Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00467)

Govert, 
But Blavatsky publishes that Christ is a "Principle", a Metaphysical Principle. As such it is Boundless and eternally immanent and supercedes creation and has the same signature as the Purush. so it follows that is is NOT "IN" us but we who are in IT, but for the moment incarnate employing conditioned mind without other choice unless karma fruition and accumalations allow, and for the most part powerless to do otherwise and are force to accept "invert logic" that IT must ergo be "in" us for it to be real and in conformity to the edict , command, directive, and enforcements of conditioned mind which are automaticies. An alternate view can be that when a disciple can sufficiently transform personal consciousness awareness that which is "senior" presents immediate to same and realization that the "without" in which we swim is our own original face and Nature. I also understand the idea of "Overshadowing" is but a contination of the enforcment of conditioned mind ergo using a "via" to continue to maintain the idea of another carnate representation however subtle or elevated it takes form as. In this way conditioned mind has it's way to continue dominance and prevent enlightenment and self-realization. All persona in creation are projection and as such "secondary" to original Nature. So Blavatsky seems correct to me in my personal POV. 

Btw, the lat time I read Heidegger was in germany in 1956. 

Regards, 
John 





----- Original Message ---- 
From: "Govert Schuller" <schuller@alpheus.org> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:41:21 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Theos-World Re: Who was the real Jesus? 






Dear Daniel, 

On another forum I presented the list, but with some preliminary answers added to them.: 

1) The issue of the relationship between the man Jesus and the Christ principle (inner principle or divine incarnation, or divine overshadowing, or overshadowing by high initiate, possibly Maitreya) 

2) The historicity of Jesus (was he pure mythic invention or did he really live) 

3) Dating the life of Jesus as either from ca. 100-70 B.C. or the conventional ca. 0-33 A.D. (Was there a Jesus alive in the conventional time frame or was there a proto-Jesus ca. 100 years earlier?) 

4) The seperation of historical from mythical elements in the claims made about Jesus (Too many items to enumerate, because any of the claims about Jesus could be mythical) 

5) Discrepancy in HPB's writings about the dating of Jesus' life in Isis Unveiled and later writings. (In IU she seems to go along with conventional dating as she, for example, places Jesus during Apollinius of Tyana's time [ca. 0 - 85 C.E.) and later makes the more explicit claim of placing him 100 years earlier, partially based on a Talmudic version of Jesus' life.) 

6) Comparison of HPB and CWL on all the above. (Most importantly the status of the Christ as either something inner or also 'outer' like a very high office in the hierarchy which might blend with both the inner Christ and soul of a 'vehicle' like the man Jesus or Krishnamurti.) 

Govert 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: danielhcaldwell 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:08 PM 
Subject: Theos-World To Govert: Re: Who was the real Jesus? 

Hi Govert, 

Thanks for your comments below. Yes, much to go over and I'm glad 
you enumerated the issues that need to be carefully and seriously 
examined and discussed. 

Looking forward to that process.... 

Daniel 
http://hpb.cc 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote: 
> 
> Dear Daniel, Morten and Anand, 
> 
> I stand corrected. Anand compared and conflated two issues that have to be addressed seperatley: 
> 
> 1) The issue of the relationship between the man Jesus and the Christ principle 
> 
> 2) The historicity of Jesus (we all seem to agree on this point) 
> 
> To this has to be added the following topics to round out the discussion: 
> 
> 3) Dating the life of Jesus as either from ca. 100-70 B.C. or the conventional ca. 0-33 A.D. 
> 
> 4) The seperation of historical from mythical elements in the claims made about Jesus 
> 
> 5) Possible discrepancy in HPB's writings about the dating of Jesus' life in IU and later writings. 
> 
> 6) comparisson of HPB and CWL on all the above. 
> 
> Much to go over here, so I'll just start with the above enumeration. 
> 
> Govert 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: danielhcaldwell 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:54 PM 
> Subject: Theos-World To Govert: Re: Who was the real Jesus? 
> 
> 
> Govert, 
> 
> As regards Anand's allegation that there is a "difference between 
> Morton and Daniel," apparently Anand is hallucinating the difference. 
> 
> Everything Morten has said about Christ and Jesus that I have read I 
> agree with. Now maybe there is a posting from Morten I have missed. 
> If so Anand should cite it. 
> 
> From what I have read in Anand's postings on this 
> subject, I'm not sure he even has a grasp of the subject. As far as 
> I can tell Anand has simply conjured up this "difference." Who knows 
> since he usually only offers vague statements with little if any 
> details whatsoever. 
> 
> As to what HPB says about Jesus and Christ, my understanding is that 
> she accepts the historical reality of Jesus. I have no idea why 
> Anand or you think otherwise. As to Christ, what does she say about 
> Christ? 
> 
> Read what the Chohan says in the letter I've quoted. And I've 
> already quoted several statements by HPB and KH which reinforce the 
> basic idea found in the Chohan's letter. 
> 
> And consider the verse from the VOICE OF THE SILENCE. 
> 
> "Look within, thou art Buddha." 
> 
> Does this verse mean the physical Gautama man??? 
> 
> To make it simple, couldn't one say also: 
> 
> Look within, thou are Krishna. 
> 
> Look within, thou art Osiris. 
> 
> Look within, thou art Christ. 
> 
> Look within, thou are the Universal Spirit. 
> 
> Look within, thou art PARA-ATMA. 
> 
> THAT thou art. 
> 
> See what Krishna says: 
> 
> "I am the self, seated in the heart of all beings. Also, I am the 
> Beginning, the Middle and the End of all beings." 
> 
> Can the Cosmic Christ say the same? 
> 
> Daniel 
> http://hpb.cc 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote: 
> > 
> > I just read some of the paragraphs on Jesus in HPB's "Isis Unveiled" and did get the strong impression that she did consider him a historical person set in the time that most people think he existed. The only mythic element about Jesus are the later mythic additions to the historical person. There is a reference to the 100 BCE Jesus, but that is presented as the Jewish take on Jesus and not as the true take. And if you look up Jesus in the index of IU and read the small sub-headings Jesus seems to be presented as quite historical. Unless these passages are better explained as propping up her later claim, they have to be seen as either an early mistake, or HPB was not yet informed about the 'real' Jesus, or it reflected her own development in understanding the topic. In either case the contradiction doesn't seem to lie so much in the difference between Morton and Daniel as in HPB's work itself. 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Anand 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 4:39 PM 
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Blavatsky on CARNALIZING the central figure of the New Testament 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > H.P. Blavatsky wrote in December 1887: 
> > > 
> > . 
> > > . . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a Christ made 
> > > Flesh. . . .[390] 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------ 
> > > 
> > > Quoted from H.P. Blavatsky's COLLECTED WRITINGS, Volume VIII. 
> > > caps added. 
> > > 
> > > http://hpb.cc 
> > -------------------------------------- 
> > Compare Daniel's above message with message of other follower of Blavatsky, Morten. He wrote in his message 49429 this and says historical Jesus existed. It shows how two followers of Blavatsky had contradictory ideas and it shows how Blavatsky's writing creates confusion. Below is Morten's message. 
> > -------------------------------- 
> > 1. H. P. Blavatsky, in Isis Unviled, p. xii: 
> > "To you," said Jesus to his elect disciples, "it is given to know the mysteries 
> > of the Kingdom of God, but to them [ the polloi^ ] it is not given; . . . 
> > therefore speak I to them in parables [or allegories]; because they seeing, see 
> > not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand." - Gospel 
> > according to Matthew, xiii. 11, 13. 
> > http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/isis_unveiled1.htm 
> > 
> > There are several examples, where HPB clearly were alluding to the fact that 
> > Jesus was a historical person. Try H. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, 1877, vol. I, 
> > p. xxxviii, 2, 34, 57, 130, 138 etc. etc. And try H. P. Blavatsky, (The 
> > beginners book) The Key to Theosophy, 1889, p. 47, 49, 71, 72, 79, 81 etc etc.. 
> > --------------------------------------- 
> > 
> > Best 
> > Anand Gholap 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]