more difficult to do in Theosophy than in Christianity.

Worth every effort though, the language of symbol is one of the forgotten languages in this material world in which we find ourselves.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Have you read the Lamsa Bible version of that story?

No.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

My very curiosity would make me wonder what Guides there were before Abraham. (You feel there were no Guides before Abraham that were at the same level as Abraham?)

Well there was Melchisedech, to whom Abraham paid tithes, but then we're in deep Christian symbol again. Abraham's uniqueness was his calling to be the Father of nations:
"As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
(Genesis 17:4-5)
And again, the change in name from Abram to Abraham signifies a change and a new direction. In that sense many forbears led Abram to his momentous calling, but his calling was a new covenant, a different order of engagement with the Divine.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I am not trying to criticise, I just want to know. What of the people before Abraham? They did not have access to this Covenent?

No problem ... Not the Covenant with Abraham, which was the founding of a people ... however we read the first covenant as being with Adam and Eve, and was broken by their transgression.

God's grace is infinite however, and the covenant is periodically renewed and reshaped according to Providence. Noah, for example, had a covenant that extended to his immediate family ... Enoch, we are told, "walked with God, and was not, for God took him" (Genesis 5:24) ... so his predecessors did not have access tothat covenant, but they did have access to God.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Sex, itself, is not bad. What I failed to say before is, having a burning desire for anything is bad.

Ah, with you now. We say concupiscence, although Protestant theology views the term differently. They consider human nature to be essentially corrupted by it, thus man is hopelessly lost without Divine intervention. We view human nature as wounded, so still retaining a potentiality towards the good. In Catholicism most of all, we recognise man can contribute towards his own salvation, albeit unable to engineer it without Divine assistance.

I wonder is that clear, and I wonder if Theosophy has a tendency towards either?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is bad because it causes us trouble (according to Theosophy) in Purgatory...

Hoho! I thought for as moment you meant Theosophists only in Purgatory (until I read your parenthetical remark!).

Yes indeed, and at the riske of being riske — such a long time of trouble, for such a brief moment of pleasure!

Without going into detail, I would say there is much common ground here, in eschatalogical outlook — you mention 'proportion' and I think we're on the same ground ... if I may regard it in the same (somewhat lighter) sense of Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado: "To let the punishment fit the crime"?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"...sadly that is no new theory to us. The idea of a secret transmission of Christian doctrine is not unique to Theosophy...."

--> Happily, the idea of Intiates and Initiations is a key difference between Theosophy and Christianity.

"Have you read the Lamsa Bible version of that story? --> No."

--> That version of the Bible (supposidly translated directly from Southern Aramaic -- supposidely the language Jesus spoke) says putting a camel through the eye of a needle means to put a thread made from a camel-hair through the eye of a needle. It is Lamsa's contention that many confusing terms in the Bible are merely bad translations of Aramaic idioms, and Lamsa offers several examples.

"...his calling was a new covenant...."

--> That is an interesting idea. Theosophy, on the other hand, would say humanity began its "covenant" with "God" when the universe first appeared.

"...we read the first covenant as being with Adam and Eve.... Noah, for example, had a covenant...."

--> Christianity, then seems to a series of covenants. Theosophy would assert there may have been covenants before Adam and Eve's covenant. Theosophy would consider the idea that humans who appeared after Day Six (yet appeared before Adam and Eve) may also have had "covenants".

"...man is hopelessly lost without Divine intervention."

--> This is a key difference betwen Christianity and Theosophy. Theosophy would replace the prase Divine Interverntion with Divine Guidance. It is Theosophy's contention that humanity has never been without Divine Guidance, again, pointing out a key difference between the two traditions.

"We view human nature as wounded...."

--> We do not. We see humans as making progress along a Path in a normal and positive way.

"In Catholicism most of all, we recognise man can contribute towards his own salvation, albeit unable to engineer it without Divine assistance."

--> Theosophy would replace the word "salvation" with "Enlightenment", and would say man's ability to automaticaly make progress towards Enlightenment is an innate, built-in ability. (Divine Guidance does, however, make things move more efficiently.) I suppose my distinction between Divine Assistance and Divine Guidance is different than yours. Perhaps the single most important difference between Christianity and Theosophy is the difference between a salvation/resurrection theory and a karma/reincarnation theory.

"Hoho! I thought for as moment you meant Theosophists only in Purgatory (until I read your parenthetical remark!)."

--> By the way, the Catholic Church has recently stopped teaching the idea of Purgatory, correct? (Theosophy has not.)

[Thomas]

hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

... the idea of Intiates and Initiations is a key difference between Theosophy and Christianity.

You may be right. We do have initiates and initiatic rites, but they are not always perceived that way. Quite how ours compare to yours, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

That (Lamsa) version of the Bible ... says putting a camel through the eye of a needle means to put a thread made from a camel-hair through the eye of a needle.

The essay, as I recall, spoke of passing a rope through the eye of a needle.

There is much speculation, Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 55b speaks of "nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle" — so in both cases I would suggest we're dealing with wonderful instance of Hebraic (or Aramaic) hyperbole. Camels, ropes, elephants ... something big, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> That is an interesting idea. Theosophy, on the other hand, would say humanity began its "covenant" with "God" when the universe first appeared.

I don't think we differ, as the first act of the Covenant was placing humanity in the Garden of Paradise. Humanity's part of the contract was to tend and keep it.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Christianity, then seems to a series of covenants.

Yes, but the foundation of them all is the same.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy would replace the prase Divine Interverntion with Divine Guidance.

Different terms, same meaning, I think. By intervention we mean that God is not of the Deist kind, one who sets the ball in motion, then leaves it to its own devices (a clockwork creation). For us guidance is an intervention.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is Theosophy's contention that humanity has never been without Divine Guidance, again, pointing out a key difference between the two traditions.

I don't think you've got that right ... God is always Immanently present to the pure of heart.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We see humans as making progress along a Path in a normal and positive way.

That is a difference. We see nothing 'normal' or 'positive' in the Fall.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Theosophy would replace the word "salvation" with "Enlightenment", and would say man's ability to automaticaly make progress towards Enlightenment is an innate, built-in ability. (Divine Guidance does, however, make things move more efficiently.)

Again we are not dissimilar, I think. St Thomas Aquinas, for example states that man by nature 'tends to the good, which is its own perfection' — although Aristotle beat him to it.

We would draw a distinction between he who is enlightened is not automatically saved ... I think we'd base the difference on 'knowing' and 'being', but there's a whole discussion of semantics here ... people know the right thing to do (by the intellect) but don't necessarily do it (weakness of will). On the other hand, the strong willed are not necessarily enlightened (although invariable act in the assumption that they are).

Then again, true enlightenment is 'living' what you 'know' — we include the faculty of the will as a principle constituent ... I think a discussion of will and intellect comes in here?

Another idea is of transcendence. In the Greek philosophical tradition, we hold that a nature cannot transcend itself ... were it possible, then that to which it aspires would be natural to it, it would simply be fulfilling its natural potential, not transcending it.

To transcend self requires a new nature, and necessarily a new nature that is pre-existing, rather than a chance permutation, or man inventing and becoming something superior to his own nature ... I assume the East views transcendence differently.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Perhaps the single most important difference between Christianity and Theosophy is the difference between a salvation/resurrection theory and a karma/reincarnation theory.

I would think so ... unless you've got any other surprises tucked up your sleeve I seem to recall monotheism/pantheism discussed between us some while ago(?) ... that would be pretty fundamental.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

By the way, the Catholic Church has recently stopped teaching the idea of Purgatory, correct?

No ... although there has been a lot of confusion promulgated by nervous rumour and scandal mongers.

In fact Pope Benedict is a big believer in the doctrine of Purgatory, there's a tale you can read here:
Oremus.com/pray-purgatory.shtml - Helping those in need of prayer!
apocryphal, of course!

Our doctrine on Purgatory is quite concise:
1 that a purification after death exists,
2 that it can involve some kind of suffering,
3 that the purification can be assisted by the prayers of the living, the saints and the angels.

That's it. The more colourful stuff owes mostly to the imagination of Dante in his Divine Comedy.

It is the idea of Limbo that we have decided not to continue. Limbo was suggested as the destiny of those who die unbaptised was deemed to be based on an "unduly restrictive view of salvation" and that God "wants all human beings to be saved".

Thomas

[Thomas]

Actually Nick, something does occur from that bit about Limbo that might show a patch (at least) of common ground with regard to our respective notions of freedom of speculation. The way it presents itself is in a somewhat roundabout fashion, so allow me, if you will, to be a little longwinded.

The Rule of Faith is founded on a hierarchical structure, according to its transmission.

First and foremost, what Christ says, goes. This is, for us, non-negotiable.
Secondly, Apostolic Tradition — this covers all the Canonical Books of the New Testament, and the oral tradition of the Church. This too, is non-negotiable. It encompasses the first, in that we know nothing about what Christ said with any degree of reliability outside of Scrpture.

First aside:
It is a common assumption that the Faith of the Church is founded on Scripture alone. This is in fact not quite the case. The Liturgy and the Sacramental Rites are older than Scripture, and these comprise the oral traditions that help formulate and shape the written tradition.

Second aside:
We believe the same to be the case with the Old Testament, its data was the faith of Israel as logically prior to its being consigned to a written text ... the text is itself a means of transmission of the faith, not its inception. That's why we cannot separate the people from the text.

Third aside:
The content of Scripture is only infallible on the question of faith and morals. We draw a distinction between material truth (which might be subject to error) and formal truth — the spiritual realities it intends to convey. Thus when we read of the feeding of the five thousand, we are not obliged to believe that it was precisely five thousand who were fed. It is unlikely that even the larger group of disciples engaged in a head-count. The point is a great number was fed, so great a number that it stands as a miracle. The symbolism of five loaves and two fishes is ancilliary to that fact.

The precise number is immaterial, as long as one does not thereby imply a non-miraculous event. If the suggestion was that only five, and not five thousand, were fed, it would render the meaning fo the text a nonsense, so it would be considered ludicrous on both counts.

Back to the plot:

The third tier of the hierarchy is Patristic Tradition, the successors to the Apostles (and perhaps witnesses of Christ Himself), and here's the point in question:
It is agreed and understood in the Church that the Fathers are not infallible. In fact we only hold of one Patristic source — St John of Damascus — as never having been found in error. All the more remarkable because he is the author of "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" — this was written when the Church at large was one.

In respect of doctrine it is believed that the Fathers are infallible when they are all in accord ... logically if they all agree on a point of doctrine, then we can assume that doctrine is sound, we have no grounds to assume otherwise.

Lastly, the Pope and the Magisterium. A contentious point indeed, but we believe the Pope (as head of the Magisterium) is infallible ex cathedra, or as we say, "when he speaks from the Chair of St Peter" — by which we mean the office is infallible, not the man who occupies it. Many assume that Pope Bendict's recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth" is doctrine because he wrote it. This is not the case, it is his speculation on the matter. It is a personal document, not a magisterial one.

On a technicality, an extreme case which thank God has never need been tested, is the possibility for the Church to declare a Pope to be in error, even though the infallibility of the Petrine Office is assured by Christ: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). In this instance, by his heresy, it is obvious he speaks not with the mind of the Church, and thus in so doing has vacated the Chair, sede vacante is the technical term.

Likewise, our saints, mystics and sages (and, at the bottom of the pile, theologians!) are not by their own virtue infallible. They can err, and indeed have done so, even Popes, and indeed even Popes have been martyred by Christians for their belief (right belief, in this instance — Pope Martin I was invited from Rome to Constantinople, and there arrested, tried and found guilty of heresy and executed in a sham trial organised by the Eastern Emmperor.)

The point I am approaching, by way of various digressions, is that, under the Rule of Faith, there is an allowance for a diversity of opinion, speculation and expression, as long as one does not refute the primary data of Scripture, and the guarantee of its right and authentic transmission through Apostolic Succession.

It sounds a bit like a Catch-22, but when considered, is eminently reasonable. If a body of believers cannot state what they believe, then what is there to be believed?

And I believe Theosophy possesses at least one 'Rule of Faith'?

+++

If people are allowed to believe what they like, then logically they can believe in nothing at all, and still call themselves Christian — but this defies reason and thus renders itself illogical, QED.

The Faith of the Church is contained entire in 12 propositions (the Creed). The Hope of the Church is contained entire in 7 petitions (The Lord's Prayer). The Love of the Church is contained entire in 1 supreme gesture of self sacrifice.
It has given rise to a pan-cultural diversity that is rich and manifold, being human, sometimes tragic, sometimes glorious, ever faithful.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, we discussed,

"Theosophy would replace the phrase Divine Interverntion with Divine Guidance. --> Different terms, same meaning, I think. By intervention we mean that God is not of the Deist kind, one who sets the ball in motion, then leaves it to its own devices (a clockwork creation). For us guidance is an intervention."

--> For us, it is not. Theosophy places a great deal more responsibility upon the person. While Christians can depend on God to forgive their sins, Theosophists cannot. Theosophy is a more difficult Path to travel, but I would not have it any other way.

"We see humans as making progress along a Path in a normal and positive way. --> That is a difference. We see nothing 'normal' or 'positive' in the Fall."

--> We do. Can you see why some people say Christianity is basically negative (as it is based on a primarily not-normal or negative first-experience), while Buddhism and Theosophy are basically positive (as they are based on a primarily positive first-experience)? As a matter of fact, this difference is one of the main reasons I left Christiantiy, many years ago.

"...man by nature 'tends to the good, which is its own perfection'...."

--> I would contrast this with the idea that man by nature is guilty of Original Sin. I cannot escape from the Christian idea that we are all suffering from Original Sin, we are all basically bad, and we are all going to Hell if we do not change our ways.

"We would draw a distinction between he who is enlightened is not automatically saved...."

--> That is definitely how we view Christian Salvation.

"...people know the right thing to do (by the intellect) but don't necessarily do it (weakness of will). On the other hand, the strong willed are not necessarily enlightened (although invariable act in the assumption that they are)."

--> This suggests that Enlightenment is mainly knowledge, while Salvation is mainly an act. I would disagree, although I think many Buddhists would agree. (This gets into differences between Buddhist and Theosophical interpretations of what Enlightenment is.) Enlightenment is the pinnacle of knowledge and action that a human can achieve. (Most Buddhists would leave out the action part, in my opinion.)

"Then again, true enlightenment is 'living' what you 'know' — we include the faculty of the will as a principle constituent...."

--> I would agree with that statement, but using a different interpretation of what Enlightenment is. According to Theosophy, Enlightenment opens up abilities in humanity that were unavailable before. Enlightenment changes the very way we perceive reality, and the way we interact with it.

Your phrase, "true enlightenment is living what you 'know" is true, but I feel misleading. According to Theosophy, a great deal of "knowledge" is gained at the instant of Enlightenment. To us, Enlightenment is much more than just "figuring out" experiences in the physical world. It is much more than just an "aha" experience.

"Another idea is of transcendence. In the Greek philosophical tradition, we hold that a nature cannot transcend itself...."

--> I am not sure what you mean by transcendence.

"To transcend self requires a new nature, and necessarily a new nature that is pre-existing, rather than a chance permutation, or man inventing and becoming something superior to his own nature ... I assume the East views transcendence differently."

--> I think the East agrees with this idea, although in a different way.

A person's personality is a dim reflection of something much higher. A personality is unfortunately necessary now, but the need for it will eventually disappear. When that happens, a transcendence of consciousness will happen, with the appearance of a new nature (as you have mentioned).

Our true nature is pre-existing, it is not a chance permutation, nor is it man's invention. It is a becoming of something superior to our own nature, in that the next level will be a much superior form of reality than the one we are presently experiencing.

The next level of consciousness is something I can only describe as cosmic consciousness. For us, it is a return to cosmic consciousness. We came from that higher level of consciousness, and we will return to it (which is one of our interpretations of the Adam and Eve story). For us, the Garden of Eden is not a place, it is a level of consciousness.

"Perhaps the single most important difference between Christianity and Theosophy is the difference between a salvation/resurrection theory and a karma/reincarnation theory. --> I would think so...."

--> This is an important difference, because I see a lot of people trying to incorporate both Christianity and Buddhism into their belief system. It is a noble effort, and I commend them for trying. However, the two systems are as different as night and day (people either believe in the forgiveness of sin or they do not), so it seems they are traveling an impossible path. But there is no question that a lot of people say they are both Christian and Buddhist.

"Our doctrine on Purgatory is quite concise:

1 that a purification after death exists,

2 that it can involve some kind of suffering...."

--> I see a contradiction. If a person accepts Jesus, Salvation, etc., they go to Heaven, right? I think the whole idea behind Christianity is the forgiving of conditions that would send a person to Purgatory. Is the forgiveness of sins conditional?

You are correct, I confused Christian Limbo with Christian Purgatory. Wasn't Limbo taught by the church for hundreds of years? (Wasn't there one Pope who was particularly fond of the idea?) Is Limbo does not happen, why was it taught for so many years?

"we believe the Pope (as head of the Magisterium) is infallible ex cathedra, or as we say, "when he speaks from the Chair of St Peter" — by which we mean the office is infallible, not the man who occupies it. Many assume that Pope Bendict's recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth" is doctrine because he wrote it. This is not the case, it is his speculation on the matter. It is a personal document, not a magisterial one."

--> You must forgive me, but it strikes me as strange that a Pope's words can be labeled fallible or infallible depending on the circumstances. You are free to adapt such an idea into your belief system. Fortunately, I am free to discard such an idea.

"And I believe Theosophy possesses at least one 'Rule of Faith'?"

--> Which rule are you referring to?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy places a great deal more responsibility upon the person.

In traditional (ie pre-Reformation) Doctrine, the ultimate responsibility rests with the person ... some of the Post-Reformation denominations believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

While Christians can depend on God to forgive their sins, Theosophists cannot.

Our God is a God of Love. How would you describe yours?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy is a more difficult Path to travel, but I would not have it any other way.

From a Catholic perspective of what is required of a Theosophist, I find hard to see anything difficult at all. No Theosophic teaching is insisted upon, it seems, so you are free to choose what you like, where's the difficulty in that?

It terms of a 'Way', I would view 'difficult' as a perception of self-denial, and I regard the Monastic Rule (be it Christian, Buddhist or otherwise) as indeed difficult and thereby heroic. I am deeply drawn to the Carthusian Rule, but doubt I have the stamina to sustain it.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Can you see why some people say Christianity is basically negative (as it is based on a primarily not-normal or negative first-experience),

I can certainly see why, but I see it a misunderstood, even if I may sao so, by yourself. Our 'first experience' is absolutely positive ... there was a time before the Fall ... we are first and foremost creatures made in the image and likeness' of God — can't get more positive than that, I would have thought.

In my experience people generally who brand Christianity — a religion of love — as 'negative' is because as a Way it demands a greater effort than they are prepared to make. Personally I see no greater optimism for humanity than in Christianity.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

while Buddhism and Theosophy are basically positive (as they are based on a primarily positive first-experience)?

Interesting viewpoint, again I would say that's a matter of perspective.

For Catholics, Buddhism's first premise is human suffering as a condition of human nature, whereas we view it as not the proper natural condition ... and to us, Theosophy's premise seems to put an interminable if not an infinite number of intermediate states between man and God. From there, the Catholic would view both as pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said: "man by nature 'tends to the good, which is its own perfection'...."
I would contrast this with the idea that man by nature is guilty of Original Sin.

I would agree with regard to Original Sin, but point out that sin as such is not a constituent of human nature (in fact 'sin' is the absence of something, not a presence). Man has a capacity to sin precisely because he is free, but nevertheless, the tendency of human nature is toward the good, the tragedy is, in his ignorance, he tends to settle for an immediate and lesser good.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I cannot escape from the Christian idea that we are all suffering from Original Sin, we are all basically bad, and we are all going to Hell if we do not change our ways.

That's not a Catholic idea. Again, that's a post-reformation perspective. Very Lutheran, if I might say. A Calvinist would be even worse: whether or not you are saved is not up to you, the die is already cast.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

According to Theosophy, Enlightenment opens up abilities in humanity that were unavailable before. Enlightenment changes the very way we perceive reality, and the way we interact with it.

That's very interesting ... how does it do that? where does it come from ... how is someone enlightened?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Your phrase, "true enlightenment is living what you 'know" is true, but I feel misleading.

Let me clarify for you ... For us, 'enlightenent' is the Presence of the Holy Spirit that illuminates our true nature ... so the degree of 'enlightenment' is the degree to which we are true to who and what we are. There is a direct correlation for us, between 'light' and the Divine.

In that sense knowledge is immaterial, it's all a matter of being, it's way beyond knowledge: "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you." (John 14:17) — so one can be enlightened, but know 'nothing' (according to the world) this is in the idea of "Fool for God" ... Jeremias was quite outsppoken on this:
"Every man is become a fool for knowledge, every artist is confounded in his graven idol: for what he hath cast is false, and there is no spirit in them" (Jeremias 10:14)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

A person's personality is a dim reflection of something much higher.

Agreed. we say in the image and likeness of its creator.

[quote=Nick the Pilot;126139]
A personality is unfortunately necessary now, but the need for it will eventually disappear.[/iquote]
We believe the person will continue, but the negative aspects will disappear.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

When that happens, a transcendence of consciousness will happen, with the appearance of a new nature (as you have mentioned).

We believe this transcendance occurs by the spiration of the Holy Spirit in the soul. We believe this begins at birth, but man is unconscious of the fact, although we are now into the idea of 'conscience'. For us the totality of transcendance is comprised within the Pauline idea of being part of the 'Mystical Body of Christ' which in philosophical terms is the Union of all logoi in the Logos. We hold, however, that this is a true union, in that all those elements retain their individuality ... we view some notions of union, which call for the extinction of the person, as not a union at all, but a sublimation...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Our true nature is pre-existing, it is not a chance permutation, nor is it man's invention.

Agreed. We do not believe in the pre-existence of the individual soul, but rather in the notion that we 'exist' in potentia in the Mind of God. Our appearance cannot come as any surprise to Him!

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is a becoming of something superior to our own nature,

We believe that human nature exists just one step down from the Divine.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

in that the next level will be a much superior form of reality than the one we are presently experiencing.

The 'next level' for us is Theosis, our Doctrine of the Divinisation of man (and, indeed, the Kosmos).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The next level of consciousness is something I can only describe as cosmic consciousness. For us, it is a return to cosmic consciousness. We came from that higher level of consciousness, and we will return to it (which is one of our interpretations of the Adam and Eve story). For us, the Garden of Eden is not a place, it is a level of consciousness.

I would say in theory, we agree ... in principle we treat this consciousness as meta-cosmic.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

This is an important difference, because I see a lot of people trying to incorporate both Christianity and Buddhism into their belief system... so it seems they are traveling an impossible path.

Yes indeed. I couldn't agree more ... I would further say that incorporation of any sacred teaching by man into a man-made system is itself a futile exercise in syncretism ... it sets oneself up as the mean by which God is judged.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

But there is no question that a lot of people say they are both Christian and Buddhist.

Which shows they understand neither.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I see a contradiction. If a person accepts Jesus, Salvation, etc., they go to Heaven, right? I think the whole idea behind Christianity is the forgiving of conditions that would send a person to Purgatory. Is the forgiveness of sins conditional?

No ... Purgatory is not so much to do with forgiveness of sin, as the person letting go of sin ... the sin is forgiven, but the tendency can remain ... this tendency is a sickness of the will, so Purgatory could be described a period of necessary medicine, or convalescence.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You are correct, I confused Christian Limbo with Christian Purgatory. Wasn't Limbo taught by the church for hundreds of years? (Wasn't there one Pope who was particularly fond of the idea?) Is Limbo does not happen, why was it taught for so many years?

It was an area of speculation, not doctrine.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You must forgive me, but it strikes me as strange that a Pope's words can be labeled fallible or infallible depending on the circumstances.

It's not the Pope who speaks, it's the Church. when the Church makes a pronouncement, it is decreed infallible because Our Lord stated explicitly that what the Church considers binding, He will consider binding. We believe, on the same basis, that the Church is infallible, but no man can make such a claim for himself.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You are free to adapt such an idea into your belief system. Fortunately, I am free to discard such an idea.

As too are we, regarding Theosophy.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I said "And I believe Theosophy possesses at least one 'Rule of Faith'?"
--> Which rule are you referring to?

I don't know, it was something you intimated in a previous post. Is there more than one?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

I want to apologize for taking so long to respond, but I am presently attending a two-week Theosophy class in the Los Angeles area.


We discussed,

"While Christians can depend on God to forgive their sins, Theosophists cannot. --> Our God is a God of Love. How would you describe yours?"

--> We do not go around saying that our "God" is this or that. We would say our belief system is more fair.

"From a Catholic perspective of what is required of a Theosophist, I find hard to see anything difficult at all. No Theosophical teaching is insisted upon, it seems, so you are free to choose what you like, where's the difficulty in that?"

--> There are two ways of looking at it. In order to join the Theosophical Society, a person only needs to believe in one dogma. This, then, is easy. In order to gain Enlightenment, a person must do many difficult things. It has been said that working towards Enlightenment is the most difficult thing we will ever do (by far). Some people (especially Buddhists) think Enlightenment will merely be some kind of "aha" experience. Theosophy paints an entirely different picture.

"It terms of a 'Way', I would view 'difficult' as a perception of self-denial, and I regard the Monastic Rule (be it Christian, Buddhist or otherwise) as indeed difficult and thereby heroic. I am deeply drawn to the Carthusian Rule, but doubt I have the stamina to sustain it."

--> Self-denial is part of the Path to Enlightenment. However, as you probably know, Buddha taught that sever asceticism is a mistake, and proves nothing. The way to Enlightenment is the Middle Way.

"we are first and foremost creatures made in the image and likeness' of God - can't get more positive than that, I would have thought."

--> But Christians have the curse of Original Sin hanging over their heads. It has been said that Christians are born in sin (which makes them basically bad) and they are going to Hell if they do not change their ways. I see this as basically a negative orientation. I am also concerned that Christians do not know this is how some non-Christians see Christians.

"In my experience people generally who brand Christianity - a religion of love - as 'negative' is because as a Way it demands a greater effort than they are prepared to make."

--> I see Christianity as just the opposite. I see Christianity as one of the easiest roads to Heaven. I believe this is what attracts many people to Christianity.

"For Catholics, Buddhism's first premise is human suffering as a condition of human nature, whereas we view it as not the proper natural condition ... and to us, Theosophy's premise seems to put an interminable if not an infinite number of intermediate states between man and God. From there, the Catholic would view both as pessimistic."

--> I find it fascinating that Catholics do not see suffering as a normal nor natural condition. Buddhism and Theosophy see suffering as a key part of being a human. Someone was once asked why they do not want to be a (Jew). Their response was, because it is a religion that is not specifically oriented to removing suffering.

"...sin as such is not a constituent of human nature...."

--> Where sin comes from is a moot point. Christians are saddled with Original Sin, no matter where it comes from.

"...the tendency of human nature is toward the good...."

--> Christianity seems to say the opposite. I have heard many times that, if a person simply lives and dies without any religion, they will go to Hell. (Theosophy teaches the opposite result.)

"...we are all going to Hell if we do not change our ways. --> That's not a Catholic idea. Again, that's a post-reformation perspective. Very Lutheran, if I might say."

--> It does not matter if it is Lutheran, etc. I have read the Bible, and that is what it says to me - we are all going to Hell if we do not change our ways (accept Jesus, etc.) Catholicism says this if false?

"...how is someone enlightened?"

"For us, 'enlightenment' is the Presence of the Holy Spirit that illuminates our true nature...."

--> Enlightenment requires:
1. a minimum level of spirituality
2. a removal of all bad karma
3. a removal of specific character flaws (The list is long.)
4. a record of proven service to humanity
5. a willingness to spend the rest of "eternity" helping others, and doing nothing for one's own benefit or advancement (This is actually a continuation of #4.)
6. the enduring of specific tests to show the person is ready to move onto the next level.
I would like to share one book, although it is not a Theosophical book, nor is anything like it taught in Theosophy.
Initiation, by Elizabeth Haich

Amazon.com: Used and New: Initiation

By they way, the entire book can be read online for free.

Amazon Online Reader : Initiation

The book characterizes the actual Initiation "ceremony" of Enlightenment as a series of temptations. A person is presented with every type of tantalizing temptation, and the person must show they do not have an interest in such things. The book also gets into the personal characteristics required. Sadly, the book also gets into what happens is a person fails an Initiation.


Since we are considering the Christian version of Enlightenment, it needs to be mentioned that the question of a person's belief system (Do you believe in Jesus?) never comes up during an Enlightenment Initiation.

"In that sense knowledge is immaterial, it's all a matter of being, it's way beyond knowledge...."

--> This is a key difference between our two traditions. No one in my tradition has the goal of becoming a "Fool for God". Our goal is the opposite.

"...we say in the image and likeness of its creator."

--> We say in the image and likeness of our creators — literally. We saying being created in the image and likeness of the Absolute is impossible.

"We believe the person will continue, but the negative aspects will disappear."

--> Wow, this is a huge difference between our two traditions.

"We do not believe in the pre-existence of the individual soul..."

--> The Christian idea that each person is created just before they are born is very different than what Theosophy teaches.

"We believe that human nature exists just one step down from the Divine."

--> Theosophists wish it was so easy!


Regarding the idea of Limbo, it is not specifically cover in Theosophical literature, but I have read several cases in other literatures. Basically, people are said to die, then enter a tunnel ("the light at the end of the tunnel") It is said that some people choose to not enter the tunnel. This causes them to float in a never-never land between Earth and the next world. It is also said a person can stay there for thousands of years. I have heard stories of volunteers who go meet these "floating people" and convince them to enter the tunnel of light. It seems to me to be a very satisfying type of volunteer work.

"The next level of consciousness is something I can only describe as cosmic consciousness. --> I would say in theory, we agree...."

--> Theosophy gives a little more detail. In Nirvana, our artificial sense of separateness (so necessary in this physical world) disappears. I BECOME you, and you BECOME me.

[AndrewX]

4. a record of proven service to humanity
5. a willingness to spend the rest of "eternity" helping others, and doing nothing for one's own benefit or advancement (This is actually a continuation of #4.)

I'd like to chime in and add something rather by way of a personal testimony. It took me the greater portion of my spiritual journey in this lifetime (and this cannot be contested, even you don't believe in rebirth) ... perhaps also many, many previous turns around the wheel ... to come to understand - and accept - something of #4, as well as #5.

And not that I disagree with you one bit, Nick, yet I would like to suggest the following. Rather than say, we must be willing to embrace Eternity as SERVICE-centric, rather than personal growth-centric, or even Peace-centric, or Bliss-focused, etc. ... how about saying, `We must demonstrate that we have discovered the true JOY which comes only from Serving Others ... and that BLISS which results from knowing that in the Grand Scheme of things -

"We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

Not that one's own growth is wrong, or that in fact, it isn't the real reason why we're here to begin with (!) - considered from one point of view. Yet in accord with what we understand in the Ancient Wisdom teachings, a deeper understanding of why our Souls, as our Innermost Selves, are here, must include a reference to the insight that is being conveyed in Romans 8:28.

This is because a much Greater Purpose is being worked out upon this planet, whereby the Human & Angelic Hierarchies, the Kingdom we call Shambhala (or the Father's House), and even the very Will of the Planetary Logos Itself (`Himself') ... brings the Human Kingdom, and even the lower kingdoms, into harmony and alignment - eventually full and complete - much in the same way that an individual human being will align the esoteric energy centers (chakras, `khorlos' in Tibetan).

We do not know what is the ultimate Purpose of the Planetary Logos ... or, as Master DK puts it, "the reason why the Logos has deemed it wise to submit Himself to incarnation." Yes, the Sacrifice is voluntary and one of the greatest acts of pure GOOD that we are capable of understanding (or Grace, as it is emphasized in Christian theology) ... yet there is also the law of correspondences, which reminds us that according to the cycles of necessity, all beings Reincarnate.

The Ancient Wisdom teaches that even in a sense, the Absolute may be said to reincarnate, though we must always understand that this original emanation is so utterly beyond our ken, that we may only study what transpired (and eternally recurs, or re-transpires, getting `better and better each time') after the original manifestation of the Absolute ... or the differentiation of Kether from the Ain Soph Aur.

But this is all an aside, and my real point was just that SERVICE itself, is pure JOY ... especially when it is the spontaneous and uninhibited expression of the Soul, rather than some kind of forced tithing, or paying of what feels must be one's dues. Giving may be good, per se ... yet the Spirit in which one gives is what determines the real effectiveness - not just for oneself, but even for