Pentateuch Wisdom

[taijasi]

Noooooooo-body expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
Our chief weapon is surprise! Fear and suprise. Our two weapons ...

Yes, yes, yes, Mr. Berzin has come along, and alas for poor Theosophy. We shall wipe away the "dusprayukta dharma" of the Francises, the metaphysically unsound, non-rigorous philosophy of the Thomases, and the outdated, racially-biased nonsense of the Jewish Kabbalists!


Meanwhile, the Theosophists, and esotericsts, who stand United in the Spirit of Brotherhood, in the name of establashing a lasting planetary Peace, and who are dedicated to bringing about Harmony amongst all peoples, of all religions, of all nations ... will simply smile.

In this world hate has never yet conquered hate; only Love conquers hate.
This is the Law, ancient and inexhaustible.​

 

[taijasi]

Of course, HPB herself (in The Secret Doctrine) can show how off base Mr. Berzin is, and how misdirected many of his assertions - and thereby, yours, Thomas:

BUDDHISM AND THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY​

Unwise are those who, in their blind and, in our age, untimely hatred of Buddhism, and, by re-action, of “Budhism” deny its esoteric teachings (which are those also of the Brahmins), simply because the name suggests what to them, as Monotheists, are noxious doctrines. Unwise is the correct term to use in their case. For the Esoteric philosophy is alone calculated to withstand, in this age of crass and illogical materialism, the repeated attacks on all and everything man holds most dear and sacred in his inner spiritual life. The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of an absolute Divine Principle in nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable.​

Furthermore, the records we mean to place before the reader embrace the esoteric tenets of the whole world since the beginning of our humanity, and Buddhistic occultism occupies therein only its legitimate place, and no more. Indeed, the secret portions of the “Dan" or “Jan-na" [Dan, now becomes in modern Chinese and Tibetan phonetics ch’an, is the general term for the esoteric schools, and their literature. In the old books, the word Janna is defined as “to reform one’s self by meditation and knowledge,” a second inner birth. Hence Dzan, Djan phonetically, the “Book of Dzyan”] (“Dhyan") of Gautama's metaphysics — grand as they appear to one unacquainted with the tenets of the Wisdom Religion of antiquity — are but a very small portion of the whole. The Hindu Reformer limited his public teachings to the purely moral and physiological aspect of the Wisdom-Religion, to Ethics and MAN alone. Things “unseen and incorporeal", the mystery of Being outside our terrestrial sphere, the great Teacher left entirely untouched in his public lectures, reserving the hidden Truths for a select circle of his Arhats. The latter received their Initiation at the famous Saptaparna cave (the Sattapanni of Mahavansa) near Mount Baibhâr (the Webhâra of the Pali MSS.). This cave was in Rajagriha, the ancient capital of Mogadha, and was the Cheta cave of Fa-hian, as rightly suspected by some archaeologists [Mr Beglor, the chief engineer of Buddhagaya, and a distinguished archaeologist, was the first, we believe, to discover it.]​

Time and human imagination made short work of the purity and philosophy of these teachings, once that they were transplanted from the secret and sacred circle of the Arhats, during the course of their work of proselytism, into a soil less prepared for metaphysical conceptions than India; i.e., once they were transferred into China, Japan, Siam, and Burmah. How the pristine purity of these grand revelations was dealt with may be seen in studying some of the so-called “esoteric" Buddhist schools of antiquity in their modern garb, not only in China and other Buddhist countries in general, but even in not a few schools in Tibet, left to the care of uninitiated Lamas and Mongolian innovators.​

Thus the reader is asked to bear in mind the very important difference between orthodox Buddhism — i.e., the public teachings of Gautama the Buddha, and his esoteric Buddhism. His Secret Doctrine, however, differed in no wise from that of the initiated Brahmins of his day. The Buddha was a child of the Aryan soil, a born Hindu, a Kshatrya and a disciple of the “twice born" (the initiated Brahmins) or Dwijas. His teachings, therefore, could not be different from their doctrines, for the whole Buddhist reform merely consisted in giving out a portion of that which had been kept secret from every man outside of the “enchanted" circle of Temple-Initiates and ascetics. Unable to teach all that had been imparted to him — owing to his pledges — though he taught a philosophy built upon the ground-work of the true esoteric knowledge, the Buddha gave to the world only its outward material body and kept its soul for his Elect. Many Chinese scholars among Orientalists have heard of the “Soul Doctrine". None seem to have understood its real meaning and importance.​

That doctrine was preserved secretly, — too secretly, perhaps — within the sanctuary. The mystery that shrouded its chief dogma and aspirations — Nirvana — has so tried and irritated the curiosity of those scholars who have studied it, that, unable to solve it logically and satisfactorily by untying the Gordian knot, they cut it through, by declaring that Nirvana meant absolute annihilation.
​

WHY SOME FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS ARE NOW REVEALED​

Toward the end of the first quarter of (this century, a distinct class of literature appeared in the world, which became with every year more defined in its tendency. Being based, soi-disant, on the scholarly researches of Sanskritists and Orientalists in general, it was held scientific. Hindu, Egyptian, and other ancient religions, myths, and emblems were made to yield anything the symbologist wanted them to yield, thus often giving out the rude outward form in place of the inner meaning. Works, most remarkable for their ingenious deductions and speculations, foregone conclusions generally changing places with premises as in the syllogisms of more than one Sanskrit and Pali scholar, appeared rapidly in succession, over-flooding the libraries with dissertations rather on phallic and sexual worship than on real symbology, and each contradicting the other.​

This is the true reason, perhaps, why the outline of a few fundamental truths from the Secret Doctrine of the Archaic-ages is now permitted to see the light, after long millenniums of the most profound silence and secrecy. I say “a few truths", advisedly, because that which must remain unsaid could not be contained in a hundred such volumes, nor could it be imparted to the present generation of Sadducees. But, even the little that is now given is better than complete silence upon those vital truths. The world of to-day, in its mad career towards the unknown — which it is too ready to confound with the unknowable, whenever the problem eludes the grasp of the physicist– is rapidly progressing on the reverse, material plant of spirituality. It has now become a vast arena — a true valley of discord and of eternal strife — a necropolis, wherein lie buried the highest and the most holy aspirations of our Spirit-Soul. That soul becomes with every new generation more paralysed and atrophied. The “amiable infidels and accomplished profligates" of Society, spoken of by Greeley, care little for the revival of the dead sciences of the past; but there is a fair minority of earnest students who are entitled to learn the few truths that may be given to them now; and now much more than ten years ago, when “Isis Unveiled", or even the later attempts to explain the mysteries of esoteric science, were published.​

One of the greatest, and, withal, the most serious objection to the correctness and reliability of the whole work will be the preliminary STANZAS: “How can the statements contained in them be verified?" True, if a great portion of the Sanskrit, Chinese, and Mongolian works quoted in the present volumes are known to some Orientalists, the chief work — that one from which the Stanzas are given — is not in the possession of European Libraries. The Book of Dzyan (or “Dzan") is utterly unknown to our Philologists, or at any rate was never heard of by them under its present name. This is, of course, a great drawback to those who follow the methods of research prescribed by official Science; but to the students of Occultism, and to every genuine Occultist, this will be of little moment. The main body of the Doctrines given is found scattered throughout hundreds and thousands of Sanskrit MSS., some already translated — disfigured in their interpretations, as usual, — others still! awaiting their turn. Every scholar, therefore, has an opportunity of verifying the statements herein made, and of checking most of the quotations. A few new facts (new to the profane Orientalist, only) and passages quoted from the Commentaries will be found difficult to trace. Several of the teachings, also, have hitherto been transmitted orally: yet even those are in every instance hinted at in the almost countless volumes of Brahminical, Chinese and Tibetan temple-literature.​

However it may be, and whatsoever is in store for the writer through malevolent criticism, one fact is quite certain. The members of several esoteric schools — the seat of which is beyond the Himalayas, and whose ramifications may be found in China, Japan, India, Tibet, and even in Syria, besides South America — claim to have in their possession the sum total of sacred and philosophical works in MSS. and type: all the works, in fact, that have ever been written, in whatever language or characters, since the art of writing began; from the ideographic hieroglyphs down to the alphabet of Cadmus and the Devanagari.​

It has been claimed in all ages that ever since the destruction of the Alexandrian Library (see Isis Unveiled, Volume II., p. 27), every work of a character that might have led the profane to the ultimate discovery and comprehension of some of the mysteries of the Secret Science, was, owing to the combined efforts of the members of the Brotherhoods, diligently searched for. It is added, moreover, by those who know, that once found, save three copies left and stored safely away, such works were all destroyed. In India, the last of the precious manuscripts were secured and hidden during the reign of the Emperor Akbar. [Prof Max Müller shows that no bribes or threats of Akbar could extort from the Brahmans the original text of the Veda; and boasts that European Orientalists have it (Lecture on the “Science of Religion,” p 23). Whether Europe has the Complete text is very doubtful, and the future may have very disagreeable surprises in store for the Orientalists]​

It is maintained, furthermore, that every sacred book of that kind, whose text was not sufficiently veiled in symbolism, or which had any direct references to the ancient mysteries, after having been carefully copied in cryptographic characters, such as to defy the art of the best and cleverest paleographer, was also destroyed to the last copy. During Akbar's reign, some fanatical courtiers, displeased at the Emperor's sinful prying into the religions of the infidels, themselves helped the Brahmans to conceal their MSS. Such was Badáoni, who had an undisguised horror for Akbar's mania for idolatrous religions. [Badáoni wrote in his Muntakhab at Tawarikh. “His Majesty relished inquiries into the sects of these infidels (who cannot be counted, so numerous they are, and who have no end of revealed books) ... As they (the Sramana and Brahmins) surpass other learned men in their treatises on morals, on physical and religious sciences, and reach a high degree in their knowledge of the future, in spiritual power, and human perfection, they brought proofs based on reason and testimony, and inculcated their doctrines so firmly that no man could now raise a doubt in his Majesty even if mountains were to crumble to dust, or the heavens were to tear asunder. "This work was kept secret, and was not published till the reign of Jahângir". (Ain i Akbari, translated by Dr. Blochmann, p. 104, note.) ]​

Moreover, in all the large and wealthy lamaseries, there are subterranean crypts and cave-libraries, cut in the rock, whenever the gonpa and the Ihakhang are situated in the mountains. Beyond the Western Tsaydam, in the solitary passes of Kuen-lun [Karakorum mountains, Western Tibet] there are several such hiding-places. Along the ridge of Altyn-Toga, whose soil no European foot has ever trodden so far, there exists a certain hamlet, lost in a deep gorge. It is a small cluster of houses, a hamlet rather than a monastery, with a poor-looking temple in it, with one old lama, a hermit, living near by to watch it. Pilgrims say that the subterranean galleries and halls under it contain a collection of books, the number of which, according to the accounts given, is too large to find room even in the British Museum, [ According to the same tradition the now desolate regions of the waterless land of Tarim - a true wilderness in the heart of Turkestan - were in the days of old covered with flourishing and wealthy cities. At present, hardly a few verdant cases relieve its dead solitude. One such, sprung on the sepulchre of a vast city swallowed by and buried under the sandy soil of the desert, belongs to no one, but is often visited by Mongolians and Buddhists. The same tradition speaks of immense subterranean abodes, or large corridors filled with tiles and cylinders. It may be an idle rumour, and it may be an actual fact.]​

 

[Thomas]

Of course, HPB herself (in The Secret Doctrine) can show how off base Mr. Berzin is, and how misdirected many of his assertions - and thereby, yours, Thomas:

Andrew –
From where I'm standing, the Theosophic technique seems to be that if you repeat something often enough, in the face of every evidence to the contrary, that suffices as a 'proof' or a 'demonstration' ...so when I suggest, with supporting evidence from no less an authority than the Dalai Lama, that the said Doctrine is founded on erroneous and ill-informed assumptions, you seem to think that simply repeating wodges of aforesaid erroneous and ill-informed text ad nauseam will somehow make it right ...

... and the Dalai Lama wrong ...

... well, sorry, but if there's you and Nick on one side, both who've expressed a passing ignorance of Christian doctrine, and demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the hermeneutic of Jewish and Christian doctrine, and on the other I have the Dalai Lama, and world-respected authorities in Buddhism, Islam, Brahminism, Christianity, Judaism, Sufism ... all in accord ... then sorry ... the credentials of your sources would have to be absolutely bullet-proof, and as they're far from that, there's no contest.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

One could go on to add, that since HPB's day ... the Stanzas have been given out in more complete form - with the proper psychological & symbolical key ... plus a third set of Stanzas, concering TheoGenesis.

Yet what will happen, if we speak here, openly of such pearls?

I think we know ...

How easy it is, to worship dogmas, men and creeds ... rather than seek out, and seek to embodyTRUTH.

This, I begin to see, is the problem. HPB did not present her teachings, merely so that they could be worshipped, a paper pope. Yet so attached to their dogmas are the theologians, and the scholars of the Judeo-Christian traditions, that all they can see is something come to depose their Idols.

Meanwhile, the atheist, the materialist, the scientist ... or the merely inquisitive, simply cannot stand to see the meeting & Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy - as HPB accomplished in The SD - because it so upturns her equally-well-established understanding and conception of things.

Some of the same arguments are used by assailants in both camps ... yet even by joining forces, all that can be accomplished is a little drizzle, just a little rain - a gray cloud on the horizon ... soon to be evaporated into the ether by the radiant, NOONDAY SUN!!!

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Don't get me wrong. I am quite in favor of INVESTIGATION ... when it comes to New Ideas, or even just alternate presentations or interpretations of EXISTING IDEAS. We're dealing with a little of both when it comes to Theosophy and modern Esotericism.

Yet even the boldest assertions have a sound, defensible basis ... either in terms of a long history of eyewitnesses, from EVERY ONE of the world's major religions, and philosophical traditions HPB mentions. Her writings draw upon much of the cutting edge scientific research of the mid to late 19th Century ... and the cunning argument that teachings are therefore outdated - while occasionally relevant and worth considering - simply becomes a slippery slope for our more sophistic and casuistic of posters.

Similarly, the clever theologian will assert that such and such an argument simply cannot be true, because this is outdated information ... and we have learned so much more since then!

That theologian forgets that, while he is busy culling article after article to try and dispute the mere EXISTENCE of the Theosophical Mahatmas, this changes not one whit the fact that HPB's contributions, bearing the stamp of approval of these same "imaginary" Mahatmas can NEVER be falsified on the grounds of false attribution ... or as works of her imagination, not even "dusprayukta dharma."

Nowhere is it said that HPB wrote error-free, or that her words were FINAL Gospel on ANY matter(s)! Nor was it said that The SD - and other works - should REPLACE Humanity's current religions, and forms of worship ... since Revelation is ONGOING!!! This is the entire PREMISE upon which everything that HPB ever uttered - is BUILT!!!

Yet the resistance we find ... arises precisely from this notion that, THINGS ARE FINE PRECISELY AS THEY ARE, THEY DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE, AND ALL SUCH EFFORTS TO CHANGE THEM - such as by showing connections, and even a common Root - such efforts are WRONG, EVIL, and TO BE FEARED!!!

Why?

Because it means that yes, you MUST - eventually, inevitably, if gradually and most carefully - yield your own, separative, exclusivist, divisive and ultimately PERSONAL creed(s), dogmas & even ritualisms ...

... to something GREATER.

AND NO THEOSOPHIST, nor or EVER, that I am aware of, has said, "Here. The THING to be embraced is X, or Y, or Z." The closest that he has ever come, is to reiterate what the Christs, the Buddhas, the Saviors of every tradition have taught us ... keeping in mind that for preaching the Truth, in each case, our prior Saviors have been crucified. Not a popular thing, this idea of working through our difficulties, and finding common ground.

It's not just as easy as "give and take," or setting differences aside. In some cases, there are genuine losses ... as when science discovers that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth. Not a popular notion with THE CHURCH, once upon a time. Just ask Galileo Galilei.

It also became extremely inconvenient to even speak of Rebirth ... several centuries after Christ walked the Earth. Rebirth is BAD BUSINESS for the Roman Catholic Church, and really for ANY ecclesiastical "authority" that wants to keep your, err, uhh, eggs, in its tight little grasp. ONE LIFE, that's all you've got ... and we'll scare the hell out of you if you dare to think different.

The pressures are not simply religious, we know they are political, societal, cultural ... and nowadays, if you are an astronomer, an airline pilot, EVEN a NASA employee, it is just not popular, cool or even acceptable in many cases ... to talk about `Extra-terrestrial life, of the INTELLIGENT sort.' No, even that whole division of our government responsible for investigating the Solar System and space beyond ... considers it inappropriate to talk about "aliens." Not because the term is offense, but rather, because we are all that is.

No, Thomas, I understand - it is still entirely acceptable to DEMAND PROOF when we speak of `Masters,' since ... as you and others say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ahhh, I see it now. And that's why believing that ONE MAN, sent by WHOM??? by WHAT??? and WHEN??? ... somehow DIED (???), after walking on the water??? ... and this ACT, err, uhhh, sacrifice, after THREE DAYS TIME, somehow leads YOU, and ME, and ANYONE - NOW, 2000 years later (and HOW LONG is this offer good for???) ... this ACT, one-time DEAL, err, okay, the action of an ALL-Powerful, ALL-Knowing, ALL-Present - umm, `God' did you say??? and HOW was it again things got into this state (wait, nevermind) ... back to the ACT, this DEATH, will bring you, me, whoever, ETERNAL LIFE (!!!??!!!!) ... and all I must do you say, is go to Mass every Sunday, say my Hail Marys, be nice to old ladies, GIVE to the poor, feed the hungry, and swear that I don't believe in silly things like Reincarnation????

Ahhhhh. I see now. I see how I had it COMPLETELY irrationally mixed up, and how MY claims, and MY beliefs are the ones that are "extraodinary" (What goes around, comes around ... Everyone is fully, 100% responsible for all their actions ... God speaks to everyone around the world, in every tongue, every religion, from the dawn of time ... and that same, Loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God, has enough foresight & "common sense" to have a PLAN - which can both ALLOW for us to choose, via Free Will, while also seeing to it that NOT A SPARROW FALLS w/o Him knowing it, much less the soul of ANY living things eternally PERISH)

Yep. I'm the nut. I'm the cook. I'm the goofball here. I'm the one who maintains beliefs which don't really jibe with real-world experiences .... and with what our own hearts, and our own minds, TELL us is True. And I can see that your ideas, your religion, and your teachings about the MAGIC MAN who God sent to SAVE ME from screwing things up with this FREE WILL that he, err, well he gave it to me, but ummm, errr, well - nevermind, I know I'm not really capable of seeing the beauty of this amazing scheme until I get my divinity degree ...

... but don't you worry, cuz in the meantime, I'll do all those things you say I'm supposed to do, and I won't miss my Paternosters, and I shall cross myself every day five thousand times and carry my Bible, and ... and ... and ...

- Yes, indeed, I see how perfectly natural all this is (to you), and how extraordinary Theosophy, or Esotericism must really seem (when not filtered through the tight sieve of Roman Catholic Jesuitism). I've said before, it's like saying, hey yo, do you see that beautiful, cerulean sky?

And the response? Don't scare me with such nonsense. I'd rather stick to the shadows on this here wall.

No, umm, really there is a sky, and it's pretty blue!!! Bah! Bugger off! PROVE TO ME THAT THERE IS A SKY

I can't loosen those chains. I can only speak of how you yourself may loosen them.

You're mad. There are no chains. I am already free. That has been promised. And I need none of your speculations, this hogwash about blue skies, and rattling on about loosening chains. Come back when you have something REAL to show me.

But ...

Go away. This crucifix is your key ... only with this shall you gain your admittance.

*sighhhhhh* <shrug>

~+~+~+~+~

And of course, every so often we pretend that part hasn't just happened, yet you ask me to defend my extraordinary claims, over & over again ... while never even bringing your own faith, your own tenaciously-held dogmas, creeds & assumptions - to the light of day.

You hid behind such statements as "It's TRADITION," and somehow you think the tables have turned.

They have not. NEVER have you, nor has anyone, demonstrated for my satisfaction that Christ is ANY of the things you claim he is, or was, SAVE ONE: The Lord of LOVE

This alone, do I accept of your `Tradition.' Now PROVE for me, your assertions of aught else. Satisfy ME for a change ...

Now you see ... who is it that serves, gladly, willingly, often forcing a smile regardless of what is said, despite what one knows (?) ...

Does the Christian labor so merrily to show us The Way?

I could accept that, and I do, save that I am not interested in his way. I am interested in THE Way. And that is something, beyond Christian, beyond Jew, beyond Muslim, beyond Buddhist, beyond Hindu, beyond Theosophist. It isn't Baha'i, it isn't Scientology, and it isn't New Age, nor Old Age.

I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked the Beatles, I asked Timothy Leary, and he couldn't help me either ...

Before thou cans't travel the Path, thou must become the Path Itself​

I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life​

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

I see that Thomas keeps setting traps for you, and you keep falling for them, hook, line, and sinker. Right now, I would say Thomas is winning his debate with you quite handily.

Stop and think; what is Thomas' motivation in all of this? It is to move the discussion away from the issues, and make a general attack on Theosophy — and you are allowing him to succeed. For example, he will say we are ignorant, which causes a knee-jerk, angry response from you. On and on it goes, all the while allowing Thomas to get the exact effect he wants — the pushing of the issues to the back, and concentrating on a general discrediting of Theosophy.

Let's look at an issue. Time and time again I held Thomas accountable that the "us" people were a group of angels in Genesis 1:26. Time and time he tried to switch the discussion to a general discrediting of Theosophy. I ignored everything and stuck to the issue. My diligence paid off, and Thomas finally admitted that Genesis 1:26 was talking about a group of angels.

Another one of Thomas’ tactics is to make a statement, then put a long quote as supporting documentation. You may want to look closely at these actual quotations. For example, he makes a claim regarding Helena Roerich, yet does not supply a reference to her actual quote. This may be the kind of things you wish to pursue. (Personally, I do not. I do not think Thomas is interested at all in where Shamballa is, who is there, or what they are doing. If I thought Thomas was interested, I would pursue the topic, because Shamballa is a fascinating topic, and is an important part of the Theosophical Hierarchy. Shamballa is a name well known to speakers of English, and there is a reason for it.) The point is, Shamballa was not brought up to be an issue, it was only brought up in an attempt to discredit Theosophy. For this reason, I leave Thomas’ statements unresponded to.

Thomas says the Secret Doctrine is founded on erroneous and ill-informed assumptions, yet includes no examples in the same sentence, because including an example would turn it into an issue. Rather than getting angry, it would be better for you to ask for examples, because examples can be turned into issues.

Thomas does not want to discuss the issues. His strategy is to go from specifics to generalizations. Our strategy is to go from generalizations to specifics.

Ignore the side-issues. Ignore his accusations that we are ignorant. Ask for examples of his over-generalizing statements. Only concentrate on the issues. Forget discussing ideas like the value of saying Hail Marys. Get back to the issues, like Genesis 1:1 originally saying, "In the beginning the gods created the Heavens and the Earth."

Stick to issues. Ignore accusations and generalizations.

 

[taijasi]

Thomas,

In very simple terms, I cannot prove to you ... that the sky is blue. And if both of us sit down together in a coffee shop, I CANNOT PROVE that either of us is ACTUALLY there.

I am, quite Cartesian, in my approach to things (while also thoroughly Neo-Platonist). I think, and this shows that I exist.

But who, and what, `I' am ... is quite possibly not who, and what, `you' are - aside from obvious differences ... or then, is that just part of the game?

You see, we do not even hold the same philosophical assumptions about Spirit, Being, Mind and self. Similarities, perhaps, but the differences are so great ... that even to approach something like Pentateuch Wisdom (oh, was that the subject of the thread ... ) - or the conception of Shambhala in Buddhism vs. the Esoteric Tradition - is more than likely, impossible.

You see, I see these things as REALITIES. Shambhala, Atlantis, Mahatmas, the SOUL ... and while I recognize that we're trying to interface here in the world of ideas ... you are asking me to PROVE something to you, which you know good & well that NO ONE can actually prove to another.

These are things (ideas) concerning faith, Thomas, when framed in terms of religious conceptions. And merely to lift them from the world of emotionally-laden imagery and ritual-encrusted tradition does not suddenly validate them, and render them neutral, as mere philosophical possibilities ... ideas to be either proven or disproven, as some mathematical theorem.

We are, imho, dealing with dangerous stuff. The reason?

Ideas are, in & of themselves, things. They can heal, and they can wound. They can lift us up, or they can wear us down. And even grand ideas, if improperly applied, can work out for ill.

Even to ponder (and where, might I ask, are the "limits" of such a thing - this pondering ...

... the idea, of bde 'byung - or `Shambhala' - is to INVOKE.

Or, if we use the phrase, `The Father's House,' do you feel we have merely tossed about idly an empty wordform?

Just because you may not equate these ideas, does that mean that `The Father's House' ceases to exist, for me, because I am equally comfortable with both expressions? Is it any less a reality?

What is the result, as we allow our consciousness to ponder either idea?

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

It has been said that seeing is believing ... and I think there is a truth in this, yet more so in the colloquial meaning, than the literal. Insight, the `aha' experience ... or an epiphany - is something that comes to us all, from time to time, even when uninvited, I am convinced. How much more, then, might the `Light of the Holy Spirit' visit the man who actually does invite it!

Yet you doubt, that this is the method whereby either Nick, or myself, have arrived at many, most, even all, of our conclusions, and our present understanding! I don't think we're posting on Alt-Esoteric simply so we can provoke a reaction, and receive a daily challenge to go and prove what we believe ... with some kind of scholarly evidence, historical documents (lol), and - you know, if at all possible, by getting some guy to walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. You know, "we've got all that!"

You see? Assumptions!!! And most importantly, fundamentally different understandings about what a lot of this MEANS - even IF we might agree on what happened where, when, and to whom!

Yet you expect me, seriously, to believe that 1) HPB renounced her doctrine on her deathbed, embracing - bah, Roman Catholicism, or whatever? - but basically, that she renounced one SHRED of her contribution!!?!! Dear God!!!

And 2) that Mr. Berzin has somehow undone the Secrets of the Ages, because he's found some "trouble" with HPB's Stanzas, or because a monk or two, here and there, doesn't give it his `stamp of approval'? Yes, even HHDL!!!

*sighhhh*

I'll tell you the first sign that you're truly coming into contact with those illusionary, imaginative, non-existent Mahatmas!

The hint ... is that the ideals of Brotherhood, and of Joyous, Selfless Service ... truly begin to take you over. They obsess you, and inspire you, and invigorate you. New ideas come to you, and old ideas are revealed in greater light. Doors that you thought were closed become opened ... while troubles that once prevailed are lessened. Burdens are lifted, new vistas are seen ... and Ideals that were once unlikely if not impossible take shape before your very eyes.

All of this is evidence - more evidence than some people need - that there IS an Ageless Wisdom, and that there are such beings as the Elder Brothers, wisely and Compassionately overseeing Humanity's evolution. If mainstream religion does not appeal, there are plenty of other fields of service, yet Theosophists and Esotericists work the world over, in every department of life, by the many millions.

All contribute earnestly, and collaborate inwardly, in the `One Work,' while outwardly, the practices and habits of our personalities are redirected in such a way that differences are minimized, and disputes are either avoided entirely or swiftly resolved.

This describes, partially, the Humanity of the Future, yet it also describes the Master and His Ashram of today ... and of these, there are many. Some work on objective levels. I would hope that we could hear something other than, "Prove it to me," yet when I turn on the 6 o'clock news, visit the BBC News online, or look out at the world of Humanity's affairs ... I can well understand your doubt, your skepticism, your disbelief.

And in some moments, I know no better than the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, as this is an antidote to what might otherwise be a case of peril.

But what I cannot do, any more than you can return the favor, is loosen the chains that bind you, for whatever reason, to the floor of the Cave. Some of the same chains bind me, and with all the clattering and clanking going on, I am often as lost in all this mess as you are. You know that that is true, or neither one of us would be here. None of us, I should say ...

I do not doubt my fellow man when he tells me that he has seen the blue sky, or heard the flowing stream, or felt the warmth of the noonday sun. And I'm convinced it really doesn't matter WHAT he wants to call that Sun. It's warm, it is the source of our Light, and of our Life. I say the Gayatri, yet I also say the Great Invocation. And many, many more mantrams. If I were Catholic, I would use other prayers, and if I were Buddhist, I'm sure I would go for Refuge in the Tripitaka ....

Mostly I think we're about loosening these chains, learning to discern the Forms, understanding how the shadows are cast ... and assisting each other as much as possible as we strive toward the Light. The only really sad part, is when people who are so intent on helping each other ... just end up getting in each other's way.

No, there are sadder things, but it's sunny here, and I want to go out and enjoy my day ...

Namaskar,

~andrew

 

[taijasi]

Good advice, Nick ... thanks again! I'm delighted to see how much we were on the same wavelength for some of that. The question of Shambhala, for instance, just happens to be the idea that I focused in on, even to the point of asking, what happens in the ethers as we ponder it ...

... and I fairly well put it to him: Doesn't the reality of this (even if you prefer the term, `The Father's House') - mean much more to you than quibbling over it?

Of course, if I'd read your post first, it might not be so "neat." Synergy, synchronicity, quite definitely the working out into objectivity of something very, very Powerful (and GOOD!) ... I love it!

Let's keep that up, lol.

I've seen this happen plenty at CR ....

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

Shamballa is a good example. Let's turn it into an issue. What would you like to say about Shamballa? Do you have any specific quotes to back up your premise about Shamballa?

You said,

"The question of Shambhala, for instance, just happens to be the idea that I focused in on...."

--> Good. Now turn it into an issue. Make a specifc statement about Shamballa.

"Doesn't the reality of this (even if you prefer the term, `The Father's House')...."

--> Are you equating Shamballa with the Christian concept of a Father's House?

We do need to bring up the idea of brevity. Your quotes are good, but sometimes they are so long, the specifc idea you are making gets lost. When you bring up an issue, only bring up one at a time, and use a quote that only specifically addresses that one issue. (Any quote over five sentences is OK, but it tends to lose focus.)

"I'm delighted to see how much we were on the same wavelength...."

--> We are. It is just a matter of applying the right discussion techniques.

"...it's sunny here, and I want to go out and enjoy my day ..."

--> I get to go out and sharpen a chain-saw blade! The beautiful weather will make it all the more enjoyable.

 

[bananabrain]

just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in.... i can't let this pass:

Time and time again I held Thomas accountable that the "us" people were a group of angels in Genesis 1:26. Time and time he tried to switch the discussion to a general discrediting of Theosophy. I ignored everything and stuck to the issue. My diligence paid off, and Thomas finally admitted that Genesis 1:26 was talking about a group of angels.

ahem. *i* didn't admit anything of the sort. you have failed to produce anything other than the *opinions* of theosophists to back up your point of view about something that jewish scholars have been discussing for *thousands* of years and have never, repeat *NEVER* come to this conclusion - and yet you think you know better. well, you're welcome to your point of view and to all this other stuff you seem to believe in.

Another one of Thomas’ tactics is to make a statement, then put a long quote as supporting documentation.

er, hello, pot, this is mr kettle - you're black!!

We shall wipe away the "dusprayukta dharma" of the Francises, the metaphysically unsound, non-rigorous philosophy of the Thomases, and the outdated, racially-biased nonsense of the Jewish Kabbalists!

i think you're showing your underwear here, mate. clearly, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. i'm not the one going on about "root races". i'm not the one obsessed with racial hierarchies. dress it up any way you like with reams of pompous arsewash, it's still the same old story: judaism being called a lie and judaism being categorised as a separate species - and we all know where that leads.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

Well, I think bananabrain has taken some of the burden upon himself, and I thank him for it.

Right now, I would say Thomas is winning his debate with you quite handily.

And so is bananabrain, and surely that's food for thought ...

Let's look at an issue. Time and time again I held Thomas accountable that the "us" people were a group of angels in Genesis 1:26.

If you want me to remind you of the posts in which I answered the question of Genesis 1:26 directly, I would be happy to do so. As I recall, you simply went to another thread and posted exactly the same nonsense again.

If you want me to source bananabrain's informed posts, I will do that too ... but as you seem to 'respond' by ignoring the issue, I see little point.

I ignored everything and stuck to the issue. My diligence paid off, and Thomas finally admitted that Genesis 1:26 was talking about a group of angels.

Utter rubbish – this is classic Theosophical Society rhetoric and sophistry, and this is classically why I personally think its a crock of ...

You know full well that I did not such thing, in spirit or in letter, and you know full well you can offer no adequate answer to the case I put forward ... so fall back on simply ignoring the responses, and just keep chanting the party line... in the hope that those who have not kept up with the discussions will be swayed by your words ... this is low, Nick, its the technique of the snakeoil peddler.

Another one of Thomas’ tactics is to make a statement, then put a long quote as supporting documentation.

Oh really? This did evoke a laugh ...

You may want to look closely at these actual quotations. For example, he makes a claim regarding Helena Roerich, yet does not supply a reference to her actual quote.

I did not ... I was quoting a text in which the author has made no reference ... I referred Andrew to the original document, which Andrew then saw to rubbish, even though the author writes with the accreditation of the Dalai Lama.

And again, as one of the principle progenitors of the falsification of Origen, for example (references supplied if required), you might want to consider before you start making accusations.

Thomas does not want to discuss the issues. His strategy is to go from specifics to generalizations. Our strategy is to go from generalizations to specifics.

Then let us be specific. I challenge you when you make erroneous, misleading and frankly naive statements about Christian doctrine. That's all I challenge. I am met with screeds of theosophic texts as 'proof' or 'evidence' so I am obliged to respond to that specific issue, and do so.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

*puts in another bag of popcorn in the microwave and sits back.*

 

[Quahom1]

Nuts, I missed all the fun...Dondi, pass the butter please...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"...the Theosophic technique seems to be that if you repeat something often enough, in the face of every evidence to the contrary, that suffices as a 'proof' or a 'demonstration'...."

--> Feel free to give examples.

"...erroneous and ill-informed...."

--> Feel free to give examples.

"...the Dalai Lama...."

--> I find HHDL's quote in little on the general side. Which specific Theosopohical teaching were you applying it to?

"...Helena Roerich...."

--> What exactly did Helena Roerich say?

"The extract below, pertaining to HPB's vision of Theosophy, shows how the fundamental method of the doctrine is flawed...."

--> Your quoted passage goes six paragraphs, so I am not sure which quote addresses which issue. Please feel free to list specific disagreements with specific quotes.

"...you and Nick on one side, both who've expressed a passing ignorance of Christian doctrine...."

--> Feel free to give examples.

"...and demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the hermeneutic of Jewish and Christian doctrine...."

--> Feel free to give examples.

"...this is low, Nick, its the technique of the snakeoil peddler.... this is classically why I personally think its a crock of ..."

--> I was not aware an inability to find a quote puts a person on the level of snakeoil peddleror or dung shoveler. What was it you said? A Divine ------- meaning a group? I can't remember the exact words.

I can't locate your quote, and Theosophy has taught me patience and perseverence, even in the face of name-calling.

"A clean life, an open mind, a pure heart, an eager intellect, an unveiled spiritual perception, a brotherliness for one’s co-disciple, a readiness to give and receive advice and instruction; a loyal sense of duty to the Teacher, a willing obedience to the behests of Truth, once we have placed our confidence in and believe that Teacher to be in possession of it; a courageous endurance of personal injustice, a brave declaration of principles, a valiant defence of those who are unjustly attacked, and a constant eye to the ideal of human progression and perfection which the Secret Science depicts -- these are the golden stairs up the steps of which the learner may climb to the Temple of Divine Wisdom."

- H. P. Blavatsky

So I suppose we could go through the whole debate all over again. Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-oOo-

Andrew,

We need to review your "rubbish" quotation. In your post, you make it sound like Blavatsky is saying all of Christianity and all of Judiasm is rubbish. Of course she is not saying that, but you make it sound like it is.

She is only referring to cases where original teachings have been changed, and these changes are being perpetuated even today. Again I turn to Genesis 1:1. The original teachings said "In the beginning, the gods created the Heavens and the Earth," which agrees exactly with Theosophical teachings. Then, somebody changed and blasphemed the original teachings by changing "gods" to "God". Blavatsky is saying such a change is rubbish, and, quite frankly, I agree with her.

It is important to remind everyone that Theosophy respects and honors all religions.

And, since we have previously covered the issue of specifics vs. generalities, here is a perfect example of where a generality caused a problem, whereas a specific point of discussion would have eliminated the problem.

 

[taijasi]

Oh Nick, you are indeed right-on, as usual ... and perhaps now we are ready for a better discussion. I think we can tighten up on some things, and dispense with misunderstandings once & for all - such as the idea that all of Christianity or Judaism is "rubbish!"

No, indeed, this is not what I mean, nor what HPB believed, nor why I provided that quotation.

And for the record, Thomas, your hit & run statement (one short paragraph) of 04-26-2007 08:22 AM ... bolstered by nothing but one long rant from Mr. Berzin on EXOTERIC Buddhism, is a perfect example of

Another one of Thomas’ tactics is to make a statement, then put a long quote as supporting documentation.

... such that your denial ("Oh really? This did evoke a laugh ... ") really does make you look daft.

My response, which rather disputed Mr. Berzin's points succinctly, was to quote FROM HPB HERSELF on Buddhism and the Esoteric Philosophy (nice, how an author now dead for 116 year can dismiss with the bunk Thomas enjoys shoveling).

You see, Thomas & bananabrain, part of the very argument is that the foundations upon which the Judeo-Christian traditions rest ... are not 100% utterly and completely "rock solid" - whether we are looking back to Christ, the Apostles, and St. Peter especially (on the one hand), or Moses, Aaron, and the Twelve Tribes of Israel (on the other).

That there are certainly these traditions, founded upon events both historical and of great symbolic significance, is not in question. But just what that significance is, or even was originally ... is something that we are ALL, each and every person alive, both invited and ecouraged to question - especially those of us with a Judeo-Christian background or interests, as also those of us interested in comparative religion.

And just part of the understanding that Theosophists and esotericists usually come to, is that things are not quite as we have traditionally been taught. We can now go on to talk about why that is, and to look specifically at what these various differences are between us, in terms of our beliefs & understanding. This will be especially facilitated by taking a few, short passages, from a given scripture or teaching - as Nick has suggested, and attempted, while having met with only partial sucess in the effort ...

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

One specific teaching that I wanted to take up, as Nick brought this further to Light, is the idea of Shambhala. Especially as the Wesak (Vaishaka) Festival is soon upon us, this seems absolutely appropriate. Yet I want to look at that in a different post, and after addressing a couple of things you mentioned, bananabrain.

It will have to wait, for the moment.

NAMASKAR

 

[Thomas]

So I suppose we could go through the whole debate all over again. Who are the "us" people in Genesis 1:26?

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

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

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


Scripture echoes the language of the Divine Assembly, a common motif in the ancient literatures of the Near East – the gods decide the fate of humanity, who are the slaves of the gods (as in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example).

Scripture, however, in its genius, points towards the One Cause of All, the ontological source, and so the 'decision' to create is the will of the One – and the One alone – eg Gen 11:3-7, in which it is the Lord, the One God, who says, 'come, let us go down... ', but Scripture without question signifies that there is one God, one Absolute (eg Deut 32:8-9, 1 Kngs 22:19-22, Isa 6, 40:1-11, Job 1-2).

The King was often called 'the image of the deity', and treated as such, as the divine representative, and this continued and influenced Europe and the idea of the divine right of kingship, vested with divine authority. Royal language – the use of the plural by the monarch in reference to himself, indicates this very idea, and continues today, in the UK at least, in the language of the throne.

So Scripture utilises the language of the day to express its ideas (what other language would it use?) – a sure signifier that in the Abrahamic Tradition, whilst esoteric and exoteric are in the very nature of things, there was never founded a formal separation between the two, and in so doing expresses two unique revisions to the theosophies of antiquity:

One is of a profound ontology, a metaphysic so thorough that it was assumed (although I am inclined not to agree) that Plato was inspired by the Pentateuch ... whether or not is immaterial, what matters is that philosophers saw in the Pentateuch a wisdom that was at least the equal of Plato's.

The other is that it presents man not as slave, but as beings vested with a divine fiat, to cultivate and care for the creation that is God's gift ... man as friend of God ... a staggeringly original idea (I think).

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Genesis 1:26 does say "I". Genesis 1:26 does not say "elohiym". Genesis 1:26 does not say "Elohim". Genesis 1:26 says "us"

Genesis 1:26 does not does not address the issue of "poetic address". Genesis 1:26 does not use the words, "goddess, gods, false gods, angels, idols, and man". Genesis 1:26 does not use the phrase "The King was often called 'the image of the deity' ". Genesis 1:26 does not use the phrase "Scripture utilises the language of the day."

Genesis 1:26 says "us." The word "us" is an word in the English language. The Bible is written in English, it is not written in Hebrew, it is not written as a "profound ontology" which allows us to throw the English language out the window whenever it suits our purpose, or some another language of the Abrahamic Tradition. Genesis 1:26 is written in English.

I suppose you will argue it either says or it does not say "us" . Argue as much as you want. When I look at Genesis 1:26, I see the word "us".

"Us" refers to a group of beings. That is what the Bible says. I am quoting the Bible. The Bible says what is its says, not what you say it says. The Bible says "us" in Genesis 1:26.

I can read what the Bible says. The Bible says "us", and I am going with "us" because that is what the Bible says.

-->Who are the "us" people?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

The software will not allow me to edit a typo. I typed

Genesis 1:26 does say "I".

I meant

Genesis 1:26 does not say "I".

Yes, Thomas, I did make a mistake. Yes, you may again characterize me as a dung-shoveler. Go for it!

There are other typos. I will leave them as is. This dung-shoveler may not be able to type, but at least this dung-shoveler can read THE BIBLE!

 

[Thomas]

-->Who are the "us" people?

For the third time, at least:
1: 'us' is read in the same sense as the royal 'we';
2: 'us' can subsequently refer to a Divine Assembly (which is not stated, but doesn't alter the reading of the above).

+++

That's it, really, everything that follows is ancillary, but supports the above.

Genesis 1:26 does say "I". Genesis 1:26 does not say "elohiym". Genesis 1:26 says "us"

which is explained above. Us can mean the royal we and a mode of address to a divine assembly (if there was one) without any alteration of meaning.

Genesis 1:26 does not does not address the issue of "poetic address".

But its wise exegesis of the literary (genre) form, does.

Genesis 1:26 does not use the words, "goddess, gods, false gods, angels, idols, and man".

It uses the same term, 'elohiym', as common for them all.

Genesis 1:26 does not use the phrase "The King was often called 'the image of the deity' ". Genesis 1:26 does not use the phrase "Scripture utilises the language of the day."

No, that's background data one uses to determine its meaning. It would be silly to assume a meaning the scribe didn't know. Or that what you generally understand today is unquestionably what someone generally understood a few millenia ago. Language changes all the time, it would be silly to assume that 'us' today means what 'us' meant then, without searching out the evidence.

Genesis 1:26 says "us." The word "us" is an word in the English language. The Bible is written in English, it is not written in Hebrew,

Actually, if you research it as little, you will discover that it was originally written in in an archaic form of Hebrew. You seem to be working from translation, with no regard for the original, nor its lexicon, syntax and style.

it is not written as a "profound ontology" which allows us to throw the English language out the window whenever it suits our purpose, or some another language of the Abrahamic Tradition. The Bible is written in English.

I think you'll find the Pentateuch predates the English language by some considerable time. And as a 'profound ontology' can be expressed in Engish, without the necessity of throwing the language 'out of the window' ... unless you're insisting that you can't engage in philosophy in English?

I suppose you will argue it either says or it does not say "us" . Argue as much as you want. When I look at Genesis 1:26, I see the word "us".

So do I. That's what it says. And I understand it to mean what the scribe understands it to mean.

"Us" refers to a group of beings. That is what the Bible says. I am quoting the Bible. The Bible says what is its says, not what you say it says. The Bible says "us" in Genesis 1:26.

Not quite, your interpretation of us is limited to a technical term describing a group. I'm saying it has other meanings in Hebrew as it does in English ('us' as used by royalty does not refer to a group of monarchs, and no-one has a problem with that, except perhaps you?)

I can read what the Bible says. The Bible says "us", and I am going with "us" because that is what the Bible says.

I know you can read. And you can go with what you like. But that does make you right. What I am saying is you have misunderstood what you have read. Just because someone can read does not prove they understand what they have read.

Nick - what you're insisting is that the reading of any term is determined by what you bring to the text, by what you think it means, and that it cannot mean anything other than what you think it means, which logically means you ascribe a meaning to everything you read without ever inquiring into whether your understanding might be limited or deficient.

You're saying that anyone who can read can understand everything they read without any reference beyond themselves.

Hence your question...

-->Who are the "us" people?

Any given term, in any given language, derives its meaning in reference to that language. Thus the word 'table' is meaningless in a language that has no reference to 'a flat surface elevated above the ground and supported on legs' – you understand terms (material or abstract) by reference to its descriptors.

Thus, classically the story goes, when Europeans first saw strange hopping animals they asked a native Australian what they were called. He replied "kangaroo" meaning "I don't understand", he didn't speak English. The explorers thought this was the animal's name. And that's how the kangaroo got its name ...

... had he spoken English he might have said, "its a marsupial mammal of the genus macropod, which means "big foot", that one's called Albert."

So when inquiring about the precise meaning if 'us' in Genesis 1:26, it's best to inquire of someone who:
1 understands the language you speak,
2 understands the meaning of the language you inquire about, in its original form,
3 understands the mind and thus the context of the people who spoke it,
3 understands the meaning of any term in the context of the text itself.

So your best bet is a Hebrew scholar, that's where I got my understanding from ... Bananabrain's a good place to start.

If you think this is wrong, you are obliged to evidence your refutation of points 2, 3 and 4 above, and your opinion carries not weight in that matter.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

" 'us' can subsequently refer to a Divine Assembly...."

--> Which is what Theosophy teaches.

" 'us' is read in the same sense as the royal 'we'...."

--> The "royalty argument" does not carry weight.

(1) I believe the origins of Genesis were written before people started wearing crowns.

(2) I say humanity WAS created by a group of gods.

(3) Your logic is faulty. The concidence of the Genesis "us" and the royal "us" is just that -- a concidence. I can see how people can make a deductive leap that the royal "us" is the Genesis "us", but Theosophy teaches such a deductive leap is a mistake.

"I think you'll find the Pentateuch predates the English language by some considerable time."

--> It predates people who wear crowns too.

"...you have misunderstood what you have read. "

--> The word "us" means plural, and that is what the writer of the Bible wanted in there.

"It uses the same term, 'elohiym', as common for them all."

--> The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine.

~~~

For people interested in the idea of a plural Elohim, here are some Theosophical quotes that support such an idea.

[A Theosophist] "...accepts revelation as coming from divine yet still finite Beings, the manifested lives, never from the Unmanifestable ONE LIFE; from those entities, called Primordial Man, Dhyani-Buddhas, or Dhyan-Chohans, the "Rishi-Prajapati" of the Hindus, the Elohim or "Sons of God," the Planetary Spirits of all nations, who have become Gods for men." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 10)

"The creators of humanity] are the collective hosts of spiritual beings -- the Angelic Hosts of Christianity, the Elohim and "Messengers" of the Jews -- who are the vehicle for the manifestation of the divine or universal thought and will." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 38)

"The seven sublime lords are the Seven Creative Spirits ... who correspond to the Hebrew Elohim. It is the same hierarchy of Archangels to which St. Michael, St. Gabriel, and others belong, in the Christian theogony." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 42)

"The "One" [is an expression] used by the ancients in connection with their respective Logoi. Jehovah -- esoterically (as Elohim)...." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 73)

"...the totality of the Creators blended by the Monotheists into One, as the "Elohim," Adam Kadmon or Sephira -- the Crown..." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 98 note)


"...in the beginning the Elohim (Elhim) were called Echod, "one," or the "Deity is one in many," a very simple idea in a pantheistic conception (in its philosophical sense, of course). Then came the change, "Jehovah is Elohim," thus unifying the multiplicity and taking the first step towards Monotheism." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 112)

"...the term Elohim is a plural noun, identical with the plural word Chiim...." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 130)

"Man is not, nor could he ever be, the complete product of the "Lord God"; but he is the child of the Elohim, so arbitrarily changed into the singular masculine gender." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 225)

"Speaking of the Elohim ... it is said: "They remain over the seventh heaven (or spiritual world), for it is they who, according to the Kabalists, formed in succession the six material worlds, or rather, attempts at worlds that preceded our own, which, they say, is the seventh." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 231)

"In the beginning of Time, after the Elohim (the "Sons of Light and Life," or the "Builders") had shaped out of the eternal Essence the Heavens and the Earth, they formed the worlds six by six, the seventh being Malkuth, which is our Earth.... (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 239)

"Thus it is, by eating of the fruit of knowledge which dispels ignorance, that man becomes like one of the Elohim or the [gods]; and once on their plane the Spirit of Solidarity and perfect Harmony, which reigns in every Hierarchy, must extend over him and protect him in every particular. (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 276)

~~~

Theosophy teaches there were seven Elohim in Genesis 1:26 (a royal deductive leap notwithstanding) which matches the plural Biblical "us" exactly.