Cass- The Visions of Seers
Mar 28, 2006 08:47 PM
by Vincent
You wrote:
"You named yourself an Idealist. By spiritualism I am referring to
the Spiritual Path, which is knowledge of the Divine Wisdom through
Gnani Yoga (through the intellect, which means years and years of
study to comprehend a fragment of truth)."
Although I may consider myself to be an idealist 'ideally', I
nonetheless attempt to focus my actions to make myself as
functionally practical as possible.
I am not particularly familiar with Gnani Yoga. I do believe that
we commonly only see a glimpse of the spiritual realm, and that
being from a lesser carnal vantage point in the first place, insofar
as we are often prone to misinterpretations, being the mortals that
we are.
"The quote concerning the two masters was a reference to the Christ
Within (our higher self) and the Christ Without (our lower self)."
Sounds like the spiritual and the material.
"The path of psychism is the path of the personality."
Having to do to with the psyche (mind, heart, will, conscience),
which may be focused/empowered from either the higher or the lower
realms. Powered from the higher spiritual or the lesser material.
"The path of the novitiate is always supervised in order that he/she
may learn of the natural laws of nature, without any harm coming to
the pupil."
Supervised by who? I have often sought supervision at the hands of
religious mentors, but they routinely seemed unable to even grasp
metaphysical concepts, and instead simply condemned any supernatural
experiences as demonic. This was while they were often bound to
their own materialistic agendas. They would profess to be spiritual
in their message, but in their actions they were often merely
materialistic. I speak mostly of the Christian fundamentalist
leadership that I had often sat under.
"Hence you cannot have two masters in direct opposition to each
other."
I generally agree. But I can't seem to isolate any clear opposition
here. I'm not specifically certain what opposition that you're
referring to, and I am often prone to wish to avoid any potentiality
of dualism.
"Yes I am taking it out of context and misinterpreting the text but
I am at the end of a very long line of others who have done it
before me."
The scriptures that you had quoted (about the opposition of two
masters) was originally intended as a contrast between serving
Christ and 'materialism' (the love of wealth). 'Materialism' then
being the opposite of 'spiritualism' as you seem to be defining it.
Of course, I fully agree with you with the fact that we often
misinterpret the scriptures, much like the way that we commonly
misinterpret other texts, and even each other's words. We each
speak different languages in our own way, subject to our individual
personality types and unique life experiences, even if we are all
otherwise speaking english to each other.
The very words that we use are often charged with different moods
and concepts, according to our past experiences, and so we often
miscommunicate and misinterpret in our daily lives. Especially when
we meet someone different from our own selves, and there are alot of
different people out there, whom we seldom come close to
understanding.
"I am not psychic therefore I am unfamiliar with the methods you
mention."
I personally believe that everyone has psychic potentials, but this
is not even as important as understanding the reality of who we are
spiritually. The spiritual is much higher than the psychical. The
psychical is but a mere shadow of the spiritual, even as the
physical is a mere shadow of the psychical.
"John Edwards appears to have the same technique as you do, and he
refers to himself as a Medium - or an intermediary between the
physical and astral worlds."
I am not familiar with John Edwards. And I certainly do not refer
to myself as a medium. Namely, I do not communicate messages to
others for the dead. I have no desire to, and the dead don't always
have something useful to say, although sometimes they do. It is
better that we gain a our own testimony and convey it, rather than
merely conveying the testimonies of others in their stead. It is
good to be able to own a message, rather than to simply borrow it.
But if they wish to go speak with someone, I prefer that they do so
directly, insofar as I am not a messenger for them. In fact, I am
well content with many of the messages of modern and ancient
authors, to what extent that they speak rightly. And ultimately, I
will speak of my own accord, and not be a mouthpiece for others.
"Theosophy teaches us that this road leads nowhere at best and into
black magic at worst."
I view black and white magic as equivalent and cyclical polarities.
Any conflicts between black and white magic are merely expressions
of dualism. These conflicts involve psyches affected by schisms
within and schisms without. Psychic dualism is the very stuff of
war and conflict in our world today, and even upon the astral planes
in the conflicts between the angels and the demons, each being
violently destructive breeds (as the Bible itself attests) purposed
at cross agendas.
"That it is not fair on the departed soul to disturb their time in
Kama Loka or Devachan."
It is they who disturb me. I do not go looking for them. I simply
fall into trance, and they approach me. I do not appease them, I do
not fight against them, I do not ignore them. They are simply there
and I am here. And I believe that all souls are universally
connected by one SPIRIT, whether alive or dead, and whether such a
soul (living or dead) acknowledges that connection or not.
"You in fact may be in contact with either astral shells (souls that
have departed from kamaloka to devachan, and just as the physical
body has a decaying process, so does the astral body."
I am in fact in contact with astral shells who still inhabit living
mortal bodies, when I meet people at work or at the grocery store.
People who are decaying and dying both physically and psychically,
mortals not yet departed to the dust of the earth, who go about
their daily lives making money and paying their bills. I do not
differentiate between the living and the dead in this way. People
are simply people. Living or dead makes no difference to me. And
astral shells we all have. Even as we currently retain physical
shells.
Do you somehow feel that you are superior to these astral shells, in
the context that you mention them? Surely you presently have an
astral shell also. Would you claim to have shed away your psyche,
so that it is no longer a part of you? In what way are you
different from these who have fallen and died?
"However, the difference being that the astral shell maintains a
memory of its past life and it's surroundings."
As with all we living mortals.
"It seems that Channelling involves some other sort of entity, as
they appear to comment on future events through the use, I imagine,
of the Akashic Records."
What specifically are the Akashic Records, according to the context
of your reference?
I believe that the ancient tomes, containing the larger fragments of
the information regarding the nature of our immortal origins, were
lost to antiquity. The lost tomes were eventually replaced by the
Bible itself (among several other books), thereby being
rendered 'occult', and veiled under the metaphors of the Bible. But
new understanding of the lost revelations shall again arise upon the
earth (and even now are arising). And the ancient mysteries,
formerly lost from books, will be written again, that our species
may become more clear regarding it's own inherent immortality.
"Whereas, your average disembodies soul would not have access to
this."
They have access. They are only unaware of it. It is like when a
fool speaks, knowing not the wisdom of their words which can be
percieved by the astute. The worded confusions uttered by those
overcome by the darkness of their own subconscious, are indeed
easily unraveled by those with higher spiritual discernment. Wisdom
often arises from the light, but it is also developed through the
fiery iron furnace. But then again, darkness does not exist at all
for those with eyes to see.
"What you appear to be saying is that you do not need to go into a
trance state as it seemed to be the case 100 years ago when HPB
spoke of Mediums, Seances, etc."
Trances are merely a byproduct of merging the waking and sleeping
states of consciousness. They are not a worthy goal or end, in and
of themselves. They are merely a vehicle from one realm to another,
as a train or a portalway from one place to another. They are
not 'needed', but they exist nonetheless, and are not necessarily to
be avoided either.
"I would love to hear more on your ability to dialogue with those
departed. Do you have a spirit guide? And if so, what exactly is a
spirit guide?"
Think of the many guides that you have now in your life. And the
various teachers that you've sat under prior as well. Various
authors that you've also read. These may range from corporate
managers who have influenced you in some way, to intimate friends
that you've known.
You've questioned the good and the bad that they taught you, haven't
you? And perhaps even struggled not to make any of them icons? At
times, they taught you from the wealth of their wisdom, and
sometimes you even learned lessons from them by observing their own
foolish actions.
"Like Marie wrote, we were concerned that you might be opening up
yourself to powers as yet understood by yourself. That's all."
And what might here constitute 'powers'? Are not all astral shells
frail before the greater spiritual light? They are but shadows.
Blessings
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Vince,
> You named yourself an Idealist. By spiritualism I am referring to
the Spiritual Path, which is knowledge of the Divine Wisdom through
Gnani Yoga (through the intellect, which means years and years of
study to comprehend a fragment of truth).
> The quote concerning the two masters was a reference to the Christ
Within (our higher self) and the Christ Without (our lower self).
The path of psychism is the path of the personality. The path of
the novitiate is always supervised in order that he/she may learn of
the natural laws of nature, without any harm coming to the pupil.
Hence you cannot have two masters in direct opposition to each
other. Yes I am taking it out of context and misinterpreting the
text but I am at the end of a very long line of others who have done
it before me.
>
> I am not psychic therefore I am unfamiliar with the methods you
mention. John Edwards appears to have the same technique as you do,
and he refers to himself as a Medium - or an intermediary between
the physical and astral worlds. Theosophy teaches us that this road
leads nowhere at best and into black magic at worst. That it is not
fair on the departed soul to disturb their time in Kama Loka or
Devachan. You in fact may be in contact with either astral shells
(souls that have departed from kamaloka to devachan, and just as the
physical body has a decaying process, so does the astral body.
However, the difference being that the astral shell maintains a
memory of its past life and it's surroundings.
>
> It seems that Channelling involves some other sort of entity, as
they appear to comment on future events through the use, I imagine,
of the Akashic Records. Whereas, your average disembodies soul would
not have access to this.
>
> What you appear to be saying is that you do not need to go into a
trance state as it seemed to be the case 100 years ago when HPB
spoke of Mediums, Seances, etc. I would love to hear more on your
ability to dialogue with those departed. Do you have a spirit
guide? And if so, what exactly is a spirit guide?
> Like Marie wrote, we were concerned that you might be opening up
yourself to powers as yet understood by yourself. That's all.
> Cass
>
>
>
> Vincent <vblaz2004@...> wrote: Cass-
>
> 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 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 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
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
30+ countries) for 2/min or less.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
