Re: >^_^<
Really? I did not know that, and quite honestly, I am staggered. But that does explain a lot — we have agreed elsewhere that the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute — in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation.
For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue.
Thomas, you are the most
DISINGENUOUS person I know ... and I say this
not by way of an
ad hominem attack, but simply in response to the above two paragraphs - AND as a simple statement of fact. You are the most
underhanded of all the people I have ever seen
argue and debate here at C-R ... and all you are doing here is attempting to dismiss everything Theosophical with your weary old,
holier-than-thou, `my-worldview's-better' attitude.
DO PLEASE COME OFF IT!!! It DISGUSTS me!
Thesosphy
certainly focuses on FIRST CAUSES, and your CLAIM that you actually have a copy of
The Secret Doctrine in your collection is apparently absolute BUNK ... since if you did you would AT LEAST have read the PROEM, in which HPB makes PLAIN what is the
Core Teaching - by way of Three Fundamental Propositions - of the Ageless Wisdom, namely (in abbreviated form):
(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."
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.
(b.) The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically "the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing," called "the manifesting stars," and the "sparks of Eternity."
This second assertion of the Secret Doctrine is the absolute universality of that law of periodicity, of flux and reflux, ebb and flow, which physical science has observed and recorded in all departments of nature. An alternation such as that of Day and Night, Life and Death, Sleeping and Waking, is a fact so common, so perfectly universal and without exception, that it is easy to comprehend that in it we see one of the absolutely fundamental laws of the universe.
(c)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.
Now, you can certainly
dispute the above
Three Fundamental Propositions, yet we, too, have our
ABSOLUTE. But the difference is, we do not say that God is
indefinable, UNKNOWABLE and utterly beyond all human comprehension ... then say that HE wears a hat, has a moustache and likes to take golf on Thursdays, followed by a quick trip to the pub on the way back home.
YOU may think that there is no contradiction in trying to
give the absolute all the characteristics that suit your fancy ... but then, for all your learning about the Eastern traditions, it is again clear that you need a refresher on
Nirguna Brahman vs.
Saguna Brahman - and a reminder as to
which of these is accepted as referring to
`the Ultimate' (i.e., your `Absolute') ... qua Absolute.
NOR is the
`true philosophy' simply the
love of knowledge ... for though you may be able to stuff the entire Vatican library into your brain and ponder it with your
human intellect, I will remind you that even the
word philosophy means
LOVE OF WISDOM, not
love of knowledge. Thus,
Theos Sophia is the
WISDOM OF GOD, and this -
not for the sake of accumulation - but for the BETTERMENT OF MANKIND.
Even a Donkey can carry a library on its back.
Theosophy, it will be noted,
does NOT reject the
Greek Philosophical traditions; however, we are willing to
trace even these to
their origins, and to continue to look
in reverse in order to understand the present and the future.
You would have us believe that
there were no Mystery Schools, or that in fact,
we can simply gloss over all that they had to teach for -
as you have said - none of these provides ANYTHING LIKE the `Christian Revelation' ... WHICH teachings you consider, in your narrow focus, to be the SUMMUM BONUM of the Esoteric Wisdom (pardon me - KNOWLEDGE).
Thomas said:
I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more.
I'm glad Nick has more the patience than I do. You
love to cry wolf, Thomas, and insist that your are innocent of anything but
the purest of philosophical and theological aspirations ... yet you straw man Nick every bit the way you straw man me, tell him
he has rejected philosophy (or the
love of knowledge, at any rate - your
own definition), and essentially bait him - I suppose just out of old habit? I am not surprised.
Thomas said:
but again, if the analogy passes you by, I can understand your confusion.
Indeed, more sarcasm ...
what ARROGANCE!!!
Thomas said:
It can be done, but if you don't believe in First Principles
Yep, once again,
something Nick never said or insinuated ...
Thomas said:
I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do.
No you didn't, Thomas, for
if that were the case, you could have felt your satisifaction long ago. As it is, you are HARDLY engaging in a fair discussion, or proceeding reasonably. The best that Nick can get out of you -
and I admire him for his kindness, patience and willingness to try - is a few,
half-sincere responses, though mostly you just DODGE the real issues, as usual.
Always avoiding the
sticky issues, and at best launching into a lengthy
tractate on Roman Catholic history and authoritative Church
dogma, I hope Francis will tear into you every bit the way she has
us Theosophists (though I have made clear I have no official connection, or membership) ... since I think you best even
me for
cutting & pasting.
Indeed, if you read my post MINUS the quotations, you will still see the meat of my point - which is that your methods are
underhanded, that you insist on
straw-manning people rather than engaging them on issues directly, and that you wear your blinders
far too tightly, for if you paid attention to WORD ONE of the
Ageless Wisdom -
Theosophy, in this case - you would be forced to admit, on SOUND philosophical footing, that our
PHILOSOPHY is in fact, EVERY BIT AS DEVELOPED, metaphysically sound, concerned with FIRST PRINCPLES, etc.
as yours - IF NOT
A GOOD BIT MORESO ... penetrating far, far deeper into the
true state of things than you shall ever do with your INTELLECT, no matter how much baggage you load it up with, and no matter
how effectively & cleverly you manage to sharpen your wit against those bold enough to TAKE YOU & YOUR THEOLOGY on, directly.
You and I have
seldom been able to carry on a pleasant, rational discussion ... and this may not be any kind of exception to the rule. This is not even
my argument (!), yet I am so disgusted by what I see, that I will take the time to comment ... and this is (of course) at risk of irritating Nick, since
he at least, was able to make a bit of
headway with you.
I admire you for that, Nick, and I appreciate your patience - but I think it is apparent that what Thomas wishes is
not in fact, "
to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do" ... instead, he is up to the same-old, same-old CRUSADE, whose only real goal is an old-fashioned egotistical game of JOUST (perhaps 60%), and a chance to
toe the party line by airing the views of
all his favorite Church authorities and selected `experts' (40%).
If he will step outside of his ego,
just long enough to try and think rationally, I believe he will discover that although
each of us is really QUITE content with our own,
chosen spiritual path (none of us here is going door-to-door begging for a religious or ideological bandwagon to hop onto) ... there is nevertheless a GREAT deal that he can learn,
as well as share, by a willingness to enter into an honest-to-goodness, rational, sincere DISCUSSION.
But you see, when all you want to do is
"point out that this is NOT how Roman Catholics `see it,'" what you're really just insisting is that
your understanding is ill-founded. You can deny this, Thomas, and feign a purely innocent motive ... but I'm afraid we've BEEN DOWN this road before, QUITE a number of times, and we're quite used to hearing you tell us
how shallow our philosphy is, how misguided we all are, and how SUPERIOR your theology is to anything poor ol' HPB could ever cook up from her `Mahatmas.'
As biting and acrid as your true attitude is, Thomas,
how is you put it - `expressed by words sweetened as with honey' - I'm afraid it really just constitutes one more insignificant
drop of the poison, whose cup we will gladly drain - as every student must - as we endeavor to follow in the steps of
Herakles, even performing the
same Labors,
as did your Savior - and mine.
For all my egotism,
I KNOW that I am no different than you, and in fact,
I KNOW that we both tread the same path,
however gyral and confused its perambulations may sometimes appear. What irks me, is that someone such as
you ... should either fail to recognize that it is so,
or would dare to deny it - knowing such.
For if I have misjudged, then I will but walk this way a little longer ... and live just one more day, to do the things I should have done.
~Andrew
