The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine

[taijasi]

Well, Thomas, here again - you prove that, whether through your own zeal, or just by a general inattentiveness to anyone who demonstrates an interest in the Mahatmas ... you have missed several key points in what I've been saying for literally years!

I am, gladly, the first to express a mutual renunciation, or in the very least, a suspicion, of anything coming from the "I AM" movement, or any source that makes reference to "Ascended Masters," rather than Adepts, Masters, Mahatmas, Great Ones, and so forth. I haven't the slightest interest in "Ascended Masters," since - as the Tibetan puts in, in one of Alice Bailey's books - they are a travesty of the reality. The I AM movement, at least by THIS Tibetan Lama, is clearly seen for what it is.

So, let's get our FACTS straight, and our sources sorted out, before we go tossing out the baby with the bathwater, Thomas. Just as I would be a fool, and show utter ignorance if I sought to dismiss with a wave of the hand all that Catholicism has contributed over the centuries, I think you at least owe it to the genuine article - the Mahatmas - to give the Stanzas, and the commentary by a half dozen or more Masters (writing via HPB), a second look. You may just find that the old lady knew a good bit more about the Eastern teachings than you have realized ... and that - while far from infallible - she was, nothing more, nohthing less, than the Messenger we celebrate her as.

Namaskar

 

[taijasi]

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

I think this thread may be coming to an end, Thomas, as a number of people have weighed in, and shared something about `The Secret' ... while we have also pursued some discussion of Genesis 1:27, and the subject of the Creation of Humanity.

I would be happy to continue discussion of either, yet when I see such a statement as you have made (above), I feel myself growing a little weary. What is one to say, when we see that you have made it your self-appointed task to speak out against anyone, anywhere, who makes mention of HPB's Teachers, or who approaches esotericism from any different background than your own ... respecting other contributions than those of the Roman Catholic Fathers, or the approved, sanctioned, revered and esteemed list of contributors - which YOU YOURSELF are willing to provide?

In short, I would like to clarify, as politely as I know how to do - that while I do value your contributions, and find your posts interesting ... and your point of view quite informed, what I do not appreciate is being told that I err if and when I take interest in the writings of HPB, that her (presentation of) esotericism is flawed (unless you can thoroughly and successfully defend this accusation, which you have yet to do - either for Nick, or for myself), and especially that you yourself somehow hold and safeguard "the correct" (or a more correct) interpretation of the Sophis Perennia than ANYONE else, frankly speaking.



You heap too much upon yourself, Thomas, in so proclaiming all of this, whether you do so directly, or simply through insinuation and by making such statements as:

the Doctors of the Church stand as Masters of the Interpretation of Scripture ...​

Read them [the saints and the sages which you yourself provide in the Thomas-as-authority-sanctioned Holy Reading List] for God's sake please, Andrew, and listen to what they say, not what your masters say about what they say ...​

HPB's unfamiliarity with Eastern doctrines is evident [undefended - you accuse, then you withdraw ... let us know WHY this is so, if you so accuse her, Thomas]​

Shame on you for trying to pass off your text as inocuous. [Shame on you, Thomas, for not seeing that it is! Or rather, for seeing that the only harm it can do, is to those institutions which have come to rely a good bit too heavily on commentaries - and in your own words, fail to go to the source. I believe Shakespeare said it best: "More matter, less art." ]​

You know 'The Sacred Doctrine' presents itself as the means of Biblical interpretation, and that it presents Satan as the 'hero'

Again, here, Thomas, you simply reveal to me that The Secret Doctrine, whenever you purchased it and for whatever reason, has apparently sat on your bookshelf unopened - or else been perused but cursorily - and you make it evident that you have relied almost entirely upon the commentary and interpretations of OTHERS ... and specifically, ONLY those writers who fall sympathetically & unquestioningly lockstep into the march of the greater Roman Catholic tradition, with regard to this matter.
You are far too intelligent a man, to have actually read what HPB writes, to have studied her teachings (or those of the Mahatamas, at any rate) thoroughly, sought for the proper key to their right understanding, and still come off so determined to spout invective, decry her every utterance as uninformed, and repudiate the doctrine she presented in so hard-nosed a fashion.

Satan, the `hero?' Dear God, man, WHAT have you been doing all this time - rather than actually looking at what she said??? I can see that we will never have a proper dialogue, since you are unwilling to read ANYTHING except what the "Church authorities" have provided you, or what such greats as St. Thomas Aquinas has had to say on matters, or perhaps what Mr. Berzin thinks - again in criticism.

I will put it to you this way: If you would dispute even a single word of what HPB taught, then let us choose WHAT SHE TAUGHT ... in her own words ... and take up something, point by point, for a proper discussion. At least that way you demonstrate that you do not "fear" the Teachings offhand, for as I have said, Truth and Love will complement each other, they will aid and glorify each other, even reveal each other ... and Love will never squelch the Truth or mislead us in that regard, while Truth will only empower, or amplify Love.

That what HPB presented is God's Own Wisdom, you must decide for yourself, but to continue to dismiss it out of hand, without looking at what has actually been said, is no different than my dismissing the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, or any other presumed authority - simply because he may have been a Roman Catholic. Nor did I reject St. Thomas' words ... that is what YOU said, your words, in my mouth. I simply ASKED you, WHY you quoted him at such length - what was YOUR POINT. Let us be honest, Thomas, and stick to the facts.

Yours, you see, may be a towering intellect, as was HPB's, and just as has been that of many a commentator on various Scriptures - as Thomas Aquinas on the Holy Bible, or Mr. Berzin on the books of Kiu-te. I will not pit my intellect against yours, my Catholic Friend, for it is useless to beat this dead horse ... if what we expect it to do is get up and gallop.


In my own way, I have met HPB, and (some of) her Masters - thus I do not need you, or anyone, to try and straighten out for me my confusion, correct the error of my ways (in this regard), or try to set me about the study of some "proper literature," or "actual" inspired writing(s). You see, it is quite like preaching to the choir, except - to borrow a line from a Clint Eastwood movie:

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining ... ​

I know your mind, and your heart, well enough, Thomas - let us leave God's out of it for a moment - to feel 100% content that your own, greater intent, and motivation - are noble. You can either accept that mine are likewise, or you can accuse me, doubt me, get an honest chuckle (nothing wrong with that ), and so forth.

But what you cannot do, since it has long since been a part of my being, is stand/sit there and tell me, "HPB's were not inspired writings, her Mahatmas were not the genuine article, and thus her doctrine are - at best clever, in the least, misguided." You can SAY this, if you like. But it's like saying, the grass isn't green, the sky isn't blue, and rocks don't fall back down when you toss them up in the air.

We can play the games of the philosophers all day long if you prefer, and speak of perspective, and interpretation, and human shortcoming and errors. Were there two typos on this page or were there three? Did she really mean that Pratyeka Buddhas are "selfish," or was there perhaps more to this than even the Theosophists can usually figure out. That sort of thing. I'll play those games if you like. Is the sky really blue, or do we just see it that way.

I can't tell you quite where (or `who') Thomas Aquinas is these days. I honestly don't know. With God, in the "Communion of Saints" ... yes, okay, I'll go with that. It reflects what I believe just about as well as it does what you believe. But I should verily love to see you sit, and try and explain to a Mahatma - any given `Mahatma' - why His presence before you, mayavic as it may be ... is first of all impossible, and second of all NOT an ample demonstration that the Old Lady wasn't EXACTLY what she said she was.

In a nutshell, I don't give a rat's hindquarters ... that you really don't "get it," or "see."There are many things I don't get, and see, and it probably makes me just as obstinate, or as short-sighted, as all of this makes you. But again, what's to be gained if it all comes down to a battle of ego, or wits?


I'd rather just smile, and be on my merry way ...

Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin' to,
I don't want to ...
(`A Song for Jeffrey,' Jethro Tull)
​

On a strictly personal note, I will add that I first encountered the writings of Theosophists some 18 or more years ago, and soon discovered that there were (and are) such men as `the Masters,' or `Mahatmas.' By the time I was 18 or 19 I was familiar with many of them, historically, and they were far too intriguing and too inspiring to remain names on a printed page, or names whispered by those who revere Them.

I found my way to sketches, drawn firsthand, and more accounts of them than any one person should need to accept them as a possibility. But I did want to take the possibility, even the likelihood that such men exist - beyond theory. This I was given the opportunity to do, and I have done so. I hestitate to say, "to my own satisfaction," for in many ways I yearn for exactly what every Theosophist, or esoteric student yearns for, when it comes to the relationship between student and Master. But I learned, long, long ago (and have even re-learned it) - that the only doubt, which is possible, after a point - is in the mortal, human mind.

You may curse Satan, my Catholic friend, since you have been taught to. You may speak of Prometheus, and his Gift to us, the Fires of Mind, with less than Reverence and Esteem ... but I have been taught otherwise. I have been taught, and come to see, that evil is not something to be objectified, and spurned as the "gone-wrong" of God's otherwise-perfect Creation ... nor the gross matter of this, or any other plane, as per a superficial reading of Gnosticism.

No, I have learned that the only true evil which exists, both within us and without, is ignorance, narrowness of vision, short-sightedness both in virtue and accomplishment, and the apathy or slothfullness which we allow too great a hold on our borrowed equipment ...


... and I have also learned something of the way to overcome this. For that, I have both Theosophy, and Christianity to thank, but more so, much more so, than any set of Teachings on the printed page (or computer screen), I learned long ago that I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to -

my Teachers,
my Family,
my Friends.
​

And without them, I would be nothing.

SPEAK with a Master, sometime. SPEAK with a Mahatma. Or even with one of their Disciples. With one who Knows Them, either firsthand, through meditations, through dream visits, or through the revelation that can come by a number of other means of famliarity. I invite you to do this, for with an open mind, and an open heart, you can see for yourself - whereof I speak.

`BAH,' you can say, and que sera, sera. I know this, I know this.

I am far from this thread's topic, in one way, but I have tried to contribute something from my own past, and experience, which is the testimony that the Secret exists! And it has its Exponents, not merely in the world of men, but in the realms of pure Light, and pure Love, and also where Pure PURPOSE reigns supreme.

From Purpose, through Light and Love, and via the hearts and minds, actions, words and speech of people everyday, The Secret is brought to life, and every morning the Sun never fails to rise on the world and reveal the Mysteries.

I pity, even weep for, any person, who has come to rely too heavily on words, and on clever concepts for the witnessing of God's Secret. If we cannot see it in the birds, in their beautiful colors - and hear it in their song, or perhaps experience it the paintings and other work of artists both famous and unknown, then I'm not sure we can see it at all.

As my friend has asked me to do, I am seeking it now, The Secret, in contemplation of Divine Order, and for this, I will not be reading ... but meditating, and going within - and asking, that the Divine Order be manifest in my life, in my heart, in my mind, and in my actions. I shudder, to think that people would dismiss this offhand, speaking of it somehow with disdain, or with anything less than the greatest of Respect and awe ... as it is God's own Purpose, and an Aspect of His Creation made manifest.

And there are other contemplations, and they are calling.


Some things, we do not need to see, to know and to understand, if only in part. And it simply remains for us to have confidence in what we have heard, even if this means, in the last analysis,

To Know, to Dare, to Will ... to be Silent.​

Namaskar, and Pax Vobiscum,

~andrew

 

[taijasi]

Thomas, I will only give one example, that you need to at least read that form which you are quoting - or using to illustrate your point - something you accuse me of not doing ...


From your own linked article, by Alexander Berzin:

Steiner emphasized the conflict between good and evil, as personified by Lucifer and Ahriman. Blavatsky had already differentiated Lucifer from Satan. According to The Secret Doctrine, Lucifer is the “Light-Bearer,” the “Astral Light” within each of our minds that is both our tempter and liberator from pure animalism. It serves to both create and destroy, and manifests in sexual passion. Although Lucifer can uplift humanity to a higher plane, the Latin scholastics had transformed him into the purely evil Satan.​

Blavatsky also wrote about the Zoroastrian dualism and struggle between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, as the forces of light and darkness. Steiner, however, went a step further than Blavatsky and transformed the dualism into an antagonism between Lucifer and Ahriman. In Occult Science, An Outline, Steiner characterized Lucifer as a being of light, the bridge between Man and God, bringing us closer to Christ. The “Children of Lucifer,” then, are all those who strive for knowledge and wisdom. Ahriman, in contrast, leads mankind downward to its lower, material, carnal, animalistic nature.​

Steiner called himself a Luciferian and, by his logic, Maitreya is the Antichrist. Since people have perverted Christ’s actual teachings, Maitreya, as the Antichrist, will come from Shambhala and purge the world of their blemish and teach the true message of Christ. In 1913, Steiner’s followers founded the Anthroposophical Society, although Steiner himself did not join until he reestablished it in 1923.​

Let us pay careful attention to the first paragraph. Now go on to tell me that H.P. Blavatsky praises Satan as `hero!' You know what they say, wax in the ear ... or in this case, the nose in front of one's face ...

No, I do not quite agree with where Steiner goes with this in his Anthroposophy, yet inasmuch as the 1st Ray is that of the Destroyer, identical with the Father Aspect of Christianity and with St. Michael (or St. George), who slew the dragon, Apophis (Apap/Apep), then yes, even Steiner's point can be understood ... still distinguishing as he does between Lucifer and Ahriman.

And what has the Catholic Church done, to clear up the confusion? How have the authorities, and all the great Fathers contributed? How have they regarded the Bearer of LIGHT ... keeping in MIND that Moses himself speaks of God as the LIGHT that is within the mind of EVERY MAN (`man,' this word itself coming from the Sanskrit MANAS, or "MIND")?

I rest my case, insofar as we are arguing such absurdities as the notion that HPB praised "Satan" as `hero.' Goooooood Grief!



EDIT: Again, a later section (as I read on) from the same article:

Recall that although Blavatsky had written about Lucifer and Ahriman, she did not make the two a pair and did not associate either of the two with Shambhala or Agharti. Moreover, Blavatsky explained that although Latin scholastics had transformed Lucifer into a purely evil Satan, Lucifer had the power both to destroy and to create. He represented the light-bearing presence in everyone’s minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence.​

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew –

Thank you for picking out one point from a somewhat lengthy discourse, and hopefully I might be able to utilise it to highlight where the difference lies between us.

Let me say from the outset, that I would have no issue with American Theosophy Society as such, if it kept itself to itself. But it does not, it offers a constant critique of the doctrines of other Traditions, and this is where, when Christianity is invoked, I speak out against it. It's interpretations are syncretic, and many of the assertations made by you and others are metaphysically erroneous, and often without foundation, and without evidence.

+++

Now, in light of the above, to address the point you make in detail.

Thomas, I will only give one example, that you need to at least read that form which you are quoting - or using to illustrate your point - something you accuse me of not doing ...

I did not accuse, I evidenced.

From your own linked article, by Alexander Berzin:

... Blavatsky had already differentiated Lucifer from Satan. According to The Secret Doctrine, Lucifer is the "Light-Bearer," the "Astral Light" within each of our minds that is both our tempter and liberator from pure animalism. It serves to both create and destroy, and manifests in sexual passion. Although Lucifer can uplift humanity to a higher plane, the Latin scholastics had transformed him into the purely evil Satan.​

My emphasis.

a later section from the same article:

... Blavatsky explained that although Latin scholastics had transformed Lucifer into a purely evil Satan, Lucifer had the power both to destroy and to create. He represented the light-bearing presence in everyone's minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence.​

Well ... Blavatsky is wrong on the following counts:
1 – The 'demonisation' of Lucifer occurs in Isaiah, in the Old Testament:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?" (14:12)

2 – In the words of Christ, in the New Testament:
"Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." (Luke 10:18)

What she fails to perceive, wrapped in her esoterism but blind to the principle of metaphysics which proceeds it, is that Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualisation, of the necessary possibility of evil if freedom is to exist as an ontological possibility.

Lucifer is to the angelic order as Adam is to the human ... and to promote the error of Lucifer is to promote the error of Adam, which is fundamentally of a creature who says "I know better than God."

In her syncretism, in trying to be a 'jack of all traditions' as it were, she has become 'master of none' and it shows, tellingly. Her metaphysics is muddled and contradictory, a failing she seeks to gloss over with glamourous dollops of pseudo-esoteric flimflam, as far as her understanding of the Scriptures is concerned. I shall leave the spokespersons of other traditions to defend their own.

As such, Lucifer does not represent "the light-bearing presence in everyone's minds that could uplift people from animalism and bring about a positive transformation to a higher plane of existence" but quite the opposite, he represents the presence of one's own egoic tendency and desire to be god-unto-myself, that's why he fell, and that's wehy he seeks to draw all with him.

Consider, is not that 'light-bearing presence' the presence of the Logos of God written into each and every soul, that the darkness of the mind fails to comprehend? And does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer – who nowhere, ever, is attested to as Logos, but only ever as a created being, a fallible being, and a being who fell?

Why should man deseert God in pursuit of a creature, and a fallen creature at that?

Why indeed ...

But lest I be accused of quoting my favoured sources, let me quote one of yours, Origen:
De Principiis : Book I : Chapter 5
"Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, "How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth, who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the kings of the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house; but thou shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many dead who have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to the lower world. As a garment cloned with blood, and stained, will not be clean; neither shall thou be clean, because thou hast destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shall not remain for ever, most wicked seed. Prepare thy sons for death on account of the sins of thy father, lest they rise again and inherit the earth, and fill the earth with wars. And I shall rise against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and I shall cause their name to perish, and their remains, and their seed." Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning.

For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, "Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." (Luke 10:18)

For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words, "For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be." And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e., of an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since "the whole of this world" — for I term this place of earth, world — "lieth in the wicked one," and in this apostate. That he is an apostate, i.e., a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, "Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate dragon," i.e., a fugitive. Now it is certain that by the dragon is understood the devil himself. If then they are called opposing powers, and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless purity exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since that which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite powers once were spotless, and were once among those which still remain unstained, it is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness (if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that state in which he will be changed into what is called an "opposing power."

And what has the Catholic Church done, to clear up the confusion? How have the authorities, and all the great Fathers contributed? How have they regarded the Bearer of LIGHT ... keeping in MIND that Moses himself speaks of God as the LIGHT that is within the mind of EVERY MAN ('man,' this word itself coming from the Sanskrit MANAS, or "MIND")?

See, even you do it, you confuse the Logos of God, "the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world" with Lucifer, and you distort the Scriptures to do so, and who is, in the words of Origen, an 'opposing power' against the will of God.

The confusion you speak is not the Catholic Church's Andrew, it is yours, and worse than that, it is a confusion her masters seek to sow in the hearts and minds of the honest seeker, to bend them, as the above demonstrates, into the unwitting service of the adversary.

It is this vendetta against Christ and His Church that is the reason why I will always speak out against it, for I see it for what it is. A lie.

Thomas​

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

I am not sure of your interpretation of the Theosophical idea of Satan, so I am putting it here.

Theosophy teaches that there is no Satan, that there is no fellow running around in long red underwear and carrying a pitchfork. Theosophy teaches that there are evil beings in the universe, but they tend to work in isolation; they are not arranged into some sort of a universal Hierarchy of Evil, and no Satan sits atop such a Hierarchy.

Theosophy teaches that a group of “angels” called the Kumara actively participated in the creation of the human race. There was point in the story where the Kumara hesitated to press forward. This group of angels was supposed to supply man with a particular principle — intelligence. However, they wanted man to develop intelligence on his own, so they stepped back and took a hands-off approach. In this they were mistaken — the Divine Plan called for them to do that very thing.

It was their decision not to act that causes us to say they failed to act.

“… the Radiant Archangels …refused to create [man], because they wanted Man to become his own creator and an immortal god — that men can reach Nirvana and the haven of heavenly divine Peace.” (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 246)

It boggles my mind that the Kumara chose to disregard the Divine Plan, but that is what Theosophy says happened. Over the centuries the story has been embellished, and the Kumara have been vilified to the point where today people call them by the (singular) name Satan.

You may wonder how the plural concept Kumara bacame the singular concept Satan. The Kumara are the "us" people of Genesis 1:27, which is the issue Thomas and I have been going over and over ad nauseum.

ANGEL OF LIGHT

The Kumara were Archangels actively involved in the creation of humanity. This is where the idea of “angel of light” comes from. From this we get the present-day story of Lucifer the Angel of Light rebelling against God and becoming the Angel of Darkness.

We can now look at Thomas’ criticisms.

“Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualization, of the necessary possibility of evil….”

--> Thesosophy teaches Lucifer (as described in Christianity) does not exist.

“… does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer…?”

--> She does not. The Logos and Kumara are separate Theosophical concepts.

“For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light?”

--> This is a fascinating question, and gets into some important Theosophical theory. Lucifer (and everything else in the universe) comes from Darkness (which is the same Darkness named in Genesis 1:1). Darkness is another name for the Absolute, which predates the Logos. To answer Thomas' question specifically, yes, it can be said Lucifer is a nature of Darkness, just as you and I are natures of Darkness, because you and I are Rays of Light that came from the One Light (The Son) which came from the Darkness (The Absolute). To use Thomas' words, The Kumara, You, and I 'arose in the morning' when that first Ray of Light flashed out from inside the Darkness (The Absolute) and began our universe.

“… you confuse the Logos of God, ‘the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world’ with Lucifer….”

--> No, we do not. Lucifer (plural) is the Kumara (plural), which are Rays of Light blasphemed into being called Darkness because of their mistake.

~~~

Finally, there are the names Satan, Devil, Angel of Light, etc. Here is a Theosohical article that gets into a lot of detail about the origins of these names. Take a look for more information.

"Some Light on Lucifer" by Ina Belderis

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

I am not sure of your interpretation of the Theosophical idea of Satan, so I am putting it here.

It's probably best that one distinguishes between the Abrahamic idea, and Theosophic Society's.

You may wonder how the plural concept Kumara bacame the singular concept Satan. The Kumara are the "us" people of Genesis 1:27, which is the issue Thomas and I have been going over and over ad nauseum.

And this is a point you have failed to answer, and which I have demonstrated metaphysically cannot be the case.

I would say, leaving the Abrahamic Tradition aside, that Traditional Theosophy, by which I mean the Western Theosophical Tradition (encompassing Hermeticism, Alchemy and the Mystery Cults – the non-aligned religious speculations, meditations and mystieries of man) might not agree, arguing, from the metaphysical (and thus the traditional philosophical position) perspective of ontology that all caused being necessarily has a First Cause.

I think most if not every school of Western philosphy – Platonic, Aristotelian, Socinian, Stoic and Epicurean for example, agree on this point.

The Kumara were Archangels actively involved in the creation of humanity. This is where the idea of “angel of light” comes from. From this we get the present-day story of Lucifer the Angel of Light rebelling against God and becoming the Angel of Darkness.

Generally perhaps, certainly the Mystery Cults called the gnostics and the Zoroastrians (as I understand it) would argue this.

The problem is the mention of 'Lucifer' ... we might argue that Lucifer, being the translation of the Hebrew heylel – 'Bright-', 'Day-' or 'Morning Star', is not unique to Judaism, as it is also referenced in Chaldean writings and Arabic generally.

But the title has become generically Abrahamic in the West, deriving from the Latin 'lux' (light) and 'ferre' (to bring).

But Lucifer chose to supplant the light he was charged to carry – the Divine Light, the logoi, with his own, and chose to become a light unto himself. The Western understanding of the tendency of occlusion and ossification which is synonymous with Lucifer (Lucifer being the exoteric expression of the esoteric principle) is founded on Scripture.

So if you wish to present a new or different idea, the obligation is to demonstrate either:
1 – How the Kumara relate to the Western understanding, or
2 – How the Western understanding is faulty and should be superceded.

But I would suggest that one cannot say that our understanding and yours are the same, or mean the same thing, which according to your account, the West would say they are not the same thing at all.

We can now look at Thomas’ criticisms.

“Lucifer is the embodiment, the actualization, of the necessary possibility of evil….”
Thesosophy teaches Lucifer (as described in Christianity) does not exist.

Well then we are radically different. As stated above, Lucifer is the exoteric expression of the principle ('esoteric' in the sense that it is only apprehendable to a penetrative and illuminating intellect) of separation or distinction.

There is a desire in all things to be themselves, but this desire can express itself positively (agapically) – to be oneself for the sake of another (ultimately and ontologically God), as gift to another (ultimately, love) – or negatively (erotically), to be oneself for the sake of oneself (ultimately and ontologically a nihilistic existentialism).

There is agreement philosophically and theologically in the West that all things tend towards their own good, they seek their own perfection. But the tragic flaw is man cannot know his origin nor his end because he is a created being and not self-generate.

The logoi of himself, which is the very foundation of his being, is a gift from outside of himself, and originates in the Logos. To truly 'know thyself' as the Philsophical dictum demands, means to know oneself in the Logos – in Divine Union.

The 'spectrum' of these two tendencies, their 'sacred seven', gives rise to the idea of Seven Vices, Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Virtues etc., which, certain nuances of expression aside, are common to both Western Theology and Philosophy, being cosmological determinations and thus accessible to the reasoning intellect and not dependent upon Revelation.

They are experienced sensibly as 'true', being in their nature infallible, 'infallible' cosmologically and thus relatively (in that they have no reality absolutely), and because they are 'true' they are 'real'. Thus sin is 'true' and 'real' as a principle in the domain of morality, that is the domain of human (and angelic) activity and reason, even though they have no truth nor reality in the Absolute or God, because God does not will other than what He wills.

Thus sin is an inescapable dimension of freedom, being the freedom to will other than the real, the true, the good, the beautiful, and so forth ... and the wages of sin is privation of the real, the true, the good, etc., accordingly.

God cannot sin precisely because God is free – He cannot will what He does not will – but man and angels can, because they can will what God does not will, precisely because they are free.

That they are free is itself a Divine Gift because the only really free thing is God, everything else stands in a hierarchicial relationship of subsistence, of hypostasis, with regard to the One, the Absolute ... were it not the case, were God not free in the absolute sense, then the Absolute would not be absolute, because there exists something other than itself.

“… does not HPB, by her doctrine, seek to displace the light of the Logos of God, and replace it with the fallen Lucifer…?”

--> She does not. The Logos and Kumara are separate Theosophical concepts.[/quote]
But she argues using the language of the Abrahamic Tradition, and examples from Scripture, so either she doesn't understand what she's talking about (which I could accept out of generosity and forgivenesss) or she does, in which case she is seeking to subvert Scripture to her own philosophy (which I cannot).

“For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light?”

Because none thinks he was by nature a thing of darkness, which is obvious if you read Scripture closely. His name is The Day Star, he was a thing of light, but his nature is wounded by corruption, and the darkness was occluded. That is the meaning of 'fallen'.

So that argument puts the cart before the horse. As an angelic nature, or as the Fathers would have it, as a logoi, he was not created fallen, nor created evil. Quite the reverse. He suffered from autoeroticism, or narcisism, a moral fault and a perversion of the will.

--> This is a fascinating question, and gets into some important Theosophical theory. Lucifer (and everything else in the universe) comes from Darkness (which is the same Darkness named in Genesis 1:1). Darkness is another name for the Absolute, which predates the Logos.

It is a fascinating question, but there seems to be a flaw: If the Logos post-dates the Absolute, then the absolute is not absolute, because there is Absolute, then Absolute and Logos. So the Absolute becomes relative. This is, I think the idea of your argument that the Trinity is not the Absolute?

The counter argument is that the Principle of the Logos – in the Christian Tradition – must exist in the Absolute and, as the Absolute is Eternal, the Logos exists Eternally.

You are not obliged to accept it – it is Revelation and transcends the intellect – but you will have great difficulty in refuting it metaphysically or philosophically.

To answer Thomas' question specifically, yes, it can be said Lucifer is a nature of Darkness, just as you and I are natures of Darkness, because you and I are Rays of Light that comes from the One Light (The Son) which comes the Darkness (The Absolute).

We need move carefully here. In the domain of the relative (the Cosmos) there are two 'darknesses', the fullness of Divine Plenitude, as in the Areopagite's Mystical Theology, Bonaventure's Assent, or Eckhart's Ground of Being, in effect a Superessential Superabundance of Light, (for God is not 'nothing') and there is the darkness of ignorance, of the lack of that Light, of which St John speaks (1:9).

To use Thomas' words, The Kumara, You, and I 'arose in the morning' when that first Ray of Light flashed out from inside the Darkness (The Absolute) and began our universe.

OK – nicely put, too.

“… you confuse the Logos of God, ‘the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world’ with Lucifer….”
No, we do not. Lucifer (plural) is the Kumara (plural), which are Rays of Light blasphemed into being called Darkness because of their mistake.

Well I was countering Andrew, who might have been wrong in his assertions. The point of distinction is that Lucifer chose to serve himself, not God, and seeks to seduce man to do likewise – not to serve Lucifer, necessarily, but to serve oneself – and this sets one in an adversarial position with regard to the Divine, which again shows the exactitude of the Hebraic idea of Satan – 'The Adversary' – being the principle, and Lucifer its actualisation by intellectual embodiment.

I would suggest that because you're dealing in pluralities, you are not dealing with the principle than underlies them, you are continually seeking to balance relatives, and subject to all manner of philosophical paradox. This is the endemic 'fault' in the reasoning of the Theosophical Association, as I see it, it lacks metaphysical and ontological rigour, it's dealing in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and awash in relativities.

Again, Western Theosophy and Theology deals in first order principle that gives rise to things, from what I see and have read, the Theosophical Association floods itself with data, referenced and cross-referenced, to present a very impressive and attractive surface, but lacks rigour; its lacks depth and penetration.

And as others have pointed out, it makes what is 'simple' more complex and confusing than it need be.

Finally, there are the names Satan, Devil, Angel of Light, etc. Here is a Theosohical article that gets into a lot of detail about the origins of these names. Take a look for more information.
"Some
Light on Lucifer" by Ina Belderis

I did, and I think it adds weight to my argument. Lots of esoteric and theological data, thin on the metaphysics, and thus throws up its own confusions as 'proof' that others are confused! The example of the confusion of the Day Star and Lucifer – there is Lucifer – an angelic entity, and the Day Star – an astronomically observable reality – I can see it in the mornings, but it is not Lucifer.

Sometimes Scripture refers to the idea of occlusion (Lucifer), sometimes to illumination (the star) – the author seems to assume that any reference to the Day Star is a reference to Lucifer and vice versa, without bothering to consider the context ... it's not, it depends on which is being spoken about.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Nick, the greatest service I can offer at this point, is to compose myself. I can certainly try to discuss things rationally with you, and Thomas, yet I have been dealing with his unabashed ANTI-Theosophical position for the better part of two years now.

Isn't it interesting, that the moment I set foot into a Christian forum here at CR, even while providing Biblical passage, and explaining that in my own understanding and interpretation, X passage means Y ... I am still accused of being "anti-Christian" - or of just plain hating Christians, as some of our more Fundamentalist brothers and sisters have put it ...

Yet NOWHERE do I SAY, in plain english that I either have anything against the practicing of Christ's Teachings, NOR do I set about demonstrating that Christ's Messengers, the original Apostles, or even the recorders of the Gospels and New Testament writings ... were "in error." I DO NOT say that the metaphysics they based their Teachings upon were unsound, or shallow, or un-rigorous.

Strangely, here on the Alternative forum, under ESOTERIC, we find the staunchest of possible Roman Catholics, pronouncedly and unabashedly ANTI-Theosophical and openly prejudiced to ANYTHING taught or revealed by H.P. Blavatksy ... carrying on as if this were either good Christian behaviour, a fair way to discuss philosophically the very tenets and teachings of an esoteric tradition (whether put forward in `The Secret,' or `The Secret Doctrine'), or even respectable procedure for anyone truly interested in a discussion of comparative religion.

What you are doing, Thomas, is worse than disingenuous. You are doing no less than preaching Roman Catholic doctrine on a thread, and in a forum, which is supposed to be about esotericism ... and from an alternative angle.

Yes, it is true, a diversity of approaches is desired, or desirable. What use is it preaching to the choir, especially if Nick and I simply wish to talk Theosophy? Nick has a forum for that, and I have found it quite interesting, though I have yet to post there. But the whole point of coming to a Comparative Religions website, and forum, is to investigate where traditions overlap and intersect, where there is harmony and sympathy - between teachings and followers ... and to see what wounds can be healed, if such is possible by a discussion informed by one's own past experiences, present practices, and a shared spiritual aspiration.


What I see happening here, is no more than an effort to step on what we (well, one of us here anyway) have decided is out of keeping with what the parent tradition tells us ... and yes, while I can appreciate that much of what is being said does come out of one's own experience, from within one's own tradition, I think we say a great deal when we say that the other person's tradition and teachings:

"lack metaphysical and ontological rigour, [deal] in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and [are] awash in relativities."​

or​

"lack rigour; lack depth and penetration."​

Yes, Thomas, I am genuinely sorry, and regretful, that you have found no more depth of meaning, and of Revelation, in HPB's teachings than you have found ... or that the modern Theosophical Movement, including the teachings of the TSA, do not meet with your approval and favor, or qualify as a "legitmate spiritual path," as you yourself have often put it.

HPB, certainly, did not come to found a new religion, and what dismays me, truly, is that you can say something like, "You should stick to your own, Theosophical teachings or tradition, and leave Christianity alone, and stop trying to steal our thunder, or tell us - where we went wrong ..." and so forth.

What this tells me, is that you have missed the point of Theosophy altogether. This makes is clear, that you are quite happy with your own Roman Catholic tradition, maybe interested in a few others ... but that in your own thinking, there is no, fundamental, or underlying intersection between them all ... no common foundation - as "God's Wisdom," or "a Perennial Tradition" - which underlies all exoteric presentations.


I would make my point by borrowing from an online version of Charles J. Ryan's `H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement,':

H. P. Blavatsky claimed no credit for the teachings in her book, but only for the presentation and comments. In "My Books," dated only a few days before her passing, she closed her life's work with the words:

Nothing of that have I invented, but simply given it out as I have been taught; or as quoted by me in the Secret Doctrine (Vol. I p. 46 [xlvi]) from Montaigne: "I have here made only a nosegay of culled (Eastern) flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them."​

Is any one of my helpers prepared to say that I have not paid the full price for the string? -- Lucifer, VIII, 247, May 1891​

Our Messenger seems to pay that price to this very day ... while some would seek proverbially to shove these flowers up her very nose.

For others of us, we see a beautiful bouquet, are aware of its fragrance, and we are grateful - eternally in her debt - for the choice and arrangement. We are comfortable with our understanding of their Source, and many of us regard HPB as one Messenger among many from the past 150 years ... not the only one who has taught the Wisdom in its current form, to a needy Humanity.

~~~~~~~~~


I have another post, for later, regarding `The Secret,' yet in the meanwhile, here is my answer to the following false accusation:

I would suggest that because you're dealing in pluralities, you are not dealing with the principle than underlies them, you are continually seeking to balance relatives, and subject to all manner of philosophical paradox. This is the endemic 'fault' in the reasoning of the Theosophical Association, as I see it, it lacks metaphysical and ontological rigour, it's dealing in secondaries without taking into accout the principles, in effects without looking at causes, and awash in relativities.

Again, Western Theosophy and Theology deals in first order principle that gives rise to things, from what I see and have read, the Theosophical Association floods itself with data, referenced and cross-referenced, to present a very impressive and attractive surface, but lacks rigour; its lacks depth and penetration.​

​

If we open `The Secret Doctrine,' and begin its study, before we even get to the Stanzas of Dzyan, we will come across the Three Fundamental Propositions, in the PROEM. Excerpting from the first, and the third of these (extending, in the latter case, what I have already quoted once on this thread), we find:

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable." (capitilized emphasis in the original)​

(c) ... The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations. This is why the Hindus say that the Universe is Brahma and Brahmâ, for Brahma is in every atom of the universe, the six principles in Nature being all the outcome -- the variously differentiated aspects -- of the SEVENTH and ONE, the only reality in the Universe whether Cosmical or micro-cosmical; and also why the permutations (psychic, spiritual and physical), on the plane of manifestation and form, of the sixth (Brahmâ the vehicle of Brahma) are viewed by metaphysical antiphrasis as illusive and Mayavic. For although the root of every atom individually and of every form collectively, is that seventh principle or the one Reality, still, in its manifested phenomenal and temporary appearance, it is no better than an evanescent illusion of our senses. (emphais added in this case, in bold & blue)​

We find, then, a very definite statement regarding the ultimate nature of Deity - as an imponderable PRINCPLE - and an elaboration on the most fundamental of relationships between man and that Deity, in terms of spiritual principles ...

... yet Theosophy is accused of failing to deal with underlying principles.

I fail to see what could be more underlying that THIS!!!

~~~~

I am very tired of this discussion. It is going nowhere, and frankly, I already knew the position of the Roman Catholic Church on all this, long before Blazn posted the original article on `The Secret.' If all we're going to hear at this point is that Theosophy is an unsound, inferior metaphysical doctrine ... then please, let's take that elsewhere, and maybe pretend like what we're here to do isn't just beat down whatever doesn't jibe with the dogmas that we are used to.

~andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You said,

"I am still accused of being "anti-Christian" - or of just plain hating Christians...."

--> We Theosophists have the unhappy job of pointing out inconsistenies and changes to all of the instutionalized religions down the centuries. In every case, we point out things they do not want to hear. It is a distastful job, and we do it because it needs to be done, not because it is fun.

I see you are still having trouble dealing with all of this. You think they are escaping punishment for any negativity they may indulge in. I assure they will not. Karma never forgets and never forgives. Just keep doing your job, quietly and with equinimity, and you job will have been completed.

I see you are still willing to get into arguments over these ideas. Please remember that our job is only to present ideas to those who want to hear them. All we can do is present these ideas -- it is then up to the person to listen or not.

Regarding the attacks we suffer, that is just part of the job. Let them slander my ideas. I simply scan their posts, find ideas of substance that I can respond to, respond, and move on. Getting into arguments does not do anyone any good. (However, when I find someone who is totally negative, I just put them on my Ignore List, stop reading their posts, and move on.)

"I DO NOT say that the metaphysics they based their Teachings upon were unsound, or shallow, or un-rigorous."

Good for you. Please do not go down to their level. Even when they attack us or our ideas, we cannot retaliate. It is not the Theosophical way.

[Thomas is] "... doing no less than preaching...."

--> We can only show the error of preaching by our own example.

"...the whole point of coming to a Comparative Religions website, and forum, is to investigate where traditions overlap and intersect, where there is harmony and sympathy - between teachings and followers ... and to see what wounds can be healed, if such is possible by a discussion informed by one's own past experiences, present practices, and a shared spiritual aspiration."

--> You have the right idea. Find the people interested in dialogue, and engage them in dialogue. Ignore everyone else, except for the one exception: There is only one situation that has a benefit to discussing with people who flat out do not want to hear what we have to say. It gives people who do want to read it a chance to read it. Let's take the example of the group of "angels" which created humanity in Genesis 1:27. I have engaged Thomas time and time again on this subject. It is very important to remember that my goal is NOT to convince Thomas of anything. It is only to provide a forum to publicize such ideas. Somewhere out there, there is at least one person who has wondered who the "us" people in Genesis 1:27 are. Now they have an answer, thanks to you and me. There are only two kinds of people in this world: those who are curious as to who the "us" people are in Genesis 1:27 are, and those who are not. For those people in the first group, we have plenty to say. To those in the second group, we only carry on conversations with them because someone in the first group might stumble in on the conversation.

I must emphasize that proslytizing is absolutely forbidden. If you find yourself being tempted into doing some proslytizing, I hope you can spot it, and then redirect your efforts. Even Theosophists can be tempted to proslytize, and that temptation must be fought off.

You have cited examples of other people engaging in name-calling. This is a good sign of the need to disconnect. When the name-calling starts, inter-religious communication stops. Let them get the last word in, and then just drop it.

"What this tells me [Thomas], is that you have missed the point of Theosophy altogether."

--> Our job is not to have Thomas get the point.

"I am very tired of this discussion. It is going nowhere..."

--> I agree. We have achieved our objective regarding the "us" people in Genesis 1:27. I only answered Thomas' last three questions because it gave me an excellent chance to explain where the idea of Satan came from. I am sure one person out there must have benefited from my explanation.

By the way, that link I posted had one fascinating idea -- the Jews never had the idea of Satan untill they learned it from the Zoroastrians. I thought that was very insightful.

 

[voice]

Moon is not independent ,but Sun is. G _ D is a Sun. And we are the children of Jacob ,children of Sun (12 moon -ths)