Blavatsky & Christianity

B

Bruce Michael

Well-Known Member
Messages
797
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Trans-Himalayas
Hi All


How does Blavatsky treat Christianity? And why isn't her view correct?

There is more than one reason, but the main one being the incarnation of the Creative Word, the Logos (Vishvakarman) in Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was not Avatar, simple teacher etc. The teachings He gave out were secondary to the Event, the Deed. The Mystery of Golgotha was the turning point of Time, and without it Earth evolution has no meaning.

This is the accepted doctrine of the majority of Christian Churches and was confirmed in modern times spiritually by Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cayce et al.- who were able to investigate the matter.

It was also the teaching of earlier theosophists such as Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme & Swedenborg. Not to mention all the Christian saints and mystics.

When HPB directed her occult gaze back to find the Christ she missed the Event altogether.

Why was this so?

The reason why is that Christ does not appear in the Akashic Record. The disciples appear to be talking to thin air.

What Blavatsky did see (as many after have also) is the individuality of Jesu Ben Pandira (son of the Panther), son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish mother. He is said to have been stoned to death and hung on a tree in Ludd or Lydia. He was an Essene and lived 100 years before Jesus of Nazareth. HPB is quite clear about this. He is the Teacher of Righteousness, identified by Steiner as the Maitreya Bodhisattva.


You can see why Leadbeater, Bailey & Creme mistake Maitreya for Christ. See the comments in the Theosophical Society History magazine.

Instead of saying she was anti-Christian we can say she was pro Buddhist (Tibetan). (And this was a disappointment for her Hindu sponsors, when she arrived in India.)

-Br.Bruce
 
Bruce Michael said:
The reason why is that Christ does not appear in the Akashic Record.
Click to expand...

Would not the principle of such imply that no-one outside the Cover of the Tradition (an esoterism I have rarely seen addressed, for obvious reasons) sees the Son as He is? Do not Cayce et al fall under the same rule? I think so, and see no reason to think otherwise.

As an example from my perspective, when one sees One, once sees The Trinity, yet a teaching of such that comes anywhere near the traditional Christian teaching I have yet to see outside of the Church, and even theosophists here have admitted that their version of a trinity is limited to a derivation of cosmology.

For me, esoterism can open tons of stuff, on everything under the sun, and is as awe-inspiring as it is beguiling ... but 'the one thing needful' is a discipline that transcends it — and that was taught to me by Buddhists!

Thomas
 
Shalom Br. Thomas,

>Would not the principle of such imply that no-one outside the Cover of the >Tradition (an esoterism I have rarely seen addressed, for obvious reasons) >sees the Son as He is? Do not Cayce et al fall under the same rule? I think >so, and see no reason to think otherwise.

Cayce was like a throwback to the prophets of old.

There are other systems of memory besides the Akashic Chronicles. There is the memory of angels, the memory of the planet and the egregore of the church for example. Also there are the eyewitnesses.

Tomberg goes into some of these memory systems and also what he calls the "Book of God".

I have been very fortunate in that I have had very fine teachers.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce
 
And might not those teachers be making assumptions as HPB did?

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
And might not those teachers be making assumptions as HPB did?

Thomas
Click to expand...

No- when it is a matter of philosophy they say so.

In the case of Steiner, he outlined the path he took and declared that anyone could take that path and discover for themselves. Besides, traditions and historical documents are demonstrably flawed.
And even if we had an accurate account one would have to ask why the particular historical teacher in question was so authoritative- was he making assumptions.

That is the way of the world.

Greets,
Br.Bruce
 
Bruce Michael said:
anyone could take that path and discover for themselves
Click to expand...
This, I might point out, is what first appealed to me about Theosophy - both modern and traditional. And it still appeals to me.

The Ancient Wisdom got that way - not by waiting around for someone else, or some kind of external power, to do something ... either to us, or for us. It is a tried and true, proven Wisdom because its followers have taken to heart and practiced the advice of the Buddha, before he left this world:
Be a lamp unto yourselves. Cling fast to the Dharma. Work out your own salvation with diligence.
​
And the proof ... is in the pudding.

~A
 
Actually, I'm not so sure it is, as on first reading I found it vague in certain necessary aspects, and then marred by a vertain anti-institutional invective which is really neither illuminatory nor helpful – as you say, HPB is not infallible, and it seems to me, there are errors here.

I would be happy to discuss by way of comparison her reading of 'esoteric Christianity' in regard to a more orthodox 'Christian esoterism'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top