Theosophical Hierarchy

This, it seems, is a reversal of the facts, at least as I understand them, and as I believe HPB presented them in her Secret Doctrine. Note the First Fundamental Proposition:
An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."

To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause -- dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current European philosophy -- is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation.
Cosmic Christ, is an EMANATION of Be-ness, not the other way around.

Peace Br. Andrew,
As you might be aware I don't tend to follow the HPB line. I do however respect her as a great teacher nevertheless.

Our understanding is that Christ is the Sun God, or Solar Logos if you like. But that is just one aspect. Christ is more than that because the Divine Creative Word, the Second Person of the Trinity was manifest in Him.

This is the Sun God, Ormuzd, as discerned by the great Zarathustra.

As to reversals- I see Brahma as the Father, and an aspect of Siva in the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce
 
Re: Hierarchies ...

>action ... would be veritably a "race of Christs!"

I would agree the Christ is Man- but also more that that.






>But there is a sense in which, as I ponder it, I do think that Parabrahman >can be thought of as the Father.

Yes the Principle of but not the Persona.







>1. Ain-Soph [is] the endless, or boundless, in and with Nature, the non-existent which IS, but is not a Being.

>2. How can the non-active eternal principle emanate or emit? The Parabrahm of the Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the >Ain-Soph of the Chaldean Kabala. It is an eternal and periodical law which >causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from the >ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning of >every maha-manvantara, or new cycle of life.

There may be further discussion on this.


>If Christian Theosophists wish to make use of such expressions, let them be made philosophically correct by following the analogy of the old >Wisdom-religion symbols.

Remember there were Christian theosophists around long before the TS.






>Since I am a student of Alice Bailey's teachings, and others later still ... I have come to regard `the Christ' as being one and the same as the >Bodhisattva, the World Teacher, the Imam Mahdi, Kalki Avatara, the >Saoshyant.

This is where Blavatsky was wrong: Jesus of Nazareth was not the Maitreya Bodhisattva and neither was He an Avatar.

>If, that is, we mean that guy from 2100 years ago by `the Christ.'

Yes that was Jesu Ben Pandira- the Maitreya- or actual overshadowed by the Maitreya.




>and it is quite possible that HPB never even met the Master Jesus of the Lebanese Branch -

The Master Jesus is not Christ.




>HPB didn't understand Christ ... ha! :p :rolleyes:

She was made to believe that Lucifer is the true benefactor of Mankind.

>She started out a twice-born, and we may safely assume she stood before Him during the `Baptism.' I'd say she understood something of >what was going on ... :eek:

Christ is not viewable in the Akashic.


Cordially,
Br. Bruce
 
Okay, "the Christ" as an Individual ... as the Head (and Heart) of the Occult Hierarchy - aka Bodhisattva, World Teacher - yet different and distinct from Master Jesus (once overshadowed by the former, Maitreya, ~2100 years ago, while also previously Joshua, Jeshua, etc. - then Appollonius of Tyana, then possibly Ramanujacharya, also overshadowing Mohammad).

Yes, this is pretty much how I see it.

Meanwhile, the `Cosmic Christ' - in more modern Esotericism - is the Sirian Logos, much much Grander than our own Solar Logos ... or a Grander scale. Since our own Solar Logos is a 2nd Ray Logos, it makes all the sense in the world to say that our Solar Lord IS Christ, if we are considering Christ as the `Son Aspect' of the Trinity - or Love-Wisdom in the abstract.

This is pretty much how I see it, even though I suppose that's not fully in accord with `Christian Theosophy.' But I don't really care. I'm going by what works for me ... what I've come to, after many years of study, meditation, and my own interior/mystical experiences, as well as my Service experience.

I have no problems regarding Christ as both an extremely evolved Individual, spiritually speaking - the Eldest of Humanity (excepting the Buddha, Who technically predates evolution upon planet Earth during this Theosophical `chain-period'). As such, I understand the Christ as serving as the Hierophant for every Initiate who passes through the 1st and 2nd, or `Birth' and `Baptism' Initiation.

In this sense, the Christ is performing His duties according to His Office in the Occult Brotherhood, or Hierarchy, of ALL HUMAN SOULS. And He is therefore acting according to a Universal Responsibility, and really this has nothing to do with (manmade) religion(s) - including Christianity (or `Churchianity') ...

However, there is another, even more UNIVERSAL aspect of the Christ, which is really what Maitreya is focusing for us, as an Individual - yet which is also something latent within every human heart (or at the Heart of our Being). And THIS, in my understanding, is what we could call `the Soul,' according to Theosophical teachings during HPB's day (which she has explained in several recent quotes which Nick and I have provided).

Alice Bailey also speaks in terms of the Soul, adding definition and clarification to the earlier teachings given out via HPB ... and my own preference is for the rather simple notion of the Soul as the "middle principle" in each of us, mediating between Highest Spirit and lowest matter. According to this way of seeing things, the Soul becomes equated with Consciousness per se, so that "you and I" are truly, Sons of God, as Souls ... and this means that we are also "little Christs."

But this does not mean that each of us, in time, will one day serve as the Head/Heart of Earth's Occult Hierarchy. That would be a misunderstanding and misapplication of the teaching. Rather, it just means that in time, we shall all attain to the exact same Initiation (the 7th) which `the Christ/Bodhisattva-Maitreya/World Teacher' currently holds. "Greater things than this, ye shall do." But as our present goal for spiritual evolution, upon planet Earth, is only the 6th Initiation, we should consider that some of these "greater things" may yet occur on other planets, in vastly different circumstances to those that apply today.

Still, there is a higher, or greater (more truly Universal) definition of "the Christ." And that is something which I feel we have been touching on, and attempting to discuss in these Theological/Theosophical musings ... often discussing Cosmology - which was certainly a large part of Blavatsky's contribution, later qualified by Alice Bailey, yet which was also present in the Neoplatonic Theosophy 1500+ years ago. There will be found both agreement and discrepancies ... but I don't think it profits us much to quibble over these matters of what we like to CALL the First Cause, or whether Christ can properly be equated with the Third Logos or the Second. Frankly, it doesn't make a hill o' beans difference to me ... but if you guys (Nick, Bruce, Thomas, et al) profit from it, then I will pay attention, but only as an observer.

It's enough for me, to consider that Christ is the Hierophant, which gives perfect meaning to the phrase "No one comes to the Father except by me." We do not unite, or "at-one" ourselves - personally speaking - with the Monad, Atma or our true, Spiritual Self ... until we have first attained to a great degree of Soul Union and Soul-personality Infusion, and THIS, we may rest assured, will only become consummated as we take the 1st, then 2nd, Initiations.

We must become "twice-born," Born in Christ (wherein the latent, "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory" begins to shine forth). Then, through many lifetimes of diligent application and self-discipline, including selfless, altrustic Service to Humanity ... and a constant effort toward self-purification (of thought, motive, word and deed) ... we eventually come to stand again before Christ, as Hierophant, and are truly Baptized in Christ, meaning that our entire `lower nature' (the personality) is occultly blessed and purified - raised permanently to a higher rate of vibration, and thus consecrated to the Service of the One Cause.

I look forward to that day, and maybe then, once some of the higher channels have been further opened, and contact with the Monad has become something more of an established fact, I will be able to contemplate these lesser Mysteries of Occult Cosmology. Till then, the best I can do (and, I think, the best any of us can do), is to seek to realize as a fact of Nature, the true Brotherhood of All Men (since all men are essentially SOULS, and NOT just these vitalized vehicles of flesh & blood, emotion and lower mind).

I like the fact that, along these lines, you address folks as Br. and Sr., Bruce. This serves as a reminder to me ... that the Brotherhood of which we speak, is not just some kind of mystical, far away Ideal, presented to the unknowing, over-intellectual Western world by a bunch of elevated Himalayan Adepts. These guys did not "cook it up," nor did HPB invent the happy notion that one day, all men would call each other Brother.

It may be some time before the diehard skeptic can accept Brother as a condition of (our Spiritual) Nature - on a scientific basis (as will eventually be shown, as this, of course - is a fact). Meanwhile, we can talk about it and explore it here, and speak of the good fortune we have had, here at the close of the Dark Age (the Kali Yuga, or Iron Age) ... to have been shown something of the bright and glorious future that is coming to all Mankind. The Golden Dawn is upon us - the Age of Gold, Satya Yuga, Age of Truth, is here.

Namaskar ...

~andrew
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Bruce, you said,
[Blavatsky] "...was made to believe that Lucifer is the true benefactor of Mankind."

--> I think you are making a reference to Lucifer as Satan. Blavatsky teaches Satan does not exist.
"The Church enforces belief in a personal god and a personal devil, while...." [Theosophy does not]. (SD vol 2 p 475)​
Are you making a reference to Lucifer as Satan?

Blavatsky teaches the idea of Satan never existed until the idea of a personal God was started. According to Blavatsky, the idea of Satan was started to balance the idea of a personal God. (the idea is, neither can exist without the other.)
"Satan never assumed an anthropomorphic, individualized shape, until the creation by man, of a "one living personal god," had been accomplished; and then merely as a matter of prime necessity." (Sd vol 1 p 412)​
"Christian theology has evolved its self-created human and personal God, the [concept] from whence flow in two streams the dogmas of Salvation and Damnation." </i> (SD vol 1 p 613)
Are you saying Satan exists?

Blavatsky does teach there was an "angel" now referred to as "Lucifer". Blavatsky points to "Lucifer" being one of the "us" people in Genesis 1:26. "Lucifer" made a big mistake while he and the other "us" people of Genesis 1:26 were creating humanity.

Is this what you mean by saying Lucifer is a benefactor of mankind?

As we all know, God curses Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15-20. The funny thing is, according to Blavatsky, it is "Lucifer" not Adam and Eve who ends up being "cursed" (taking on bad karma). Is this how you see it?
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Andrew,

I think you are equating Christ with The Lord of the World, the Initiator of the World. Is that correct?

Here is Jinarajadasha's chart of the Earth's Hierarchy, with The Lord of the World holding the Ninth Initiation. Is that how you see it?

fp-327.jpg


(from Jinarajadasa's book, First Principles of Theosophy, p. 326.)
 
Re: Hierarchies ...

Andrew,

I think you are equating Christ with The Lord of the World, the Initiator of the World. Is that correct?

Here is Jinarajadasha's chart of the Earth's Hierarchy, with The Lord of the World holding the Ninth Initiation. Is that how you see it?
No. According to this chart, the "Christ" is equivalent to the Bodhisattva ... listed on Jinarajadasa's chart as a 7th Degree Initiate of the same standing as the Manu and the Maha-Chohan - and also the Head of the Spiritual Hierarchy.

The Buddha (Shakyamuni), as well as the various Kumaras (Sanat, the Pratyekas, and three Esoteric Kumaras) ... and other figures of Whom we have ~no awareness, all compose the Center called Shamballa, which can be likened to the Crown Center of the Planetary Logos, in terms of physical expression ... while the Hierarchy Itself is the Heart Center (and Humanity the Throat Center, NGWS the Ajna, Animal Kingdom the solar plexus, Vegetable Kingdom the sacral, Mineral Kingdom the base of spine).

I highly recommend taking a look at this page, as an excellent description (key) is provided for Helen Burmester's wonderfully creative graphic (Spiritual Government of our Planet), itself first presented in The Seven Rays Made Visual:
In short, Christ (the Bodhisattva, or World Teacher) is signified by
the Central White Star in the central white Triangle of this illustration.
(hope this helps ... but really, see the page linked above :))
Government.jpg


 
Notice, in an almost identical chart from Leadbeater, that Christ appears here under the label `Bodhisattva,' just as in Jinarajadasa's chart. I particularly like CWL's presentation, because it clearly shows the RAY-ASPECT relationships which the Buddha, Christ, Master KH maintain, as likewise held by The Lord of the World (Sanat Kumara), the Manu, Master Morya, etc.

The Third Aspect of the Logos then reflects into the Maha-Chohan, Who "heads up" the Third Ray Ashram of ??? Master, as well as the four subsidiary Ashrams of Masters on Rays 4-7. Many diagrams do not do the Ray-Aspect relationships justice!

Leadbeater2.gif

Students of the Wisdom will be interested in the meaning of the terms given (a Theosophical version, as compared to the Hindu or Buddhist) for the several grades of Initiations that signify one's standing in the Spiritual Hierarchy.

A-sekha means no-learner, because the Adept has learned all there is to learn in `Earth's Schoolroom (our Planetary Occult School).' He is "graduated," in accord with what we are all here to learn.

Chohan means meditating Dharma-Lord, more or less. It is clearly an honorary title, or a title of veneration, though it also has the Occult significance of one who wields the Dharma at a certain (very high) level.

Maha-Chohan means Great meditating Dharma-Lord, likewise.

Buddha, of course, means `Awake(ned).' Since this is the highest degree of Initiation that is strictly concerned with Earth's own Spiritual Hierarchy and evolution as far as Humanity is concerned ... the higher Initiations do not have a designation. They also fall under the heading of Cosmic Evolution, rather than Planetary. Our own Planetary Logos, however, is spoken of as a Logos of a certain Degree, or Order, while the Solar Logos is likewise.
 
Note: Good grief! Sometimes I can't see what's right in front of me! I was just looking at KVK Nehru's Powerpoint presentation on the Vanguard of Humanity ... and realized, since he borrows Jinarajadasa's chart, that Jina- does actually show the Ray correspondences to the various positions (offices) and Initiations of the Occult Hierarchy. Sorry, Nick! :eek:

I still like CWL's chart, as it shows the Trinities, and gives a more creative depiction for these correspondences, including the Aspects of the Trinity. But I think Helen Burmester's books does this marvelously well, and I highly recommend it if you want to see a clear presentation of the highlights of Alice Bailey's continuation of Theosophical Teachings.

There's just no way I could ever get into a `Back-to-Blavatsky' type movement ... since I think there are easily a half dozen more presentations of the Wisdom since her time. But I do believe in going to the source, so to speak, and when it comes to where many of our modern esoteric ideas, conceptions and understandings originate(d), we must give HPB due credit.

To say, however, that she is the authority, or that no one after her time was reliable ... is simply an opinion. Nothing wrong with holding it, but it would be helpful if we could substantiate it, lest we come across appearing dogmatic, when that is surely not what we intend.

Alice Bailey, for example, although I believe she was every bit as reliable as HPB ... was not the only Teacher, or Messenger, of the 20th Century. There are the Temple Teachings (Temple of the People) from the close of the 19th Century, wherein we find an entire Third Set of Stanzas of Dyzan!!!

But there is also Agni Yoga, the Teaching of Living Ethics, which is quite along the lines of what HPB herself indicated she wished to make available. There are the dictations of Master R. via Lucille Cedercrans, found at Wisdom Impressions, publishers ... and these are quite similar to the Tibetan Master's work with Alice Bailey.

Yet there are also dozens of contributions from Geoffrey Hodson, including an Occult Diary which contains dictations from nearly every Master you've ever heard of (and a good number you haven't heard of!), with quite a bit said about 20th Century Theosophy, and the Theosophy of the future. This, of course, is in addition to Hodson's five volumes which originate directly from the Advanced Deva Evolution ... which amounts to dictations from Masters, just of the Angelic vs. the Human evolution.

But then, if one wishes, one can find the work of other Masters yet via half a dozen more disciples, and I'm quite sure that regardless of temperament (and Ray constitution, stage of spiritual unfoldment, etc.), the needy disciple can find his or her niche, including both the Occult Instruction, and the field of Service, which is most appropriate for his or her circumstances.

So much has changed, from HPB's day, and I think we must be able to embrace these changes ... as overall a positive trend, and a sign that Humanity is seeking to move forward, even while - undeniably - there is probably also much which we might wish were different. Who, for example, can look at our legacy of experimentation and application with atomic energy, and say that this has been of an entirely positive nature? :(

Only a study of Alice Bailey's writings - in particular, Externalization of the Hierarchy, has brought to me an esoteric appreciation of the proper role of atomic energy in Humanity's future ... as well as explanation of the necessity for the GIFT of this scientific discovery to the Allies during WWII (representing the Forces of Light in direct opposition to those of Darkness). Chernobyl, of course, is simply unfortunate and a tragedy, any way you look at it - but at least we may (if we choose) use it as a Learning Experience.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out my oversight, and bring some of these other points to light ...

Namaskar,

~andrew
 
Shalom Br. Nick,
I must say it is a pleasure and privilege to discuss such things with the fine minds, such as yourself, on this forum. It may surprise you to know that I have Blavatsky's complete works on my bookshelf. Obviously though, I don't remember the entire contents.

--> Blavatsky taught there is no personal God.

Correct.



>In Theosophy, the Absolute is seen as unchanging. In Christianity, a <personal God undergoes changes in his personality (He gets mad),

Remember we said that Jehovah, the OT God, is not Father God.



I wonder if you have a book by T. Subba Row: his commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. He gives a wonderful description of the Logos.

--> Here is an example of “Father God” being identified as the Eternal Absolute, another example of anthropomorphism Blavatsky was talking about.

Yes, as I have said dear HPB was wrong in this.


---> Here is your undocumented quotation (please supply a source). Also, I see that you use the word Persona, but your quote does not. Does the term Persona appear in Theosophical literature?

All quotes from my Teachers.
I am not getting paid so I am not a professional.

"Satan never assumed an anthropomorphic, individualized shape, until the creation by man, of a "one living personal god," had been accomplished; and then merely as a matter of prime necessity." (Sd vol 1 p 412)

You might not know that Anna Kingsford differentiated Satan from Lucifer.


Satan and Lucifer are spiritual beings.


--> Let me re-phrase my question in a more specific way. Do you see >Buddha superior to Christ in some type of Hierarchy, or vice versa?

As the Sun is superior to the planets so is the Christ superior to the Buddha. The Buddha's Nirmanakaya appeared to the shepherds.


-- Pralaya --

“…Pralaya….”

--> I am glad to see you are familiar with the concept of Pralaya. Have you heard of the difference of Cosmic Pralaya vs. Solar Pralaya?

I don't know how that "pralaya" got there. Yes I am familar with the doctrine of the Cosmic Sleep.

Br. Bruce
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Bruce, you said,
"I must say it is a pleasure and privilege to discuss such things with the fine minds, such as yourself, on this forum."

--> Yes, I appreciate your knowledge of the subject. It is not everyday we find people who know the difference between Paranishpanna and Paranirvana.
"It may surprise you to know that I have Blavatsky's complete works on my bookshelf."
--> Do you have The Collected Works?

(online) HPB Collected Writings Online

(hardcopy) Quest Books

That set costs about $400! It is now avalable on CD.

Quest Books


You said,
"Remember we said that Jehovah, the OT God, is not Father God."

--> Who, then, are you identifying as Father God? Earlier, you said, "I see Brahma as the Father, and an aspect of Siva in the Holy Spirit." which first makes me think you see the Father as the First Logos, then does not.
"...HPB was wrong in this."

--> Do you mean anthropomorphism is OK?
"You might not know that Anna Kingsford differentiated Satan from Lucifer."

--> Unfortunately, Satan is not part of my belief system.
"As the Sun is superior to the planets so is the Christ superior to the Buddha."

--> I suppose there are two kinds of Theosophists -- those who find a place for the name Christ in the Hierarchy, and those who do not. Andrew and you seem to fall into the first group, while I fall into the second.
"The Buddha's Nirmanakaya appeared to the shepherds."
--> Feel free to give us more information on this event.

You seem to be familiar with the Path that take us to Nirvana. What do you see as the steps along the Path?
 
Hi Br. Andrew,
Dogma is a resting post we use along the way before we have self/wolrd experience. In that sense I don't have a problem with dogmas, as we all have them.

As I have observed, Nick is mainly of the Blavatskyian line, and you are most influenced by the Bailey books.

For myself, I respect the teachings of Rudolf Steiner and the teachers who mostly followed him- some with a few little changes here and there. These would be people like Emil Bock, Valentin Tomberg, Max Heindel etc.

Some of the teachings I espouse are similar to all of the above teachers- but with a different slant. "Esoteric Christianity" or "Spiritual Science" would sum it up.

The fundamental teaching is that Christ is the Creative Word of John's Gospel.
I would also consider Lucifer and Ahriman as the adversarial beings.

As this is the case, I obviously have to define the terms I use here.

>Alice Bailey also speaks in terms of the Soul, adding definition and clarification to the earlier teachings given out via HPB ... and my own >preference is for the rather simple notion of the Soul as the "middle >principle" in each of us, mediating between Highest Spirit and lowest >matter.

That is a good start, and how I see it in part. To say "Kama Manas" is not the full picture either.

Breaking down the human being into all his "bits" is a useful exercise, but we must remember to retain an impression of wholeness- this is healthy for the soul. Understanding the Wholeness of the World is also a healthy concept to hold.

>It's enough for me, to consider that Christ is the Hierophant, which gives perfect meaning to the phrase "No one comes to the Father except by >me."

I believe this, but also that others can come to the Father experience in a different way.

>I like the fact that, along these lines, you address folks as Br. and Sr., Bruce. This serves as a reminder to me ... that the Brotherhood of which we speak, is not just some kind of mystical, far away Ideal, presented to >the unknowing, over-intellectual Western world by a bunch of elevated >Himalayan Adepts.

I am a strong supporter of the Brotherhood idea- as the theosopjhists are. Have you noticed how many fights there are in organisations dedicated to Unversal Brotherhood?

Warm Regards,
Br. Bruce
 
I am a strong supporter of the Brotherhood idea- as the theosopjhists are. Have you noticed how many fights there are in organisations dedicated to Unversal Brotherhood?

Warm Regards,
Br. Bruce
Bruce, Nick, et al,

Yes, it's almost amazing ... and quite unfortunate. I think a lot of energy is lost that way, and needless disputes can break out over the most ridiculous of details and minor differences. Not only are some of these points literally immaterial, but I'm pretty convinced most of us are not even in a position to be able to defend them from within anything other than a theoretical framework! ;)

It gets back to what you just said, Bruce: "Dogma is a resting post we use along the way before we have self/world experience." :)

Bruce Michael said:
we must remember to retain an impression of wholeness- this is healthy for the soul
Excellent point!!!

Bruce Michael said:
I believe this, but also that others can come to the Father experience in a different way
Could you comment more on this, and maybe mention some of these different ways?

Bruce Michael said:
I would also consider Lucifer and Ahriman as the adversarial beings.
Just out of curiosity (and I think this is kind of a side point, with little direct relevance) ... do you equate these beings with the Kumaras? Either way, what do you believe to be their origins, their current roles in the evolutionary (Divine) Plan, and their ultimate destiny/fate or goal (likely outcome)?

Cheers,

~andrew
 
As the Sun is superior to the planets so is the Christ superior to the Buddha.
Hmmm. There are many opinions on this, certainly. But it all depends on how we regard or understand the Christ, doesn't it?

Since the Christ is - in terms of Earth's Spiritual Hierarchy - equivalent with the Bodhisattva, for me ... the above comparison, or relationship, does not apply. In terms I'm used to, you're saying that as Solar Logos relates to Planetary Logoi, a Bodhisattva relates to a Buddha. Except that you've stated it backwards, as I've come to understand it ...

We may, few of us, have the kind of direct experience to prove otherwise, but if we identify the Christ and Buddha with roles, or offices in the Occult Hierarchy, then the Buddha is technically a higher role. To try and compare the two earthly "personalities," or figures, is another thing entirely ... and even then, I'm not sure it's a "fair" comparison, or that any of us is properly qualified to attempt it.

But both offices, as per the Bailey tradition, fall along a 2nd Ray line, as the charts that Nick and I have posted demonstrate. Every Bodhisattva, in the esoteric tradition - having chosen the Earth Path of Service - will evolve into the Buddha of the following cycle.

Now consider the Wesak Festival, as taught in the esoteric tradition. This is a most wonderful application of the working relationship which the Christ maintains with the Buddha throughout the year, demonstrated via one brief (eight-minute) Blessing which Spiritually sustains us and gives Humanity much of the Inspiration that we receive from on high.

During the May Full Moon (Taurus), Buddha passes His Blessing on to the Christ and Masters directly, and the greater portion of this energy is there held as potential until the following Full Moon (Gemini), called sometimes the Christ's Festival, or the Festival of Humanity ... now just one week away (exact time June 1, 1:05AM GMT, or May 31, 9:05PM EDT). This Blessing is then gradually released to, and distributed by, World Servers across the planet throughout the remainder of the Spiritual year ...

Also, and again as per Alice Bailey's teachings, we know that there is a working relationship as we move into the Aquarian Age, wherein the Buddha (Shakyamuni) stands behind the Christ as part of a Triangle of Energies, supporting and overshadowing Him as He initiates the most difficult task of approaching closer to Humanity, while simultaneously relating to (and helping us relate to) Shamballa more deeply.

The complete Triangle of Energies also includes the Avatar of Synthesis and the Spirit of Peace, both of these being purely Western terms (obviously) for conveying the role of Extra-Solar Entities, both Avatars, Who have been invoked to assist our planet during what amounts to the taking of a Spiritual Initiation. And through this gradual process, which may take some considerable amount of time externally, in the worlds of time & space, our planet is moving from non-sacred, to Sacred "status."

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

Meanwhile, as I was posting this, I also was reading an article I stumbled across online by Valentin Tomberg entitled, `H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine and Rudolf Steiner's Occult Science.' I found it quite useful, although I have some questions about it, and also a few points of disagreement. I think I'll save my response for another post, either here or on another thread.

Meanwhile, I'd be curious to hear more, Bruce, about how you regard the Christ, either as an Individual, or in terms of an office, or role, in our Spiritual Hierarchy. Or, yet a third take on things would be Christ more in terms of a Universal Spiritual Presence ... or Power/Force/Entity. Some of this has been touched on more from a cosmological angle, but I'm thinking about it from a framework of Christ within our Solar System - and ESPECIALLY as relating to Planet Earth/Humanity. Perhaps this can help to focus your response. :)

Cheers ... and Namaskar,

~andrew
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Bruce,

You used the word Soul. I thought it would be fun to throw in the Blavatskian definition of Soul. The term “soul” is used as defined in The Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. 17.
“ ... the Secret Doctrine teaches ... The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul — a spark of the former — through the Cycle of Incarnation (or "Necessity") in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. In other words, no purely spiritual Buddhi (divine Soul) can have an independent (conscious) existence before the spark which issued from the pure Essence of the Universal Sixth principle, — or the Over-Soul, — has (a) passed through every elemental form of the phenomenal world of that Manvantara, and (b) acquired individuality, first by natural impulse, and then by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked by its Karma), thus ascending through all the degrees of intelligence, from the lowest to the highest Manas, from mineral and plant, up to the holiest archangel (Dhyani-Buddha). The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations.”
You said,
"To say "Kama Manas" is not the full picture either."
--> I hope you are not suggesting Blavatsky considered Kama Manas to be the Soul. (Are you?)
"I am a strong supporter of the Brotherhood idea - as the theosophists are."
--> I am glad to hear that. All religious experiences begin with the premise that we are all brothers.
"Have you noticed how many fights there are in organisations dedicated to Unversal Brotherhood?"
--> I remember hearing a speaker say at last year's San Diego Theosophical conference that all Theosophists have the highest brotherly regard for all human beings -- except for Theosophists who disagree with them!
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Andrew,

I just wanted to let you know I am following you and Bruce's discussion. However, because the concept of Christ is not part of my belief system, I will just take a back seat on this topic and keep reading you and Bruce's posts.
 
Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Hey Br. Nick,
--> Do you have The Collected Works?
Yes in the old fashioned paper version.



--> Who, then, are you identifying as Father God?

Father God is the Ultimate. And there are two aspects to this - the Persona and Principle.

--> Do you mean anthropomorphism is OK?

Well you are using it is the pejorative sense. I would say theomorphism- Man is made in the Image of God, not the other way around.

"The Buddha's Nirmanakaya appeared to the shepherds."-->


>Feel free to give us more information on this event.

This is discussed in Rudolf Steiner's Gospel of St. Luke lectures.
There is really not much more to say on it..



>You seem to be familiar with the Path that take us to Nirvana. What do >you see as the steps along the Path?


As a Christian, Nirvana is not my goal.

-Br. Bruce
 
Br. Andrew asks:

>Could you comment more on this, and maybe mention some of these >different ways?

A quote from my Teachers:
[FONT=&quot]There are those who recognise Christ to be our founding Creator and future Benefactor to Man forever, and then there are those who disassociate and prefer to relate to Father God wholly and utterly, trusting to no other.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] He gave men their freedom in this, partially because He did not want to ever give cause to come between any soul and our Father - though He be “the Way” He still gives men the opportunity to use Him passively. Like so many quadrants in the Heavens where beings pass through oblivious to their surroundings, many men dwell in Christ’s own Heart but do not know of their own assumption there.[/FONT]



>... do you equate these beings with the Kumaras? Either way, what do >you believe to be their origins, their current roles in the evolutionary >(Divine) Plan, and their ultimate destiny/fate or goal (likely outcome)?

Kumaras- doesn't that mean gods that don't create?

I would have to look up where Lucifer and Ahriman stand in relation to the hierarchy. Really though, there is no hierarchy in Evil.

Lucifer is the Devil and Ahriman is Satan. Lucifer will be redeemed and Ahriman expelled.

To make it simple: Lucifer is of the unripe and Ahriman the rotten. Lucifer hasn't reached puberty (Peter Pan) and Ahriman is the Old Man. Christ is the Balance in the world.

Lucifer seeks to draw us up and away from earthly evolution whilst Ahriman wants to bind us here forever.

Lucifer used to have more power in the past and now Ahriman is most prominent in the world.

-Br. Bruce
 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Bruce, You said,
"As a Christian, Nirvana is not my goal."
--> How does reincarnation fir into your belief system?
 
Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Bruce, You said,
"As a Christian, Nirvana is not my goal."
--> How does reincarnation fir into your belief system?

We come to the temptation of Nirvana at the "midnight hour" between death and birth. We are shielded from this because the temptation of bathing in oceans of bliss is all too alluring.

Nirvana, as you may know, means "blown out" like a candle.

-Br.Bruce
 
Hello

I have been meaning to take up theosophy but started to get confused.

I am aware that there is 7 heavens.

I normally study Gnosticism (esp through Order of Nazorean Essenes).

Can I get the chance to talk about theosophy step by step. can I talk step by step here or should I set up a new post?

Andre
 
Last edited:
Back
Top