Theos-Talk Archives (January 2011 Message tt00199)

Dear Terrie

My views are:


Yes.
I began digging in Blavatsky's papers.
And the following quotes seems to me quite interesting to consider in a forum like this one.



Baptism is mentioned by Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled, vol. II, p. 134-137.
"But we may offer another question: If baptism is the sign of regeneration, and an ordinance instituted by Jesus, why do not Christians now baptize as Jesus is here represented as doing, "with the Holy Ghost and with fire," instead of following the custom of the Nazarenes? "

And H. P. Blavatsky's comments to PISTIS-SOPHIA
"In Egyptian Esotericism the âdove symbolâ of the Gnostics was represented by the glyph of the winged globe. The dove, that descends on âJesusâ at his baptism is typical of the conscious âdescentâ of the âHigher Selfâ or Soul (Atma-Buddhi) on Manas, the Higher Ego; or in other words, the union during initiation of the Christos, with Chrestos, or the imperishable âIndividualityâ in the All, with the transcendent Personalityâthe Adept. "
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v13/ps_13.htm

And in the Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky:
"The other we see in this: when, repeating the famous decision of the Council of Trent, theology seeks to convince the masses that "from the fall of man until the hour of his baptism the devil has full power over him, and possesses him by right (diabolum dominationem et potestatem super homines habere et jure cos possidere)." To this Occult philosophy answers: Prove first the existence of the devil as an entity, and then we may believe in such congenital possession. A very small amount of observation and knowledge of human nature may be sufficient to prove the fallacy of this theological dogma. Had SATAN any reality, in the objective or even subjective world (in the ecclesiastical sense), it is the poor devil who would find himself chronically obsessed and even possessed by the wicked â hence by the bulk of mankind. It is humanity itself, and especially the clergy, headed by the haughty, unscrupulous and intolerant Roman Church, which have begotten, given birth to, and reared in love the evil one; but this is a digression."
(The Secret Doctrine, vol. II, p. 209)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm


THE ROOTS OF RITUALISM IN CHURCH AND MASONRY
"The beliefs and dogmas of our churches are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the benighted Heathen. The amours of BrahmÃ, under the form of a buck, with his own daughter, as a deer, or of Jupiter with Leda, under that of a swan, are grand allegories. They were never given out as a revelation, but known to have been the products of the poetic fancy of Hesiod and other mythologists. Can we say as much of the immaculate daughters of the god of the Roman Catholic ChurchâAnna and Mary? Yet, even to breathe that the Gospel narratives are allegories too, as they would be most sacrilegious were they accepted in their dead letter, constitutes in a Christian born the acme of blasphemy."
.......
"It may thus be shown that both modern Freemasonry and Church ritualism descended in direct line from initiated Gnostics, Neo-Platonists, and renegade Hierophants of the Pagan Mysteries, the secrets of which they have lost, but which have been nevertheless preserved by those who could not compromise. If both Church and Masons are willing to forget the history of their true origin, the theosophists are not. "
.......

"But they did not limit their grafts on the tree of the Christian religion to this alone. During the Mysteries of Eleusis, wine represented Bacchus and Ceresâwine and bread, or corn.â Now Ceres or Demeter was the female productive 
ââââââââââ
* The murderer of the Thessalonians who were butchered by this pious son of the Church.
â Bacchus is certainly of Indian origin. Pausanias shows him the first to lead an expedition against India, and the first to throw a bridge over the Euphrates. âThe cable which served to unite the two opposite shores being exhibited to this day,â writes this historian, âit being woven from vine-branches and trailings of ivyâ (Periegesis, X, xxix, 4). Arrianus and Quintus-Curtius explained the allegory of Bacchusâ birth from the thigh of Zeus, by saying that he was born on the Indian Mount Meru (from 90D`l, thigh). We are aware that Eratosthenes and Strabo believed the Indian Bacchus had been invented by flatterers to simply please Alexander, believed to have conquered India as Bacchus is supposed to have done. But on the other hand Cicero 
ââââââââââ


Page 94


principle of the Earth; the spouse of Father Aether, or Zeus; and Bacchus, the son of Zeus-Jupiter, was his father manifested: in other words, Ceres and Bacchus were the personifications of Substance and Spirit, the two vivifying principles in Nature and on Earth. The hierophant Initiator presented symbolically, before the final revelation of the mysteries, wine and bread to the candidate, who ate and drank, in token that the spirit was to quicken matter: i.e., the divine wisdom of the Higher Self was to enter into and take possession of his inner Self or Soul through what was to be revealed to him. 
This rite was adopted by the Christian Church. The Hierophant who was called the âFather,â has now passed, part and parcelâminus knowledgeâinto the âFather priest, who today administers the same communion. Jesus called himself a vine and his âFatherâ the husbandman; and his injunction at the Last Supper shows his thorough knowledge of the symbolical meaning (Vide infra, note) of bread and wine, and his identification with the logoi of the ancients. âWhose eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal lifeâ [John vi, 54]. âThis is an hard saying,â he adds [ibid., vi, 60]. âThe words [rÃmata, or arcane utterances] that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are lifeâ [ibid., vi, 63]. They are; because âit is the spirit that quickeneth.â Furthermore these rÃmata of Jesus are indeed the arcane utterances of an Initiate. 
But between this noble rite, as old as symbolism, and its later anthropomorphic interpretation, now known as transubstantiation, there is an abyss of ecclesiastical sophistry. With what force the explanationââWoe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledgeâ (and will not permit even now gnosis to be given to others); with what tenfold force, I say, it applies more now than then. Aye; that gnosis, âye entered not in yourselves, and them that were [and are] entering in ye hindered,â and still prevent [Luke xi, 521. Nor has the modern priesthood alone laid itself open to this blame. Masons, the descendants, or at any rate the successors, of the âBuilders of the upper Templeâ during the Mysteries, they who ought to know better, will pooh-pooh and scorn anyone among their own brethren who will remind them of their true origin."
.......
[from the above footnote]
"mentions the god as a Son of ThyÃnà and Nisus; and Dionysos or  means the god Dis from Mount Nysa in India. Bacchus crowned with ivy, or Kissos, is Krishna, one of whose names was Kissen."
(by H. P. Blavatsky, 1889)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_014.htm




And these are also essentially my views.



M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: thalprin 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:52 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: Blavatsky's "Croos and Fire" related to - Dzyan Stanzas - FOHAT


    
  I've been thinking some more about Baptism; it amazes me how much of a mystery or mystery phrase this/that subject (like so many others) remains. Here, though, especially so, when we have real examples in life where we can absolutely see that introduction/exposure of something/something different can have a significant impact upon real people. The Spanish exploring S/C Americas, for a backwards example; as we were discussing, they're visit and they're being/diseases nearly wipedout whole cultures. 

  Yeah, differences make differences, nondifferences don't.

  So, there may have been something to baptism, a science/know-how that has simply been disconjointed and misinterpretted. And, bathing, if you think about it c/would've been a smart, lowtech, lowrisk means to -what- comingle sum differences - really, kind of fascinating, if that's what was up we gotta give 'em credit for their cautious and calculated practises, them and their ingenuity, that's for sure. 

  Pretty darn impressive.

  Still thinking about the Last Supper, sharing food/beverage (saliva); gives me a whole new perspective; about who you/we eat with and what it may/maynot mean.

  Terrie 

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > I write the below to seeking to be of service to the theosophical cause as I have learned it.
  > I do not seek to promote the view that people should cling to dead-letters and supperstitions and prejudices in the below. Quite the opposite is the aim.
  > 
  > 
  > There is an interesting article by H. P. Blavatsky named
  > CROSS AND FIRE
  > "If, then, we find these two-the Cross and the Fire-so closely associated in the esoteric symbolism of nearly every nation, it is because on the combined powers of the two rests the whole plan of the universal laws. In astronomy physics, chemistry, in the whole range of natural philosophy, in short, they always come out as the invisible cause and the visible result; and only metaphysics and alchemy-or shall we say Metachemistry, since we prefer coining a new word to shocking sceptical ears?-can fully and conclusively solve the mysterious meaning. An instance or two will suffice for those who are willing to think over hints.
  > The Central Point, or the great central sun of the Kosmos, as the Kabalists call it, is the Deity. It is the point of intersection between the two great conflicting powers-the centripetal and centrifugal forces, which drive the planets into their elliptical orbits, that make them trace a cross in their paths through the Zodiac. These two terrible, though as yet hypothetical and imaginary powers, preserve harmony and keep the Universe in steady, unceasing motion; and the four bent points of the Svastika typify the revolution of the Earth upon its axis."
  > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v2/y1879_031.htm 
  > 
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
  > "Svastika (Sk.). In popular notions, it is the Jaina cross, or the "four-footed" cross (croix cramponnÃe). In Masonic teachings, "the most ancient Order of the Brotherhood of the Mystic Cross" is said to have been founded by Fohi, 1,027 B.C., and introduced into China fifty-two years later, consisting of the three degrees. In Esoteric Philosophy, the most mystic and ancient diagram. It is "the originator of the fire by friction, and of the ' Forty-nine Fires'." Its symbol was stamped on Buddha's heart, and therefore called the " Heart's Seal". It is laid on the breasts of departed Initiates after their death ; and it is mentioned with the greatest respect in the RÃmÃyana. Engraved on every rock, temple and prehistoric building of India, and wherever Buddhists have left their landmarks; it is also found in China, Tibet and Siam, and among the ancient Germanic nations as Thor's Hammer. As described by Eitel in his Hand-Book of Chinese Buddhism. . (1) it is "found among Bonpas and Buddhists"; (2) it is "one of the sixty-five figures of the SripÃda" ; ( it is "the symbol of esoteric Buddhism" ; (4) "the special mark of all deities worshipped by the Lotus School of China". Finally, and in Occultism, it is as sacred to us as the Pythagorean Tetraktys, of which it is indeed the double symbol."
  > (The Theosophical Gloassary, posthumously 1892)
  > http://theosophicalglossary.net/
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > In the above article and words from the glossary, we find that Blavatsky mentions something which as far as I read it can be connected with FOHAT.
  > 
  > Maybe some members at The Theosophical Network forum ( http://theosnet.ning.com/ ) would like to know about this article.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > A sidenote:
  > Just so that the readers know it: I am - for the time being - not posting at that The Theosophical Network forum because, my emails sometimes suddenly get deleted without prior warning, and this without any open and official moderation, and with completely unfair accusations attached to them by the moderators in charge. (This on the self same forum with the following rule: "Please be respectful of the viewpoints of others, even if you disagree with them. We cannot all agree, but we can agree to disagree." - Hopefully the moderators themselves are bound to this rule. - This rule does not seem to imply that those who act hurt all the time should show disrespect to those who do not act hurt all the time. Anything can hurt anyone if one decides it to be so.) - Moderators who act like the Pope in Rome (and who silence people) will never be in accordance with the original aims of the Theospophical Society - and clearly have dificulties in claiming that they base their activities on altruism - well that is my view. - Another issue: Old posts, some of them written by me, seem suddenly after months of existence to have been deleted on The Theosophical Network forum as well, without aksing me or notifying the members in an official manner. Some of you might remember that the The Theosophical Network forum sprang from members of Theos-talk. And remember how my name was introduced among the founders of The Theosophical Network forum - and that it was done without asking me about it. I had to ask the moderators to delete my name among the named founders of the forum The Theosophical Network, becuase I found its extremely loose Constitution to clearly deviate from the original lines upon which the Theosophical Scoiety was based in 1875-1891. (Theosophy is the exact science on psychology - and therefore also the exact science on psychology about anti-cults and about the problems Mind Control, (a psychological term), creates. The core of Theosophy is altruism.) 
  > 
  > I suggest that we improve ourselves, myself included, while building our activities on a solid rock of altruism and not on muddy-sand.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ________
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
  > THE DEVIL, WHO IS HE? 
  > "Moreover, we have given good proofs of our impartiality. We published articles and letters criticizing not alone our personal theosophical and philosophical views, but discussing on subjects directly concerned with our personal honour and reputation; reviving the infamous calumnies in which not simple doubts, but distinctly formulated charges of dishonesty were cast into our teeth and our private character was torn to shreds (Vide "A Glance at Theosophy from the Outside," Lucifer for October, 1888). And if the editor will never shrink from what she considers her duty to her readers, and that she is prepared to throw every possible light upon mooted questions in order that truth should shine bright and hideous lies and superstitions be shown under their true colours-why should our contributors prove themselves so thin-skinned?
  > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v10/y1888_096.htm
  > 
  > Now we know that the Theosophical Society had a motto:
  > THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN THE TRUTH.
  > 
  > So why shout the truth down?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Thank you for sharing some thoughts with me.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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