Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00447)

Thanks for the info

-Mark H.

On Apr 8, 2005 7:52 AM, W.Dallas TenBroeck <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Apl 8 2005
> 
> Dear C:
> 
> What is the "Atma transfer?"
> 
> Since ATMA is universal and everywhere, it is primarily at the center of our
> own being, as it is also at the core of every other being. The MONADS (or
> "life-atoms") fill the entire volume of space whether in or out of
> manifestation.
> 
> No if you mean transferring our brain-mind consciousness to the level of the
> ATMA, than don't you think we have to spiritualize it (I mean our personal
> brain mind way of ordinary and daily thinking).
> 
> Does this not start with a discipline to follow our desire to learn and the
> know TRUTH ? The "discipline" would be to devote a few minutes daily to
> considering such ideas as
> 
> 1 Universe, Space, Life -- as a general principle, -- all things
> whether small or large are a part of the same ONE ALL. LIFE is DEITY andis
> ALL.
> 
> 2 Brotherhood is one way to express that. But it is more that being
> friendly. It is learning to treat everyone, and all things, as part of the
> One LIFE, and so they are a part of us. [Consider that GOD is omnipresent--
> logically there is GOD in everything and in every being. GOD is omnipotent.
> It alone has the power to destroy and to change. Men do not have this power
> but they usurp it.
> 
> 3. We are as spiritual mind-beings immortals. This eliminates the fear
> of death and grief over "lost ones." Death is a very long sleep, and then
> we awake again, and resume our common work together. No one is ever "lost"
> or "forgotten." -- this is a general statement.
> 
> 4. We use many bodies always learning and improving our understanding
> of the Laws And Rules of living in the Universe. We are independent t the
> extent that we make decisions and then we have to receive and bear the
> consequences. If this is a just universe, and if GOD is omniscient (knows
> everything) there is no way we can escape the Law of exact compensation for
> good or evil. No priest has the power to get GOD to bend or break universal
> LAWS.
> 
> 5. Reincarnation is a fact and a necessity. Our family is the wholeof
> mankind. We have been incarnating for billions and billions of years as
> spiritual immortals. Where thought can go, there we make our family contacts
> and the physical miles have no meaning. [ consider the barriers that e-mail
> has destroyed for us ]
> 
> These ideas stretch the mind, and teach us the importance of our motives --
> that is, the reason why we do anything. They also serve to define the
> difference between virtue and selfishness.
> 
> Recently I posted some notes on "spiritual cultivation" -- they give an
> idea of how this could be considered and done.
> 
> Is there more to this matter?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Have a look at this:
> 
> THINGS COMMON TO CHRISTIANITY AND THEOSOPHY
> 
> THAT the Theosophical Society is not opposed to Christianity in either its
> dogmatic or pure form is easily demonstrated. Our constitution forbids it
> and the second object of the Society does also. The laws of our body say
> that there shall be no crusade against any religion, tacitly excepting, of
> course, the few degraded and bestial religions now in the world; the second
> object provides for a full and free study of all relations without bias and
> without hatred or sectarianism. And our history also, offering to view
> branch societies all over the world composed of Christians, refutes the
> charge that the Society as such is opposed to Christianity.
> 
> One instance is enough, that of the well-know Scottish Lodge, which states
> in its printed Transactions No. IX, "Theosophists who are Christians (and
> such are the majority of the Scottish Lodge)...Therefore Christians who are
> sincere and who know what Theosophy means must be Theosophists..." If
> members of this Society have said to the contrary it has been from ignorance
> and a careless thinking, for on the same ground we should also be opposedto
> all other religions which have any formalism, as has Christianity. Generally
> speaking, then, the Society is not and cannot be opposed to Christianity,
> while it may lead to a denial of some of the men-made theories of that
> Church.
> 
> But that is no more than branches of Christianity have always been doing,
> nor is it as much a danger to formal Christianity as the new standards of
> criticism which have crept into the Church.
> 
> Nor can it be either that Theosophy as a whole is opposed to Christianity,
> inasmuch as Theosophy is and must be the one truth underlying all religions
> that have ever been among men.
> 
> A calm and sincere examination of all the world's religions reveals the fact
> that in respect to ethics, in respect to laws, in respect to cosmogony and
> cosmology, the other religious books of the world are the same in most
> respects as those of the Christians, and that the distinguishing difference
> between the latter's religion and the others is that it asserts an
> exclusiveness for itself and a species of doctrinal intolerance not foundin
> the rest.
> 
> If we take the words and the example of Jesus as the founder of
> Christianity, it is at once seen that there is no opposition at all between
> that form of religion and Theosophy. Indeed, there is the completest
> agreement.
> 
> New ethics are not brought forward by Theosophy, nor can they be, as ethics
> of the right sort must always be the same. In his sermons and sayings areto
> be found the ethics given out by Buddha and by all other great teachers of
> all time. These cannot be altered, even though they hold up to weak mortals
> an ideal that is very difficult to live up to and sometimes impossible to
> realize in daily life.
> 
> That these rules of conduct laid down by Jesus are admittedly hard to follow
> is shown in the behavior of Christian states toward each other and in the
> declarations of their high prelates that the religion of Jesus cannot be the
> basis for diplomatic relations nor for the state government. Hence we find
> that the refuge from all this adopted by the theologian is in the statement
> that, although other and older religions had moral truth and similar ethics
> to those of Jesus, the Christian religion is the only one wherein the
> founder asserted that he was not merely a teacher from God but was also at
> the same time God himself; that is, that prior to Jesus a great deal of good
> was taught, but God did not see fit until the time of Jesus to come down
> among men into incarnation.
> 
> Necessarily such a declaration would seem to have the effect of breeding
> intolerance from the high and exclusive nature of the claim made. But an
> examination of Brahmanism shows that Rama was also God incarnate among men,
> though there the doctrine did not arouse the same sum of intolerance among
> its believers. So it must be true that it is not always a necessary
> consequence of such a belief that aggressive and exclusive intolerance will
> grow up.
> 
> The beliefs and teachings of Christianity are not all supportable by the
> words of Jesus, but his doctrines are at all times in accord with Theosophy.
> There is certainly a wide difference between the command of Jesus to be poor
> and have neither staff nor money and the fact of the possession by the
> Church of vast sums of money and immense masses of property, and with the
> drawing of high salaries by prelates, and with the sitting of prelates among
> the rulers of the earth upon thrones, and in the going to war and the
> levying of taxes by the Pope and by other religious heads.
> 
> The gathering of tithes and enforcement of them by law and by imprisonment
> at the instance of the Protestant clergy are not at all consistent with the
> words of Jesus. But all of the foregoing inconsistent matters are a part of
> present
> 
> Christianity, and if in those respects a difference from or opposition to
> them should seem to arise from Theosophical teachings we must admit it, but
> cannot be blamed. If we go back to the times of the early Christians and
> compare that Christianity with the present form, we see that opposition by
> Theosophy could hardly be charged, but that the real opposition then would
> be between that early form of the religion and its present complexion. It
> has been altered so much that the two are scarcely recognizable as the same.
> This is so much so that there exists a Christian sect today called "Early
> Christian."
> 
> Every one has at all times a right to object to theological interpretations
> if they are wrong, or if they distort the original teaching or introduce new
> notions. In this respect there is a criticism by Theosophy and Theosophists.
> But thinkers in the world not members of this Society and not leaning to
> Theosophy do the same thing.
> 
> Huxley and Tyndall and Darwin and hosts of others took ground that by mere
> force of truth and fact went against theological views, Galileo also, seeing
> that the earth was round and moved, said so, but the theologian, thinking
> that such belief tended to destroy the power of the church and to upset
> biblical theories, made him recant at the risk of his liberty and life.
> 
> If the old views of theology were still in force with the state behind them,
> the triumphs of science would have been few and we might still be imagining
> the earth to be flat and square and the sun revolving about it.
> 
> Theosophical investigation discloses to the student's view the fact that in
> all ages there have appeared great teachers of religion and that they all
> had two methods of instruction. One, or that for the masses of people, was
> plain and easy to understand; it was of ethics, of this life and of the
> next, of immortality and love; it always gave out the Golden Rule.
> 
> Such a teacher was Buddha, and there can be no controversy on the fact that
> he died centuries before the birth of Jesus. He declared his religion to be
> that of love. Others did the same. Jesus came and taught ethics and love,
> with the prominent exception of his prophecy that he came to bring a sword
> and division as recorded in the Gospels.
> 
> There is also an incident which accents a great difference between him and
> Buddha; it is the feast where he drank wine and also made some for othersto
> drink. In regard to this matter, Buddha always taught that all intoxicating
> liquors were to be rigidly abstained from. The second method was the secret
> or Esoteric one, and that Jesus also used.
> 
> We find his disciples asking him why he always used easy parables with the
> people, and he replied that to the disciples he taught the mysteries, or the
> more recondite matters of religion. This is the same as prevailed with the
> older saints.
> Buddha also had his private teachings to certain disciples. He even made a
> distinction among his personal followers, making classes in their ranks, to
> one of which he gave the simplest of rules, to the other the complex and
> difficult. So he must have pursued the ancient practise of having two sects
> of teachings, and this must have been a consequence of his education.
> 
> At twelve years of age he came to the temple and disputed with the learned
> rabbis on matters of law. Thus he must have known the law; and what that law
> was and is it is necessary to ask. It was the law of Moses, full of the most
> technical and abstruse things, and not all to be found in the simple words
> of the books.
> 
> The Hebrew books are a vast mine of cypher designedly so constructed and
> that should be borne in mind by all students. It ought to be known to
> Christians, but is not, as they prefer not to go into the mysteries of the
> Jews. But Jesus knew it. His remark that "not one jot or tittle of the law
> would pass" show this. Most people read this simply as rhetoric, but it is
> not so. The jots and tittles are a part of the books and go to make up the
> cypher of the Cabala or the hidden meaning of the law.
> 
> This is a vast system of itself, and was not invented after the time of
> Jesus. Each letter is also a number, and thus every word can be and is,
> according to a well-known rule, turned into some other word or into a
> number. Thus one name will be a part of a supposed historical story, but
> when read by the cypher it becomes a number of some cycle or event or a sign
> of the Zodiac or something else quite different from the mere letters.
> 
> Thus the name of Adam is composed of three consonants, A, D, and M. These
> mean by the system of the cypher respectively, "Adam, David, and Messiah."
> The Jews also held that Adam for his first sin would have to and did
> reincarnate as David and would later come as Messiah.
> 
> Turning to Revelations we find traces of the same system in the remarks
> about the numbers of the beast and the man. The Cabala or hidden law is of
> the highest importance, and as the Christian religion is a Hebraic one it
> cannot be properly studied or understood without the aid given by the secret
> teaching. And the Cabala is not dead nor unknown, but has many treatises
> written on it in different languages. By using it, we will find in the Old
> Testament and in the records of Jesus a complete and singular agreement with
> Theosophy.
> 
> Examine for instance, the Theosophical teachings that there is a secret of
> esoteric doctrine, and the doctrine of inability of man to comprehend God.
> This is the Brahmanical doctrine of the unapproachableness of Parabrahm.
> 
> In Exodus there is a story which to the profane is absurd, of God telling
> Moses that he could not see Him. It is in Exodus xxxiii, 20, where God says
> Moses could see him from behind only. Treat this by the rule of the Cabala
> and it is plain, but read it on the surface and you have nonsense.
> 
> In Exodus iii, 14, God says that his name is "I am that I am." this is AHYH
> ASHR AHYH, which has to be turned into its numerical value, as each letter
> is also a number. Thus A is 1, H is 5, Y is 10, H is 5. There being two
> words the same, they add up 42. The second word is A, 1; SH, 300; R, 200
> making 501, which added to 42 gives 543 as the number of "I am that I am."
> 
> Now Moses by the same system makes 345 or the reverse of the other, by which
> the Cabala shows God meant Moses to know God by his reverse or Moses
> himself. To some this may appear fanciful, but as it is the method on which
> these old books are constructed it must be known in order to understand what
> is not clear and to remove from the Christian books the well-sustained
> charge of absurdity and sometimes injustice and cruelty shown on their face.
> 
> So instead of God's being made ridiculous by attributing to him such a
> remark as that Moses could only "see his hinder parts," we perceive that
> under the words is a deep philosophical tenet corresponding to those of
> Theosophy, that Parabrahm is not to be known and that Man is a small copyof
> God through which in some sense or in the reverse we may see God.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion along the line of comparison we will
> have to place Christianity on one side and put on the other as representing
> the whole body of Theosophy, so far as revealed, the other various religions
> of the world, and see what, if anything, is common between them.
> 
> First we see that Christianity, being the younger, has borrowed its
> doctrines from other religions. It is now too enlightened an age to say, as
> the Church did when Abbe Huc brought back his account of Buddhism from
> Tibet, that either the devil or wicked men invented the old religions so as
> to confuse and confute the Christian. Evidently, no matter how done, the
> system of the Christian is mixed Aryan and Jewish. This could not be
> otherwise, since Jesus was a Jew, and his best disciples and the others who
> came after like Paul were of the same race and faith. The early Fathers
> also, living as they did in Eastern lands, got their ideas from what they
> found about them.
> 
> Next a very slight examination will disclose the fact that the ritual of the
> Christian Church is also borrowed. Taken from all nations and religions, not
> one part of it is either of this age or of the Western hemisphere The
> Brahmans have an extensive and elaborate ritual, and so have the Buddhists.
> The rosary, long supposed by Catholics to be a thing of their own, has
> existed in Japan for uncounted years, and much before the West had any
> civilization the Brahman had his form of rosary.
> The Roman Catholic Christian sees the priest ring the bell at a certain part
> of the Mass, and the old Brahman knows that when he is praying to God he
> must also ring a bell to be found in every house as well as in the temple.
> This is very like what Jesus commanded. He said that prayer must be in
> secret, that is, where no one can hear; the Brahman rings the small bell so
> that even if ears be near they shall not hear any words but only the sound
> of the bell.
> 
> The Christian has images of virgin and child; the same thing is to be found
> in Egyptian papyri and in carved statues of India made before the Christian
> came into existence. Indeed, all the ritual and observance of the Christian
> churches may be found in the mass of other religions with which for the
> moment we are making a rough comparison.
> 
> Turning now to doctrine, we find again complete agreement with the dogmatic
> part of Christianity in these older religions.
> 
> Salvation by faith is taught by some priests. That is the old Brahmanical
> theory, but with the difference that the Brahman one calls for faith in God
> as the means, the end, and the object of faith. The Christian adds faith in
> the son of God. A form of Japanese Buddhism said to be due to Amitabha says
> that one may be saved by complete faith in Amita Buddha, and that even if
> one prays but three times to Amita he will be saved in accordance with a vow
> made by that teacher.
> Immortality of soul has ever been taught by the Brahmans.
> 
> Their whole system of religion and of cosmogony is founded on the idea of
> soul and of the spiritual nature of the universe. Jesus and St. Paul taught
> the unity of spiritual beings-or men-when they said that heaven and the
> spirit of God were in us, and the doctrine of Unity is one of the oldest and
> most important of the Brahmanical scheme.
> 
> The possibility of arriving at perfection by means of religion and science
> combined so that a man becomes godlike-or the doctrine of Adepts and
> Mahatmas as found in Theosophy-is common to Buddhism and Brahmanism, and is
> not contrary to the teachings of Jesus. He said to his disciples that they
> could if they would do even greater works-or "miracles"-than he did. To do
> these works one has to have great knowledge and power.
> 
> The doctrine assumes the perfectibility of humanity and destroys the theory
> of original sin; but far from being out of concordance with the religion of
> Jesus, it is in perfect accord. He directed his followers to be perfect even
> as the Father in heaven is. They could not come up to that command by any
> possibility unless man has the power to reach to that high state.
> 
> The command is the same as is found in the ancient Aryan system. Hence,
> then, whether we look broadly over the field at mere ritual dogma or at
> ethics, we find the most complete accord between Theosophy and true
> Christianity.
> 
> But now taking up some important doctrines put forward by members of the
> Theosophical Society under their right of free investigation and free
> speech, what do we discover?
> 
> Novelty, it is true, to the mind of the western man half-taught about his
> own religion, but nothing that is uncommon to Christianity.
> 
> Those doctrines may be, for the present, such as Reincarnation or rebirth
> over and over again for the purpose of discipline and gain, for reward, for
> punishment, and for enlargement of character; next Karma, or exact justice
> or compensation for all thoughts and acts. These two are a part of
> Christianity, and may be found in the Bible.
> 
> Reincarnation has been regarded by some Christian ministers as essential to
> the Christian religion. Dr. Edward Beecher said he saw its necessity, and
> the Rev. Wm. Alger has recorded his view to the same effect. If a Christian
> insists upon the belief in Jesus, who came only eighteen centuries ago after
> millenniums had passed and men had died out of the faith by millions, it
> will be unjust for them to be condemned for a failure to believe a doctrine
> they never heard of; hence the Christian may well say that under the law of
> reincarnation, which was upheld by Jesus, all those who never heard of Jesus
> will be reborn after his coming in A.D. I, so as to accept the plan of
> salvation.
> 
> In the Gospels we find Jesus referring to this doctrine as if a well
> established one. When it was broached by the disciples as the possible
> reason for the punishment by blindness from birth of a man of the time.
> Jesus did not convert the doctrine, as he would have done did he see in his
> wisdom as Son of God that it was pernicious. But at another time he asserted
> that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elias the ancient prophet.
> This cannot be wiped out of the books, and is a doctrine as firmly fixed in
> Christianity, though just now out of favor, as is any other.
> 
> The paper by Prof. Landsberg shows you what Origen, one of the greatest of
> the Christian Fathers, taught on preëxistence of souls. This theory
> naturally suggests reincarnation on this earth, for it is more natural to
> suppose the soul's wanderings to be here until all that life can give has
> been gained, rather than that the soul should wander among other planets or
> simply fall to this abruptly, to be as suddenly raised up to heaven or
> thrown down to hell.
> 
> The next great doctrine is Karma. This is the religion of salvation by works
> as opposed to faith devoid of works. It is one of the prime doctrines of
> Jesus. By "by their works ye shall know them," he must have meant that faith
> without works is dead.
> 
> The meaning of Karma literally is "works," and the Hindus apply it not only
> to the operations of nature and of the great laws of nature in connection
> with man's reward and punishment, but also to all the different works that
> man can perform.
> St. James insists on the religion of works. He says that true religion isto
> visit the fatherless and the widows and to keep oneself unspotted from the
> world. St. Matthew says we shall be judged for every act, word, and thought.
> This alone is possible under the doctrine of Karma.
> 
> The command of Jesus to refrain from judgment or we should ourselves be
> judged is a plain statement of Karma, as is, too, the rest of the verse
> saying that what we mete out shall be given back to us. St. Paul, following
> this, distinctly states the doctrine thus: "Brethren, be not deceived; God
> is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap." The
> word "whatsoever" includes every act and thought, and permits no escape from
> the consequences of any act. A clearer statement of the law of Karma as
> applied to daily life could hardly be made.
> 
> Again, going to Revelations, the last words in the Christian book, we read
> all through it that the last judgment proceeds on the works-in other words,
> on the Karma-of men. It distinctly asserts that in the vision, as well asin
> the messages to the Churches, judgment passes for works.
> 
> We therefore must conclude that the religion of Jesus is in complete accord
> with the chief doctrines of Theosophy; it is fair to assume that even the
> most recondite of theosophical theories would not have been opposed by him.
> 
> Our discussion must have led us to the conclusion that the religion of
> Karma, the practise of good works, is that in which the religion of Jesus
> agrees with Theosophy, and that alone thereby will arrive the longed-for day
> when the great ideal of Universal Brotherhood will be realized, and will
> furnish the common ground on which all faiths may stand and from which every
> nation may work for the good and the perfection of the human family.
> 
> William Q. Judge
> Paper read before
> Aryan (N.Y.) T.S., 1894
> 
> ==========================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christinalee
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:57 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Past lives carrying over
> 
> Advise: Better to ask Dallis for that Atma transfer.
> 
> And there are enough people writing under their own name
> as Dallis,Daniel,Jerry,Bart, Leon,Cass,Eldon,Morton,Anand,Mauri and
> me.
> Maybe I forget someone to mention.
> 
> From Dallis you can looking forward to a total story of theosophical
> teachings.
> 
> Success
> 
> Christina
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com