The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[Thomas]

Nick –

I would direct you to the doctrine of your own organisation:

"Behind the exoteric or public forms of all religions and religious philosophies
there exists an esoteric or inner teaching that holds such concepts as those
listed here. ... "
Theosophy
An Introductory Study Course (4th edition)
John Algeo, Department of Education, The Theosophical Society in America.

Allow me also to quote a philsosopher of no little repute, St Thomas Aquinas:

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.

Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.


and

Article 8: Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.


My emphasis. I think you are being somewhat mischievous, Nick?

A saying springs to mind:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

My commentary of the moment --

Having just watched Cecille B. DeMille's `Ten Commandments,' I am fresh with inspiration from that source, from the source. Thus I would provide the following quotations, from the movie, spoken by Moses to Sephora and Joshua after coming down from Mt. Sinai, wherein he met and spoke with with God:

Joshua: "Look at his face."
Sephora: "He has seen God."
(Moses approaches)
Sephora: "Moses, your hair. Your sandals ..."
Moses: "I stood upon holy ground."
Joshua: "Can you tell us, Moses?"
Moses: "My eyes could not look upon Him."
Joshua: "Did He speak?"
Moses: "He revealed His Word to my mind. And the Word was God."
Joshua: "Did He speak as a man?"
Moses: "He is not flesh, but Spirit. The LIGHT OF ETERNAL MIND. AND I KNOW THAT HIS LIGHT IS IN EVERY MAN."
Joshua: "Did He ask something of you?"
Moses: "That I go to Egypt."
Joshua: "You are God's Messenger! He has set the day of Deliverance."
​

Cecille B. DeMille's onscreen interpretation, brought to life with the help of Charleton Heston, Yul Brynner, Vincent Price and other great actors, may not be Gospel, but ... Thomas, this is a presentation inspired by the Bible, by the historical accounts of the times, and not based upon the interpretations of later commentators.

In portions of this film, such as those in which Moses was appointed his Office by the one true and living God, it became quite clear to me -- the presentation we find in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a powerful, and an appealing one, for obvious reasons. Having not seen this television movie in my adult life, or certainly not having watched it with the attention and interest with which I just did, I was powerfully moved by a reminder that in through Judaism, and through Christianity, the same God of all nations, all times, and all peoples - did reveal Himself.

And there is an amazing, beautiful feeling ... one of reverential awe, and pure marvel, to fathom - even for but a few moments - that this same Being (a true, Mighty Individuality, for certain) has sat in rulership of this planet ... for 18 million years, say the esoteric records. There is something Moses says, at one point, in praise, or recognition of God ... yet all I can remember at the moment are the last words of the Pharoah (Yul Brynner) to Nefertiri, after losing his army at the sea: His god, is God.

What I know, because it is revealed in the Holy Bible, and many other Divinely Inspired Scriptures ... and because every fiber of my being testifies to it ... is that the Lord God of Moses, of Christians, of Theosophist, Muslim, Brahmin and Buddhist alike ... by whatever name this God be known - such a God, is not a lone, isolated being ... but such, in a greater scheme of things, is verily like a small child, even as He is in some ways, a member of the Avante-Guarde even in this tiny Solar System.

Theosophy, Thomas, in the 19th and 20th Centuries - and the esoteric teachings which mean so very much to many thousands upon the planet today - are based upon Revelation, pure and simple, EVERY BIT as Divinely inspired as that of the Christian Era 2100 years ago. You may believe otherwise, or choose, if you will, to reject any other form of Revelation that does not suit you. But Mr. Schuon errs when he says:

"man cannot have access to direct intellection – or gnosis – except by virtue of the pre-existent scriptural revelation"
​

Frankly, I am surprised at you! And a little disappointed.

Look back ... at what Moses said. Charleton Heston's Moses? Yes. DeMille's interpretation of events? Yes. But I would bet my LIFE that this is a MUCH CLOSER approximation to what would actually have been said (the part I bolded) ... than something like, "If it is not found on these here tablets, it is NOT a true Gnosis."

We need to seriously rethink this, for if that is how we have come to believe God operates (NOT in our hearts, and minds, directly, but only if it be first revealed by scripture), then we have not understood God at all.

To be certain, The Mahatma Letters were not written for a worldwide audience. Nor are the teachings via HPB, Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, or a dozen other modern Sibyls intended to be rushed to the presses, circulated as the NEW BIBLE ... while the Gospels and other texts are simply pushed aside to collect dust.

I would quote from the teachings of Master Hilarion, whom Christians know from his lifetime as St. Paul. This excerpt is from a lesson is called, `My Father's House is a House of Prayer':

For the last thirty-five years there has been but little said of the New Testament among occult students of H.P. Blavatsky and others who came after her. As I have told you before, the New Testament holds in its pages all the knowledge of the universe. All the diffuse philosophical literature of the ages that preceded the Christian era was preparatory. The New Testament synthesizes all, but it has been so misunderstood and misinterpreted that we deemed it best to go back to the older philosophies, that they might explain the New Testament. It is only through the old philosophies that it can be understood, for it contains copies of the most occult manuscripts in the world; and the treasures of the hidden chambers of the East, of which I have spoken to you before, are, as I have said of the western philosophies, but explanations of all that you find between the pages of Matthew and Revelations. You cannot study that book too much. It will open to your understanding, with the explanations you have already had, as nothing else can.
​

There is much here, in these words, for the wise man to see. To some, it may matter that a Master of the Wisdom has given the teaching, while to others, it matters only that a certain 19th-Century Messenger for these same Masters did not. HPB did not seek fame and notoriety, either for herself, or for the Mahatmas.

The true test of a teaching is not - who wrote it, and WHAT ecclestiastical authority has given it their gold-lettered seal of approval ... but rather, does this teaching find echo, and come to life, within the hearts and minds of PEOPLE! If THIS is what Frijot Schuon was intending to intimate, THEN, and only then, can we look at his commentary as meaningful. Otherwise, I say again, he has missed the point, and missed God, entirely.


On a personal note, I found it quite inspiring, in watching `The Ten Commandments,' to contemplate that this Joshua, whom I had totally forgotten from my Sunday School lessons as having served so closely with Moses ... was the same Joshua who later sounded the trumpet at Jericho ... and who took birth, humbly among the Jewish people, as the man history knows as `Jesus of Nazareth.'

I know nothing about the actor John Derek, but if the fire, the passion, the zeal of the Master Jesus was not overshadowing him as this film production was made ... then I am quite certain I DO have the whole story all wrong.

I could see it in his eyes, and of course - oblivious to all but the role at hand - I can only imagine that this aided Derek that much more in his portrayal. Someday, in a great study of the lives of the Initiates, I like to believe clips from this movie will be included, both of Moses at various stages, and also of Joshua, probably Aaron, perhaps others.

History, like religion, and politics, is far too complex to cast into black and white, or good and evil. The Egyptians, while not portrayed as a wholly evil people, or even the Royal Family as simply tyrants and oppressors, will never be understood (properly), if our greatest understanding of their religious beliefs and spiritual practices is simply a shadow against the noonday Glory of Sol Invictus ... oh, err, beg pardon, the Judeo-Christian presentation and story, from Moses' Exodus down to present day (obvious highlights including the Gospel account, the fervor of the Crusades, and the last few decades of living memory to us all).

This was one of my few near-griefs with DeMille's presentation, and although I would not fault him, I did almost cringe when in a scene here and there the Egyptians were spoken of as idol-worshippers/idolaters, and mention was made of animal-headed gods. I remember my Egyptian lifetime with fondness ... with almost no detail, but with an overall recollection of at least some understanding of the meaning behind the exoteric Pantheon (the Ogdoad, and other Truths expresed in symbol).

It is true, in the later, decadent days of Egypt, there was much corruption both in religion and in politics, and the original Light was dimmed ... this being precisely what I believe has occurred with Christianity. Not Thrice Greatest Hermes - Thoth, the Lord of Truth - the Living LIGHT of Men ... was dimmed, but only his dictates, the Word, the Law, as these were applied by imperfect mankind ... and not Christ Himself, of course, but likewise, a flock that has become somewhat scattered and hard of hearing.

I would gladly discuss the Theosophical Movement (from HPB's day onward), or the early (and not entirely successful) experiments of the Seed Groups with which Alice Bailey worked in the 1920s and 1930s ... even the approach of the Christ to Humanity via Jiddu Krishnamurti, which was also, not successful in the way that it was 2100 years ago. I am not so prejudiced as some here would think, or suggest, or proclaim.

I believe only in TRUTH, in its search, its discovery, and in the enthroning of this Principle in every human heart and mind of the planet. Nothing less, is what Moses acknowledged, and Served, for this was his God. Even Love, so Great and Forgiving, does not blind us to Truth, or mislead us from that lofty Goal.

Along the way, I am seeking to keep close in touch with perspective, since without this, even the highest Truth - is meaningless, worthless. Each of us must define for ourselves what is this thing we call "perspective." Buddha said, "Cease to hold views." And I DO TRY not to say, "In my view ..." - while certainly, it is amost impossible (as yet) to bring this Ideal fully to life.

Some would just replace one dogma with another. I begin to wonder, if this all we are after, what difference would it make? Either God is a God of Love, of Light, and of Truth ... or else, this is no "god" at all. The "gods" of Egypt were real in the hearts and minds of those who truly knew Them, at one time, and in a way long since forgotten to most, by the time of Moses.

If you doubt me, ask YOUR GOD. I dare you, and I politely challenge you. Read the Akash, seek for the Truth in Prayer, go within, or open your Holy Scripture and READ. Masters do not fabricate things; and while tried and true Sibyls occasionally make an error in transcription, they do not bungle the Message or distort its clarity ... not and remain long a true Messenger.

I grow weary of debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead. I soon prove who is the greatest pinhead of all ... if I would argue against the very idea that man might be Mindless!

We are given ATMA. We are given BUDDHI. We are given MANAS. These, while latent Spiritual Principles ... are unfolding in every incarnate human being. And NOT simply because somewhere, sometime, someone WROTE something ... however important, or spiritual, it may have been.

Humanity was CREATED - taught Theosophically as a rather complex, elaborate, gradual, multifaceted process - for a definite Purpose, including great and wondrous things, not the least of which any of us could begin to fathom. The Pyramids at Giza, the flying Hindu Vimanas (UFOs, by any other means of reckoning), microcomputers, a space shuttle, genetic engineering ...

... we haven't even begun to tap the wonders of technology, skillful and ingenious as we are. But as the Initiated Plato knew well, and even the non-Initiated Socrates before him, MAN's "GENIUS" is a part of our Divine Heritage, it is the overshadowing, ensouling Christ Principle as shown in every world Religious teaching ... and it holds the promise of Salvation - not for one group of Humanity alone, but for ALL.

This is God's Will, His Promise, not simply to Moses and His People, but through MANY a Messenger, in MANY a day and age, to MANY a different nation - often one enslaved or oppressed by another - no matter what we have come to believe otherwise. We either recognize this, or we do not.


That which crumbles away ... is only that which erected on an unstable foundation to begin with - or else it is the addition and elaboration which has been provided, and which cannot stand with the rest of the structure, as it was designed by the Master Builder. The Egyptian Wisdom, like the Christian, lives on ...

A Christian gladly speaks of his Master. I invite the seeker after Wisdom to inquire of the Eastern Masters, or even of Western branches of the Brotherhood ... and see if the one you seek is not named `Jesus' after all. This too, may turn out to be part of the Secret. And the Truth shall set you free ... even as Moses freed the slaves of Egypt.

NamaSKARA ... and Peace

 

[Quahom1]

My commentary of the moment --


Having just watched Cecille B. DeMille's `Ten Commandments,' I am fresh with inspiration from that source, from the source. Thus I would provide the following quotations, from the movie, spoken by Moses to Sephora and Joshua after coming down from Mt. Sinai, wherein he met and spoke with with God:

​

​

It's a movie...

 

[taijasi]

A saying springs to mind:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Thomas

I couldn't have said it better, Thomas. We aggree, utterly!

Do you mean to suggest that Theosophy is an "inferior science?" In a nutshell, is that what all the pretty blue text is meant to suggest? Speak plainly, now. And if so, inferior in comparison to what?

Out with it!

The Masters did not dictate so that students 100 years hence could quote endlessly, in public disputes, simply to demonstrate some believed Truth - however Sacred. Do you really think the authors of the Gospel did any different? St. Thomas? I daresay.

You are a Catholic, Thomas, with some esoteric leanings and interests. Unless you decide Liberal Catholicism is the thing for you, why should you take stock in the `revelations' of your God, via some branch of a Brotherhood about which you know next to nothing, in which you express not one whit of real interest, and toward whose greatest western Emissary you gladly display disdain, or even contempt (!?!).

I find your mention of the Sufis a very clear hint that the Brotherhood which strikes the deeper chord of your being ... is likely the Lebanese branch, or those of the `Holy Land,' presided over by Master Jesus, among others. Your Jesus, would speak in plain English, that Blavatsky's Mahatmas are his greatest comrades, fellow students in the Ashram of the Christ. Ask him. Ask Christ.

Is the lip service too much? I think it is. I think we are at the point where what we want to say is that Love matters most. An esotericist, by any number of dozens upon dozens of various traditions - some ancient, some new this month - teaches that Love is the truest Master of all, yet s/he will never deny Truth, insofar as s/he understands or grasps it. Truth, of course, will not dispute with Love.

Tell me, wherein is our dispute?

I tell you, it is a thing of the mind - and not of the heart.

But if you regard my earlier post, we see that another Master, thoroughly Western - but again, MASONIC, and thus in a Tradition not fully in sympathy with your own - speaks on this matter of how we conduct ourselves. I will quote from that earlier post here, to make the point again:

The human race trains its children to fear, resent, and to hate those of its own species who are different from themselves. Groups of individuals are trained to hate other groups because of a difference in color, ideology, class or sect. Such hatred, which is covered with the term "prejudice," prevents any possibility of understanding or of right relationship between these various groups of people. Thus, the human race is being constantly divided into all sorts and kinds of camps unable to relate for the common good, or to live together in peace. If it were not so tragic, it would appear to an onlooker as a masterpiece of comedy created for the sole purpose of throwing into relief what not to do.

Yet it is not a comedy. Men and women dedicate their lives to killing each other, to fostering fear, to creating a world in which evolution without undue pain and suffering is impossible. And in the majority of these situations the average persons believe, with a fanaticism peculiar to the old inquisitions and the holy wars, that they are right, that their inhumanity to their brother is justified. A plea for peace, for understanding, or for the practice of the Golden Rule brings a quick accusation of "subversive" in the many languages of humanity, and the voice of love is quickly hushed around the world.

Yet, all of these humans, who are in truth brothers in the family of God, aspire to greater intelligence.

Let us reiterate: "The energy of love in the mind produces right understanding or Wisdom."
​

The last sentence, even if you ignore all else in this post, stands on its own, following closely on the preceding summary - that all people aspire to greater intelligence (and thus, understanding).

Thomas, you would have me proclaim a "truth" in which I do not believe. You would have me say something like, "only God gives to us the true Gnosis, Divine Understanding." Or you would ask me to say, "only via Divinely Revealed Scripture can I truly or fully know God." If I have gotten it wrong, please correct me, for it is worth putting this to rest, once and for all.

I cannot deny the former, and never have. I simply do not let a Catholic, or ANY person, dictate to me - Who, and how, is "my God." I speak, in some of my posts, from my own understanding, my own belief ... and dare I say, my own knowledge?

It has been said, here at CR, we should remember, whether or not it is explicitly stated by each poster, per post, what we post, is strictly our OWN understanding, belief, and interpretation.

I ask you (all) then, if we do no more than quote a Holy Scripture, or the comment of a wise one of some stature or another, and use this Scripture, or commentary, to support OUR OWN points, beliefs, understanding, or way of seeing things ... then whose purpose is being served, in so doing?

I must withdraw now, to meditate and pray. I ask questions that I hope are pertinent for us all, at least from time to time. What purpose do we seek to serve? What is it we hope to accomplish, in a given situation ... or in a given discussion. I think this matters a great deal. Our honesty with ourselves, of course, determines the degree of our honesty with those around us.

I can speak strongly, I can argue fiercely, I can, probably, preach. I could even say something about being fueled by the fires of truth, yet right now there is something on my mind. The one whom I felt, long ago, was my Master ... taught something, through one of his disciples. Before we speak a thing (or share it), we should ask ourself, Is it kind, is it helpful, and is it true?

Only one or two of these are not enough. It must meet all three criteria. It occurs how little I would say, in print or otherwise, if I took this advice. How interesting, that this is in perfect sympathy with the frequent advice of one whom I called `Teacher.'

I almost wonder ... would some of us, ever speak at all?

(That's hypothetical, a musing, meditation calls ...)

Akousmatikoi
Sravaka
monkhood

~andrew

(I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch in which a man wishes to purchase an argument ... ah yes, I know it well)

 

[taijasi]

[/indent]It's a movie...

It's a book ...

 

[Quahom1]

It's a book ...

It's imgination with creative license...

 

[taijasi]

From the original post on this thread:

The Secret is explained as a spiritual law based on the “law of attraction.” According to this “law,” we are energy and our thoughts are energy, so whatever we "put out" draws the same kind of energy back to us.
​

From the Dhammapada:

• 1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.
     
  2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

I think this Secret is timeless, Eternal. I cannot tire of hearing it, in any form. Practicing it ... is what matters most, and proves most difficult. How many thousands of lifetimes?

Who are we to squelch the latest corner prophets? If their message has appeal, it will find a following, and if their teachings have merit - and are followed - they will stand the tests of time!

 

[Quahom1]

Who are we to squelch the latest corner prophets? If their message has appeal, it will find a following, and if their teachings have merit - and are followed - they will stand the tests of time!

Good point, and very true.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"I would direct you to...."

--> I would rather you answer the question.

"I think you are being somewhat mischievous, Nick?"

--> No. I just want an answer to the question.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,
You said,
"I would direct you to...."

--> I would rather you answer the question.

That's my point. The answer is esoteric, and you seem predisposed to refute the idea of esoterism?

If youy're not being mischievous, then you are bordering on arrogance – for what you say implies that unless a text reveals itself to you at the most superficial level, with no requirement on your part to seek understanding or clarification, then you refuse to accept any other meaning?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew –

I couldn't have said it better, Thomas. We aggree, utterly!
The Lord moves in mysterious ways ...

Do you mean to suggest that Theosophy is an "inferior science?" In a nutshell, is that what all the pretty blue text is meant to suggest? Speak plainly, now. And if so, inferior in comparison to what?

Out with it!
No, in this instance I was simply replying to Nick's objection. He seems to refute esoterism. Theosophy seems to endorse it.

My follow up was that if someone refuses to accept a viewpoint other than their own – which to me indicates a closed mind – then there is no point in discussion.

+++

You are a Catholic, Thomas, with some esoteric leanings and interests. Unless you decide Liberal Catholicism is the thing for you, why should you take stock in the 'revelations' of your God, via some branch of a Brotherhood about which you know next to nothing, in which you express not one whit of real interest, and toward whose greatest western Emissary you gladly display disdain, or even contempt

Actually I know a fair bit about the Theosophical Society, The Secret Doctrine sits on a bookshelf. I expressed a great interest at a certain time in my life, but found their philosophic method wanting, and their interpretations of texts ideosyncratic and their enforced syncretism metaphysically contradictory.

And, as I have intimated in private communications, I know more about the 'Brotherhood' than perhaps even they would like.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...and you seem predisposed to refute the idea of esoterism?"

--> Not at all. You would be surprised at how much esoteric knowledge Theosophy has released to the world.

"...you are bordering on arrogance...."

--> When I ask you who the "us" people are, I am being arrogant? You may call such seeking of truth as arrogance, if you wish.

Theosophy sees a search for truth as a good thing, not arrogance, as you see it. The Theosophical search for truth is very different from your rule that such seeking is arrogance. I will keep seeking the truth.

You wish to stop us from asking such questions, under the guise it is arrogance. Fortunately, you cannot stop our search for such truth.

This is the very difference between Theosophy and your belief system. Theosophy encourages such questions. Your belief system forbids them, and calls them arrogance.

"...what you say implies that unless a text reveals itself to you at the most superficial level, with no requirement on your part to seek understanding or clarification, then you refuse to accept any other meaning?"

--> Not at all. You assume too much. By the way, which "other" meaning of the word "us" am I rejecting? Which "us" am I rejecting? (I do not remember you answering the question, and giving me an alternate answer.) You have to give me an answer before I can reject it.

"The answer is esoteric...."

--> Great. Please share that esoteric answer with us. (The question is not forbidden. The answer, too, is not forbidden, although you are saying it is.)

Since my belief system does not forbid the question (even though yours does), I ask it again:

Who are those "us" people?

 

[Thomas]

For those who care to look beyond the literal, some thoughts on the elohiym of Scripture.

The word elohiym (430) is the plural form of the word elowah (433), which is a masculine singular term, a prolonged and thus emphatic form of the word el (410), which means God.
(Figs in parentheses refer to Strong's Concordance)

As is commonly understood, and widely accepted, the early Hebrew scribes followed their Aramaen heritage in preserving a certain deference towards the Deity. In so doing the singular form 'el' or 'elowah' was only used in poetic address. The plural form, referring to the majesty of a single divine being, occurs more than two thousand times.

The word elohiym however, in Hebrew usage, is applied not only to God, and to 'the God' when used with the article, but also the goddess, gods, false gods, angels, idols, and man, so one is obliged to read the term in context, rather than at face value, if one is going to make any sense of the text.

With regard to Scriptural interpretation, elohiym is understood toi refer to the Divine Assembly, this should be understood within the greater context of the Data of Revelation as a whole.

The Hebrews were, from the outset, fiercely monotheistic. There is one God, and therefore the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host, and as such is a gift and a grace, because Creation itself is a Free Act, and God is under no compunction or necessity to create (creatio ex nihilo).

Please remember that the Abrahamic Tradition is a Tradition of the Word: In the beginning God 'said', and in the Prologue of the Gospel of John the idea is even more emphatic.

In many places in Scripture, angels are agents of the Divine Will, or the Divine Word, but they never will on their own account. Angels are essentially messengers, but it is the One God who acts in history.

According to the traditions of Islam, when Go created man he invited all creation to bow before his finest creation. Lucifer, 'the brightest of them all' refused (pride) and thus fell, to become 'the Adversary' of God's will. Many posit God as opposed to Satan, but this is an error. Satan is opposed by St Michael, like Lucifer, an arch-angel.

In the mind of the Patristics, angels are beings of pure intellect, pure light, created but immaterial, but this only highlights the ontology of the Hebraic idea, an angel is elohiym when and if it acts according to the Divine Will.

Thus another reading of elohiym refers to the Primordial Unity at the start of creation that infused all creation, as it were. God walked in the garden of Paradise with Adam, and as expressed above, when an angel or a man fulfilled God's will, they did a Divine thing (although Divine ontologically, neither men nor angels are of themselves divine), they were in union with the Creator.

Once man fell, the unity in the elohiym was lost.

+++

A total overview of Hebrew theology shows a nuanced and delicate balance with regard to a God who is at once and simultaneously both utterly transcendant, and actively immanent. A useful approach is in the Patristic idea of essence (Gk ousia) and energy (Gk energia), and the easiest way to cross the gap between the Patristic and Deuteronomic scribe, is in the idea of apophatic and kataphatic theology.

The word 'apophatic' denotes in Greek a technique (tekné) of thought, a technique that is simultaneously one of denial and of openness to the mystery of the Principle of reality.

(It is worth noting here that 'be-re-shiyt', the opening words of the Bible, translated as 'In the beginning', can more accurately be translated as 'in the principle' – which demonstrates a certain metaphysic plasticity not immediately apparent to the lay reader.)

The principle of apophasis is not unique to Greek theosophy, but common in all traditions to some degree, and in the Hebrew as in any other. In the Far East the Hindus say 'neti-neti' – "not this, not that". In Near Eastern language, the distinction was observed by not talking of the Absolute directly, but by indirect address – by elohiym.

It was Gregory of Nyssa who introduced a theology of apophasis in the idea that God could not be known in essence (ousia) but only by His activity or energies (energia). There is a further distinction between energy (energia) and power (dunamis), but that need not bother us here.

Applying this principle, we can read Genesis Chapter One as the activity of the Transcendant God, which is why the scribe uses elohiym throughout, in reference to the Creative Act, which is of God, but does not define God. The Creation account in Chapter One is precisely that, the account of the Creation.

Genesis Chapter Two then highlights the activity of the Immanent God and, in relation to humanity, the appearance of the Personal Name of God, The LORD God (YHWH elohiym, Genesis 2:4) – this name 'defines' the relationship between creature and creator philosophically, theologically, ontologically and metaphysically, the Divine Name being derived from the Hebrew verb 'To be' – as well as physically (literally) morally and ethically, and eschatalogically.

In short:
Genesis One is the story of Creation.
Genesis Two is the story of the Fall.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host..."

--> This assumes the angelic host were co-participants in the Creation process. Either the angelic host were active participants in the process, or they were observers who were addressed by God during the events of Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, the grammar of Genesis 1:27 indicates the angelic host were active participants.

However, Genesis 2:7 states God created humanity by Himself.

Either God created man by Himself (Genesis 2:7) or he had active participants (Genesis 1:27). It has to be one or the other.

Which of the three is correct? (1) God created man by Himself, (2) God created man while the angelic host watched, or (3) the angelic host were actively involved in the process.

Yes, the angelic host can be "read" as the "us" people. Are you saying, in fact, they were said beings?

~~~

This, then, becomes the new critical question: Did God create man by Himself, or were there others actively involved in the process? (As I believe you have identified the "us" people as the angelic host, I consider that question secondary to this newly-stated critical question.)

 

[taijasi]

...God is under no compunction or necessity to create (creatio ex nihilo).

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

From Wikipedia on `Ex nihilo':

Early Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

Process theologians argue that God has always been related to some “world” or another.
​

Perhaps you believe in an ex nihilo creation, Thomas, but Theosophists - and Easterners - do not ... and the above article demonstrates that a good many Christians and respectable theologians, including many enlightened Church Fathers among them, also do not.

Also, keep in mind - as you are no doubt aware, Thomas, from your own studies of Theosophy and The Secret Doctrine on your bookshelf - that HPB posits Three Fundamental Propositions in the SD, upon which all else in the Theosophical presentation squarely rests. The Third such Proposition states at the outset:

The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul -- a spark of the former -- through the Cycle of Incarnation (or "Necessity") in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. (emphasis added)
​

I would go on to include the following statement, for clarity's sake:

The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego [Reincarnating, Individual Soul, not ego in the Buddhist or psychological sense] through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations. (again, emphasis added)
​

In our discussion, our approach may be quite different if our assumptions, and fundamental beliefs, differ so widely as those of reincarnationists and non-reincarnationists, or advocates of an ex nihilo creation vs. believers in Mulaprakriti, or Akash.

~andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-- Edit --

I wrote

"...or he had active participants...."

I meant

"...or he had active co-participants...."

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,

You said,

"...the 'us' can also be read as a mode of address to the angelic host..."

--> This assumes the angelic host were co-participants in the Creation process. Either the angelic host were active participants in the process, or they were observers who were addressed by God during the events of Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, the grammar of Genesis 1:27 indicates the angelic host were active participants.

Yes. As the Logos says: "Not my will, but thy will, be done." (Luke 22:42)

However, Genesis 2:7 states God created humanity by Himself.

Yes. As the Logos says: "Not my will, but thy will, be done." (Luke 22:42)

The Book of Wisdom tells us:
"And thy wisdom with thee, which knoweth thy works, which then also was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was agreeable to thy eyes, and what was right in thy commandments."

God forbid the angels should want to claim it for themselves, for they, like us, "live and move, and have their being" (Acts 17:28) in Him, but unlike us, they know it, that is the luminesence of their being.

Either God created man by Himself (Genesis 2:7) or he had active participants (Genesis 1:27). It has to be one or the other.

Which of the three is correct? (1) God created man by Himself, (2) God created man while the angelic host watched, or (3) the angelic host were actively involved in the process.

Heaven is like Little Russia – Everybody works.

Yes, the angelic host can be "read" as the "us" people. Are you saying, in fact, they were said beings?

I'm saying many things. "Us" could imply the nobility of the Divine Address, for example, or the Trinity (and both would be theologically and metaphysically consistent), or, if angels are messengers of God, then let us not underestimate His Word they carry – "The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." (Matthew 8:8)

This, then, becomes the new critical question: Did God create man by Himself, or were there others actively involved in the process? (As I believe you have identified the "us" people as the angelic host, I consider that question secondary to this newly-stated critical question.)

Philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, theology, theosophy ... they all do the same thing, they pursue the One Cause of All, in all.

However many were involved is a quantitive evaluation, and second to the qualitative ... who initiated the work. There is but one Will – or rather The One Who Wills ... and it is He who sustains all works, of whatever order, in whatever domain.

Even we, now, can serve to fulfill His plan, and by his Grace, can rightly say, "I played a part."

That is the meaning of vocation.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

No-one's infallible.

Perhaps you believe in an ex nihilo creation, Thomas, but Theosophists - and Easterners - do not ... and the above article demonstrates that a good many Christians and respectable theologians, including many enlightened Church Fathers among them, also do not.

References, please. (And you've misread Eriugena)

Also, keep in mind - as you are no doubt aware, Thomas, from your own studies of Theosophy and The Secret Doctrine on your bookshelf - that HPB posits Three Fundamental Propositions in the SD, upon which all else in the Theosophical presentation squarely rests...

I know. But I think HPB's Esoteric Philosophy is flawed.
As do the Anthroposophists (and Western Hermeticism generally), the Traditionalists, and sages of all the Great Traditions ...

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

No-one's infallible.

An Initiate, acting under certain circumstances and inspiration, is a lot closer than either you or me.

References, please. (And you've misread Eriugena)

Thomas, when I not only tell you that I got my quote from Wikipedia, but tell you what I looked up (`Ex nihilo'), and give you a link to that page ... the least you can do is follow it.

I know. But I think HPB's Esoteric Philosophy is flawed.
As do the Anthroposophists (and Western Hermeticism generally), the Traditionalists, and sages of all the Great Traditions ...

Thomas

Yep. I know you think that. I think that it is not. And I'm not an Anthroposophist, a Traditionalist, or a sage. Besides, if all the great sages agreed, we'd never have these discussions to begin with.

I think that the Bible is flawed. That our interpretations of this work are flawed. And that, as Master Hilarion suggests, ONLY by a study of varoius other works will we ever have any chance of understanding the true, or deeper meaning, of what the authors of (Judeo-Christian) Scripture intended.

As I have said, the Theosophical Teachings are not meant for everyone. They are open to everyone, they are largely tailored to a Western audience, even if a famliarity with Eastern doctrines is required or helpful. Yet they were not meant to become a new, or a replacement, `Bible.' And so long as they are either treated - or feared - as such, neither will these teachings themselves be understood for what they are, nor their practical application to the Gospel and New Testament Wisdom become possible (as a revealing key for the symbolism contained therein).

No, as long as we say, "There are no secrets, God has spoken plainly, the entire message has been put directly in front of us, for any idiot with a parrot's IQ to swallow whole and repeat back undigested" ... so long as we declare this, this is exactly what people will do.

If there is no secret (doctrine), then why rally on so much about denying one? And why is it that all we end up doing is going around in circles, while these lesser orbits themselves describe - and prove ipso facto the very existence of a Greater?

It is as the moon, orbiting the Earth, or perhaps the latter, on her great pilgrimage around the Sun. And we've already done this dance once about which orbits which. Let us not continue, or repeat these mistakes ... until even the monkeys have evolved the intelligence to repudiate them.

~andrew

 

[Thomas]

An Initiate, acting under certain circumstances and inspiration, is a lot closer than either you or me.

But still, that does not make him or her, nor you nor me, infallible. And philosophically, Philo has been found wanting.
(In light of my above reply, please note that I'm not saying Theosophy is wrong per se, I'm saying it's wrong in respect to the conclusions it draws about Traditions not its own in general, and Christianity in particular.)

Thomas, when I not only tell you that I got my quote from Wikipedia, but tell you what I looked up (`Ex nihilo'), and give you a link to that page ... the least you can do is follow it.

Now now, Andrew, no need for that ...

Besides, in the wiki link on Origen it says "The ultimate aim of God in the creation of matter out of nothing was not punishment, but the upraising of the fallen spirits." So you seem to be arguing against yourself?

So what I am saying is that just by quoting names is insufficient. You need to quote precisely what you're referencing, otherwise I'll assume you haven't read it yourself ... As it is, I cheked Eriugena and found nothing to support your argument, I checked Origen and found likewise, at which point I saw no reason to continue.

Hoist on your own petard, old bean, as the saying goes.

I think that the Bible is flawed.

That is simply a promethian assumption. Do you know the inner workings of the Mind of God? I don't think so, so how can you say? Because you think it's flawed, it must be? To make such a determination would require you know the measure of all things.

Again – I look at you, who says it's flawed, I look at the lives of the saints, who say that it is not, who say, in wonder, quite the opposite – and might I repeat your own words, they are a lot closer than either you or I.

And by their lives we can see it is entirely adequate and without flaw, for the greatest among them will admit, without hesitation, that even their lives fall short of the Message.

That our interpretations of this work are flawed.

Ahh! That's a different kettle of fish altogether. That I can agree. But then it is a matter of degree, and the Doctors of the Church stand as Masters of the Interpretation of Scripture ...

Remember that 'blue writing' of a previous post ... Aquinas? Such a one was he. One might not agree with it, but only the unwise dismiss it out of hand.

And that, as Master Hilarion suggests, ONLY by a study of varoius other works will we ever have any chance of understanding the true, or deeper meaning, of what the authors of (Judeo-Christian) Scripture

You know my view on so-called 'ascended masters'.

And, might I add, patently not the case as the sacra doctrina of the Great Traditions is sufficient to produce such luminarties as you yourself quote often ...

I look to the saints and the sages, and I have yet to find one who says the same as your 'masters'. Each have found their own sacra doctrina an infinite source of wisdom and guidance, greater than the capacity of the human spirit to contain it ... Read them for God's sake please, Andrew, and listen to what they say, not what your masters say about what they say ... go to the source!

As I have said, the Theosophical Teachings are not meant for everyone. They are open to everyone, they are largely tailored to a Western audience, even if a famliarity with Eastern doctrines is required or helpful.

Note also that HPB's unfamiliarity with Eastern doctrines is evident, which makes the whole enterprise suspect, to say the least:
Mistaken Foreign Beliefs about Shambhala

And the Dalai Lama has spoken out against the whole edifice, especially 'ascended masters' and the 'IAM' cult in America. I'll finfd you the reference if you want it.

Yet they were not meant to become a new, or a replacement, `Bible.'

No, but those such as you use them as the only valid means of interportation, and continually inform me that the orthodox interpretation is erroneous, false, or even malign. Shame on you for trying to pass off your text as inocuous. You know 'The Sacred Doctrine' presents itself as the means of Biblical interpretation, and that it presents Satan as the 'hero' ...

And so long as they are either treated - or feared - as such, neither will these teachings themselves be understood for what they are, nor their practical application to the Gospel and New Testament Wisdom become possible (as a revealing key for the symbolism contained therein).

Fear? Andrew, don't make me laugh. I know this is a classic tool, to always claim the other is acting out of fear, but I do not fear your teachings, I speak against them in defence of Scripture:
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
2 Timothy 3:16

No, as long as we say, "There are no secrets, God has spoken plainly, the entire message has been put directly in front of us, for any idiot with a parrot's IQ to swallow whole and repeat back undigested" ... so long as we declare this, this is exactly what people will do.

You might want to say that to Nick – your point was what I was trying to say, somewhat more discreetly – certainly this is not the Christian way.

If there is no secret (doctrine), then why rally on so much about denying one?

I don't dent the esoteric, I defend it from error.

Thomas