Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00190)

Leon:

Excuse if I speak what I say, or what I think, but I am tired of this kind of
misunderstanding ... something really incredible when we know, even just a little
as in my case, of christian theology, or christian misticism.

I donīt think that christianism is the best way.  No. I think that there are many
misunderstandings, even in the real (not the fictional) theology.  And I think
that actual christianity is only the exoterical form of a historically lost
esoterical christianism.

However, even with these ideas, I think that you are talking about something I
coludnīt seriously call christianism.

You talk about Christian theology, but it seems you really donīt know what you are
talking about.  You talk about christianity, and again it seems you donīt know
what you are talking about.

Your knwoledge of christianism is very poor: you apareantly know just its
mass-ignorant-political caricature of picture.

Do you know that there has been Holy Wars even in the history of Budism?  But,
will we say that was really budism? Of course not.  There may be even Holy Wars,
but Light remains different.  There and here.  The mass-ignorant-political
caricature of picture of christianism that you have in mind (as if it were the
total and real and unvaluable christianism) looks like the hebrew tradition in the
time of Jesus.  But in this case, you recognize that Light remains different (Just
as Jesus: he said, in the mountain, do what they say, but donīt act like them).
You have good words for the hebrew kabalist tradition, donīt you?

To talk, in this context, about Hitler ... whow Leon, there you were not thinking
clearly, just feeling.

Christianism vs. evolution??  Have you read Teilhard de Chardin??

You said:

> This completely negates the Christian idea of a personal God or "savior" who
> is the Supreme Dictator, and who, as a "personality" can take vengeance and
> make judgments that can send us off after only one life on Earth to the
> permanent fires of Hell or the pleasures of Heaven.

If we want to understand the value of a Spiritual Tradition (and I donīt know if
you think that christianism is a Spiritual Tradition), we must compare it with
others, in the same levels.  Do we want to know its perennial value?  Letīs see
their Masters, Saints, Mistics, just as we do in the case of Budism, when we want
to know its perennial value.  We canīt compare a caricature of one vs. the high
spiritual teachings in the other.

So, if you talk about a Supreme Dictator, I see that you really donīt have (excuse
me for these words) the slightest idea of the high experiences, the high teachings
of the Christian Tradition -even the exoterical one.

Letīs talk about the idea of a personal God.  You talk about it as if it were a
ignorant idea (a satanic idea, if Satan existed).  Well, at least equally ignorant
(or equally true, in the sense where it is true) as the idea of the Bhakti Yoga,
and the Great Gurus of that tradition.  Later on, equally ignorant as the
teachings, about that, of Sri Aurobindo or Swami Vivekananda.

If that is ignorance, at least is a very valuable ignorance.  May be not the most
valuable, but very valuable.  And I am not talking in terms of piety, but in a
metaphisical sense.

Letīs talk about Heaven and Hell.  I agree with you that these ideas are wrong.
But, I have a doubt.  Are these ideas equally wrong as the kabalistic teachings
about that?  I say:  Could you prove me that kabalists didnīt teach something
diferent in the deep meaning?  Eliphas Levi, known as a great kabalist, thought
something like those ideas, as if those ideas where the kabalistic ones.  At
least, about eternity of Hell.  He may have recognized many exceptions, due to a
very unusual self and painful efforce when we are dead.  But I talk about the
similarity of the teachings in the substance.

Was that the kabalistic teachings?  Did kabalists teach reincarnation, for
example?  Coul you prove it without making magic with the words of the texts?  If
you are going to use a non literal interpretation, could you tell us (just to be
sure that is not a merely imaginary meaning, but a real code of simbolical
language effectively and uniformely used) how could we agree, with an explanation
of the simbological code, and the prove of its uniform use in various texts, how
could we agree with that interpretation?  If language is a language, and its rules
of meanings are really semantic rules, it will be not important if I want to
believe or not in reincarnation.  I will have to conclude that reincarnation was
thaught by kabalists, even if I donīt like that.  The same that, if I learn
english as a foreign language,  it doesnīt matter if I am Marx, I will have to
conclude that  Milton Friedman said what he said.

Because, just if reincarnationists can see reincarnation in the kabalistic
tradition, or in the Bible, couldnīt it be that they see what they want to see,
just because they wanted that?

So, if you say that Jesus taught pur kabalistic truths, could you (or anyone else)
prove that the Bible teachs reincarnation, for example?  Because may be here
happens that only reincarnationists see reincarnation there.

Have we read many books of history of religions? We donīt find there the idea that
Christianism thaught reincarnation.  Instead of that, we find that it is a great
difference between judeo-cristianism and oriental religions.

Just reincarnationists see reincarnation there?  Wasnīt it supposed to be a merely
result of interpretation, the application of semantic rules?

DAVID C.




-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.