Re: Cass- The Visions of Seers
Mar 26, 2006 05:08 PM
by Vincent
You wrote:
"No offence meant Vincent, but as an Idealist you are trying to make
the theory fit your beliefs on the subject, viz reconciling
christianity with spiritualism."
What specific theory of mine are you referring to? Would you please
quote my exact statement? I've presented many theories.
And how are you defining 'spiritualism' as you are using the word?
Do you actually mean to say 'spiritism' instead? 'Spiritualism' is
practicing 'spirituality', whereas 'spiritism' is interacting with
spirits'. In what way do you see either one of these as being in
conflict with Christianity?
"Someone wisely said you cannot be beholding to two masters."
Here are the biblical quotations of Jesus that you are referring to,
as pulled from the NAS95 translation:
Mt 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the
one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the
other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Lu 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate
the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and
despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
Contrary to the standard Christian interpretation, you are pulling
the verses out of context, and misapplying the original text. The
verses specifically refer to love towards Christ versus the love of
wealth. They do not refer to a conflict between Christianity and
spiritualism the way that you refer. You are projecting an imagery
onto the text that wasn't intended by the authors, hence you are
misinterpreting the biblical texts.
"Would suggest you read IU2, page 117 in relation to Socrates, under
the heading "The Visions of seers not provoked by drugs in regard to
your trance states."
What is the IU2? The texts that you've provided are fragmented.
Were they somehow damaged? The paragraphs are curiously split in
odd places.
I might also reference that I do not, nor have I ever, practiced
mediumship. Spirits do not enter into me and speak through me,
because I do not allow them any such opportunity. They may sit
beside me, wherein I percieve their presence, and we may dialogue
back and forth together, sometimes agreeing and sometimes not, but I
do not channel them, or allow them dominion over my psychological
processes.
I simply treat them as I would anyone that I meet at the grocery
store, interacting with them at times, but not handing my soul over
to them, either consciously or subconsciously. I have strict
psychic shields always in place, and boundaries are kept, so that no
telepathic links are established. They have their space and I have
mine.
Whereas, your fragmented text provision seems to be talking more
about mediums channeling spirits, which I do not practice. Do you
understand the difference between the two modes of operation? How
are you interpreting the text that you've provided for me, and how
are you specifically applying it to me? If you believe that this
text is somehow applicable to my personal experience, then in what
specific way, insofar as I do not channel spirits as a medium?
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> No offence meant Vincent, but as an Idealist you are trying to
make the theory fit your beliefs on the subject, viz reconciling
christianity with spiritualism. Someone wisely said you cannot be
beholding to two masters.
>
> Would suggest you read IU2, page 117 in relation to Socrates,
under the heading "The Visions of seers not provoked by drugs in
regard to your trance states.
> Cass
>
> The hierophants and some Brahmans are accused of having
administered to their epoptai strong drinks or anæsthetics to
produce visions which shall be taken by the latter as realities.
They did and do use sacred beverages which, like the Soma-drink,
possess the faculty of freeing the astral form from the bonds of
matter; but in those visions there is as little to be attributed to
hallucination as in the glimpses which the scientist, by the help of
his optical instrument, gets into the microscopic world. A man
cannot perceive, touch, and converse with pure spirit through any of
his bodily senses. Only spirit alone can talk to and see spirit; and
even our astral soul, the Doppelgänger, is too gross, too much
tainted yet with earthly matter to trust entirely to its perceptions
and insinuations.
> How dangerous may often become untrained mediumship, and how
thoroughly it was understood and provided against by the ancient
sages, is perfectly exemplified in the case of Socrates. The old
Grecian philosopher was a “medium”; hence, he had never been
initiated into the Mysteries; for such was the rigorous law. But he
had his “familiar spirit” as they call it, his daimonion; and
this invisible counsellor became the cause of his death. It is
generally believed that if he was not initiated into the Mysteries
it was because he himself neglected to become so. But the Secret
Records teach us that it was because he could not be admitted to
participate in the sacred rites, and precisely, as we state, on
account of his mediumship. There was a law against the admission
not only of such as were convicted of deliberate witchcraft* but even
>
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"
> * We really think that the word “witchcraft” ought once for
all to be understood in the sense which properly belongs to it.
Witchcraft may be either conscious or unconscious. Certain wicked
and dangerous results may be obtained through the mesmeric powers of
a so-called sorcerer who misuses his potential fluid; or again they
may be achieved through an easy access of malicious tricky “spirit
(so much the worse if
>
>
>
> 118
ISIS UNVEILED.
>
>
> of those who were known to have “a familiar spirit.” The
law was just and logical, because a genuine medium is more or less
irresponsible; and the eccentricities of Socrates are thus accounted
for in some degree. A medium must be passive; and if a firm
believer in his “spirit-guide” he will allow himself to be ruled
by the latter, not by the rules of the sanctuary. A medium of olden
times, like the modern “medium” was subject to be entranced at
the will and pleasure of the “power” which controlled him;
therefore, he could not well have been entrusted with the awful
secrets of the final initiation, “never to be revealed under the
penalty of death.” The old sage, in unguarded moments of
“spiritual inspiration,” revealed that which he had never
learned; and was therefore put to death as an atheist.
> How then, with such an instance as that of Socrates, in relation
to the visions and spiritual wonders at the epoptai, of the Inner
Temple, can any one assert that these seers, theurgists, and
thaumaturgists were all “spirit-mediums”? Neither Pythagoras,
Plato, nor any of the later more important Neo-platonists; neither
Iamblichus, Longinus, Proclus, nor Apollonius of Tyana, were ever
mediums; for in such case they would not have been admitted to the
Mysteries at all. As Taylor proves " “This assertion of divine
visions in the Mysteries is clearly confirmed by Plotinus. And in
short, that magical evocation formed a part of the sacerdotal office
in them, and that this was universally believed by all antiquity
long before the era of the later Platonists,” shows that apart
from natural “mediumship,” there has existed, from the beginning
of time, a mysterious science, discussed by many, but known only to
a few
> The use of it is a longing toward our only true and real home
" the after-life, and a desire to cling more closely to our parent
spirit; abuse of it is sorcery, witchcraft, black magic. Between
the two is placed natural “mediumship”; a soul clothed with
imperfect matter, a ready agent for either the one or the other, and
utterly dependent on its surroundings of life, constitutional
heredity " physical as well as mental " and on the nature of the
“spirits” it attracts around itself. A blessing or a curse, as
fate will have it, unless the medium is purified of earthly dross.
> The reason why in every age so little has been generally known
of the mysteries of initiation, is twofold. The first has already
been explained by more than one author, and lies in the terrible
penalty following the least indiscretion. The second, is the
superhuman difficulties and even dangers which the daring candidate
of old had to encounter, and either conquer, or die in the attempt,
when, what is still worse, he did not lose his
>
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"
> human) to the atmosphere surrounding a medium. How many
thousands of such irresponsible innocent victims have met infamous
deaths through the tricks of those Elementaries!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vincent <vblaz2004@...> wrote: Jerry-
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I think the Theosophical Society began to fail in 1885, and the
> first signs of it beginning to depart from the ideal of it's
> founders began in the fall of 1890."
>
> And aside from these failures which you attribute to the
> Theosophical Society, in what ways do you think they have still
been
> subsequently successful today?
>
> "My wife and I recently attended a weekend seminar at Krotona. We
> had a good time. Got to see old friends and walked around the
> grounds remembering the many people who once live there are are
now
> gone. I am a life member of the TS. I still work with the TS
> whenever they ask my assistance. For instance, I was helping the
> former librarian at Olcott on a project to complete sets of rare
> journals to be microfilmed at the American Theological Library
> Association. Anything I can to to help the movement, I still
gladly
> do."
>
> What things still appeal to you about the Theosophical Society
today?
>
> "You must understand that I am an idealist. Self interested
> politics are expected in for profit corporations. After all,
their
> sole purpose for their existence is to make money in any way they
> can. The interests of the CEO's is understandably to make sure
that
> they get a nice piece of that pie for themselves."
>
> I believe that not-for-profit corporations are just as money-
> centered as for-profit corporations. They both require money to
> operate, and are permeated with organizational politics at their
> highest ranks. They just obtain their money in different ways.
>
> "Religious, philosophical and educational organizations have very
> different agendas. Their purpose is to tend to the spiritual and
> intellectual needs of the people. There is no place for self
> interest in these organizations, and because it happens anyway
does
> not make it OK with me."
>
> I believe that religious, philosophical and educational
> organizations are first and foremost out to make money. Their
> services are strictly delivered at a price. They may meet
spiritual
> and intellectual needs, but only for a monetary fee. Money is
> central and donations are key.
>
> "I'm sure that you will learn quite a lot there. You have a
valuable
> resource near your door. You are very lucky."
>
> Thank you. Yes, I feel lucky to have the National headquarters of
> the Theosophical Society just 20 minutes away from me.
>
> "We have what we have and the Biblical scholars are doing the best
> they can with it. They would just like to have back the 150 or so
> texts they know about that were destroyed by the church
authorities,
> and the unknown more that must have also existed."
>
> I suggest that there is such a wealth in the Bible that we
currently
> retain, that even if we lost another 50% of it today, we'd still
> retain more spiritual treasure within it than we could
qualitatively
> ingest in a lifetime.
>
> "How can I answer this question? They are all historical texts in
> the sense that they are old. So in this meaning, they are all
> historically valid. But as I mentioned earlier, none of these
> texts were written as historical accounts of an event."
>
> I'm not sure where you get this idea. I suggest that the gospels
> were very much intended as historical texts, even if
> evangelistically focused. Luke attempts to focus on each detail
for
> accuracy, for example. Now one may say that the historical
methods
> of recording and/or verifying information 2000 years ago was not
as
> precise as it is today, but the gospels are historically-intended
> documents nonetheless, even while remaining evangelistic.
>
> "The Gospels are written around a series of actions with powerful
> cultural connotations which touched upon Greek spirituality and
> aroused spiritual responses: the virgin birth; turning water to
> wine; healing the Bind man; chasing the demons into the pigs etc.
> Understanding how the Greeks understood these images requires a
> study in Greek religion. That is why when we started our class in
> the Origins of Christianity, be began with a study of Greek, Roman
> and Egyptian religion, and preceded these by a three year study of
> Judaism."
>
> I suggest that the historicity of the gospels and the presence of
> Greek cultural overtones are not mutually exclusive. The two can
> exist together.
>
> "As for the presumably historical elements in the Gospel
scriptures:
> Birth at Bethlehem; flight to Egypt; the 12 apostles; the Jesu
Logia;
> the over turning of the money changer's tables; the Sanhedrin
trial;
> the interview with Pilate; the passion, all are riddled with
> historical difficulties."
>
> These historical difficulties do not elimate the fact that the
> gospels are originally intended as historical documents. Rather,
> you're just not satisfied with their degree of historical accuracy
> by today's standards. Those are two very different scenarios.
>
> "I wasn't thinking of drug use. But yes, I agree, it is very
> risky. I am saying that certain practices which do not involve
> drugs, which force open the "doors of perception" as Huxley called
> it, can also have bad results."
>
> That all depends on how much force you use. I've personally
> experienced that delicate force can have rather good results as
well.
>
> "You description reminds me of practices carried on by some Indian
> sadhus, and also some Native American practices. They open the
lower
> psychic realms in induce visions etc. but are useless for the
> development of the real spiritual clairvoyance."
>
> Yes, some of these practices were used by ancient Indians. I'm
not
> certain how you're using the term 'spiritual clairvoyance', but I
> nonetheless suggest that higher spirituality is not attained
without
> first opening up the lower psychic realms for purposes of
> cleansing. In this sense, one must pass through the hells (the
> darkness of the psychic subconscious) before entering the heavens
> (gaining spiritual enlightenment).
>
> This is very similar to the concept that Jesus himself descended
> into the hells and subsequently ascended into the heavens. Or
when
> he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness prior to his earthly
> ministry.
>
> If the lower psychic centers are not opened so that they can be
> cleansed, we will merely adopt a materialistic pseudo-spirituality
> as a result, which is even more dangerous than opening up the
lower
> psychic centers of our subconscious.
>
> Blessings
>
> Vince
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Vince,
> >
> > >Do you somehow feel that the Theosophical Society of Wheaton,
> where
> > >I have recently been attending, has departed from the ideals of
> it's
> > >founders?
> > >
> > I think the Theosophical Society began to fail in 1885, and the
> first
> > signs of it beginning to depart from the ideal of it's founders
> began in
> > the fall of 1890.
> >
> > >Do you still personally attend there, or have you
> > >altogether ceased?
> > >
> > My wife and I recently attended a weekend seminar at Krotona.
We
> had a
> > good time. Got to see old friends and walked around the grounds
> > remembering the many people who once live there are are now
gone.
> I am
> > a life member of the TS. I still work with the TS whenever they
> ask my
> > assistance. For instance, I was helping the former librarian at
> Olcott
> > on a project to complete sets of rare journals to be microfilmed
> at the
> > American Theological Library Association. Anything I can to to
> help the
> > movement, I still gladly do.
> >
> > >So you seem to be saying that they've been a bit political to
say
> > >the least. But the same could be said of any incorporated
> business
> > >or religious organization. Do you feel that they actually did
> > >something bad or wrong?
> > >
> > You must understand that I am an idealist. Self interested
> politics are
> > expected in for profit corporations. After all, their sole
> purpose for
> > their existence is to make money in any way they can. The
> interests of
> > the CEO's is understandably to make sure that they get a nice
> piece of
> > that pie for themselves. Religious, philosophical and
educational
> > organizations have very different agendas. Their purpose is to
> tend to
> > the spiritual and intellectual needs of the people. There is no
> place
> > for self interest in these organizations, and because it happens
> anyway
> > does not make it OK with me.
> >
> > >Honestly, I've just been attending some weekly teachings and
> > >courses, paying each applicable donation per visit which is
> > >necessary to run the meetings. Perhaps I will learn some
things
> > >there, and I believe that I have already as well.
> > >
> > I'm sure that you will learn quite a lot there. You have a
> valuable
> > resource near your door. You are very lucky.
> >
> > >I would suggest that, even if the Bible is so grossly edited as
> you
> > >assert, we nonetheless have enough of it historically intact to
> make
> > >useful reading of it. Granted it may be fragmented, but we
still
> > >have a reasonable amount to constuctively work with.
> > >
> > We have what we have and the Biblical scholars are doing the
best
> they
> > can with it. They would just like to have back the 150 or so
> texts they
> > know about that were destroyed by the church authorities, and
the
> > unknown more that must have also existed.
> >
> > >What portions of the Bible, if any, do you believe remain
> > >historically valid? Is it all bad, or just parts thereof?
> > >
> > How can I answer this question? They are all historical texts
in
> the
> > sense that they are old. So in this meaning, they are all
> historically
> > valid. But as I mentioned earlier, none of these texts were
> written as
> > historical accounts of an event. The Gospels are written around
a
> > series of actions with powerful cultural connotations which
> touched upon
> > Greek spirituality and aroused spiritual responses: the virgin
> birth;
> > turning water to wine; healing the Bind man; chasing the demons
> into the
> > pigs etc. Understanding how the Greeks understood these images
> requires
> > a study in Greek religion. That is why when we started our
class
> in the
> > Origins of Christianity, be began with a study of Greek, Roman
and
> > Egyptian religion, and preceded these by a three year study of
> Judaism.
> >
> > As for the presumably historical elements in the Gospel
> scriptures:
> > Birth at Bethlehem; flight to Egypt; the 12 apostles; the Jesu
> Logia;
> > the over turning of the money changer's tables; the Sanhedrin
> trial; the
> > interview with Pilate; the passion, all are riddled with
> historical
> > difficulties.
> >
> > >These dangers moreso exist in the context of those who use
> > >illegitimate consciousness-expanding drugs to induce their
> trances.
> > >
> > I wasn't thinking of drug use. But yes, I agree, it is very
> risky. I
> > am saying that certain practices which do not involve drugs,
which
> force
> > open the "doors of perception" as Huxley called it, can also
have
> bad
> > results.
> >
> > >Whereas, my own trance-conditioning is completely the opposite,
> and
> > >revolves around natural physiological conditioning, such as
> > >recycling the waking/sleeping rhythms and fasting/eating
rhythms,
> > >more after the manner of an athlete. Hence, my trances are a
bit
> > >more difficult to induce, but are easily shut down. Bodily
self-
> > >mastery, much like a bodybuilder, versus crass chemical
> augmentation.
> > >
> > You description reminds me of practices carried on by some
Indian
> > sadhus, and also some Native American practices. They open the
> lower
> > psychic realms in induce visions etc. but are useless for the
> > development of the real spiritual clairvoyance.
> >
> >
> > Best
> > Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Blab-away for as little as 1/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
