Jesus was a Buddhist

[Thomas]

Dear dear, Nick ... have I struck a nerve, i wonder? We seem extraordinarily thin-skinned all of a sudden ... or perhaps it's simply that you can't muster an argument against the irrefutable logic of the Angelic Doctor? Three fundamental arguments, and not a word in response?

I can only logically assume you have none.

You have said Blavatsky was a liar.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

You have insinuated I have the brain-power of a horse.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

Now, you are saying Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.

I was told that, by a Theosophist, and ridiculed for drawing attention to the distinction. I assumed it was part of your praxis, as a common TS misrepresentation of Christian doctrine depends on it.

If you feel strongly, take it up with your people the next time you meet. The evidence is all over the internet.

I would never say such things about you and your fellow Christians.

Nor, I hope you now see, have I said anything such thing of you or yours.
Actually, you have insituated far worse ... but I make nothing of it.

Why is your attitude now going down the tubes for the second time? I must say, I am very disappointed in you.

Nice try to regain the upper hand, Nick, but you've lost the initiative on this one, and this kind of response won't get it back.

"going down the tubes"? Excuse me, your response to a very reasonable, logical, and polite argument is ... where? ... the silence is deafening.

+++

Thomas, you said,

"...no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine."​

--> You were the one who insulted the authority of my Theosophical books, not the other way around.

I am not insulting anyone, I am stating the obvious — to say "there is no more authoritative book in the world" is a question of dogma, yours, not mine. In a stroke you have written off all other sacra doctrina, and then have the audacity to claim you have been wronged.

By the way, you have been far more direct and offensive with regard to Christian Scripture, as well you know, as I have been informed by you that it has been fraudulently fabricated for the sake of political expediency.

Since you always talk trash about Theosophy, and put up your Bible as superior, we should take a closer look.

I don't talk anything about Theosophy, I question the trash Theosophy purports to be the true interpretation of Christian doctrine — and who is 'we' by the way? Are you acting on behalf of a collective, or do you assume that if you don't understand the answer, no-one else can?

And, by the way, I am well aware of this attempt to 'turn the tables' and shift the spotlight from the evident inadequacies of your own dogma.

... not one of my questions answered .... and you want to ask questions ...

The Bible says the human race was created twice (once on Day Six, a second time during the story of Adam and Eve), yet it does not give an explanation of how this could have happened.

As you question however, gives me the chance to demonstrate the very thing I have been talking about, on those grounds, I will engage with you.

Otherwise I might point out you have asked this question before, and I have answered it before, and you have ignored my answers, but simply roll on to the next question. So let me condition it this time ... I shall, for your benefit, answer no further questions until you are happy you understand the answer to this one.

Well, let me enlighten you again. The First time — Genesis 1:26-27 — is a statement of metaphysical principle. The second time — Genesis 2:7-25 — is an account of the manifestation of man according to the principle.

Two aspects of the one event. Cause (Genesis 1) and Effect (Genesis 2).

As such, the Bible is not making sense.

To the uninstructed, such is often the case — that is the inestimable value of the traditional commentaries — in them resides more sense than one can encompass.

Assuming this is a Theosophist argument, then I can only assume that the organisation is unaware of the traditional commentaries ... or at least, wanting of an authentic exegesis of the text.

This is why orthodox and traditional interpretation is vital, without it one is bound to get into a muddle. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear for you now.

We have yet to hear you make sense of your Bible's Double-Creation Story.

We again?

Obviously you don't bother reading my earlier responses. I have explained this on more than one occasion. If you didn't understand, you should not have gone on.

Theosophy's version of your Double-Creation story makes sense, and so has a better claim of being authoritative.

Well, now you can see that such a claim is relative, and conditional upon all manner of contingency, and that the statement is itself an ill-informed assumption.

I still have not heard how your Double-Creation Story makes sense, which leads us to question the authority of your version of the story, and the authority of the book it appears in.

Us?

Ah me ... so now I can assume that TS treats the sacra doctrina of the three Abrahamic traditions as neither meaningful nor authoritative, purely on the grounds of its ignorance of the meaning?

I shall desist from taking you to task over the obvious illogical error of assuming that 'our' text is not authoritative when it would appear you have not made sufficient enquiry of 'us'.

The text is 'our' witness after all. There is no telling what nonsense 'another' might make of 'our' texts when 'another' has not thoroughly immersed himself in 'our' experience.

I don't 'believe' in the Upanishads, the Pali Canon, nor the Q'ran, but I do accept them as binding and authoritative with regard to the traditions that hold them as such, and I do treat them with the reverence due them, as a simple matter of courtesy, if nothing else. And, might I add, from even my own very limited knowledge, I know they are creaking at the seams with wisdom, spiritual sustenance and insight into the Divine.

... and if there is something I do not understand, I ask someone who belongs to the tradition in question, in short, I enquire at the source, and do not assume that because I don't understand, the text is at fault.

... But then, these people do not heap insult on me, nor seek to injure the good standing of my Scriptures. Quite the reverse, as ecumenical relations between Catholicism and the Great Traditions proceeds apace, better today than it has ever been.

Thomas — still waiting for an answer to his questions ...

 

[Thomas]

Aha!

Now, at least, we're getting somewhere.
Have YOU ever met a spiritual Teacher?

Am I to assume then, that you are the benchmark, the median, by which all Spiritual Teachers are to be measured? The authority on the matter?

Have you any idea how condescending you sound?

Does your pride know no bounds?

Do you seriously propose to start a new thread to sit in judgement upon the names I might tremble to mention ... an Apostle ... a Dionysius, or an Origen, the Cappadocians .... Tertullian or Augustine ... a Cyril, a Leontius or a Maximus, an Aquinas or a Bonaventure, a Francis or a Benedict or a Catherine or a Theresa or a St John of the Cross, an Eckhart, a Julian ... a host of names I am quite sure you have never even heard of ... and more than a few still alive and (please God) well today ... might not measure up to your obviously high standard ...

You dare to inform me that you will sit in judgement on them and decide just whether they count in your book or not?

Your karma, baby, and welcome to it...

+++

Yet I will meet the same challenge, of giving you MY epistemology, a working one and a sensible one ... which does not violate the laws of sound logic, and of good reason, yet which also has as its authority, source or ultimate frame of reference - something SO SOLID, that it is unassailable.

Feel free to start the ball rolling. You seem intent on proving the human is infallible. Yo uhave caught my interest ... please ... I have always found the human to be utterly fallible when it comes to the crunch.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, we discussed,

"...have I struck a nerve, i wonder?"​

--> You call HPB a liar? You characterize Theosophy as a pack of lies? You characterize me as having the brain-power of a horse? You say Theosophists cannot tell fact from fiction? Yes, you have struck a nerve.


When you said Theosophists cannot tell fact from fiction, you opened up a can of worms. I must now respond to your can-opening.

"You have said Blavatsky was a liar. --> I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps."​

"You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies. --> I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps."​

--> You are a liar. You continually throw up your slanderous smokescreens, trying to distract people from discussing the issues. Do not worry, I will always bring the discussion back to the issues.

"Actually, you have insituated far worse ... but I make nothing of it."​

--> Typical Thomas slander, again not backed by an example. One of your greatest weaknesses as a debater is your use of slander-without-examples. I wait for the day when you stop throwing up a slanderous smokescreen. I only want to discuss the issues. Now that your slander has been addressed, we can look at the issues.

"The First time — Genesis 1:26-27 — is a statement of metaphysical principle. The second time — Genesis 2:7-25 — is an account of the manifestation of man according to the principle."​

--> Let's take a look.

Genesis 1:26
"So God created man in his own image...."

Genesis 2:5
"...there was no man to till the ground...."

Genesis 2:7
"...the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground...."

--> Metaphysical, huh? By denying that Genesis 2:5 was written, you are the one who slanders the Bible.

"Obviously you don't bother reading my earlier responses."​

--> I did. You may not do it for my benefit, but there must be at least one Christian out there who did not read your "earlier response", and wanted to hear your story.

You say the human race was created twice. It is you who cannot tell fact from fiction.

Your Bible clearly shows the human race being created twice. Therefore, we have no choice but to say the Bible is not authoritative.

It is your Bible, not mine, that says a physical human race was created, then uncreated, then recreated. One more time, for the benefit of Christians who are reading of this discussion for the first time...

Why do you think the human race was created, uncreated, and then recreated? How does Genesis 2:5 fit into your belief system?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick.

Yes, you have struck a nerve.

I know ... everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue.

--> You are a liar.

I will let others be the judge of that.

I wait for the day when you stop throwing up a slanderous smokescreen. I only want to discuss the issues. Now that your slander has been addressed, we can look at the issues.

OK. I am awaiting your response to the questions posed in reference to Aquinas. This is where it all began.

PS — to set your mind at rest on Genesis, cause is prior to effect, principle is prior to production.

The former are eternal, so there was never a moment when God did not say "Let us make man in our own image" (the Absolute undergoes no change or alteration). So Genesis one is in principle.
The latter are created and contingent, so appear, in place and time, according to Divine Plenitude, so there was a time when man was not. Genesis 2:5 is in production.
Focus on that, and you will see that you've been labouring under a misapprehension.

See ... at every step of the way, knowing it is an utterly fruitless exercise, I seek to offer up the wisdom of my tradition, knowing it will be ignored.

Now. Back to Aquinas ... the ball's in your court.

Thomas
(PPS — the more you ignore it, the more you prove Aquinas' point.)

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"...everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue."​

--> Aquinas explains the uncreation of humanity in Genesis 2:5?

"You are a liar. --> I will let others be the judge of that."​

--> I can spot your lies all by myself, thank you.

"...there was never a moment when God did not say 'Let us make man in our own image' "​

--> He said it on Day Six. By day Seven the saying of it was already in the past. Try as you may, you cannot rewrite the Bible.

"...the Absolute undergoes no change or alteration...."​

--> Indeed, It does not. That is why the Absolute is not God. Your God gets angry (a change in His state of being), so He cannot be It. Wow! This is great -- a chance to show God is not absolute.

"...there was never a moment when God did not say 'Let us make man in our own image' "​

--> The 'Let us make man in our own image' " in 1:26 may be timeless (I disagree), but the creation of man in 1:27 was not. It was an event in a timeline.

"Genesis 2:5 is in production."​

--> Were Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 in production?

"I am awaiting your response to the questions posed in reference to Aquinas."​

--> The funny things is, I am ready to discuss any topic. But I cannot let you change the topic until we finish this topic: Why did God create a humanity in Genesis 1:27, then uncreate them in Genesis 2:5? Answer me this question, then we will discuss Aquinas.

The same question rephrased:

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Thomas, you said,

"...everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue."​

--> Aquinas explains the uncreation of humanity in Genesis 2:5?

No, that and the ad hominem attacks are all part of your diversionary strategem to avoid the issue.

Let me refer you back to the text in question:
"The supreme philosophical science, metaphysics, can dispute against someone who denies its premises only if the adversary will concede something. If he concedes nothing, then debate is impossible, although it may still be possible to show that the adversary's argument is invalid."
Summa First Part, Question 1, article 8.

The funny things is, I am ready to discuss any topic. But I cannot let you change the topic until we finish this topic: Why did God create a humanity in Genesis 1:27, then uncreate them in Genesis 2:5? Answer me this question, then we will discuss Aquinas.

Well patently you are not, otherwise we would have stayed with Aquinas, and not gone off onto this tangent, would we? This is your evasion tactic ... you changed the topic, not I ... Genesis appears to be your favourite 'spoiler'.

That is why the Absolute is not God. Your God gets angry (a change in His state of being), so He cannot be It. Wow! This is great -- a chance to show God is not absolute.

Don't be too quick to broadcast your glee, it might perhaps be nothing more than revealing your own naïveté when it comes to the interpretation of texts?

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

 

[ALMIGHTY GOD]

I also believe that Jesus was influence by the Awakened One while living in Egypt

He was?

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

For once, my question first ...

Thomas

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Sorry to interrupt, but what exactly is the objective, historical evidence of Jesus' involvement with Buddhism? I haven't seen any scholarly consensus related to that hypothesis, so maybe someone could help me out?

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Thank you, Chris.

I have asked above, under two points:
1 - Evidence that Jesus studied Buddhism, either 'locally', or having travelled to some other place, and/or
2 - Evidence of Buddhist teachings have been incorporated into His teaching.

In the absence of either, the hypothesis is tenuous in the extreme.

Actually, Flow has provided a couple of links ... but nothing conclusive.

The present contre temps has arisen because I suggested that the Theosophic view is not a given, and without evidence, can only be speculation.

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Thomas,

We do have proof. It is in three books.

The Secret Doctrine
Isis Unveiled
The Mahatma Letters

There is no more authoritative book in the world.

Hello Nick,
I'm sure Thomas would know that the Bible is full of errors- that is par for the course.

That is why we have the statement "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life".

It's the same with all books of one kind or another.

HPB herself critiqued Isis Unveiled:
Theosophy article: "My Books" by Blavatsky

Blavatsky what were the best Theosophical works for him to read, and had declared his intention of procuring Isis Unveiled, when to his astonishment she replied, "Don't read it, it is all trash."
Now I did not say "trash" so far as I remember; but what I did say in substance was: "Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused."

I read it from time to time. In parts it's like "Ripley's Believe it or Not!"- particularly the sections on the Indian Rope Trick, the power of the mind over animals and the power of the mind in pregnancy.

Sections are a tad dated but it is still a fun read.

Coleman found a lot of "borrowed" material:
The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's Writings by William Emmette Coleman.

Answered by Cranston:

Book of Dzyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In her biography H.P.B.: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Cranston tackles the claim of plagiarism that was leveled by Coleman (Cranston, op.cit. Chapter 12, p 379-387). Her view is that HPB's "plagiarism" appears to consist mainly of quoting primary sources without acknowledging the secondary sources from which they came. She states that a research assistant of hers took on the task of finding Coleman's alleged 70 passages that HPB plagiarized from World-Life, and could only find 6. Coleman himself, far from being an authority on occult material, was a clerk in the Quartermaster Department of the US Army. He was likely not an impartial judge, having written to Coues on July 8, 1890, "I emphatically denounced and ridiculed the theory of occultism, of elementary spirits, etc., before the Theosophical Society was organized [in 1875], and from that time to this I have strenuously opposed Theosophy all the time." [3] Coleman promised to publish a book that would "prove" his charges against Blavatsky regarding the Book of Dzyan; this book and its proof never appeared. [4]

I do believe the Book of Dyzan is genuine.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Thank you, Chris.

I have asked above, under two points:
1 - Evidence that Jesus studied Buddhism, either 'locally', or having travelled to some other place, and/or

Being who He was, He would have had to have known.

2 - Evidence of Buddhist teachings have been incorporated into His teaching.

The Gospel with the Buddhist flavour is St. Luke.

Buddha, with his teaching of Compassion, prepared the way for the Deed of Love by Christ Jesus.

I would put it this way- Buddha is now a Christian.

Shalom,
Br.Bruce

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"For once, my question first ..."
​

--> You have asked several questions. Which question are you referring to?

And, there must be one Christian out there who is interested in your answers to my three questions:

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Bruce, you said,

"I do believe the Book of Dyzan is genuine."​

--> I do, too. I have devoted myself to rendering it into everyday English.

The Stanzas of Dzyan are especially good at explaining (1) why Christians think the human race was created, uncreated, & then recreated, and then (2) explaining what actually happened.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You sound like you are interested in a meaningful religious discussion, yet your slander of Theosophy continues unabated. Once your slander stops, communication will become easier.

 

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by AndrewX:

... So - believe as ye so wish.

That is all we (as Christians) ask. Our argument rests on the fact that the Theosophical Society seems incapable of presenting its own doctrine without a radical misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.

Our doctrine does not limit itself to what Thomas believes, or asserts is legitimate material ... and yes, we bring LIGHT, REASON and COMMON SENSE to your own Scriptures & Teachings, and plenty of others. YOU do not determine their ultimate meaning, context - even their ORIGIN - any more than we do... although some of us DO happen have some insight into these matters. We do not boast about this, we simply choose to DISCUSS it ... freely, openly and with a warm invitation for anyone who wishes to positively, constructively contribute.

Your method, Thomas, is merely to slander and malign, slander and malign.

You know the STRAW MAN very well, but accusing those whose opinion differs from your own of building a house of cards, will not strengthen your own, weak foundation. We prove our FOUNDATION, the argument regarding Jesus' travels Eastward, and the Buddhistic influence via the Essenes, with FOUR good, sound arguments, thus far.

I have yet to see you refute these, but I will read onward, and see if you lightened up on slander and calumny, the typical straw man attack, long enough to try and make any sense.

But I do think, and I do claim, to "actually understand the teachings of Christ," well enough, at least, to speak on this subject.

I know you do, from the TS perspective. As do I, from the traditional Christian perspective. There we differ. It's all a matter of in whom, and what, one has faith. I, however, do not cite Theosophist sources in support of my arguments, whereas more than once I have been obliged to point out where Theosophists cite Christian Tradition in defence of itself, as it does so erroneously, or out of context, or in ignorance of the mileau from which the tradition arose.

No, Thomas, from MY OWN perspective. One is free to cite ANY source one wishes, as part - even a large part - of one's inspiration and illumination. The real question is, HAVE YOU understood - even your OWN, professed Sacra Doctrina. Friend, it isn't SACRA any more, after you get through with it.

The best challenge you can offer me, EVER, and AT ALL, would be to MATCH - and suspersede - my demonstration of my grasp of the HEART Doctrine, as opposed to the Eye.

I have consistently demonstrated the logical inadequacy of the Theosophist presentation of doctrine.

Nothing of the sort. Slander and calumny, and straw-manning tactics, demonstrates something about you, Thomas ... yet it has nothing to do with Theosophical doctrine - and the illumination provided by Theosophists - throughout history.

I am not offended, nor bothered, by your doctrines and dogmas. I am offended, and bothered, when you misrepresent mine.

We, meaning Nick, Bruce Michael, myself and thousands of students of Theosophical (and related) teachings, do not need to appeal to Almighty Thomas, checking with you, each time we offer a statement, an interpretation, or a comment on ANY doctrine ... regardless of its origin.

GET OVER IT

Well, here again, you're just ignoring the evidence that we have presented.

I'm not ignoring it ... I'm questioning it, as I find its metaphysical assumptions fundamentally flawed. You choose to ignore the fundamental issue, you don't address it, but simply post more material from a source that is already in question, as if sheer quantity is enough to overcome all interrogation.

And how have I ignored the fundamental issue? The question is whether Jesus traveled Eastward, and whether there was Buddhistic influence - even directly so - via the Essenes in Jesus' Teachings. One of us is ignoring the argument Thomas, and trying to STRAW-MAN the other, by his USUAL slander and poor tactics, here, Thomas ... but it is not me.

So, the proof is there, yet you must be the one to investigate.

I have investigated, my questions are the fruit of my investigations. I still await answers.

You've been given the opinions of NUMEROUS individuals on this forum, and on others, regarding related issues. YOU are the one who chooses to ignore what has been shared, 'O thirsty horse. And by the way, Thirsty-Horse isn't really a bad appellation, certainly no insult, for at it shows that you have been shown the argument, and that the evidence HAS been offered. NO ONE can force another man to drink of the Pierian Spring.

You can sit there and "await the answers" till the sun burns you to a crisp. That same Sol Invictus led you to the water, too. Don't fuss at Him for leaving it your own free will to decide when to BEND your thirsty head to the water. Oh, vain and prideful man ... you will not bow before your Lord, because all you see is MY, wagging finger.

I'm tired of you, Thomas. You offend everyone at C-R who speaks ANYTHING of Theosophy, or of Theosophical teachings. SEVERAL of us have told you so. WHAT does it take? WHY, as a CATHOLIC, are you so HELL-BENT on DESTROYING an opinion, YES, even regarding CHRISTIAN Teachings ... which differs from YOU OWN, and from THE OFFICIAL, ROMAN CATHOLIC Church DOGMA?

Our fundamental difference, Thomas, is that WE ENCOURAGE questioning. And if we arrive at different interpretations, or understandings, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

But what we have here, is YOU, trying to tell US - and the US is Nick, Bruce Michael, SalamanderRC, myself and ANYONE ELSE who dares to CONTRADICT YOU ... you are INSISTING to US ... that YOU have THE ONLY RIGHT ANSWER HERE ... yet you offer NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO DEFENSE of your claims ... instead, you focus your BITTER, CALUMNOUS ATTACK on Nick, on the TS, on HPB, on ALL THINGS AND ALL PEOPLE THEOSOPHICAL ... by CONSTANTLY BASHING this different interpretation as supposedly being UNSOUND.

Brother, ONE OF US HERE is `UNSOUND' ... but it isn't the Theosophist, or the the Theosophical philosophy. YOU NEED TO TAKE A LONG, HARD LOOK ...

I'm getting SICK of this crap. You REALLY don't deserve the honor of reply, when all you do is BASH BASH BASH.

I'm AMAZED at Nick, and at others, for having the PATIENCE to sit through your HATEFULNESS.

My only claim is to have an UNDERSTANDING, and I back that up with EVIDENCE, such as it is ... and rather than even ADDRESSING that evidence, you only know how to BASH BASH BASH. YOURS is the ad hominem, my friend. YOU are the one HELL-BENT on SMASHING the Theosophical philosophy into the ground. FRANKLY, even though this is an OPEN FORUM, wherein people ARE free (thank GOD) to DEFEND their ideas, understandings, and philosophy ... I am almost AMAZED that you haven't politely been asked to CHILL yet.

But as I said, you WILL NOT BROWBEAT ME, or likely Nick, or anyone else around here, into skulking away, tail-tucked and full of self-doubt. If THAT is how you hope to PUFF YOURSELF UP into believing your own, CHURCH-SANCTIONED DOGMAS, by INSULTING OTHERS and telling them that THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS FLAWED, INACCURATED, or otherwise LESS THAN your OWN ... then dear one, YOU GOT ANOTHER THING COMIN'!!!

Thus far, the best I've seen you do is read 2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward the New Presentations of Truth.

Strawman argument again ... one could easily say your texts are "2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward" Christian doctrine. HPB is on record as such.

I am not referring to HPB as a primary authority. The several Teachings from HPB's day onward are every bit as "primary" a spiritual resource, or SACRA DOCTRINA, as you prefer, as the Christian Bible, or Hebrew Scriptures. Second-hand refers to other Theosophical commentators, or contributions from students of the Masters, etc. ... just as Guenon, St. Augustine, et al are second-hand as compared with the Holy Bible itself, etc.

NOR are the writings of Theosophists, or of those AFTER HPB's day, by and large, critical of the SPIRIT of Christianity ... even if, at times, you have a WELL-RESEARCHED, WELL-SUPPORTED, SOUND CRITIQUE of the tendency to dead-letter interpret everything (be that primary CHRISTIAN texts, or the BHAGAVAD GITA!) ... as also the renowned Roman Catholic tendency to DOGMATIZE.

The ONE CHARGE which I will gladly level, the ONE CRITICISM, which I think EVERYONE at C-R will at least recognize as fairly UNIVERSALLY TRUE of Roman Catholicism ... is the tendency to DOGMATIZE. Now if that puts you on the defensive, Thomas, I can well understand.

But the problem is, YOU can't rest with, `a simple-enough, honorable defense.' And in fact, we aren't even TALKING about that, here, on this thread - but in fact, we are focused on WHERE Jesus might have gone, and WHY ... as well as whether there was Buddhist influence in his teachings.

PITY, that all you want to do is BASH BASH BASH, and STRAW MAN everything that doesn't SUIT YOU.

The critique of Guénon however, is hardly 'second hand', nor uninformed, he being at the forefront of esoteric affairs in France, and an acknowledged scholar, beyond compare in his day, of Hindu doctrine.

And WHAT is Guenon's opinion, except THE MODEL from which you take YOUR OWN, ANTI-THEOSOPHY, ANTI-HPB, ANTI-ESOTERICISM and ANTI-ANYTHING which DARES to contradict your precious, Catholic DOGMA!!!

My critique is precisely of the veracity of your 'New Presentation of Truth' — that is your dogma, not mine. If its presentation is dependent upon fabrication, as in the case of Origen, then I have every good reason to doubt.

Yet your critiqueis nothing more than a GAINSAY. As in the Monty Python sketch, you're entirely argument is "NO IT'S NOT (true)!"

And you give NO CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE, even against what should be the EASIEST to refute, which is my assertion that one actually NEEDS the presence - even the PHYSICAL, or DIRECT, embodied PRESENCE - of a MASTER ... at a certain point in one's OWN spiritual evolution, not to mention for the kind of work which the Initiate Jesus knew he was undertaking (being HIS MASTER'S Work, all along - and God's - as we heard in the Temple, even from the early age of TWELVE).

EITHER Bruce Michael, OR NICK, will be able to say more, I suspect, and elaborate upon WHY this `Presence and direct influence of the Master' is necessary, both in terms of vibration, for reasons of protection (having to do with Kundalini Yoga/awakening, as well as meditation) ... and for several, equally valid but related reasons.

I would ask that they do so - chime in - if possible and convenient, in helping to show that you, Brother Thomas, haven't even bothered to answer, or refute ONE of the FOUR good, solid reasons why Jesus traveled Eastward, or why & how we can see Buddhistic influence in his teachings. Anything they have to offer, even while Bruce Michael may disagree, ultimately, on the question of Individualities and specifics, will be helpful, because both Bruce Michael and Nick understand - I am quite certain - the PRINCIPLE involved.

Thomas, the WE in this case ISN'T going to GO AWAY. No matter what YOU DO, NO ... we AREN'T going to "go away." That was decided, a long time ago.

Sorry it's not IN LINE with what you're trying to accomplish. But the only `house of cards' around here that may possibly fall ... ah well, we shall see. Instant Karma can be a gentle thing, like a feather - or it can hit you with a good deal more wallop. What's it gonna be?

 

[taijasi]

The present contre temps has arisen because I suggested that the Theosophic view is not a given, and without evidence, can only be speculation.

Actually, the contretemps has arisen, my friend, because you insist on SLANDER, and because you forever CRITICIZE one of the most NOBLE and ENLIGHTENING Spiritual presentations which Humanity has EVER received ... simply because you do not understand it.

Where, even in Nick's challenges, do we find THEOSOPHISTS, telling you that YOUR SCRIPTURES amount to ****, that there are FRAUDULENT, or that their authors were CHARLATANS ... and that the Bible is - ON THE WHOLE - METAPHYSICALLY UNSOUND???

What Nick says, and I agree with him, is that the BIBLE cannot be accepted VERBATIM, and is - in fact - a source of CONTRADICTORY information, when this information is not presented in the proper context

Now, shall I don a pointy white hat, dress in nice rich robes, aquire a few sets of gold candlesticks, and will that suddenly make me AN AUTHORITY on THE BIBLE?

Or, my Jesuit Brother, does it depend upon GETTING ONE'S DIVINITY DEGREE ... and MUST we attend the school which YOU attend, for this to actually amount to SALT?

Must we genuflect, and say our Paternosters and Hail Marys?

Must we attend Confession each Sunday, and blather on to the good Padre about how we forgot to genuflect last Sunday, but say NOTHING about our constant, unending CRUSADE to BASH THE THEOSOPHISTS INTO TINY BITS?

I see. PARDON ME for failing to meet THY standards of what composes a GOOD CHRISTIAN, much less ROMAN CATHOLIC ... thereby giving ME THE SAME AUTHORITY as ALMIGHTY THOMAS - Who most certainly, if ANYONE does, KNOWS exactly THE DEEPEST SIGNIFICANCE of EVERY JOT AND TITTLE ... in his New Testament.

Ahhh.

And the Theosophists say, NOT QUITE.

We offer evidence, of various SORTS, some of it physical, some of it requiring you to actually THINK about things ... yet our chief complaint with YOU, my friend, is your insistence that YOU ALONE hold the key, or even that YOUR INTERPRETATION is any better, any more accurate, INHERENTLY, simply for CALLING YOURSELF a Christian.

ANY IDIOT ... can do the same.

"Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused."

HPB did say this, and moreover, the Mahatma K.H. is known to have stated that Isis ought to be re-written for the sake of the family honor!

The SD was much better written, yet I think even this, revealing as it was, did not come close to expressing the esoteric philosophy as well as later contributions, from Alice Bailey, perhaps Steiner, et al.

The Teachings which I am currently most interested in, called simply `The Wisdom' - and also referred to as `a New Thought-Form Presentation of the Wisdom' (NTFPW) - are, imho, even clearer still. Yet they do not show us, in ways that AAB's teachings did, let alone as HPB went to GREAT PAINS to elucidate - how this NTFPW draws from precisely the exoteric teachings of all the worlds' greatest religions ... some extant, and widely practiced, others swallowed up in the dark night of time - and utterly forgotten.

Once again, Thomas, you would do well to stop accusing your own, CHOSEN enemies of gathering together a few branches, leaves and twigs of the Great, TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ... and trying to smash all of these up together into your `syncretism' ... when what HPB did was show us how these various branches all have a common TRUNK - then ROOT, or set of ROOTs, being established, FIRMLY, in the Heart and Mind of God.

Your own branch, something about the Rod of Jesse, I believe ... has it's own authority, yet that, NOT for existing APART from the rest of the tree. Nor for its place in the series of cycles, or for world GEOGRAPHY, or other, external factors. CUT your precious branch, from the TREE which has given it LIFE to begin with, and all you will hold is a dessicated floral arrangement ... pretty to look at, but dead, or dying.

A PITY, that a man's HATE, can so greatly blind him to the Teachings of his own, PROFESSED SAVIOUR. He would even deny him thrice, and CRUCIFY Him, before he would see and recognize his PRESENCE in his own, brother's heart ... and mind. Thus, the necessity for Jesus' words, "Father, please forgive them ..." - and too, his admonition to those such as me, for daring to pick your motes. Brother, I would as soon PICK YOUR NOSE ... but I have other things to do.

Have you any idea how condescending you sound?

Does your pride know no bounds?

And yet, the pot calleth the kettle black ... so my mote-picking already seems to have a precedent, even on this very thread, Thomas. My wrong does not right your own ... yet I will let others be the judge of who is puffing himself up, and BOASTING that HE ALONE holds the STANDARD, being the only REAL CHRISTIAN around here.

We are judged, btw, precisely as we judge. I wonder what HPB shall say to you, as you meet her in the great beyond.

Proud, boastful man, it is you who are doing the judging ... for you believe, in your arrogance, that YOU are greater even than Christ's own Messengers. I can only sing their praises, yet you SPIT ON them - by so desecrating their Teachings ...

Never did I say that I was a teacher. It is YOU who presumed, just as YOU presume to TEACH ... and to tell ME that I do not understand. I claim to understand, well enough, and I can back that up. All YOU can do, is quote - quote - quote, and SLANDER, and MALIGN. You have proven that, now.

Feel free to start the ball rolling

Oh no. You must meet me halfway. I was the one who asked YOU. I only promise to DELIVER, but I have learned a thing or two about what to do with my pearls.

I offer, IN GOOD FAITH, to share my own epistemology ... and that should be good enough to get a real response, from an honest, earnest man. I, personally, have long doubted that you are either. I see your tricks. I know your lies. I know your BITTERNESS.

And I am standing here, proverbially BLEEDING. All you do is TWIST, and MISREPRESENT, and DESTROY ... and I have YET to see YOUR olive branch.

Mine is on the table. And when I have seen YOU say something about how you believe we KNOW things ... and how a person is able to speak with ANYTHING LIKE Spiritual authority - preferably in POLITE conversation ... THEN I will gladly, happily share with you my own.

And if we find points of agreement, we can discuss these, just as we can address points of disagreement, or difference.

The problem with putting the ball in your court, is that we always get a dagger in the back, for the effort. How many times, Thomas?

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

 

[taijasi]

Oh, and - btw, Thomas, I am not the one who has told us all about how he "used to pack the lecture halls" when he spoke on esoteric topics.

Whereas I do not set MYSELF up to be the expert, and VAINLY presume to tell YOU all about MY various exploits, we find this is PRECISELY what YOU have done.

Who's speaking down WHOSE NOSE to WHOM?

Further, I can HARDLY imagine Stephan Hoeller, a noted Gnostic author and widely-acclaimed speaker, EXPERT on Gnostic teachings ... as engaging in a WAR OF WORDS, as he tries to BROWBEAT others into HIS way of thinking!!!

Would HUSTON SMITH do that, either? Does Huston Smith set out to DEMOLISH those philosophies and ideologies with which HE PERSONALLY doesn't happen to agree?

Friend, do you even KNOW what Huston Smith happens to believe? If anything, does he not CELEBRATE the multiplicity, the plurality, of the world's great religious teachings ... while yet HONORING the PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY, and acknowledging Ariadne's Thread running throughout ALL traditions - as emphasized in Joseph Cambell's works, and in Bill Moyers' contribution, The Power of Myth!

BASH BASH BASH

It REALLY is getting TIRESOME ...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

Buddha, with his teaching of Compassion, prepared the way for the Deed of Love by Christ Jesus.

If there were no other teaching, then that might be an argument, then again we must acknowledge that Love and Compassion are Universal in the world's Spiritual Traditions.

It is far easier to demonstrate how the Jewish Scriptures prepared the ground for the reception of the Word ... there the love of the Creator for his creature is manifest, especially in the ideas of Divine Mercy (Love) that counterbalances and indeed can supercede Divine Justice (karma).

Thomas