The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[taijasi]

From the Teaching of Living Ethics:

Each era chooses its new, corresponding Teaching, when all previous Teachings have become distorted. People tend to cling to these twisted distortions of the faith of their forefathers, yet no new Teaching ever excludes preceding ones. Little attention is paid to this fact, for the followers of every Teaching like to build their success on denial of the previous Teachings. But it is easy to prove the continuity of what people call religion. In this continuity is sensed a single stream of one energy. Calling it psychic energy, we speak of the Sophia of the Hellenic world or Sarasvati of the Hindus. The Holy Ghost of the Christians manifests signs of psychic energy, just as do the creative Adonai of Israel, and Mithra of Persia, full of solar power. Certainly, no one doubts that the Fire of Zoroaster is the Fire of Space, which you now study.

Psychic energy is both Fire and Materia Matrix, and the Teaching of Agni Yoga is nothing other than an explanation of today's application of energy, the stream of which is approaching with Satya Yuga. This is not a new awakening of heretofore dormant possibility, but an enlightenment spread over time. I say, the Teaching cannot be given for money, nor can it be imposed; it heralds the New Era. One can ignore it or deny it, but its heralding is inescapable.

The coming era can be understood properly or in a distorted way, but its approach is undeniable. Agni Yoga, 416.


Leaves of Morya’s Garden,
Book I, The Call, 1924
119. My children, the teaching of life
under My Guidance is the straightest path to
an understanding of Cosmos.

161. By your everyday life do I teach you.

417. I give to you the Teaching, karmic messages,
Instructions.
The Teaching is intended for the whole world,
for all beings.
The more broadly you comprehend,
the more truly it is yours.

​

Something for us all:

543. You may meet people who reject the Teaching entirely. Do not try to persuade them. Our Teaching is not a campaigning one; it is an instructive one, intended for those who already desire to perfect themselves. Some may choose a favorite page for themselves, with which they will abide, but not with the full Teaching. Others will pretend that they respect the Teaching, but will just place the book under their pillow while they sleep. And still others will speak of their love for the Teaching, but will not renounce a single bad habit. Nevertheless, the predestined ones will come!
​

And more, of relevance:

Infinity II, 1930

95. The Teaching of the East regarding Yoga is incomprehensible to the Western mind, and the heart does not sense its beauty. Hence, the evidence of nonunderstanding bars the approach to the future. It is essential to affirm the new approach by means of the acceptance of the concept of the Teacher. (p. 49)

124. Our Teaching will give the wings to humanity and open the path to Infinity. (p. 63)

Fiery World I, 1932

79. It may be asked in what relation Our Teaching stands to the one already given by Us through Blavatsky. Answer that each century, after the manifestation of a detailed exposition, a conclusive culmination is given, which actually moves the world, along the line of humanness. Thus, Our Teaching includes the "Secret Doctrine" of Blavatsky. Similarly, Christianity was the culmination of the world wisdom of the classic epoch, and the Commandments of Moses were the culmination of that of ancient Egypt and Babylon. However, the significance of the ramiform Teachings must be understood. It is hoped that people not only read Our books but accept them without delay, for I speak briefly of that which must be remembered. When I speak of the need of fulfilling My Indications, I ask you to fulfill them with complete precision. I can see more clearly, and you must learn to follow the Indication, which has in view your own good. A man fell under a train merely because he stepped upon the rails, but he had been forewarned and should not have done so. (pp. 47-48)

Letters of Helena Roerich,
Volume I — 1929-1935

As for the alleged Eastern influence over the Teaching of Living Ethics, let us be objective and ask ourselves if there is any teaching or philosophy that did not originate in the East. Our so-called Western philosophy is a mere reflection of the thought of the East. Christianity itself came from Eastern Hands. Therefore, in order to comprehend the Teaching of Christ completely, it is necessary either to be an Easterner by birth or else to study fundamentally those doctrines upon which the Teaching of Christ is built.
It is quite certain that the Christianity of today and the original Teaching of Christ Himself are two entirely different things. Even as the lamaism of the present time and the original Teaching of Gotama Buddha are complete opposites. (p. 234)
​

The Theosophist, the esotericist, and most folks at CR ... seem to have Reverence for Sacred Teachings, Sacred Scriptures. Some honor one Tradition, some honor another. Many folks are glad to cognize the common thread of Wisdom throughout all Sacred Teachings.

Here, during the Great Festival of the West, which Christians call `Easter,' and which many esotericists regard as of equal significance to the following two (Wesak, and The Festival of Humanity), I should sincerely hope that differences would be set aside. There are far more important things to discuss, and much higher callings to be followed, than outer differences and the splitting of hairs.

I shall do my utmost to honor my own commitments. The pursuit of Truth, and a willingness to embody the Truth, in whatever small measure I may have found it, are two such commitments. I feel certain that I am in excellent company!

Nasti Paro Dharma -- Tat Tvam Asi -- OM OM OM
​

​

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You have pointed out Thomas' complaint that we are being irrerverent. As a matter of fact, today, I was just reading a speech by Annie Besant (a great Theosophist) on the need for us to give service to humanity.

http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200703/tt00131.html

The speech includes this sentence.

"To ... ideals of truth and purity we must add one that is lacking in modern life: the ideal of reverence for what is noble, of adoration for what is higher than oneself."

--> Theosophy teaches us to respect the teachings of all the major religions, especially since they all came from the same source. Theosophy has respect for Christian scripture. But if Thomas is saying that pointing out the true meaning of Christian scripture is irreverent, he is wrong. Pointing out the true meaning of Christian scripture makes it stronger.

I have read many Biblical passages over the years. One of the things that bothers me is how many of them just do not make sense (to me). Time after time, I have read a Theosophical explanation of a particular Biblical passage, which finally allows me to understand what they really meant in the first place. The feeling of "so THAT is what it means!" is a feeling of joy I cannot express.

For example, I wondered for years why the human race was created on the Biblical sixth day of Creation, then created again in the story of Adam and Eve (the so-called "double-creation"). Theosophy has the answer. Day Six is about the creation of humanity's "higher principles", while the story of Adam and Eve is about humanity's astral bodies finally being attached to physical bodies. Now it makes sense. Fortunately, you and I have Theosophy to thank for these explanations.

The more we understand what the Bible originally meant, the more we can respect what it says. Not the other way around.

 

[taijasi]

Nick, et al,

Let us consider, for a moment, the path which has been trodden by several of Theosophy's greatest exponents, as well as the Messengers of Esotericism in the 20th Century:

H.P. Blavatsky found an interest in Spiritualism, so popular in the United States from the 1840s to the 1920s (vide Wikipedia on Spiritualism). She found friends within that Movement, but eventually she was forced to move on, because the Spiritualists could not, or would not, distinguish between mankind's astral, and limited psychological principles ... and the Higher, more permanent, Spiritual Principles.

Annie Besant, in the second half of the 19th Century, before discovering Theosophy, was quite a Catholic. But she found that the cause of Women's Rights did not meet with sympathy or favor from within the Church, and she soon became an outspoken secularist ... advocating birth control, Fabian socialism, and worker's rights (again, vide Wikipedia).

Somewhere I came across a pamphlet (or book?) from a talk that Annie Besant gave, speaking in favor of atheism. Having read so many of her later, Theosophically-inspired teachings, coming after her meetings with Blavatsky and the Eastern Mahatmas, I was a bit surprised. In fact, I was almost discouraged. Yet a twinkling of recognition came to me, and I began to see that hers was the process of awakening, and re-acquaintance with the Perennial Wisdom that is so familiar to many of us, as each of our stories is but the variation on a theme.

Annie, who we know was Giordano Bruno in a previous incarnation, simply had to recapitulate what had taken her many, many lives to come to realize. As she answered to the call of her Soul, the Master within, she left Catholicism, embraced these various Causes dedicated to overcoming social injustice, became a national heroine in India, and president of the Theosophical Society for many years. [Not that one cannot answer the call of the Soul, leave off the pondering of The Secret Doctrine, and become a Catholic, yet some among us will insist that it cannot proceed vice versa! ]

No one was more fit to carry on the legacy of the Movement's Founder, than this Noble Soul ... and for all my early interest in Leadbeater's Theosophical primers, I have gradually come to realize that Besant was probably a far more brilliant writer. I am currently reading `Esoteric Christianity,' which can be found online in its entirety here, but I would be happy to divert my attention for a moment to her address on The Supreme Duty - of Service to one's fellow man.


Another of the recent Messengers (Whom Christians and others have traditionally called Prophets, or Sibyls), was Alice Bailey, writing early in the 20th Century. We learn in her autobiography, where she summarizes her faith as a Christian, that as a young woman:

I had a firm belief in Christ, for was I not one of the elect; I believed in a heaven of happiness for those who thought as I did and a hell for those who did not, though I tried not to think too much about them after doing what I could to save their souls. I had a really deep knowledge of the Bible ...​

Nevertheless, Alice was already struggling to realize the absurdity of what has been presented - and usually swallowed whole - by the average unthinking person ... hesitant or fearful of breaking away from the pack:

... something within me, inchoate and indefinable, was reaching out after God Immanent, after a God behind all forms, Who could be met everywhere and touched and really known, Who truly loved all beings - good and bad - and Who understood them and their limitations and difficulties. This God was not, at all the tremendous and awful Deity to which the Christian Church, as I knew it, bowed down. Theologically, however, there was no such person. There was only a God to be appeased; Who was jealous of His rights; Who could murder His only Son in some illogical scheme to save mankind and Who was not as truly kind as the average parent to his offspring. These were the thoughts which I thrust away from me as wicked and untrue, but subtly, behind the scenes, they nagged at me. Yet there was always Christ. I knew Him; He struggled and yearned over humanity; He agonized to save them but seemed quite unable to save them on a large scale and had, therefore, to stand by and see them go to hell. I did not formulate all this clearly to myself at this time; I myself was saved and happy to be saved. I was working hard to save others and it was too bad that God had created hell but, naturally, I assumed that He knew what He was doing and - in any case - no real Christian questioned God: he simply accepted what he was told was God's dictum and that was that.​

Alice's smugness, her certainty and conviction, would only gradually give way ... and it is a process with which I think many of us are familiar, even if it may take lifetimes in some cases, and find recapitulation during the process of "growing up" that we still find ourselves in today (even as adults):

I was absolutely sure (how wonderful that seems to me today and how delightfully young) of everything - God, doctrine, my ability to do things, the sureness of my knowledge and the infallibility of any advice I might give. I had an answer for everything and knew just what should be [48] done. I handled life and circumstances at that time with the sure touch of complete inexperience and my answer to every problem, and my cure for every ill was always to be found in the answer to the one question: "What would Jesus do in similar circumstances?" Having decided what He would do (I wonder how I knew?) I went ahead and did it or advised others to follow the same rule. At the same time, unrealized and unexpressed, I was beginning to ask questions, though refusing to answer them, and underneath all the surety and dogmatism, great changes were taking place. I know that this period saw me take a definite step forward along the Path. Slowly, and without knowing it in my brain consciousness, I was transiting from authority to experience and from a narrow theological belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the interpretations of my particular school of religious conviction, into a certain and sure knowledge of the spiritual verities to which the mystics of all time have borne witness and for which many of them have suffered and died.​

I found myself eventually possessed of a knowledge which has stood the test of time and trouble, as my earlier beliefs did not. It is a knowledge which reveals to me steadily and continuously how much, how very much, more I need to know. Real knowledge is never static; it is but a door opening on to vaster reaches of wisdom, achievement and understanding. It is a process of living growth. Knowledge should lead from one unfoldment to another. It is as if one had climbed a mountain peak and - at the moment of gaining the summit - suddenly there stretches before one a promised land to which one must inevitably proceed; but (across that promised land and away in the distance) another peak is seen emerging, hiding still vaster reaches of territory.​

(from `An Unfinished Autobiography,' p. 48)​

I believe if we examine the lives of other great contemporary Messengers, Sibyls, and students of the Great Ones, such as Helena Roerich, Geoffrey Hodson, Cyril Scott, David Anrias, Torkom Saraydarian, Roberto Assagioli, Vera Stanley Alder, Lucille Cedarcrans, et al ... we shall find that a similar process may have been undergone by each ---

On some small scale, we find an echo of that great story of the Buddha, wherein the Enlightened One managed to grow up in apparent ignorance of the facts of life (shall we swallow this story, too, whole, and forget to question and see the allegory?). Venturing outside the palace gates for the first time, Siddharta Gautama encountered sickness, old age, and death. Having been protected from these sufferings (and facts of life) by his Father ... the young man set himself to conquering the apparently unconquerable. And in time, although he had to experience life's extremes and prove them ultimately unconducive to the spiritual path, Buddha did find the Enlightenment that he sought.

Legend may tell us that he was the first to do so, yet as one of the earlier quotes from Agni Yoga points out, we know that even the Lamaism of Tibet, the contemporary Buddhism which is practiced 2600 years later by followers of the Great One, is not quite what the Buddha preached. Far, far prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, other Great Ones, other Buddhas even, discovered the Way, and trod the Sacred Path of Self-Knowledge and Self-Mastery. Buddha may have taken that Path farther than any of Earth's Humanity had hitherto traveled ... just as Christ did, likewise, a few hundred years later. Yet the Truth of their accomplishments cannot be revealed, or somehow increased, by seeking to preserve the legends within a glass case inviolable ... or by closing the heart and mind to inquiry.

Buddha's final words indicate to us exactly what is expected of those who seek to travel the Spiritual Path to its logical Earthly conclusion. And Christ as Wayshower, while simultaneously fulfilling the Office of Bodhisattva and spiritual Savior, means far, far more to many of us ... than supreme psychological scapegoat, and payoff - for the multitude of Humanity's errors and sins.


Thus, I celebrate Christ's Resurrection and His Life this Easter, and His Promise - not that blind obedience, or unintelligent lip service shall secure our future ... but that --

"By your own hands will the power of the future be built.
I will help, I will help, but add your own efforts"
​

Namaskar

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,

You said,

"...Christianity is not pantheistic."

--> Christianity is a pantheistic religion. It has a done a very good job of covering it up over the centuries, but a few Christian pantheistic teachings have inadvertantly leaked out. (A few things got by the Christian censors by mistake.)

I asked you before, and I ask you now: Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

Hi Nick –

Can I just clarify whether or not you are equating pantheism with polytheism? I don't necessarily see the two as synonymous.

Supposing God were addressing the assembly of angels, for instance? The term 'us' would be then a grace, and gracious address, accorded to the angelic function that is their vocation?

Read as such, it is neither pantheist nor polytheist. Nor is there any other text that might gainsay it, in fact the whole Abrahamic angelology supports it. Certainly a possibility that has more in its favour, I might suggest, than the idea that 'a few things got by the Christian censors by mistake.

This is something of a sweeping statement, and without evidence something of a massive assumption that stretches the bounds of credibility. Even hardened secular critics grant the institution more intelligence than that.

Do you mean to say that in 3,000 years of scribes, copyists, metaphysics, theology and exegetics, and a conspiracy of monumental proportions that would be required to say radically divert the meaning of a sacred text from the plural to the singular, that no-one noticed such a basic and fundamental 'error' as leaving a plural in place in what is a founding statement that would unravel the whole 'edifice' in a moment? And right at the very beginning of the Book?

Might I also point out this would require that the Jews would have to be the progenitors of this as you quote a text that pre-dates Christianity by something in the region of a millenia? Or are you suggesting we retro-edited the Jewish texts too ... and if not, then you have just confounded your own argument.

+++

And would require the complicit acknowledgement of every history of the Mesopotamian region that records the Monotheism of the Jews – so now Greek and Roman history would also have to be retro-edited, too?

If you gave evidence (an an interpretation of a text is not in itself evidence) of either polytheism, of pantheism, or both, then please do bring it forward.

Failing that, my answer will always pre-suppose an error (wilful or otherwise) in interpretation of what the text is intended to imply.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You have raised some interesting questions and observations. I am willing to answer all questions, as well as respond to your very good observations. I think there is value in these kinds of discussions. But first things first....

Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

 

[InLove]

Can I just clarify whether or not you are equating pantheism with polytheism? I don't necessarily see the two as synonymous.

Supposing God were addressing the assembly of angels, for instance? The term 'us' would be then a grace, and gracious address, accorded to the angelic function that is their vocation?

Hi Everyone

Nick, I realize you said "first things first", but I would be interested in your take on what Thomas said. This does not answer your question? How do you see it?

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Nick the Pilot]

InLove,

First, I will give you the Theosophical version of the story, then I will respond to your question. I will use (and anthropomorphize) the Christian terms "God" and "angel" because it makes things easier, even though such useage is not part of my religious terminology.

By the way, I am taking a complicated story and over-simplifying it to the point of near-inaccuracy. For that I apologize. I have the job of taking profound cosmic concepts and stating them in only a few sentences, and it is difficult work indeed.

To make a long story short, according to Theosophy, God created the angels. The angels then turned around and created the human race. God took a hands-off approach to the process, and let the angels handle it themselves. Hence the pantheism (or polytheism, whichever you wish to call it) of the situation.

We need to look at the wording of Genesis 1:26. It indicates the active work of two or more "beings". My understanding of the Christian story is that God did the work Himself. (See my reference to Genesis 1:27 below.) God may have addressed the assembly of angels, but that is not the same as having them as active members in the process. Genesis 1:26 indicates all beings (plural) were active in the process. (Theosophy sees God stepping aside, and letting the angels create humanity by themselves. This concurs exactly with Genesis 1:26.)

Now, let's look at the Christian version we are all familiar with (which does not take Genesis 1:26 into consideration). Things get more complicated. In Genesis 1:27 God creates humanity all by Himself (no plural beings here). We then have the curious statement in Genesis 2:5 that humanity had not been created yet! We then have the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2:7. Thus, we have humanity being created, uncreated, and re-created!

Theosophy has answers for all of this. However, I will stop here, as your question only concerned Genesis 1:26.

For those of you without access to a Bible, here is an online version of the Bible.

Bible.com

 

[lunamoth]

InLove,

First, I will give you the Theosophical version of the story, then I will respond to your question. I will use (and anthropomorphize) the Christian terms "God" and "angel" because it makes things easier, even though such useage is not part of my religious terminology.

By the way, I am taking a complicated story and over-simplifying it to the point of near-inaccuracy. For that I apologize. I have the job of taking profound cosmic concepts and stating them in only a few sentences, and it is difficult work indeed.

To make a long story short, according to Theosophy, God created the angels. The angels then turned around and created the human race. God took a hands-off approach to the process, and let the angels handle it themselves. Hence the pantheism (or polytheism, whichever you wish to call it) of the situation.

We need to look at the wording of Genesis 1:26. It indicates the active work of two or more "beings". My understanding of the Christian story is that God did the work Himself. (See my reference to Genesis 1:27 below.) God may have addressed the assembly of angels, but that is not the same as having them as active members in the process. Genesis 1:26 indicates all beings (plural) were active in the process. (Theosophy sees God stepping aside, and letting the angels create humanity by themselves. This concurs exactly with Genesis 1:26.)

Now, let's look at the Christian version we are all familiar with (which does not take Genesis 1:26 into consideration). Things get more complicated. In Genesis 1:27 God creates humanity all by Himself (no plural beings here). We then have the curious statement in Genesis 2:5 that humanity had not been created yet! We then have the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2:7. Thus, we have humanity being created, uncreated, and re-created!

Theosophy has answers for all of this. However, I will stop here, as your question only concerned Genesis 1:26.

For those of you without access to a Bible, here is an online version of the Bible.

Bible.com

Nick, Do you mean all of the above literal-factually? Do you reject the Theory of Evolution? Or do you mean all of the above symbolically/mythically?

FWIW I think that what you call confusion above (about creation then recreation) is actually just two versions of the creation story, not one linear event. As for the thing about 'us,' I've always read that as a form of the imperial 'We.' It could also be understood to refer to the Trinity.

(Somewhat paraphrased) The first three chapters of Genesis contain two stories of creation, written about four hundred years apart. The first one, Genesis 1.1-2.3, was probably written in the 500s BCE. Commonly called the "priestly" or "P" story, it is part of a larger block of material extending through the Pentateuch and reflecting priestly and ritual concerns. The seond one was written earlier. It begins in Genesis 2.4 and coninues through the end of chapter 3. Perhaps written in the 900s BCE, it is commonly called the "Yahwist" or "J" creation story, because the author used "Yahweh" as the name of God. The Yahwist story is also part of a larger narrative account of Israel's origins that extends thorughout much of the Pentateuch. The two stories are quite different.

The P Story

The P story (and the Bible a as a whole) begins with the earth as "a formless void." In the primeval darkness, the wind (or Spirit) of God moves over the primordial waters:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Then God creates the universe in six days. In a literary structure repeated for each day of creation, the story begins with the creation of light:

Then God said, "let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness God called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.

In rapid succession, the rest of the universe is created.
...
There are interesting correlations between what God creates on each of the first three days and what God creates on each of the second three days. A "domain" is created and then populated:

Day 1: light Day 4: sun, moon, stars
Day 2: waters and sky Day 5: sea life and birds
Day 3: dry land Day 6: land creatures

Then, we are told, on the seventh day God ress, thereby blessing and hallowing that day as the sabbath.

The J Story

The J creation story beings in Genesis 2.4. If focuses on the creation of humankind and barely treats the creation of the world.
...
The P story portrays humankind as the climax of creation by having people created last, after everything else. The J story gives humankind priority by having people created first, before vegetation and animals. In the P story, humans as make and female are created simultaneously; in J, the creation of woman comes later.

TBC

 

[lunamoth]

Continued re: the two creation stories.

Historical study helps us to understand why ancient Israel told these stories in the way that she did. As already noted, the P story was most likely written in the 500s BCE. To connect this to ancient Israel's history, the Jewish people went into exile in Babylon after the Babylonian Empire conquered their homeland and destroyed Jerusalem in the 586 BCE. The exile lasted almost fifty years, until 539 BCE, when a small number of Jews returned to a Jerusalem in ruins and began the task of rebuilding a Jewish homeland under the domination of a new imperial power, Persia....

Because the Jews were sharply reduced in numbers during this period of history, distinctive practices as a means of sustaining their identity as a people became viatlly important. Among these practices was the observance of the sabbath as a day of rest. Thought sabbath observance predated the exile, it became even more important during and after the exile. So why does creation take six days in the P story? To make the point that even God observes the sabbath. Rather than being intended as a literal account of how long creation too, the six-day creation stroy was meant to reinforce the importance of the sabbath.

Further points of interest about the P creation story are that the form of the story is like liturgy or a hymn, and is in essence a doxology, a hymn of praise to God as creator. Also, the opening line and central claim of the P story, important to a nation that has been decisively conquered by another nation, is that Israel's God is the creator of heaven and earth--of all that is. The story affirms a "counter-world," an alternative world to the world of empire, an affirmation that runs through the Bible from beginning to end.

 

[wil]

Namaste Luna,

It is an interesting exercise, one that few do, create a chart of the two stories day by day to compare...

Tis also where the understanding of the day...and the sabbath beginning at sundown...

And establishing a base 7 numererical system...so 40 years in the wilderness is 28 or four square, completion, returning on itself...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

lunamoth,

You asked,

"Do you mean all of the above literal-factually?"

--> Literal-factually.

"Do you reject the Theory of Evolution?"

--> Yes and no. The Theory of Evolution deals with the forming of human bodies only. The Theosophical/Biblical story deals with the forming of (what Christians refer to as) souls only. The act of linking of souls to physical bodies is the actual meaning of the story of Adam and Eve. (Humanity's Creation on Day Six only refers to the forming of "souls".)

"Or do you mean all of the above symbolically/mythically?"

--> No. Theosophical scripture (and the real meaning of Christian scripture) is a real story of real events.

"...I think that what you call confusion ... is actually just two versions of the creation story, not one linear event."

--> I see it as one linear event. On this point, I agree with the Bible.

"As for the thing about 'us,' I've always read that as a form of the imperial 'We.' "

--> I do not. It is a literal 'We.' On this point, I agree with the Bible.

"...the P story was most likely written in the 500s BCE."

--> The Theosophical version was written millions of years ago.

"It could also be understood to refer to the Trinity."

--> The creators of humanity numbered seven, not three. This is why the number seven is spoken of so highly in the Bible.

"Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God." Revelation 4:5

These are the seven "angels" which created mankind.

"...why does creation take six days in the P story?"

--> The Christian story came from the same source as the Hindu Story, which also uses the word Day. They call it a Day of Brahma (Day of the Absolute), which is a period of 4.32 billion years. When the Biblical Day is correctly identified as the 4.32 billion year Hindu Day, it agrees with the Theosophical version of the same story.

"...the form of the story is like liturgy or a hymn..."

--> Again, Theosophy sees it as a literal story.

 

[taijasi]

The following definitions, fwiw, are taken from An Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary, which can be found online here:

'Eloah 'eloah (Hebrew) Goddess -- although because of masculine anthropomorphic predisposition, it has been commonly rendered god by European translators; used as a title of eminence both for the Jewish Jehovah and the deities, especially the goddesses, of other nations.​

'Elohim is the masculine plural form; in Talmudic literature, however, the plural is frequently given as 'elohoth, oth being the feminine plural ending. The word is pointed 'eloha in the Zohar in its connection as a divinity of feminine potency with the fifth Sephirah, Geburah.​

Elohim 'elohim (Hebrew) [from 'eloah goddess + im masculine plural ending] The monotheistic proclivities, not only of the Jews but of Christian translators, have led to this word always being translated as God; yet the word itself is a plural form, nor is it in any sense necessarily a plural of majesty, as suggested by some monotheistic scholars. A correct rendering should denote both masculine and feminine characteristics, such as androgyne divinities.​

In spite of the ideas imbodied in the word itself, the later development of Judaism caused 'elohim to be almost entirely translated in paraphrase as the "one true God"; but in earlier times 'elohim (or rather benei 'elohim or benei 'elim -- sons of gods, members of the classes of divine beings) meant spiritual beings or cosmic spirits of differing hierarchical grades: a collective class of cosmic spirits among whom is found the familiar Jewish Yahweh or Jehovah. Thus, strictly speaking and as viewed in the original Qabbalah, the 'elohim meant the angelic hierarchies of many varying grades of spirituality or ethereality; and in cosmogonic or astrological matters, the 'elohim were often mentally aggregated under the generalized term tseba'oth [fem pl from the verbal root tsaba' a host, an army] as in the expression "host of heaven."​

The opening words of the Bible refer directly to the activities of the 'elohim, for this is the sole divine name mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2. De Purucker translates these verses from the original Hebrew as: "In a host (or multitude), the gods (Elohim) formed themselves into the heavens and the earth. And the earth became ethereal. And darkness upon the face of the ethers. And the ruah (the spirit-soul) of the gods (of Elohim) fluttered or hovered, brooding" (cf Fund 99-100). He goes on to say that "we see that the Elohim evolved man, humanity, out of themselves, and told them to become, then to enter into and inform these other creatures. Indeed, these sons of the Elohim are, in our teachings, the children of light, the sons of light, which are we ourselves, and yet different from ourselves, because higher, yet they are our own very selves inwardly. In fact, the Elohim, became, evolved into, their own offspring, remaining in a sense still always the inspiring light within, or rather above . . . the Elohim projected themselves into the nascent forms of the then 'humanity,' which thenceforward were 'men,' however imperfect their development still was" (Fund 101-2).​

The 'elohim, then, correspond to both classes of the pitris mentioned in theosophical literature: the higher or more spiritual-intellectual of the 'elohim are the agnishvatta-pitris, and the lower groups are the barhishad-pitris. As the agnishvatta-pitris are devoid of the astral-vital-physical productive fire because they are too high and distinctly intellectual, they leave the work of production to the lower 'elohim or barhishads, who "being the lunar spirits more closely connected with Earth, became the creative Elohim of form, or the Adam of dust" (SD 2:78).

​

Prajapatis (Sanskrit) [from praja that which is brought forth from pra forth + the verbal root jan to be born + pati lord] The producers, evolvers, or givers of life to all on the earth's planetary chain, and hence lords of offspring in the hierarchical sense. Prajapatis is likewise applicable mutatis mutandis to larger hierarchical divisions, such as a solar system or galaxy. The prajapatis

"are, like the Sephiroth, only seven, including the synthetic Sephira of the triad from which they spring. Thus from Hiranyagarbha or Prajapati, the triune (primeval Vedic Trimurti, Agni, Vayu, and Surya), emanate the other seven, or again ten, if we separate the first three which exist in one . . . In the Mahabharata the Prajapati are 21 in number, or ten, six, and five (1065), thrice seven" (SD 1:89-90).​

... The Puranic myths with their genealogies of the seven prajapatis, rishis, or manus are "but a vast detailed account of the progressive development and evolution of animal creation, one species after the other" (SD 2:253).

"The whole personnel of the Brahmanas and Puranas -- the Rishis, Prajapatis, Manus, their wives and progeny -- belong to that pre-human period. All these are the Seed of Humanity, so to speak. It is around these 'Sons of God,' the 'Mind born' astral children of Brahma, that our physical frames have grown and developed to what they are now. For, the Puranic histories of all those men are those of our Monads, in their various and numberless incarnations on this and other spheres, events perceived by the 'Siva eye' of the ancient Seers, (the 'third eye' of our Stanzas) and described allegorically. Later on, they were disfigured for Sectarian purposes; mutilated, but still left with a considerable ground-work of truth in them. Nor is the philosophy less profound in such allegories for being so thickly veiled by the overgrowth of fancy" (SD 2:284).

​

Sons of God An idea, containing divine as well as historic events, known among all ancient peoples. In ancient Biblical Hebrew, these sons of the Divine or sons of God are called the Benei 'Elohim (sons of the 'elohim) who in Genesis 6 "descend" in order to gain experience by incarnation in astral-physical bodies. They are the so-called fallen angels, one class of which corresponds to manasaputras. Also used for those evolved beings, or men graduated from lower classes of human experience, who at a primordial period descended and taught humanity the arts and sciences which were preserved and afterwards practiced by the initiates of the different root-races.

Elsewhere these sons of God are mystically spoken of as sons of Light, for the various hierarchies generalized under these phrases are all emanations from the manifest or Third Logos.

​

Clearly then, it is not simply the Judeo-Christian tradition(s) which have suffered at the hands of men, in order to advance one agenda at the expense of a more accurate telling of the tale.

Do you mean to say that in 3,000 years of scribes, copyists, metaphysics, theology and exegetics, and a conspiracy of monumental proportions that would be required to say radically divert the meaning of a sacred text from the plural to the singular, that no-one noticed such a basic and fundamental 'error' as leaving a plural in place in what is a founding statement that would unravel the whole 'edifice' in a moment?

I think we notice. Clearly, things are not what they seem.


Any of the Sanskrit, or other terms with which the reader may not be familar in the above definitions ... may themselves be referenced in this glossary, or via other means online and in print.

Did Blavatsky (or her Mahatmas) "make all of this up," or again, did they simply borrow (steal) their understanding from the Vedas? Not at all. And yet, from teachings millions of years old in their original form, and being familiar to us, modern Westerners, only in such "ancient" form as the Vedas, Popol Vuh, et al, Blavatsky presented in as clear and concise a form as possible, in the 2nd half of the Nineteenth Century (and not in today's more contemporary language, let it be noted) ...

... a "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy" (The Secret Doctrine)wherein these, and other ancient presentations of the Mystery Religion (Gupta Vidya, or the Perennial Tradition) are highlighted for the reader, with commentary added, so that the Light and the Truth of our World's origin(s), and also the pattern or `blueprint' upon which all such worlds are built - might be better understood by its denizens, advancing as we in all forms of knowledge otherwise, and desperately needing a more accurate picture (sic!) of our Creator(s) in order to better aid Them in Their Work.

Yet, in the teachings provided since Blavatsky's day, via the Masters and Their disciples, I would note that here, we find a much more direct relation with the Second, and First Aspects (or Logoi) of Creation ... for the sons of men, seeking to become Sons of God in the fullest sense ... given that this relationship is not a de facto condition, at least not according to the definition above!

The Biblical Tradition, and Judeo-Christian religions, as well as those of Hindusim & Buddhism (India & Tibet), Zoroastrianism (ancient Persia), and every ancient revelation - such as those afforded to the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, African and Native/Central American cultures - each had their esoteric, or Inner Teachings, while also an exoteric, often largely symbolic set of rites and practices ...

Has "the secret" yet been fully divulged, even by Blavatsky and the Masters (or yet, Alice Bailey and other Messengers in later days)? I doubt Nick believes this; nor do I. Even the lesser Mysteries are not, cannot, be found in print. And this says nothing of the Greater.

But as for the question: Are our Creator(s) `singular' or `plural?' That issue, is easily resolved. The ancient doctrines tell us that is One God, acting indirectly via a threefold, and also a sevenfold Hierarchy ... which in Christian terms has been called ANGELIC.

For further reference, the serious student might take up a series of several small dictated works, authored by Geoffrey Hodson, and originating with some of the Higher Orders of the Angels (Devas, in Sanskrit, meaning `Shining Ones') themselves, aware of the processes whereby Creation occured. The last title especially, for obvious reasons, will be useful.




Most can be found online here, and The Supreme Splendor, even dealing as it does with the deepst of the Mysteries, consists of just 29 short chapters, for a total of 111 pages ... available from Amazon.com (used) for $5.

The Brotherhood of Angels and of Men T.P.H. 1927. Angelic and human cooperation – advice from the archangel Bethelda.​

Be Ye Perfect T.P.H. 1928 - angelic guidance on human education through occult psycho-social stages.​

The Angelic Hosts T.P.H. 1928. More advice from the angels.​

Man, the Triune God T.P.H. 1952 ​

Angels and the New Race T.P.H. 1929​

The Coming of the Angels Rider, 1935​

The Supreme Splendour T.P.H. 1967 – A vision of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis given by an archangel.​

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Nick, Thank you for taking time to answer my post. It is interesting to learn about theosophical beliefs. However, I must tell you that I have a little pet peeve, perhaps just baggage left over from previous experiences or whatever. But, it puts me off when someone, while telling me what they believe, at the same time feel compelled to tell that I do not understand my own beliefs.

For example:

--> No. Theosophical scripture (and the real meaning of Christian scripture) is a real story of real events.

Perhaps you do this out of defensiveness because others might do it to you, but in my conversations here and IRL I try very hard not to tell others that they do not understand their own religion, that I understand it better. When it comes to metaphysical beliefs and interpretations of ancients stories, no matter how strongly you believe that your understanding is the correct one, it ultimately comes down to personal faith, not "proof." You may find linguistic and elemental ties between one story and another...but just because elements of a story were co-opted from another source, the meaning of the story is still personal faith/trust.

Thank you for considering this.

luna

 

[taijasi]

Luna,

I think it would be helpful to distinguish for a moment between faith, as something ANY of us can have IN a belief system - religious teaching, revelation, spiritual path, etc. ...

... and (a) Faith, whereby we mean a specific religious or spiritual path, as in `the Baha'i Faith,' or "the Christian Faith."

To wit, "Christian faith" is not synonomous with "THE Christian Faith."
The word (the) will make a difference here, and also the necessity of capitalizing "Faith" in the second case.

It would be inappropriate for me to tell you that your "Christian faith" is incorrect, or misinformed. At most, I might suggest that you lack faith, but then, I could as easily say this if you were nervous about a big presentation. To say that you "lack Christian faith," I would need to know you better, and it would also help if you were asking me for advice or spiritual input, which you are not.

Imho, it is extremely forward for us to say to another, "you lack faith," unless we are using this expression in its more day-to-day application, as in "oh ye of little --."

That being said, it is also a bit forward to say, "You do not understand your own (x religious tradition) Faith," and I certainly realize that this is what you are saying. I don't think Nick is saying that; nor am I.

On this thread, concerning Esotericism, I will feel free to offer my understanding of Christianity, Buddhism, Theosophy, or any other tradition ... without walking on eggshells lest I speak outside of the tradition of Biblical literalism, mispronounce (or misspell) some obscure Sanskrit term, or - horror of horrors - suggest that in fact, a conspiracy has indeed been going on for no less than 1500 years, in Christianity, exactly as Thomas indicates.

Of course, this is not what the thread is about, but we could well create one along those lines (Christian cover-ups and conspiracies) if it'd be more exciting.

I say all this because I'm about to post some musings, in several parts, and I have seen your post ... and I do respect your Christian Faith, your position as an Episcopalian (as well as Thomas' stance as a Catholic, for that matter), and even those of the Fundamentalists we have at CR, who post in that tradition. Just because I disagree, doesn't mean that I don't respect others faith, and choice of Faith, or approach. [Nor does it mean I think anyone else is "wrong," or even "less right." Besides, I've long since decided that what matters more - is to be in the right, than "right."]

Peace, and Namaskar,

~a

 

[taijasi]

Some Musings

Another approach to this idea of the plurality of our Heavenly Creators, is to demonstrate that we have some grasp of the basic outline by attempting to apply what we have learned … rather than simply speculating, or again, quoting at length from the writings of other authors, however inspired these authors may have been. The Bible, like many other sources, is an inspired text. But whether it is the Holy Bible, or the Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, if all that we do is to quote these sources, we do not even demonstrate that we have a grasp of the teachings in which we claim to believe.

The best means of all to demonstrate our comprehension is of course, to apply the lessons in daily life. When the subject under consideration is something like the Golden Thread of morality that we find woven throughout all the world’s religions, then the application will be in our day-to-day conduct, via our dealings with others … as well as the way we apply these teachings to the interior dimension of our own life – something the esotericist defines as the demonstrated relationship between one’s Higher Self (the Soul) and lower self (the personality).

In an effort to show that Blavatsky’s Cosmogenesis (as presented in The Secret Doctrine), paralleling and elaborating on the Biblical Genesis account as it does, is more than simply theoretical knowledge, I’ve written some musings on the topic at hand, and on the question of the plurality of the Creative Elohim:

The model that Theosophy presents, continued in the 20th Century by various authors elaborating on Blavatsky’s `Secret Doctrine,’ is that whether we examine mankind, a microscopic atom of substance, or even the Solar System itself … we are looking at a single unit, which can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, yet which is fundamentally a Synthetic Whole unto itself. This is in keeping with the Euclidian Axiom that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

Clearly, atoms, people and solar systems are composed of many elements, even many different elements … yet each displays a Synthesis, or holistic component, which supersedes, and also helps define, the unit in question. Relative to the Christian Trinity, the Theosophist will refer to the Synthetic component as the Absolute. The Christian may choose to call this the Godhead, yet to identify it with the Father, which is in fact, the First Logos, is inaccurate. What we have happening in the Biblical Genesis account is the activity of the Third Logos, and later goings-on will bring into our purview the activity of the Second and even First Logoi … but interestingly these act in reverse order if we are looking at things sequentially, from Creation, to the peopling of the Earth, and finally `Salvation’ or Liberation.

Getting back to Euclid’s Axiom, we can see that atoms compose things like living cells, and cells compose organs, organ tissue and entire biological systems in the human organism. Yet the organism is not the whole of the human being, and Theosophy presents a better picture (than as has yet Western, material science) of the human organism by clarifying that along with the material (or “dense”) body there is an ensouling, vital principle (Hindu prana, or Chinese chi), an emotional, or astral body, and a mind, or mental body. Technically, the dense body, which is all that most of us see in the mirror, is just the vehicle, or rupa, for our vital physical body (`etheric body’), so even though our physical component is twofold, the esoteric systems simplify it as one. Yet our mortal, human nature is still threefold, and this same organization will be observed if we are looking at the planet as a whole, the Solar System, and also smaller units, whether these be cellular, atomic, or subatomic.

A sevenfold division, also, can be seen, but what I am driving at is just that there is a threefold being regardless of what entity (or unit of life) we are considering, while yet this being is always ensouled by an overshadowing, or transcendent Greater Whole. To us, that whole may seem to be an aggregate of individual units, thus we say something like “The Sons of Men are One, and I am One with Them” in one esoteric mantram, but this implies a fundamental duality (multiplicity) … while the greater reality is in fact, non-dual.

Anyone familiar with Buddhist or other Eastern teachings will recognize this idea … and to suggest that it is missing from the Judeo-Christian framework is purely absurd. Theosophy merely tries to show that these systems are more compatible than later apologists will admit, and this is not surprising, since a true reconciliation of exoteric teachings is a give-and-take process, not 100% gain. Traditions such as Hinduism do not have as much to lose, not because specific claims are not made, but because they do not nearly as often show up in such an exclusivist fashion.

In the present situation, notice that one idea under discussion is whether or not the original Creative Elohim were plural or singular … and the implications are fairly obvious. To say that there was only one Being, acting directly and “personally” as it were, is to leave us with no other choice than to `accept’ (in the sense of Honor, Recognize or Glorify) the Judeo-Christian (presentation of) `God.’ We would find, if this turned out in fact to be the case, that other presentations of the Creation Myth, from other spiritual traditions and other cultures, would fall away as ultimately incompatible, since most of these readily accept a plurality of Creative Powers.

It is not that what is being suggested is that, ultimately, there are more than ONE presiding, or Transcendent Deities … just that in fact, we can say naught about this Being (or state of Being-ness) … since to do is to anthropomorphize and is to give attributes to that which is beyond. Hindus account for this problem very handily, by speaking of Saguna Brahman, and Nirguna Brahman. One is the Ultimate Source of Cosmos, considered “with attributes,” while the other is the same, “without attributes.” These are really just two different ways to conceive of the same thing, yet as Wikipedia puts it:

Advaita Vedanta philosophy says that for human eyes Nirguna Brahman is viewed as Saguna Brahman, or Brahman with personal attributes, and is commonly worshipped as Vishnu, Shiva or Devi by Hindus.

Thus, getting back to the consideration of the Christian Trinity, as Theosophists so regard it, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three Logoi of the Absolute, or Godhead, while it is in expression via some form of manifestation (eg, the Cosmos). Furthermore, although this pattern, or relationship, can certainly be said to apply to all of Cosmos, it should be understood that it is reflected from a grand and Cosmic (sic) scale, throughout any number of smaller, microcosmic applications … until finally, we see it mirrored into our own Solar System, into each of the Seven or Ten Planetary Systems of which Earth is just ONE example in our Solar System … and even down into the human, sub-human, cellular, atomic, etc. scales – so that in each case, the relationship is preserved.

Referring back to the threefold composition of an individual human being as a mortal entity, we find that our threefold nature is ensouled by a greater, Synthetic Being (or Principle), which can be termed by any one of literally dozens of epithets, but which for simplicity’s sake we may call simply `the soul.’

Despite apparent differences between the Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and other systems, esotericists regard all of these exoteric distinctions as eventually and ultimately reconcilable … such that the Soul, as an Immortal, Reincarnating Entity is the understanding many disciples work with as we seek to relate to each other, and cooperate in the One Work (just as Christians “fellowship,” and likewise seek various forms of outward charity). This intimately involves Service to Humanity –which thereby furthers the Divine Plan, and advances the progress of the entire planet, spiritually speaking, this being in line with the original activity of the Creative Elohim.

And this has everything to do with why so many New Age folks are speaking of things like `The Secret,’ and hoping to appeal to people with such adaptations of The Wisdom which have not, as yet, appealed to the public at large. Many folks simply will not respond to any conventional religious presentation of the facts regarding our origin, Purpose here, and the modus operandifor furthering that Purpose. They feel that what has been taught to them as children, and then presented again as adults, is unintelligent, impossible, contradictory, and frankly speaking – in terms of some Christian approaches – incredibly patristic. Thus a newer thought-form presentation is needed, and thankfully, it has come … via the Theosophy of the 19th Century (continuing into today, I would add), and via several revelations in the 20th Century, as well as at least one new presentation in the 21st of which I am aware.

Not that Theosophy, or 20th Century Esotericism, is the only new Revelation which the Masters have provided … or even the form of revelation which will appeal most directly to the masses, in greatest number. The Baha’I Faith provides a prime example of another recent thought-form presentation to the West, and one which many people will find much easier to apply, along religious lines, than anything else given out by the Spiritual Hierarchy in the past 150 years.

(cont'd)

 

[wil]

Namaste Luna...

A while ago CR eliminated .sig files I believe because of some advertising or prosyletizing abuse...

anywho...I've in my head added my own .sig file to everyone's post.

the short version is 'imo', when the post feels really biting I read 'imho'

When someone really goes off I read (again in my head..my head is so full of this stuff (I know there are others who are ready, willing and able to indicate exactly what stuff)

--------------
The above commentary is not sanctioned by CR or its moderators, internet providers or the world wide web, this planet or this universe, it is not indicative of all whom the poster shares any commonalities with, it is their own thoughts, and any forceful indication that others should think that way or are thinking or believing wrong should be taken with a large grain of salt. Take ten deep breaths and a walk around your city prior to responding.

 

[taijasi]

We find, in studying these presentations, that even the Soul itself is a threefold entity, whose primary aspects are Will, Love-Wisdom, and Intelligent Activity, mirroring those of Deity precisely.These three primary qualities (or Aspects) – which are also permanent principles of every individual’s Greater Being – reflect the Christian Trinity, and other Triune presentations of Deity … while an additional Four Attributes of Being are also present within each of us, reflecting as they do the properties (or Greater Being) of another Four of the Seven Creative Elohim.

This can become somewhat confusing very quickly, since relative to the human scale of being, each planetary Eloi (or Logos) most certainly demonstrates Perfection, not only relative to the Human level, but also in a much, much Greater sense than we are really capable of grasping. Even a Master of the Wisdom is said to be a Master upon each of the Seven Rays … and this means that relative to average Humanity, s/he has fully Mastered the art & science of living in the world, according to Seven Aspects and Attributes of our Spiritual constitution:

Will
Love-Wisdom
Active Intellect (or Creative Intelligence)
Harmony through Conflict
Concrete Science
Devotion
Ceremonial Order

For simplicity’s sake, Theosophical and esoteric teachings specify one Ray which governs each reincarnating Soul’s evolution more closely than the others … such that personality rays (and sub-rays) vary, from life to life, while the Soul remains upon one ray, by and large. In any given life, each person upon the planet is conditioned by all Seven Rays, yet paralleling the esoteric astrological teaching it will be found that a specific ray governs that person’s Soul, personality, mental body, astral body, and etheric (or physical) body.

Sometimes a given ray will show up more than once in a certain person’s constitution, and a disciple with a Ray 6 Soul, plus a sixth ray astral body will often demonstrate the kind of religious fanaticism that is evidenced by many fundamentalists, whatever their choice of exoteric tradition. A Ray 5 disciple of advanced development will likely be an accomplished scientist, while a Ray 4 disciple might be a musician, or maybe a well-known actor. Politics, in general, is a Ray 1 enterprise, while religion and education are both expressions of Ray 2, religion including a good deal of Ray 6 influence.

The various planets of our Solar System, are each the outward expression (or physical `body’) of an Eloi (Logos) in the Theosophical teaching, these being the Seven Spirits before the Throne of Revelation. Each corresponds to one of the Seven Rays, and this means that that planet embodies and transmits that Ray to the rest of our (solar) System.

The planets Vulcan, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Venus, Neptune, and Uranus correspond to Rays 1-7, respectively, although other classifications might be given. Each planet is the embodiment of a `Perfect Logos,’ Who nonetheless seeks further advancement via incarnation … and relative to the discussion of Logos as related to the Father, we would say that each of these Logoi is the `Absolute’ as concerns its own Planetary evolution. And yet, just as in the case of the Earth Logos, wherein Christ said, “I and the Father are One,” it is also true that the other Planetary Logoi relate to Their evolving Humanities … so that either a Third, a Second, or yet a First Aspect of that individual Logos can be taken into consideration.

Again, there will be confusion, if we don’t keep in mind that the pattern, or blueprint of Being for a Logos … is the same, on a much, much higher scale, as that for the evolution of an individual human being … just as the latter is a much greater “version” of something like a cell, an atom, or perhaps even a quark. Theosophical and other occult clairvoyant investigations tell us that even quarks are enormously large units of matter relative to much, much finer particles – which science will someday discover. Remember, a-tomos is Greek for “indivisible,” and this is something which the atom of modern science is clearly not. But even the electrons of science, which occultists call the true physical atom, will consist of a threefold, or again a sevenfold structure, itself synthesized – or ensouled – by a transcendent whole.

This goes on, and on, and on … but anyone seriously interested in a study of Humanity’s Creation, and gradual evolution – with both spiritual and material assistance via various branches of the Angelic (or Devic) Hierarchy – should take up either Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine (esp. vol 2 on Anthropogenesis), an abridgement of the same, or any number of other, more contemporary interpretations of the Stanzas of Dzyan which the Masters gave out in partial form in the SD, including plenty of commentary for our benefit and for the sake of clarity.

Of course, we can always argue for maintaining the status quo … but not if we are interested in seeking the Truth (Nasti Paro Dharma - `There is no religion higher than Truth’). Theosophists prefer the latter; hence the motto. I have made an effort here to show a portion of what my own inquiries have revealed. But I learned a long time ago that “cover-ups” are nothing new, when it comes to religion. I was even delighted to hear Mulder and Scully discussing this, last night, during one of my favorite X-Files episodes (`Anasazi,’ the final show from Season 2):

Mulder: “Are you familiar with the Ten Commandments, Scully?”
Scully: “You want me to recite them?”
Mulder: “No, just #4, obeying the Sabbath, the part where God made Heaven and the Earth but didn’t bother to tell anybody about His side projects.”
Scully: “What are you talking about?”
Mulder: “The biggest lie of all.”
Scully: “What is this?”
Mulder: “The Holy Grail. The original Defense Department files. Hard evidence that the government has known about the existence of extraterrestrials for almost 50 years.” [60 years, now]

For a Theosophist, or an esotericist, the Grail is no cup … but is in fact, the Wisdom.

And you see, various figures in the US Gov’t may or may not be aware of the esoteric teachings, but what Mulder says, besides the part about Roswell, makes perfect sense. After all, we come to learn that every single twinkling star … is, like our own, HOME to NOT ONE, but very likely numerous Planetary Systems, each of which, in its own appropriate time, will foster a `Humanity.’

Our own System, with its Seven and Ten Planetary Schemes, is no exception, for VENUS has perfected her Humanity, and some of these, the perfected men of Venus, have come to us – starting ~18 million years ago (as the Lords of the Fire Mist, or Kumaras) – to assist until Earth’s evolution catches up. We are, as yet, just children … or perhaps young adults, struggling on our way to adulthood, though the rebellious stage we’re going through is obviously a dangerous one. Wwe see this mirrored perfectly, even into the terminology with which every Christian is intimately familiar:

Israel means `struggle,’ or to borrow again from the Theosophical Glossary for a more complete definition:

Israel Yisra'el (Hebrew) [from yashar upright, straight, righteous + 'el a divinity] The national designation of the Jews, principally applied in Jewish history to the northern kingdom as distinct from Judah; later it referred to the Jews as a religious community united under the national god Jehovah. The name was assigned to Jacob (Genesis 32:28), who was regarded as the parent of the twelve tribes.

The original significance of Israel is, in the singular, an upright, righteous man, who strives for union with his inner god; hence an initiate. The Jews applied this term in reverential yearning to themselves, with a special application to the noblest Hebrews among them; but the term abstractly is as applicable to the righteous ones or initiates of any country.
​

And now let us look at Emmanuel, as from Isaiah and from the familiar Christmas Hymn:

Etymology: Middle English Emanuel, from Late Latin Emmanuel, from Greek EmmanouEl, from Hebrew 'immAnu'El, literally, with us is God
​

I know it’s Easter, yet the living, Risen God is ever-present … even as [He] descends, at birth, into human form (every human form) - and just as, for the human being approaching the highest Mysteries of the Godhead, the Inner Glory blazes forth, the Soul is freed, and the perfect man of Ephesians 4:13 is realized. This is the future, for everyone, in time … and not just for the privileged few.


~Namaskar~

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Andrew,

Good to see you back again!

On this thread, concerning Esotericism, I will feel free to offer my understanding of Christianity, Buddhism, Theosophy, or any other tradition ... without walking on eggshells

I quite agree that people do not need to walk on eggshells here or anywhere else. But I see it as a matter of simple respect to not tell another the "real" meaning of their faith. Another understanding of the same Scripture? Sure, go for it.

I have made the same comment to Christians and Baha'is when they take it upon themselves to tell me the "real" meaning of Christianity.

As I said, it's a pet peeve and one that puts me off dialogue with someone if they persist in it. I could have said nothing and just walked away from the conversation, and perhaps 9 out of 10 times that is what I do. In this case, since I have had some interesting discussions with Nick, I thought I'd state my feelings and try to continue in the thread. Haha! So you now know...if I take the time to scold you it's because I find you interesting!

 

[taijasi]

Rock On!!!

 

[taijasi]

Hmmm ... another thought occurred to me, as I'm headed out the door. Two more perspectives on the notion of singular vs. plural Creative Elohim. This question is really one that it is bound up with the idea of the Trinity, or Triune God, as it has been discussed on other forums.

From a Theosophical point of view, in relation to something I've already mentioned, there are the various writings of Geoffrey Hodson, Dora van Gelder Kunz, and other authors (including Charles W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant) who have all clairvoyantly observed various orders of Devas, or "Angels."

The lower orders of these are what have been called faeries, or nature spirits, and they ensoul the tiniest of physical forms - such as every blade of grass and buttercup. These are not individualized lives, but rather, they work in a way that we might almost describe as unconscious, or automatic, yet in truth this is not quite so. They are directed by greater, coordinating Deva lives - and these are Individual(ized) beings, just as humans are.

There are correspondences in the Deva kingdom with animals, and even the trees - as every good tree-hugger knows - are ensouled, even at the emotional level ... while there are Devas that overshadow, and nurture - care for, tend to - an entire grove, a forest or mountain range.

Now these Devas, they cooperate in their work together, though there is certainly One overshadowing presence at a high enough level, directing - or synthesizing and coordinating - the work of all its subordinates. The overshadowing presence may be likened to the Absolute. On the whole, its presence is not directly involved, although authors such as Geoffrey Hodson have described a variation in the relationship.

The Deva of a mountain, for example, can be observed in two states. Sometimes, it hovers well above the mountain itself, transcendent so to speak. Other times, it descends into the mountain, and here it is clearly involved with the mountain life and its ecosystem. The first case is, again, like the absolute in its own, transcendent state. The Deva inside the mountain ... is like the manifestation, which in Christianity is the Trinity.


And one more correspondence, imperfect as it may be, can be observed in our American system of Government. We have three branches of this government, a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch. One is in charge of directing the nation's affairs, another arbitrates according to our legal system, and the other makes laws - which sustain, or keep the nation in balance (okay, okay, theoretically).

Thus we see the Trinity, imperfectly manifest, and nowhere will we observe the direct hand of Deity ... and - sorry folks, Dubya doesn't count.

what ... you kiddin???

I rest my case.

cheers,

~a