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

[Saltmeister]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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.

--> 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."

--> 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?

--> 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?

--> 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.

--> 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.

--> 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.

--> 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]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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.

--> 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?

"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.

"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.

"...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).

(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]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

--> 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 zealot, by another name...you express in sentiment what you hate most. if I wanted to change, I see nothing new to change to. And you know what gets me first? your anger. can't "hear" the lighthouse's beam through the hurricane...

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

A christian zealot, by another name...you express in sentiment what you hate most. if I wanted to change, I see nothing new to change to. And you know what gets me first? your anger. can't "hear" the lighthouse's beam through the hurricane...

???

Oh I see . . . there was a post sandwiched in between Nick's response and mine.

AndrewX comes over to the Christianity forum to discuss bashing behaviours . . . so . . . you must be the Theosophy threads' (there's no Theosophy forum) equivalent of AndrewX.

I hope I'm not coming in-between anyone. If there's going to be a food-fight and "war of words" I don't want to spoil the fun. In case I get my head punched in, I better get out of the way . . .

. . . and in the war of the gods where the trees and mountains get tossed around . . .

and you just don't mess with the gods when they make war.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Saltmeister,

Feel free to ignore Q's comments. We can still have a good converstion. I am still looking forward to your responses to my latest post.

 

[Quahom1]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Saltmeister,

Feel free to ignore Q's comments. We can still have a good converstion. I am still looking forward to your responses to my latest post.

Same goes for the Pilot here...oh I forgot, need a pilot to land...

 

[Quahom1]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

???

Oh I see . . . there was a post sandwiched in between Nick's response and mine.

AndrewX comes over to the Christianity forum to discuss bashing behaviours . . . so . . . you must be the Theosophy threads' (there's no Theosophy forum) equivalent of AndrewX.

I hope I'm not coming in-between anyone. If there's going to be a food-fight and "war of words" I don't want to spoil the fun. In case I get my head punched in, I better get out of the way . . .

. . . and in the war of the gods where the trees and mountains get tossed around . . .

and you just don't mess with the gods when they make war.

What is the matter Salt? Don't like it when a Christian stands up? Or is is when any person stands up? Nicky there knows about as much as anyone else, except being polite. I can post my opinion too. of course you can ignore it as the "pilot" suggests you do, but then, you'd miss the best parts...

"ground control to major tom..."

 

[Thomas]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

--> The distinction between dogma and doctrine is a tricky one, and it is one all of us must consider carefully ... 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."​

As someone who claims esoteric insight, I find your limitation of the meaning of dogma to a purely exoteric and indeed fundamentalist viewpoint a telling critique of your methodology.

Anything that is a 'must' is a dogma ... in fact, if there is no dogma, there is nothing at all but the ephemeral, the relative, the worthless ...

Perhaps I shall start a thread on the proper meaning of the term.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Anything that is a 'must' is a dogma ... in fact, if there is no dogma, there is nothing at all but the ephemeral, the relative, the worthless ...

What if . . . it wasn't a must . . . what if there was a choice, one that pertained to your personal vocation?

ie. one person chooses to wear spectables, another chooses contact lenses. One chooses a sedan, another chooses a station wagon. You choose to build a wind turbine farm. I choose to install solar panels.

Perhaps I shall start a thread on the proper meaning of the term.

That was a topic I overlooked as worthy for a thread . . .

What is the matter Salt? Don't like it when a Christian stands up? Or is is when any person stands up?

Just making an observation . . . no value-judgments here. I see a crusader standing up for what he feels is right. The AndrewX phenomenon. Maybe it's the Quahom phenomenon too. But anyway, that was just an observation. There are different kinds of animals in the Animal Kingdom and it takes a lifetime to appreciate the diversity and variety. Christian? Yeah I'm one too. Species X observing other members of species X lol.

(*Lowering the periscope and sinking into the depths to find other ships to blow up and sink*)

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

*** sorry, post not ready *** please ignore

 

[Thomas]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

What if . . . it wasn't a must . . . what if there was a choice, one that pertained to your personal vocation?

It's a misplaced argument ... personal vocation is to do with an individual disposition towards a truth or fact, it does not alter the truth or fact in itself.

I am a Christian Symbolist, a Christian esotericist, a Christian Platonist ... but not every Christian is, nor is every Christian even disposed to such an approach.

Within Catholicism, there are numerous spiritual and philosophical streams.

The AndrewX phenomenon.

Not quite, the sadness of the AndrewX phenomenon was twofold:
1 - Andrew insisted on telling other people what they believed was false;
2 - Andrew insisted that no view was valid other than his own;
3 - Any opinion that did not accord with his own was perceived a personal attack.

He and I crossed swords more than any other, and I cross swords with Nick on precisely the same terms ... I do not question or challenge what either of them believe, but I do speak out when they erroneously present, knowingly or otherwise, what a Christian believes.

This is the point that Quahom made ... every man is entitled to believe in what he so chooses, but that entitlement does not stretch to allowing a man to state what other people believe, without at least checking first to see if he's got his facts right.

As Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others here have pointed out, the American Theosophical Association almost habitually, it would seem, misrepresents the doctrines of other traditions in affirming its own supposed superiority, on the one hand, whilst claiming the only valid and authentic interpretation of said doctrines on the other.

All I have asked, continually, is that Theosophists present their own doctrines without misrepresenting mine ... I can present mine without any reference to theirs whatsoever ... and so can everyone else, it seems.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

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

Several questions come to mind.

1. Am I not already doing what I want? Have I missed something? Am I doing what I don't want to do?

2. What can I do about it? Is there a religion that can make that happen 100%? This is most probably a 99% no.

Got ideas?

--> 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?

A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?

This has a similarity with Mormon doctrines, where the flesh-blood-and-bones Adam became God.

--> 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.

I think an important characteristic of doctrine and dogma is their significance. Are they famous and how often are they used? I have my own personal doctrines. Many of them would be similar with those other individuals possess. This in itself is a doctrine. Do you agree with me?

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference. Take, for example, the John Monroe Doctrine, Bill Clinton Doctrine, George W. Bush Doctrine -- ie. every U.S. President has had a policy and set of beliefs for governance, foreign policy and strengthening the country. The American people don't have to adopt those beliefs.

Dogma: what I identify as important, essential and mandatory for me is also essential and mandatory for you. What I instruct you to do is not a description but a definition. You are either for me or against me in this.

--> 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?

The question of whether or not I explore particular topics, depends on whether I think it's affecting me in the present. There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths.

Buddhism is quite (very) popular, and I've seen interesting things said by Buddhists and people influenced by Buddhism. I have to assume AndrewX is a Theosophist. It's more of a rarity, even in the Belief and Spirituality forum to hear Theosophy being discussed. It's quite possible, on the other hand that a lot of people there are Theosophists and I didn't even know. They didn't announce themselves.

I get interested (I probably won't respond, but I make a note) in a particular faith when someone says something positive about it like why it is of so much value.

My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about.

The last two seasons of Stargate SG-1 were about a war between earth and the Ori, ascended beings who claimed to be gods and promised ascension if people followed the Book of Origin. The season had some interesting things to say about the ethics of Godhood, the ethics of being vastly more powerful than lesser beings and using them for one's own purposes. Here I may speculate about whether it's possible that adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are being played.

In this case the Ori wanted power and were at war with the Ancients (also ascended), and were using the followers of Origin to generate energy so that they could one day defeat the Ancients. The Ori could be compared to the Abrahamic faiths while the Ancients could be compared to secularism. It much the same way that Christianity and Islam proselyte, the Ori sent Priors throughout the galaxy to introduce people to Origin and lead them to the Truth. If a village did not convert or accept their teachings, it would be killed off and punished by disease. Those who "turned from the error of their ways" were spared.

For a religion to have influenced a television series . . . it would have to have been quite well-established and well-known. Theosophy may not be as widespread as Buddhism, but it's certainly big enough to influence popular culture.

But anyway, as I said, I like reading about people's experiences. ie. What draws one to Theosophy?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Saltmeister, you asked,

"1. Am I not already doing what I want? Have I missed something? Am I doing what I don't want to do? ​

2. What can I do about it? Is there a religion that can make that happen 100%? This is most probably a 99% no.​

Got ideas?"​

--> Boy, I could write a book on the answers to these questions. Assuming there is an afterlife, what can we do now to make that afterlife better? This is the question that all religions strive to answer.



I think all religions agree on one point: We all have things we want, yet sometimes our wants interfere with the needs of the group we belong to. Selfishness is an issue, and we need to distinguish needs from selfish desires. How to deal with cravings is one of the central issues in Theosophy as well as Buddhism.

"A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?"​

--> I am not saying He ascended. I am saying that, because of certain circumstances, the people were told to look at Jehovah in a new light.

"This has a similarity with Mormon doctrines, where the flesh-blood-and-bones Adam became God."​

--> There is a threory that Jesus was a reincarnation of Adam, although I do not subscribe to such a theory. As far as Adam becoming God, I would put that with the same idea that Jesus was God.

" I have my own personal doctrines. Many of them would be similar with those other individuals possess. This in itself is a doctrine. Do you agree with me?"​

--> Yes!

"The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory...."​

--> I would include the idea of closed-mindedness in the word dogma.

"There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths."​

--> What Theosophical and Abrahamic ideas do you agree and disagree with?

"It's more of a rarity, even in the Belief and Spirituality forum to hear Theosophy being discussed."​

--> The number of Theosophists is small, although it is increasing. The founder of Theosophy said it would be unpopular, and she was right. Theosophy requires too much work for most people.

"It's quite possible, on the other hand that a lot of people there are Theosophists and I didn't even know. They didn't announce themselves."​

--> I am convinced most Theosophists will never join this Forum.

"My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about."​

Theosophy supposidely came from a group of "ascended beings" who wanted to spread the teachings.

"The season had some interesting things to say about the ethics of Godhood, the ethics of being vastly more powerful than lesser beings and using them for one's own purposes."​

--> This is an issue we all must be aware of. Cults abound.

"Here I may speculate about whether it's possible that adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are being played."​

--> In what way?

"In this case the Ori wanted power and were at war with the Ancients (also ascended), and were using the followers of Origin to generate energy so that they could one day defeat the Ancients."​

--> According to Theosophy, this is slightly slimilar to what really happened at the beginning of mankind.

"If a village did not convert or accept their teachings, it would be killed off and punished by disease. Those who "turned from the error of their ways" were spared."​

--> I am reminded of American Indians who were killed for refusing to convert to Christianity.

"For a religion to have influenced a television series . . . it would have to have been quite well-established and well-known. Theosophy may not be as widespread as Buddhism, but it's certainly big enough to influence popular culture."​

Theosophy takes credit for popularizing the two ideas of reincarnation and karma in the western world.

"What draws one to Theosophy?"​

• It is a theory that makes sense. I can find no flaw in the basic premise.

• It's most important teaching is brotherhood. A white person who hates black people may very well be reborn as a black person. (Such a person would then endure the very hatred they had perpetuated.) Theosophy strives to teach such examples.

• It makes sense of Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, Enlightenment, and Nirvana. I have not found any other theory that brings these ideas together in one philosophy.

• It requires us to work hard. No simple reciting of a sentence or deity's name will do much to get us to Heaven.

• It shows a commonality of all religions. I have seen a strong similarity between Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judiasim that I would not have seen without Theosophy.

• Errors creep into all religions as the centuries pass by. It is Theosophy's job to point out these errors. I like this aspect very much.

 

[Bruce Michael]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?

Better put- "Folk Spirit".
Hello Saltmeister,

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference.

DOGS are creatures of habit; and for that matter so are creatures of dogmatism. We all fall subject to certain dogmas and it's important to perceive this within ourselves firstly, rather than worry too often about others restrictive viewpoints. Some folk carry a certain duty with them throughout their work, which is best serviced by the lean-post of dogmatic complacency.
Men tire easily and it is no matter should a particular shelter be sought, by way of reason or by way of faith. If ultimately it does not itself pervert the very nature of the faith and reason to be upheld - that is the point in question. Also too, the very nature of the work one has chosen to carry out with fervour and activity.
Most people are keenly aware of the confines and restrictions placed upon them by outside dogmas which would be imposed on one another. Dogmatism itself does not upset Man, as it is understood by one and all. However, it is essential that folk entering the path can distinguish between dogma and pure doctrine. THE ELDER BROTHERS

The question of whether or not I explore particular topics, depends on whether I think it's affecting me in the present. There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths.

I'm sure you would find connections if you started to read Isis Unveiled.

My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about.

The term "ascended Masters" is not from Blavatskyian theosophy.
There is another show that was heavily influenced:
The Complete Twin Peaks | Theosophy

Also Yeats, James Joyce, L. Frank Baum, Kandinsky and Mondrian were interested in Theosophy.

But anyway, as I said, I like reading about people's experiences. ie. What draws one to Theosophy?

Theosophy is much wider and richer that what Br.Nick is presenting. Theosophy should be free from a particular religious colouring.

As for Christians, we too can derive a deeper understanding of the faith by studying Theosophy. For a view on the Logos:

Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

"Consciousness: A Cosmic Perspective" by T. Subba Row

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

 

[Quahom1]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Better put- "Folk Spirit".
Hello Saltmeister,









I'm sure you would find connections if you started to read Isis Unveiled.


The term "ascended Masters" is not from Blavatskyian theosophy.
There is another show that was heavily influenced:
The Complete Twin Peaks | Theosophy

Also Yeats, James Joyce, L. Frank Baum, Kandinsky and Mondrian were interested in Theosophy.



Theosophy is much wider and richer that what Br.Nick is presenting. Theosophy should be free from a particular religious colouring.

As for Christians, we too can derive a deeper understanding of the faith by studying Theosophy. For a view on the Logos:

Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

"Consciousness: A Cosmic Perspective" by T. Subba Row

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Damn, first time a theos...ever made sense. I'm impressed.

 

[Thomas]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference.

I would argue the two operate in completely different spheres.

A doctrine is a teaching — it is a body of knowledge, but it does not, nor can it, change anything.

A dogma is a doctrine one chooses to live by and once realised, or actualised, it is elevated from the theoretical and becomes embodied, a real and living thing, a presence ... whereas a doctrine is always in that sense powerless and inert.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

Addenda for Saltmeister:

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate [dogma]: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat [the doctrines of men]. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Matthew 7:13-14

Thomas