Pentateuch Wisdom

[bananabrain]

good idea starting a new thread, chaps. perhaps now we can have a proper discussion. let me state my position straight out:

if you wish to demonstrate that a hebrew text says something other than what we say it says, you will have to offer some kind of proof for it other than mere assertion.

you want to know why the Hebrew Old Testament is not the "unadulterated, perfectly preserved, untainted and utterly precise Word of G!D," then we will need to do more than trot out two or three little examples of alterations in the script. Give me a freakin break already, will ya?

considering you are addressing the fundamentals of my faith, i don't think i will give you a break. i would say that since our position is that the Torah (as opposed to the rest of Tanakh, incidentally) remains as it was Revealed in terms of its *consonantal sequence* (as opposed to vowel-pointing or consequent interpretation for example) then all you have to do for a start is produce a document that demonstrates a variant reading of just one letter. of course the difficulty is that it cannot be reliably demonstrated that the said document is the "original" and that the masoretic text we rely on has been "doctored".

Argue from an Orthodox Jewish position, and watch how fast I can vacate the proverbial room and leave a vacuum

well, that's the problem, isn't it, since the assertion that the Torah itself is a "composite document", known as the "documentary hypothesis", remains academic theory and a pretty daft one at that, even if it remains, astoundingly, the view of the "scholarly consensus", at least the ones who can't bring themselves to admit the possibility of agreeing with traditional scholars more learned than themselves, or the possibility of Divine Revelation. nobody has so far produced a single one of these spurious "source texts", be it J, E, P, or Q, so why anyone should "believe" in their existence without any evidence is beyond me, at least in my understanding of the laws of evidence work.

I would say this, however. If you seriously want to know a bit about even the first book of the Torah, as far as what Theosophy has to say about it, then either order, or borrow, any of a set of several books by Geoffrey Hodson entitled, `The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible.'

sheesh. it always seems to be a bit of a red herring when someone says "oh, deary me, read this four-volume book, it'll prove that i'm right." i am at liberty to suggest that you first read the book "the written and oral Torah" by r. nathan lopes cardozo (at the very, very least) and study the whole of chumash with rash"i before you suggest anything about what the Torah means. i understand this geoffrey hodson chap was a leading light of the theosophical society for decades - but did he study with traditional jewish teachers? did he study the Oral Law? did he know hebrew and aramaic? in short, was he jewishly literate? if not, it is hard to see how he is qualified to comment on the plain meaning of the text, let alone its "hidden wisdom", which is a matter that requires at the very least, more facility with the Text than the ability to pick apart an english translation.

In English, it means that our Souls are all Individual Beings, each with its own history, spiritual evolution and destiny - apart from our own in the sense that the Soul is one full turn ahead on the evolutionary spiral. In a former cycle, they were as we are, and they too, had to overcome the tests and trials of life incarnate in form (the same types of form as we are experiencing).

in other words, classical soul theory, as i'd call it. you live as a worm, then get promoted as you go on. although the transmigration of souls (gilgulei nefesh) is a well-established esoteric belief within judaism, nobody claims that their opinions are demonstrably factual, although there are a number of rabbis of the "wonder-working" schools, both hasidic and sephardic, who claim to be able to identify the "hosts" of previous transmigrations at least in human terms, although needless to say and regardless of my own beliefs, this could hardly be said to stand up to a laboratory test. in other words, all of this is speculation, so one opinion is likely to be measured against another, so no resolution is really possible.

many human beings were - literally - animals, in the pre-Atlantis, or Lemurian period (Root Race) on planet Earth. This concerns a time in human history before G!D Divided the sexes, and if you don't like the fact that we can speak frankly of [G!D] as Jod-Hevah, male-female, then again, I suggest we take that up elsewhere, as it would only serve to derail this thread.

i am well aware of the gender dynamics of the Divine Names, so you needn't worry about that. in terms of dividing the sexes, this is, as you may know, a long-established tradition we have from the midrash. in terms of "root races", this process is described in some detail within the book of genesis, although it should not be understood literally, as i have pointed out in several places - although we don't use names such as "atlantis" or "lemuria", nor does anyone claim to possess a tradition that goes that far back - we would obviously treat claims of this nature with deserved scepticism. the oldest traditional claim we have is that certain texts (for example the sefer yetzirah, or the sefer raziel hamalach) contain traditions from abraham and adam respectively) but nobody seriously suggests this can be verified. we are a conservative bunch and we have a very, very conservative approach to non-provable beliefs.

But bananabrain, when it comes to New Age things, you of all people should know and appreciate where terms like this come from. What did the people do, while Moses was upon Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments? What was the nature of their reversion, and why? WHAT was it they crafted, in gold, to worship and adore?

to quote freud, unusually for me, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". although i appreciate that there are "seventy faces to Torah" and an almost infinite number of ways to interpret each verse, word, letter and symbol, we have a principle that we cannot *separate the Text from its plain meaning and context*. so interpretations, as i have seen many times, purporting to interpret this or that symbol in purely astrological terms, violate this plain meaning and context. although there is a long-established tradition of jewish astrology (based in part on the sefer yetzirah) there is also a principle that "ein mazal le-yisra'el", meaning that we are not subject to astrological determinism. to trawl through the Torah picking up anything that looks vaguely astronomical and building a house of cards around it appears to me to be a futile venture if it ignores the normative meaning of the *exoteric* Torah. the two simply cannot be divorced.

A late Greek tradition has it that Aristotle on his travel to the lands of the eastern Mediterranean met a very wise Jew from whom he learned much wisdom.

interesting - never heard of that. where's it from?

Besides, in Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, one feels a return to a polytheistic astral religion.

i don't know about that. if that were the case, surely the likes of the medieval church, to say nothing of al-ghazali, al-farabi, ibn ezra and maimonides, would have been unlikely to defend him.

We also don’t know of any “wise and knowledgeable man” approximating Ezra’s stature in the next few generations.

actually, we do. the "leaders of the generation" are pretty well documented in the Oral Law so, we could say that according to both josephus and the babylonian talmud, we have sources which say that shimon ha-tzadiq ( Simeon the Just - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) went to meet alexander the great on his progress through the near east. another candidate would be his disciple antigonos of sokho ( Antigonus of Sokho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) both of whom were alive during the life of aristotle, i believe. failing that, if aristotle himself travelled to the area, he could have met any one of the men of the "great assembly" established by ezra himself.

we're told that Moses had mastered all Egyptian learning, a passage that I think draws on the scene in Exodus where Moses engages in that battle of sorcery with the Egyptian wizards.

we certainly might conclude that moses, as an adoptive egyptian prince, was instructed in egyptian sorcery, although that was probably more of a priestly thing. however, there comes a point where the sorcerers can no longer keep up with the miracles moses performs under Divine sponsorship.

we have the Kabbalistic (and ancient) idea that:
"The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god."
Nick shared this same quote recently, and it is relevant here, as this is a universal teaching, save where it has been excised from the Scripture, or amended, or concealed.

again, show me an ancient kabbalistic document where this sequence exists and another where it has been removed and you have a case; without it, this is nothing but the purest speculation, despite its superficial resemblance to kabbalistic thought.

i'll write more when i've got time, but it seems to me that all you've got here is HPB's take on the contemporary wellhausian higher criticism, most of which has been decisively debunked by the likes of driver, to say nothing of our own scholars.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bananabrain:

"Plato derived his idea of God from the Pentateuch. Plato is Moses translated into the language of the Athenians," wrote Numenius and was quoted by Eusebius.
Clearchus of Soli, quoted in Theodore Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme (Paris, 1895), pp. 10-11.

Re Aristotle: checking sources...

Besides, in Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, one feels a return to a polytheistic astral religion.
I'm with you on that point. Aquinas admired Aristotle for his method, but not the assumptions he drew from it. I think Aristotle is technically better than Plato(?), but he is also a precursor of empiricism.

surely the likes of the medieval church, to say nothing of al-ghazali, al-farabi, ibn ezra and maimonides, would have been unlikely to defend him.
Agreed.

Thomas

 

[Prober]

i would say that since our position is that the Torah (as opposed to the rest of Tanakh, incidentally) remains as it was Revealed in terms of its *consonantal sequence* (as opposed to vowel-pointing or consequent interpretation for example)

b'shalom

bananabrain

Greetings, BB!

What is your position on the rest of the Tanakh as far as accuracy. I mean, how much does that vowel pointing and whatnot affect its accuracy.

Just curious...

Thanks,
Mark

 

[Thomas]

i'll write more when i've got time, but it seems to me that all you've got here is ... contemporary wellhausian higher criticism, most of which has been decisively debunked by the likes of driver, to say nothing of our own scholars.

Hi bananabrain –
If you find time, as a Catholic I would find that really useful. Current Catholic theology 'accepts' the idea of J,E,P,D under the proviso that nothing is proved, but above all, the work is a work of Divine Revelation, in this instance the Pentateuch is regarded as the product of a 'Mosaic Tradition', if not authored by Moses himself, the work was produced 'in the spirit' of Moses, much like those (you know better than I) whose exegesis of the text is itself, to some degree, inspired.

(Big Catholic area with me - revelation ... inspiration ... we've developed quite a nuanced theology, although it still needs work)

On my course it's acknowledged that Protestant scholarship outstripped Catholic and they seem to have set some of benchmark for criticism, but there seemed precious little reference to Jewish scholarship, which I find surprising.

Anyway ... any direction you can point me in would be warmly received. Driver, for instance? Not S.R., I thought he was pro-Higher Criticism?

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste BB,

You gotta help me understand the simple stuff.

Moses brought down the five books complete...including the future history of all of his life after he brought them down...and this:

5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

And G-d buried him...and he wrote of his death, in sight of heaven, but would not reach it... and then some of the midrash talks about him being buried with the stone...and bubbling up later in the Nile, and Joseph having the stone...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You asked,

"...does that mean Theosophical Society is a polytheist doctrine, not monotheist? Or are you saying there are gods, but One God above all?"

--> It is an interesting question. Theosophy is polytheistic as far as the creation of the Earth and humanity is concerned. The group of gods who created us (for example, Michael the Archangel) are still very much involved in what is going on here.

Now to your other question. Yes, there are gods, but they are part of a hierarchy of Archangels. At the top of the hierarchy is one creator deity (the Son), but this creator deity (so the Theosophical story goes) only appeared at the beginning of this universe (which agrees with the Christian story).

"You have spoken of 'the Absolute', and I am unsure how you define the relation between God, gods and the Absolute in your schemata?"

--> This is a wonderful question that strikes at the very heart of the Theosophical theory. In Theosophy, there is a clear distinction between God (the Son) and the Absolute.

As stated before, God (the Son) appeared, and then created the universe. But the Son only came from within the Absolute.

Which brings us to the question of the Absolute. There is no way to describe the Absolute. Its characterists are nothing but a mystery. The only way the Absolute can be described is in the negative — The Absolute is not this, not that, etc.

This now brings us to an important part of the story. In the Theosophical version of the creation story, we souls were let out (not forced out) of Heaven (not a Garden) in order to learn individuality.

At that time, it is said some of us souls tried to return to Heaven because of the fear of individulality and separateness. As a result, a veil was drawn between us and Heaven, keeping out those souls who wished to return to Heaven before they were ready.

That veil was the Firmamant of Genesis 1:7 — a veil that was drawn between Heaven and us. Here is that part of the story, as told in Theosophical literature.

[The Son] "...turned the Upper [greater light of Genesis 1:15] into a shoreless Sea of Fire, and the One Manifested into the Great Waters. Those who have won the vision of this Mind know well that shoreless Sea of flaming Light and those turbulent Waters [Genesis 1:2]. All that is ‘above’ the Universal Mind [the Son] (i.e. all that is unmanifested) appears simply as an impenetrable wall of Light, while the One Manifested (i.e. Mind itself) becomes the great ocean of manifested existence." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 147-148)

Such is the journey a soul makes from Oneness to separated awareness.

"Every [soul] feels itself to be separated because the divine self-affirmation of the Logos is forcing it to look outwards into the vortices of form; thus it ceases to pay attention to the inner unity. ... under the influence of the third Logos, the points [souls] in Mind rush out into separateness." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 324 & 192)

The Wall of Light (the Firmament) ensures we souls will not return to the Oneness until we are ready.

In conclusion, the Absolute is on the other side of the Firmament, causing us to know nothing about it.

 

[taijasi]

all you have to do for a start is produce a document that demonstrates a variant reading of just one letter. of course the difficulty is that it cannot be reliably demonstrated that the said document is the "original" and that the masoretic text we rely on has been "doctored".

Ah! THen bananabrain, you are saving us much trouble ... by making it clear - that your mind is already made up, and sealed, airtight, against any possibility of change. You see things one way, and even could I produce `proof,' you would only laugh, and walk away anyway.

Let's just skip all the bit in between, what say?

i understand this geoffrey hodson chap was a leading light of the theosophical society for decades - but did he study with traditional jewish teachers? did he study the Oral Law? did he know hebrew and aramaic? in short, was he jewishly literate? if not, it is hard to see how he is qualified to comment on the plain meaning of the text, let alone its "hidden wisdom", which is a matter that requires at the very least, more facility with the Text than the ability to pick apart an english translation.

As a matter of fact, Geoffrey's Teachers included perhaps every one of the Theosophical Mahatmas, at one time or another ... or darn near close, as well as numerous advanced members of the Devic (or Angelic) Kingdom (forgive my unfamliarity with a cognate term in the Hebrew tradition).

Further, Geoffrey's own Master was Philo Judeaus, with whom I suspect you will be at least somewhat famliar. As much high regard and respect I have for H.P. Blavatksy, and although I do maintain that her own contributions are unequalled along certain lines, and unparalleled in terms of what they represented at the time (or even today, in a certain context) ... I have long suspected that Hodson's clairvoyant and sibyllline gifts, his esoteric training and associations, and thus, in some ways, his own contributions to the modern esoteric movement - perhaps eclipse, or supersede, those of HPB.

The Light that he has cast, retrospectively, upon the Judeo-Christian, Egyptian, Hellenic, Hermetic, Kabbalistic and related traditions ... stands, or shines, for Itself. Either you can investigate along lines I have suggested, or do your own seeking, but we already know that it is a waste of time.

Please don't be impelled to feel slighted in the least simply because we are discussing the Hebrew tradition out of the context in which you are used to considering it. Certainly on the Comparative board we could look into this further, and if I were posting under `Judaism,' insisting that x, y and z is what the authors of the Pentateuch really meant ... and going on about how copyists have most certainly altered the meaning, not to mention the text ... then I could understand anything from defensiveness, to even outrage (though neither is productive, and one is really uncalled for).

Bananabrain, on this board, in this thread, I don't need to prove anything to you ... or to anyone else. AND WHY TRY???

Regarding the above, I'm not sure there's anything else to say ... but let me go on to the part where we actually engage something substantial, instead of quibbling over the less essentials.

in other words, classical soul theory, as i'd call it. you live as a worm, then get promoted as you go on. although the transmigration of souls (gilgulei nefesh) is a well-established esoteric belief within judaism, nobody claims that their opinions are demonstrably factual, although there are a number of rabbis of the "wonder-working" schools, both hasidic and sephardic, who claim to be able to identify the "hosts" of previous transmigrations at least in human terms, although needless to say and regardless of my own beliefs, this could hardly be said to stand up to a laboratory test. in other words, all of this is speculation, so one opinion is likely to be measured against another, so no resolution is really possible.

Theosophists and quite a number of modern esotericists maintain that there are indeed authorities (mentioned above, in relation to Geoffrey Hodson) who can and do have insight into any given Soul's previous incarnations ... at least relative to the Human Kingdom. The insight of a Buddha would quite possibly, if not likely, direct his gaze even backward into the Animal Kingdom - but the study quickly becomes difficult if we are seeking to trace the evolution of a particular `Monad' (this being the Theosophical term for the `Father Who Art in Heaven' of Christianity, though not quite a literal equivalent to an `elohim' in the Hebrew tradition ... I think the term may be bnei 'elohim).

There is much confusion, and I still have far more questions than answers, when it comes to the distinctions between even what esotericists, in their own, evolving understanding, call, the Soul, the personality, the Solar Angel, the Triad, the Spark, the Monad, the Planetary Logos (or Logoi), and so on ... including distinctions between Major and minor Logoi, etc.

The existence of a strictly individual, human soul, is not said to "properly exist" until an ANIMAL Monad reaches `Individualization' ... and for some of us, this is only a few million years ago, here on this planet - while for others, it was on THE MOON. Despite the best efforts of gifted Theosophical seers such as Leadbeater and Besant, it is my own humble opinion that far, far more accurate studies have been done, and that much of the description we find, even of Lemurian or Atlantean Humanity, on this planet, is subject to glamour and inaccuracy.

Yet if some of us were incarnating as equivalent `Humans' on the moon (quite different in appearance during our earlier evolution from that dead planet which now decays, billions of years later, before our very eyes) ... if this was so, who will remember it? We cannot usually even recall what happened last time around (!), so why should something so obscure, and remote in antiquity, be either easily verifiable, or necessarily easily comprehensible?

in terms of dividing the sexes, this is, as you may know, a long-established tradition we have from the midrash

Nope, didn't know!

I willingly, openly, even blithely confess my ignorance ... for if I don't start somewhere, I will never have the opportunity to move any closer to enlightenment!

terms of "root races", this process is described in some detail within the book of genesis, although it should not be understood literally

Why not? Theosophy certainly does regard all of this as literal. Even the various Adams, symbolic as they may be, represent literal phases in Humanity material, and spiritual, evolution!

A snippet from An Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary:

Adam 'adam (Hebrew) [from 'adam to be red, ruddy] Used in Genesis for man, original mankind; the Qabbalah enumerates four Adams. The Archetypal or Heavenly Man ('Adam Qadmon) is the prototype for the second, androgyne Adam. From these two emanates the third Adam, preterrestrial and innocent, though still further removed from the divine prototype Adam Qadmon. The fourth Adam is "the Third Adam as he was after the Fall," the terrestrial Adam of the Garden of Eden, our earthly sexual humanity (Qabbalah Myer 418).

With regard to the elohim bringing man forth "in their own image" (tselem), Blavatsky says: "The sexless Race was their first production, a modification of and from themselves, the pure spiritual existences; and this as Adam solus. Thence came the second Race: Adam-Eve or Jod-Heva, inactive androgynes; and finally the Third, or the 'Separating Hermaphrodite,' Cain and Abel, who produce the Fourth, Seth-Enos, etc." (SD 2:134).

Again, "finally, even the four 'Adams' (symbolizing under other names the four preceding races) were forgotten; and passing from one generation in to another, each loaded with some additional myths, got at last drowned in that ocean of popular symbolism called the Pantheons. Yet they exist to this day in the oldest Jewish traditions, as the Tzelem, 'the Shadow-Adam' (the Chhayas of our doctrine); the 'model' Adam, the copy of the first, and the 'male and female' of the exoteric genesis (chap. i); the third, the 'earthly Adam' before the Fall, an androgyne; and the Fourth -- the Adam after his fall, i.e. separated into sexes, or the pure Atlantean. The Adam of the garden of Eden, or the forefather of our race -- the fifth -- is an ingenious compound of the above four" (SD 2:503). See also `OLAM; SEPHIRAH
​

nor does anyone claim to possess a tradition that goes that far back - we would obviously treat claims of this nature with deserved scepticism. the oldest traditional claim we have is that certain texts (for example the sefer yetzirah, or the sefer raziel hamalach) contain traditions from abraham and adam respectively) but nobody seriously suggests this can be verified. we are a conservative bunch and we have a very, very conservative approach to non-provable beliefs.

Now you see, while I can understand this - and certainly appreciate that it is your right, and your prerogative to believe as you so choose .... Theosophical and other esoteric teachings do maintain that far, FAR more ancient sources have been preserved. Some of these are physical, some are in the subtler ethers of one world or another.

I am aware of Lemurian-era documents, or Wisdom, impressed into the ethers via means that most of us would quite likely find intriguing, if we believed them at all ... and then of course, there are other seers besides HPB (the Messenger of the Mahatmas) who have glimpsed various portions of the Akash with regard to early human evolution.

Edgar Cayce, for example, though he was a `Sleeping Prophet,' and thus mediumistic (in a way that HPB and the Theosophists would never approve of, or advocate (but then, Cayce did not SEEK to develop his gift, he simply applied it in service to others)) ... Cayce, was able to read some portions of the Astral Light, and/or Akash, or at least, various of his sources were. Thus, he too made his contribution in this field, whatever the accuracy of his insights may have been (and we know from scientific confirmation how accurate were most of his "home remedies," or homeopathic prescriptions).

But in short and simple terms, Blavatksy was taught by the Eastern Adepts how to access both them, and the sources for her Work, in the subtle ethers ... so that she could serve as amanuensis (Messenger for the Masters, or Prophet - as per the Hebrew Prophets). The source of The Secret Doctrine is the Stanzas of Dzyan, translated from the Senzar language. Read as neutral a description of `Senzar' as you are likely to find, here, on Wikipedia.

To say that HPB created either this language, and its translations as the Stanzas of Dzyan, OR the 2 (or 3) volume Commentary (`The Secret Doctrine') and explanation which supports every assertion that she makes ... is purely absurd! A gifted writer, and a very creative woman she was, psychically gifted from the earliest age, and always watched over by her Master (Who knew her future work, or course).

Yet a liar, an intentional plaigiarist, a charlatan or fraud (yes, there are always examples to disprove the rule) ... all this she was NOT. And let those who slander her now, kiss her feet in the hereafter ... for the Light of her Soul will be blinding, and her Spiritual Will - her Strength of Soul - will only be surpassed by the Compassion and tenderness which she learned from The Source (sic), and demonstrated toward ALL.

I just get so tired of seeing Hypatia dragged, over and over again, while Cyril struts around like a pompous arse, smiling wryly ... as if this is no crime! But, this is all an aside ...

(too long, had to post more ... on Senzar, to follow -->)

 

[taijasi]

Regarding Senzar, and the Stanzas of Dzyan, we can learn best from the source ... though, actually, I'm just going to go with a brief portion from the Proem (of `The Secret Doctrine,' p. 42-43), as I think this is relative to something you said above, Bananabrain:

The Stanzas which form the thesis of every section are given throughout in their modern translated version, as it would be worse than useless to make the subject still more difficult by introducing the archaic phraseology of the original, with its puzzling style and words. Extracts are given​

from the Chinese Thibetan and Sanskrit translations of the original Senzar Commentaries and Glosses on the Book of DZYAN — these being now rendered for the first time into a European language. It is almost unnecessary to state that only portions of the seven Stanzas are here given. Were they published complete they would remain incomprehensible to all save the few higher occultists. Nor is there any need to assure the reader that, no more than most of the profane, does the writer, or rather the humble recorder, understand those forbidden passages. To facilitate the reading, and to avoid the too frequent reference to foot‐notes, it was thought best to blend together texts and glosses, using the Sanskrit and Tibetan proper names whenever those cannot be avoided, in preference to giving the originals. The more so as the said terms are all accepted synonyms, the former only being used between a Master and his chelas (or disciples).​

​

​

​

Thus, were one to translate into English, using only the substantives and technical terms as employed in one of the Tibetan and Senzar versions, Verse I would read as follows: — ʺTho‐ag in Zhi‐gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch‐hog not; Thyan‐Kam not; Lha‐ Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not; Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho‐og Yinsin in night of Sun‐chan and Yong‐grub (Parinishpanna), &c., &c.,ʺ which would sound like pure Abracadabra.​

As this work is written for the instruction of students of Occultism, and not for the benefit of philologists, we may well avoid such foreign terms wherever it is possible to do so. The untranslateable terms alone, incomprehensible unless explained in their meanings, are left, but all such terms are rendered in their Sanskrit form. Needless to remind the reader that these are, in almost every case, the late developments of the later language, and pertain to the Fifth Root‐Race. Sanskrit, as now known, was not spoken by the Atlanteans, and most of the philosophical terms used in the systems of the India of the post‐Mahabharatan period are not found in the Vedas, nor are they to be met with in the original Stanzas, but only their equivalents. The reader who is not a Theosophist, is once more invited to regard all that which follows as a fairy tale, if he likes; at best as one of the yet unproven speculations of dreamers; and, at the worst, as an additional hypothesis to the many Scientific hypotheses past, present and future, some exploded, others still lingering. It is not in any sense worse than are many of the so called Scientific theories; and it is in every case more philosophical and probable.​

​

to quote freud, unusually for me, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". although i appreciate that there are "seventy faces to Torah" and an almost infinite number of ways to interpret each verse, word, letter and symbol, we have a principle that we cannot *separate the Text from its plain meaning and context*. so interpretations, as i have seen many times, purporting to interpret this or that symbol in purely astrological terms, violate this plain meaning and context. although there is a long-established tradition of jewish astrology (based in part on the sefer yetzirah) there is also a principle that "ein mazal le-yisra'el", meaning that we are not subject to astrological determinism. to trawl through the Torah picking up anything that looks vaguely astronomical and building a house of cards around it appears to me to be a futile venture if it ignores the normative meaning of the *exoteric* Torah. the two simply cannot be divorced.

But bananabrain, you make this sound like Earth came first ... and that all else simply unfolded, or evolved around us - the most important planet, part, aspect, Creation, or spot, in Cosmos.

You didn't say that, but it is my opinion that at some point, sooner or later, we all must come to a rather simple, visually and experientially verifiable (sic!) understanding of our role in the scheme of things ... based even on modern astronomical science - and not dependent alone on the ancients, or even esoteric astrology ... and this realization seems crucial to properly understanding what the more gifted, ancient seers, astrologer-astronomers (Persian Magi, for example), et al simply took as granted.

How do I/we know? How can we say such things? Well, there are traditions, teachings (some from these very Magi, writing NOW, or in more recent centuries) ... and very clear indications, and these alone could be the topic of another thread. The other way we can KNOW what the Ancients believed, I'll mention below.

But as for some of these basics - in other words, what on earth am I talking about (it's late, I'm parched, I must wind this down) - we could start with sujch ideas as:

• The verifiable existence of a 25,900 year Zodiacal cycle, during which OUR SUN (and entire Solar System) ORBITS another stellar body, or center ... and yes, we can clearly see that this was understood millions of years ago (by some).
• The division, therefore, of this cycle - according to at least one method of astrology (the Study of the Stars) into 12 equal arcs, or portions, in the sky ... each 30 degrees in measurement, for the total of the 360 degree CIRCLE we call the Greater Zodiac.
• Further, according to varying mythologies and religious or spiritual teachings (varying based on culture, already-established traditions, geographical and other factors) ... each zodiacal position through which our System passes, for an approximate duration of 2158 years, can be thought of in terms of the major and minor constellations, as well as stars & other celestial bodies, which can be observed and studied (as well as esoterically `registered').

And so on. What does this have to do with the Torah, or with the idea that not quite all of the ancient Revelations from `Father God' are bound between the pages of the Hebrew - or any other - Scripture? EVERYTHING

Because a Theosophic, or esoteric doctrine, will indicate that Messengers have come to Humanity - from our earliest days upon this planet (or any other, for that matter) - to Teach and Guide us, with respect to everything from our material (or physical, psychic and physiological) evolution ... to our more cultural, and intellectual evolution ... to the development of civilization itself, and advancing technology ... to spiritual and religious evolution, and the gradual establishment of a state-supported (and sometimes "church-sponsored") educational institution ... and leading, inevitably & eventually, to a system of (global or worldwide) government worthy of direct, Divine "endorsement" - or ratification.

Much confusion exists, especially among those who have really never taken the time to read what is asserted regarding the Theosophical Messenger, H.P. Blavatksy, as to what it might mean when we say that God sends forth "His" Messengers, or Prophets, along several `Ray lines' ... such that HPB represents the First Ray emissary, coming at the close of the 19th Century (such efforts begin at the 1st Quarter of every century for several centuries past, and close with the 3rd Quarter of the same century) ... and not at all the 2nd Ray emissary, or Representative along the lines of the Christ, the Buddha, and so on.

What hope is there of really looking at something like this properly, when we have the Catholics, on the one hand (and half of all Protestants), hell-bent on asserting the DEITY of Jesus of Nazareth ... and professing his BLOOD sacrifice, at the hands of the `Father' as our "only true path to, and means of "Salvation"" ... and the tradition of Judaism, also represented here, on this thread (I know, this is really why we moved it to begin with!), asserting that not only is Jesus NOT what "those people said," but neither is he what "you Theosophists" might say, because this will imply all sorts of other crap about Zodiacal cycles - and, tsk, tsk, that's some kind of forbidden inquiry, since we've got this whole thing mapped out, letter by letter, and not a damn thing, not one jot or tittle, has changed in 3000+ YEARS!

I WOULD just say, yo man, take this here towel - clearly it won't do me no damn good.

For those who have long had insight into `42' ... did you ever quite "get" the "towel bit?" Ah well, that's Revelation for ya. I never did ... until less than a minute ago. It's a funny, funny feeling.

WHAT, I do mean WHAT on earth would we do ... IF we had no towel? The meaning? Toss that sucker in, and it's all over buddy. It means giving up, admitting "defeat" ... even if we're but picking nits, or still numbering the heavenly host (I said long, long ago - the answer to that one - is ALL of Them). And so long as I remain a hoopy frood who knows where my towel is (recognizing it, after all, as the most useful thing in the universe!) ... I have not given up. (Yeah, I just now got it! )


Why am I more of a Theosophist, and an aspiring esotericist, than a Christian, or a Jew? Another quote, from the Proem of the SD (p. 41), to illustrate:

Once that the reader has gained a clear comprehension of [the basic conceptions of the Secret Doctrine] and realised the light which they throw on every problem of life, they will need no further justification in his eyes, because their truth will be to him as evident as the sun in heaven.​

Enough!

 

[bananabrain]

So we're back to where we were ... once again you claim that material has been 'excised from the Scripture, or amended, or concealed.' Simply because they do not agree with your favoured texts.

And once again, you offer no evidence to support your claim other than your own conclusion.

precisely.

I assume nothing, but if, as I read, the Light of Wisdom (or Inspiration, the Holy Ghost, as a Catholic would refer to it) makes something plain ... then although I will question, I will not press the point once the connections have been made. This is simply the modus operandi of any good esotericist. Please do not assume, or insinuate, that I would do otherwise.

except that whilst this argument would hold true for any interpretation derived from inspiration or individual prophecy, this is quite simply not how the Torah in particular works. we have a document, which can certainly be agreed to have existed in a particular fixed form for two thousand years at least. these documents have been pored over, analysed to the most minute degree and, what is more, accepted as the basis of jewish culture at the very least since the time of ezra and demonstrably much earlier and it rests on the idea of *popular acceptance* - it is *covenantal*. 600,000 people are traditionally said to have witnessed the original Revelation and even if the Law fell as much into abeyance as is suggested by the hebrew prophets, it is at no point deemed to have been changed - after all, why would they criticise the lack of observance of the sabbath, festivals and ethical behaviours if these were not widely known to be mandated by the Torah? that's like saying that prohibition laws aren't evidence of the existence of alcohol.

the point i am making here is that there is a tradition of hypercriticality within judaism itself addressed at our own society and our way of life - change, if it is possible, is only possible with consensus ("after the majority you shall incline", remember) as judaism is neither autocratic nor hieratic. since we agreed that prophecy had come to an end after the destruction of the second Temple, subsequent arguments based on Revelation or Divine inspiration are not accepted as a basis for change.

the favored texts are largely those which have met with the Roman Catholic Church's golden seal, or stamp, of approval.

we don't rely on this. we rely on our own tradition and you have no evidence of its complicity with this accusation.

And thus we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. From WHOM, or WHAT, were these texts hidden?

there are a number of variant texts, just as there are were many jewish sects such as the qumran sect 2000 years ago. individual texts for study were often changed, but the "official version" never did. and as the qumran sect were far from mainstream (there is no evidence that the qumran sect is anything other than a religious cul-de-sac, of interest, certainly, but not evidence of some sort of wholesale conspiracy) there is no reason to suggest that their texts are somehow more authentic or better quality. the samaritan tendency to alter texts according to political circumstance (there's a samaritan pentateuch) was widely condemned by the jewish world when it was discovered (to say nothing of their collaboration with our oppressors) and eventually became grounds for their exclusion from participation in the jewish mainstream. the same goes for this:

The Christian version [of creation] has our universe, galaxy, and solar system created in one fell swoop.

the jewish one is far from straightforward, as even the midrashic sources, let alone the mystical traditions, suggest.

the same esoteric underpinning which we will find sustaining and supporting the exoteric presentation of ANY tradition ... forming as it does, the heart and soul of the scripture, so long as the dead weight of flesh heaped upon, and formed around this soul does not choke the Revelation off - completely.

this is the typical neo-platonic separation of matter and spirit applied to the supposed division between the so-called "letter and "spirit" of the Law" - a matter for early christian apologists. we never conceded that the letter and the spirit were different. that was a political point necessary to prove that christianity could ditch jewish law and custom as it was somehow obviated by jesus.

In such ideas as the nephesh, ruah, and so on, we see the true teaching preserved, although certain Western emphases, and interpretations, will try and make these concepts conform to what has been established as dogma and `Holy Word.'

but what of the jewish teaching? these are jewish concepts, not "western" ones (judaism is not a western tradition) and we do not require external validation for them.

Any one whose natural mysticism impels him to seek for sympathetic contact with other minds, is astonished to find how large a number of persons are not only interested in Mysticism generally, but are actually themselves Kabalists.

what utter nonsense. there is no such thing, really, as a "kabbalist". there are the mequbalim who receive the secret traditions individually as part of the major schools, but they are incredibly few in number, probably less than a couple of hundred in the world if that. there are students of kabbalah, who are legion, many of whom are not jewish, but being a student doesn't make you a kabbalist, any more than knowing how to turn on a tap makes you a plumber. this is nothing but assertion.

The river dammed during the Middle Ages has flowed since noiselessly underground, and has now burst up as an irrepressible torrent.Hundreds today study the Kabalah, where scarcely one or two could have been found some fifty years ago, when fear of the Church was still a powerful factor in men's lives.

i have to conclude from this that HPB was talking about the western mystery tradition, not jewish kabbalah, which has continued unbroken since its beginnings. although mass mysticism was widely discredited with the false messiahs of the late C17th and early C18th, both hasidic sects and the yeshivah world of the "mitnagdim" maintained the study of nistar, to say nothing of the sephardic world, where it continued nearly unabated. the author offers no evidence that she knows any of this, to my lack of surprise.

But the long-pent-up torrent has now diverged into two streams – Eastern Occultism and the Jewish Kabalah; the traditions of the Wisdom-Religion of the races that preceded the Adam of the "Fall"; and the system of the ancient Levites of Israel, who most ingeniously veiled a portion of that religion of the Pantheists under the mask of monotheism.

ah, so now we come to it, the separation into the "goodies" of occultism and the "baddies" of monotheism. so she's accusing the Temple cultus of being pantheistic? what utter bilge. yet more unsupported assertions.

neither the Âryan nor the semitic philosophers have ever accepted either the anthropomorphism of the many Gods, or the personality of the one God, as a philosophical proposition

here we see two classic howlers: firstly, the division of wisdom into "aryan" and "semitic" traditions, as if there were any such things - jews lived in both iran and india since the destruction of the first Temple 2500 years ago; surely the "ingenious veiling" HPB seems so keen on couldn't be so easy if the traditions were to be kept separate? secondly and, more importantly, the term "semitic" is only valid in the field of philology and linguistics. its use outside these fields is always an indicator of C19th theories on race which are no longer given any credence other than by those who seek to use them to classify and condemn. arabs are not "semites", nor are jews. there's no such thing as a "semitic" race. the term "anti-semitism", unfortunately, survives from this period, but should be more properly defined as prejudice against jews, not against "semites", as there is no such identifiable racial group.

The rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law seem to be an abyss, which long generations of Christian Fathers, and especially of Protestant Reformers, have vainly sought to fill in with their far-fetched interpretations.

this is so ignorant it actually makes me laugh out loud. *we* know what they mean. *we* know what they're for. we always have done. if you don't know, ask - that's what an intelligent person does. ask a jewish person, don't just make something up.

Notwithstanding that the Mosaic Books which we think we have in the Old Testament, cannot be more than two or three centuries older than Christianity

and here we have it, the central turd of ignorance. this is quite simply illogical nonsense. i mean, think about it - the dietary and cultic laws of leviticus, for example, are designed around a norm of a nomadic wilderness setting, with a movable tabernacle (the "tent of meeting") rather than a Temple. why would one bother to write a document for procedures about depositing the ashes of the sacrifice "outside the camps", if the document is no older than the time of alexander the great, when the jews lived in settled towns, villages and cities and had the Temple??? i mean, seriously, guys - the norms presented in these texts *pre-date* even the settlement of canaan in 1400-1200 bce! why would anyone bother to invent procedures which couldn't have been used for a thousand years?

after the Rabbis had settled upon a new departure, a number of additions were made which were taken bodily from Persian and Babylonian doctrines; and this at a period subsequent to the colonization of Judea under the authority of the kings of Persia.

name ONE. just one, that's all i'm asking for here.

This reëditing was o£ course done in the same way as with all such Scriptures. They were originally written in a secret key, or cipher, known only to the Initiates.

how convenient - perhaps this is the reason why there's no actual evidence for this.

This fact of the successive and widely differing redactions of that which we loosely term the Books of Moses, and of their triple adaptation to the first (lowest), second, and third, or highest, degree of Sodalian initiation, and that still more puzzling fact of the diametrically opposite beliefs of the Sadducees and the other Jewish sects, all accepting, nevertheless, the same Revelation – can be made comprehensible only in the light of our Esoteric explanation.

more ignorance. it can be made perfectly comprehensible in the light of knowledge of the Oral Law, which is where the "sadducees" differed from mainstream rabbinic judaism. the sadducees rejected many of these teachings based on the fact that they were not explicit in the Torah but had to be deduced - but the Torah does not make sense without the Oral Law and this, indeed, survived and prospered. consider this for a moment - there are divorce laws in the Torah, but none about how you get married. yet nobody is suggesting that marriage does not exist in Torah law - so how is it enacted? where is this information held? answer: the Oral Law! there is no need to resort to highfalutin esoteric speculation when there is a far more probable, logical and less far-fetched explanation.

Again "Al [El is terrible in the great Sod of the Kadeshim" is rendered as – "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints" (Psalm lxxxix. 7).The title of Kadeshim (Kadosh sing.) means in reality something quite different from saints, though it is generally explained as "priests," the "holy" and the "Initiated";for the Kadeshim were simply the galli of the abominable mysteries (Sod) of the exoteric rites./quote]
well, i can't speak for the translation here, but the verse in hebrew doesn't actually say "kadeshim". it says Q-D-Sh-I-M. every text i have has it vowelled as "QeDoShIM", which means "holy ones" (the "assembly of the holy ones" being, rather obviously, the angelic host referred to in isaiah, the ones that chant "kadosh, kadosh, kadosh", ie, the kadoshim! although "kadeshah" is an idolatrous temple prostitute, "kadeshim" isn't even the plural of this! so i don't think HPB's biblical hebrew is much to write home about.

I will post something more about how HPB comes to know what she knows, since she does not fabricate it, nor is she speculating, regarding her assertions - except where she explicitly admits that it is so (and then she does so on solid ground).

not from where i'm standing.

Your claim that it is "unfair" or somehow metaphysically unsound, or philosophically untenable that HPB would suggest that the Pentateuch Wisdom is "less authentic to the teaching of the Abrahamic Tradition" ... is equally unfair - since part of the very assertion is that the EVIDENCE you are seeking is MISSING!!!

not so. it is in the Oral Law, in the midrashic texts and in the texts of the kabbalah. HPB ignores these in favour of a sort of vague waffle about what's really going on, without offering anything concrete to support her assertions.

as for this language which nobody has ever seen and this idea that one can read things in the "subtle ethers", i say this: sounds like it was made up to me. i mean really, what have you got here, other than a bunch of books written by people who say they were taught by these secret guys nobody's ever heard of, or they read "some portions of the Astral Light, and/or Akash, or at least" said they were taught by someone else who had.

all of this, you must admit, sounds pretty tenuous, compared to the sheer volume of evidence available for several thousand years of jewish civilisation which continues to this day, without having to rely on these secret guys nobody's ever heard of. of course, you could say we really do and just don't know about it, but equally, you could say i'm really a giant outer-space lizard, like david icke does. i have to say it just sounds a bit silly to me.

if you spout nonsense about my sacred texts, expect to be picked up on it, no matter what board it happens on.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

the more i try to understand the points of view expressed here, the less i can believe you guys have the least idea how the Torah is constructed, or any feeling for the absolute density, multitextual economy of it. all it appears to be to you is this kind of mystical straw man which bears no resemblance to the strictly text-based system of thought that i and millions of my co-religionists study every day, no different from the "old testament G!D of judgement" of the early church polemics.

btw, i don't mean to be rude here, but why, for heaven's sake, can't you guys be more concise? why do i have to wade through these copious reams of waffle? stick to the point - don't just post chapters and chapters, as if you are hoping i'll give up under the sheer verbosity of it all?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dondi]

BB, you crack me up. I mean really, I was rolling on the floor.

"ah, so now we come to it, the separation into the "goodies" of occultism and the "baddies" of monotheism. so she's accusing the Temple cultus of being pantheistic? what utter bilge. yet more unsupported assertions."

"here we see two classic howlers:..."

"this is so ignorant it actually makes me laugh out loud"

"and here we have it, the central turd of ignorance."

Lucky I wasn't drinking something on that one, lest my computer would have extinguished in a spark of flames and smoke.

You responses are classic. That's why I love reading your posts.

Man, I can feel you frustration, BB. But you take it with such style. Just so you know, I'm with you on this.

"why do i have to wade through these copious reams of waffle? stick to the point - don't just post chapters and chapters, as if you are hoping i'll give up under the sheer verbosity of it all?"

Hahahahahaha! That's great!

 

[wil]

btw, i don't mean to be rude here, but why, for heaven's sake, can't you guys be more concise? why do i have to wade through these copious reams of waffle? stick to the point - don't just post chapters and chapters, as if you are hoping i'll give up under the sheer verbosity of it all?

Namaste BB,

I thought I was...yet you didn't address it.

Ok to narrow it down further than my previous question...Did Moses bring down off Sinai the books that told of his own life and death?

 

[Dondi]

If I may be so bold. It seems obvious to me that someone other than Moses wrote of his own death and burial. I would surmise that the most likely candidate was Joshua, being Moses' successor. And really I don't think it detracts from the Mosiac authorship of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. It was a necessary addition to bring to a close the life of Moses. God after all spoke to Joshua as He did with Moses. Think of it as sort of in the context of the "spirit of Elijah" that was put upon Elisha.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

Thanks for those succinct answers. It gives me an insight into what is fundamental to our systems, their commonalities and their differences. Obviously both our respective schemata go into a lot greater depth, but we have to start somewhere. I think a lot of the difference lies in the understanding of terms, so lexical terms need to be uinderstood in contxet, before the theological or metaphysical.

Theosophy is polytheistic as far as the creation of the Earth and humanity is concerned. The group of gods who created us (for example, Michael the Archangel) are still very much involved in what is going on here.

Working back, the angels in the Christian Tradition are likewise 'usefully engaged', according to their place. Dionysius the Areopagite details the metaphysics of this in his Celestial Hierarchy. Michael the Archangel, for instance, in the tradition is tasked with keeping an eye on the fallen Lucifer. Some mistakenly assume Good and Evil stand equal in opposition – this is more Zoroastrainism than Christianity.

The angels, however instrumental in the process of creation, are not First Principle as such, and the Tradition looks always to the First Principle, and accords the title 'God' to that alone. Anything subsequent can be divine, but by appropriation (by above) or grace (from above), not by its intrinsic nature – 'none is good, but God alone' points to this axiomatic ontology. The angels fashion according to the Divine Fiat, but still we regard God as the First Cause of All, for what is done, to be 'good' arises in Him.

There is an argument that in the Old Testament one can trace a passage from polytheism to monotheism in Abram's call from out of Chaldea, a jorney from there to what one scholar described (of Jeremiah) as 'the supermonotheism of the desert', which I find particularly pleasing.

Yes, there are gods, but they are part of a hierarchy of Archangels. At the top of the hierarchy is one creator deity (the Son), but this creator deity (so the Theosophical story goes) only appeared at the beginning of this universe (which agrees with the Christian story).

I can see how you would interpret it so, but this is not how we understand it. For us there is a difference between angel and archangel, and between all angelic orders and God. Again, the idea that the Son only appeared at the start of creation is not Christian doctrine – it had 'been around' in some peripheral sects and became the focus of Christology when preached by the presbyter Arius (3rd century), and the error shows a too-great a reliance upon speculative philosophy and an insufficient grasp of the data of Revelation.

The term 'elohiym' is used, as you note, of the Divine Assembly, but it is also used of angels, men (in their function as judges), pagan gods and fetish carvings, so the term has to be read in context, rather than simply literally.

In the Christian Tradition the Trinity is pre-cosmic or metacosmic, and signifies the principle under which creation can occur. One could argue that God/Absolute/Trinity only 'appears' at the beginning of the universe because prior to that that was nothing to apprehend God, and so from a cosmological perspective that is understandable.

From our perspective God 'knows' Himself as Absolute and as Trinity prior to all or any manifestation. Then, the Creation happens through the Son, according to the will of the Father. Everything was 'in' the Son before the foundation of the world.

In Theosophy, there is a clear distinction between God (the Son) and the Absolute.

In Christianity, with its emphatic focus on the principle (its heritage in the Greek philosophic tradition) there is not quite the same 'absolute' distinction, but this requires a profound study of Trinitarian metaphysics ... I have offered a precis before, accessible here http://www.comparative-religion.com...igion-6922-5.html?highlight=francis#post99424.

Which brings us to the question of the Absolute. There is no way to describe the Absolute. Its characterists are nothing but a mystery. The only way the Absolute can be described is in the negative — The Absolute is not this, not that, etc.

Same here. In Christianity we call this Apophatic Theology. The philosophers end up with such terms as 'beyond being' which is another way of saying beyond anything you can conceive. I like Anaximander's Apeiron (Boundless), the Patristic Arche Anarchos (Principle without principle), or simply the Absolute.

In the Theosophical version of the creation story, we souls were let out (not forced out) of Heaven (not a Garden) in order to learn individuality. At that time, it is said some of us souls tried to return to Heaven because of the fear of individulality and separateness. As a result, a veil was drawn between us and Heaven, keeping out those souls who wished to return to Heaven before they were ready.

For us, the soul as an uncreated potentiality resides in the Absolute (as everything must), but as such it is undifferentiated and has no 'being' or 'reality'. In simple terms one could say it is an 'idea', but not an essence or an actuality.

When God the soul becomes created, an individuality, but the moment of its creation is also and simultaneously a 'movement' – from nothing to something. The end result of this movement is the source of its arising, which is its perfection, and the perfection of any created thing resides in the mind of its creator.

- A soul knows itself as 'other than' ... it knows itself as other than another soul for example, so a soul is aware of its individuality by its awareness of 'the outside world'.
– A soul, by means of its interiority, (can) communicate and commune with the interiority of all other souls, all other 'things' that are its equal or below (a low thing cannot know the interiority of its higher cause without the higher cause first implanting that knowledge in the thing it causes).
– Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity)
- The soul of a thing can be likened to its own logoi, everything has a logoi, its principle, and that is its soul. The logoi of man, and of creation, issues from the Logos.
- A soul being created, and being the perfect image and likeness of what its creator decides it to be, is 'in heaven' by virtue of the fact that it is its total good, it lacks for nothing nor requires of anything more to be itself (other than the continued will of the creator which holds it in being)

So souls come into existence in 'Paradise' ... the Fall occurs because the tendency of individuation (part of the movement implicit in its creation) is 'away from' and 'down from' its source ... and the soul must resist this by constant reference to its own source (its original and eventual good, which resides in God).

That veil was the Firmamant of Genesis 1:7 — a veil that was drawn between Heaven and us. Here is that part of the story, as told in Theosophical literature.

[The Son] "...turned the Upper [greater light of Genesis 1:15] into a shoreless Sea of Fire, and the One Manifested into the Great Waters. Those who have won the vision of this Mind know well that shoreless Sea of flaming Light and those turbulent Waters [Genesis 1:2]. All that is ‘above’ the Universal Mind [the Son] (i.e. all that is unmanifested) appears simply as an impenetrable wall of Light, while the One Manifested (i.e. Mind itself) becomes the great ocean of manifested existence." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 147-148)

We too hold the waters above as the unmanifested and the waters below as manifested, and the firmament lies between, encompassing the degrees of formless and formal manifestation as such. This accords with the Vedic texts, curiously enough, when one penetrates the veils of symbolism into the metaphysics of the matter.

"Every [soul] feels itself to be separated because the divine self-affirmation of the Logos is forcing it to look outwards into the vortices of form; thus it ceases to pay attention to the inner unity. ... under the influence of the third Logos, the points [souls] in Mind rush out into separateness." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 324 & 192)

The Wall of Light (the Firmament) ensures we souls will not return to the Oneness until we are ready.

Well we have only one Logos, the Principle of Logos as such ... all subsequence are instances of that principle in operation, so are logoi ... as stated before, I think this is an area where Theosophy (as do many other systems) sees Trinity cosmologically, so they pop up everywhere, whereas Christianity focusses on the Divine Principle as such, prior to any cosmological consideration.

My favourite example is the Vedic Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), one can allocate a Person of the Trinity to each quality, and all three to each one, but the Vedic triune describes cosmological principle, that of being, etc., whereas the Trinity is prior to that.

We have not quite so a 'mechanical' or 'structural' separation (as it appears, although I accept that the language is probably symbolic); rather, if one considers Scripture, the cause of separation (the Fall) was moral, and of a free choice, it was not 'required' nor was the world created that way - the fall is not a physical nor metaphysical necessity. As the Moslems say "God (the Absolute) is closer to you than your jugular vein" - what determines separation is the distance between God's will and man's will - once man manages to 'detach' himself from his passions and appetites, he rises 'naturally' to somewhere 'a little higher than the angels'.

In conclusion, the Absolute is on the other side of the Firmament, causing us to know nothing about it.

Indeed and yet - the mystery of being - we can posit it is there.

Eriugena expressed this most succinctly as:
That which is not created and creates;
That which is created and creates;
That which is created and does not create;
That which is not created and does not create.

That last is an apophatic statement which, like the Absolute, can only be arrived at by reason and intuition - a bit like the Void of Buddhism ... a 'negative' space can only be assumed because of what's around it, there can be no knowledge of it Itself ... and yet it communicates Itself ...

Thomas

 

[wil]

If I may be so bold. It seems obvious to me that someone other than Moses wrote of his own death and burial. I would surmise that the most likely candidate was Joshua, being Moses' successor. And really I don't think it detracts from the Mosiac authorship of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. It was a necessary addition to bring to a close the life of Moses. God after all spoke to Joshua as He did with Moses. Think of it as sort of in the context of the "spirit of Elijah" that was put upon Elisha.

I've read that contention...and then read the insistance of some that it was all written by Moses...which would seem to me have excited the people had they read it then.

We've also touched on some of the other items which bring single authorship into question...the two versions of creation and the flood...I've also read numerous thoughts on that but would appreciate more info.

 

[Dondi]

I found a link that explores this in a bit more detail.

"On this subject the following note from an intelligent Jew cannot be unacceptable to the reader:- "Most commentators are of opinion that Ezra was the author of the last chapter of Deuteronomy; some think it was Joshua, and others the seventy elders, immediately after the death of Moses; adding, that the book of Deuteronomy originally ended with the prophetic blessing upon the twelve tribes: 'Happy art thou, O Israel! who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord,' &c.; and that what now makes the last chapter of Deuteronomy was formerly the first of Joshua, but was removed from thence and joined to the former by way of supplement. This opinion will not appear unnatural if it be considered that sections and other divisions, as well as points and pauses, were invented long since these books were written; for in those early ages several books were connected together, and followed each other on the same roll. The beginning of one book might therefore be easily transferred to the end of another, and in process of time be considered as its real conclusion, as in the case of Deuteronomy, especially as this supplemental chapter contains an account of the last transactions and death of the great author of the Pentateuch."-Alexander's Heb. and Eng. Pentateuch."

Source: Clarke's Commentary - Deuteronomy 34

 

[wil]

and that what now makes the last chapter of Deuteronomy was formerly the first of Joshua, but was removed from thence and joined to the former by way of supplement. This opinion will not appear unnatural if it be considered that sections and other divisions, as well as points and pauses, were invented long since these books were written; for in those early ages several books were connected together, and followed each other on the same roll.

This is where it appears to me you can't have your cake and eat it to. As BB inferred to before if you can't produce the P, E, D texts...how can you claim they exist...but then we want to say that Joshua, no Ezra wrote it, no it was the first of Joshua at one time...is there evidence of this?....Several books were connected together? Like the Gen1/Gen2 creation stories or the two versions of Noah? To satisfy the Yahwists and the Elohists? or to satisfy those that followed the Bethlehem v. Jerusalem texts?

 

[taijasi]

Hmmm, tell ya what, bananabrain ... it's going to be a whole lot easier if we just agree to disagree - and fageddaboudit!!!


The best I can do, is to quote again, from `The Secret Doctrine,' p. 41:

Once that the reader has gained a clear comprehension of [the basic conceptions of the Secret Doctrine] and realised the light which they throw on every problem of life, they will need no further justification in his eyes, because their truth will be to him as evident as the sun in heaven.​

You ask for this justification. You wish me to justify why I do not regard the Pentaeuch Wisdom in the same light you do ... and Thomas puts to me the same challenge, yet he does so from the perspective of a Roman Catholic!

Even Nick, who is a Theosophist, and a member of the Theosophical Society, I believe ... will not likely agree with every statement I make, since my perspective and understanding as an esotericist is not 100% in line with what every Theosophist believes, or what Nick believes!

So, look again ... see what HPB said. I agree, bananabrain, handing you several bound volumes, and saying, "Here, go read this and come back to talk about it!" ... is fairly laughable, and I wouldn't even expect you to read an abridgement of the SD. It's just too much for someone, for anyone, who is already perfectly comfortable with seeing things the way they see them, and not wishing to potentially risk seeing a great deal of what they hold as Sacred, and the word of God, turned upside down!

As for me, I need no further justification ... nor do I feel the need to justify,before another living soul ... that which I have come - to hold sacred, and the inspired word of the Finger of God, via one of His Messengers!

Peace ... Shalom,

and Namaskar,

~andrew

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"Thanks for those succinct answers. It gives me an insight into what is fundamental to our systems, their commonalities and their differences."

--> I think the both of us agree that we are trying to find what we have in common, and it is a valuable search.

"Obviously both our respective schemata go into a lot greater depth, but we have to start somewhere."

--> You would be surprised the detail Theosophy goes into.

"Some mistakenly assume Good and Evil stand equal in opposition – this is more Zoroastrainism than Christianity."

--> I was fascinated to hear of this Zoroastrainism connection only recently.

"The angels, however instrumental in the process of creation, are not First Principle...."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"...Tradition looks always to the First Principle, and accords the title 'God' to that alone."

--> I apologize if I am splitting hairs, but Theosophy separates God from the Absolute for this very reason. The Absolute is called That Without A Beginning, The Causeless Cause. So, we reserve the title First Principle for God.

"Anything subsequent can be divine..."

--> That is an interesting idea and might turn into an interesting thread, but our discussion focuses on "what came before God" (so the Theosophical story goes).

"The angels fashion according to the Divine Fiat, but still we regard God as the First Cause of All, for what is done...."

--> This is strikingly similar to the Theosophical position.

There is an argument that in the Old Testament one can trace a passage from polytheism to monotheism in Abram's call from out of Chaldea...."

--> This is fascinating, especially as Theosophy labels itself as polytheistic.

"For us there is a difference between angel and archangel, and between all angelic orders and God."

--> On this we agree. Theosophy, however, takes it a bit further, and says there are many tiers of angels. A simple two-tiered system of simply angels and archangels is not nearly enough. (I count ten tiers in Theosophy, and there may be more.)

"...the idea that the Son only appeared at the start of creation is not Christian doctrine..."

--> It is, however, as idea Theosophy agrees with.

"The term 'elohiym' is used, as you note, of the Divine Assembly...."

--> I like that.

"...but it is also used of angels, men (in their function as judges), pagan gods and fetish carvings, so the term has to be read in context, rather than simply literally."

--> I think this gets us into the ten-plus tiers of angels that I mentioned above.

"In the Christian Tradition the Trinity is pre-cosmic or metacosmic...."

--> Technically, we agree (I think). "Cosmic" (in Theosophy) applies to the universe, and the Trinity (in Theosophy) appeared before the universe. (I am not sure about the Christian version.) The Trinity is also said to be pre-manifest, pre-differentiated, and "Arupa", which gets into concepts that are probably not Christian.

"One could argue that God/Absolute/Trinity only 'appears' at the beginning of the universe because prior to that that was nothing to apprehend God, and so from a cosmological perspective that is understandable."

--> If so, then Christianity and Theosophy agree.

"From our perspective God 'knows' Himself as Absolute and as Trinity prior to all or any manifestation. Then, the Creation happens through the Son, according to the will of the Father. Everything was 'in' the Son before the foundation of the world."

--> Theosophy agrees, disagress, and kind of agrees. We got 1.5 out of three, which ain't too bad.

"There is no way to describe the Absolute. --> Same here. In Christianity we call this Apophatic Theology."

--> Fascinating!

"...the soul as an uncreated potentiality resides in the Absolute (as everything must), but as such it is undifferentiated and has no 'being' or 'reality'. In simple terms one could say it is an 'idea', but not an essence or an actuality."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"When God the soul becomes created...."

--> You lost me on that one. Please explain.

"Christianity does not accept the notion of a 'world soul' as a kind of pot from which dollops of soul are distributed, as 'person' or 'individuality' is one of the things that defines a 'soul' – but it does acknowledge a dimension of union and unity)"

--> This will take a lengthy Theosophical response. I am running late, so I will get back to this later.

"The soul of a thing can be likened to its own logoi, everything has a logoi, its principle, and that is its soul. The logoi of man, and of creation, issues from the Logos."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"A soul being created, and being the perfect image and likeness of what its creator decides it to be, is 'in heaven' by virtue of the fact that it is its total good, it lacks for nothing nor requires of anything more to be itself (other than the continued will of the creator which holds it in being)"

--> Theosophy agrees.

"So souls come into existence in 'Paradise' ... the Fall occurs because the tendency of individuation (part of the movement implicit in its creation) is 'away from' and 'down from' its source...."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"... and the soul must resist this by constant reference to its own source (its original and eventual good, which resides in God)."

--> Finally we disagree (hah). The downward movement is seen (in Theosophy) to be perfectly natural and healthy. (Apparantly, Christianity does not agree.)

"We too hold the waters above as the unmanifested and the waters below as manifested...."

--> This is an agreement between the two philosophies I would not have dreamed possible.

"...and the firmament lies between, encompassing the degrees of formless and formal manifestation as such."

--> Theosophy agrees (I think). If Christianity has the concepts of formless manifestation and formal manifestation, then they agree with the Theosophical concepts of Arupa and Rupa, which I find astounding.

"This accords with the Vedic texts, curiously enough, when one penetrates the veils of symbolism into the metaphysics of the matter."

--> As I have stated countless times before, Christianity, the Vedas, and Theosophy all come from the same source (according to Theosophy).

"...we have only one Logos...."

--> This is only a matter of terminology. In Theosophy, the Logos is one, yet each of the three members is also called a Logos. We call the Son a Logos.

"I think this is an area where Theosophy (as do many other systems) sees Trinity cosmologically, so they pop up everywhere, whereas Christianity focusses on the Divine Principle as such, prior to any cosmological consideration."

--> That is an interesting way of looking at it.

"My favourite example is the Vedic Sit-Chat-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), one can allocate a Person of the Trinity to each quality...."

--> Theosophy teaches that all religions taught the concept of the Trinity at one time.

"As the Moslems say "God (the Absolute) is closer to you than your jugular vein" - what determines separation is the distance between God's will and man's will - once man manages to 'detach' himself from his passions and appetites, he rises 'naturally' to somewhere 'a little higher than the angels'."

--> Fascinating! Theosophy agrees.

"That which is not created and creates;
That which is created and creates;
That which is created and does not create;
That which is not created and does not create."

From the unreal lead me to the Real.
From darkness lead me to Light.
From death lead me to Immortality.
Krishnamurti, "At The Feet Of The Master"
Modern Theosophy: At The Feet of the Master, Alcyone

 

[taijasi]

Here is that part of the story, as told in Theosophical literature.

[The Son] "...turned the Upper [greater light of Genesis 1:15] into a shoreless Sea of Fire, and the One Manifested into the Great Waters. Those who have won the vision of this Mind know well that shoreless Sea of flaming Light and those turbulent Waters [Genesis 1:2]. All that is ‘above’ the Universal Mind [the Son] (i.e. all that is unmanifested) appears simply as an impenetrable wall of Light, while the One Manifested (i.e. Mind itself) becomes the great ocean of manifested existence." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 147-148)

Such is the journey a soul makes from Oneness to separated awareness.

"Every [soul] feels itself to be separated because the divine self-affirmation of the Logos is forcing it to look outwards into the vortices of form; thus it ceases to pay attention to the inner unity. ... under the influence of the third Logos, the points [souls] in Mind rush out into separateness." (Geoffrey Barborka, Man The Measure Of All Things pp. 324 & 192)

The Wall of Light (the Firmament) ensures we souls will not return to the Oneness until we are ready.

In conclusion, the Absolute is on the other side of the Firmament, causing us to know nothing about it.

Thank you, Nick! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!

This is wonderful! For quite some time I have felt that I was growing increasingly comfortable being able to ... sort of, describe my understanding of our relationship with `G-d'(s) ... in forward order - that is, in terms of how we go from here, to `there.'

But what I have not understood, in clear, simple terms (without too much heady theology, and needlessly complicated, terminology-laden philosophy) ... is how we've come into existence - "as Monads," to begin with, then proceeded to migrate "downwards," or `matter-wards,' from the Father's House ... as the Prodigal.

Until you shared this contribution from Barborka, I really didn't have a clear picture at all, despite my Sparks of the Flame analogy, which doesn't quite get at what Barborka has explained. And I had to look behind me, at that red, bound volume on `HPB, Tibet and Tulku,' and remember that I love the way G. Barborka describes some of the adventures of Theosophy's greatest Messenger!

I'm inspired to pick up my copy, and give it another look, though I know it won't go into depth on the topics at hand. Do you recommend the book from which you quoted, above, `Man the Measure of All Things?'


The one I recommend for a good Catholic seeking to understand just how it is that we Theosophically-inclined folks can dare to believe what we believe ... is Geoffrey Hodson's `Man the Triune God.' The table of contents (I think the url links are preserved below) from that book, found online here, includes:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE EVERLASTING LIGHT
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE HEART OF BEING
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]COSMIC MAN
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]EARTHLY MANhttp://www.theosophical.ca/ManTriuneGod.htm#earthly
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]OMNIPRESENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE DISCOVERY OF SELF .
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]RULER, SCIENTIST AND PRIESThttp://www.theosophical.ca/ManTriuneGod.htm#ruler
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SPIRITUAL ARISTOCRACY
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE BRIDGE
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE WAY OF RELEASE
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MAN THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]L´ENVOI THE SPIRITUAL NAME[/FONT]​

And again, sadly, bananabrain doesn't feel inclined to touch Geoffrey Hodson's `Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible,' yet it provides exactly the kind of careful investigation and study of how the Penteuch Wisdom is not quite what it seems which (he?) has asked for. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!! ​

Then again, we can read an account of Emma Coloumb's, in which the Mahatmas are proved to be no more than some stuffed dummies that HPB went and placed here & there ... while our own K. Paul Johnson (?) is quite satisfied that he has unravelled the mystery regarding these bogus chaps quite conclusively.

I still find it humorous, for if you live amongst them, walk and talk with them, even dine with them ... and have the humble honor of serving alongside them ... what are we to do with our K. Paul Johnsons, and our doubting Thomases? ​

oh well ...​