reply to post by Lynda101
I see you feel you know better than Blavatsky. I don't think you do. As I am sure you know the biblical story is based on borrowed pagan mythology
for its concept of who God was and what God demanded.
Blavatsky was a quack "myth maker", who, taking esoteric traditions from all religions built a myth of an elite class, mostly made up of hindus and
buddhists (so much for blavatskys archeological understanding. Until we find traces of civilization older than that found in mesopotamia, her deluded
dreams of India being the seed of civilization will remain fantasy) who direct mankind.
Also, her understanding of Kabbalah and Zohar is ABOMINABLE. Its actually quite pathetic to anyone who understands these subjects (in one place she
calls the partzuf of Binah, "Imena".... I guess forgetting the Hebrew word for mother is 'imma")...
Blavatasky was the product of an aristocratic upbringing. Her life was built around lies and myth making. I have no doubt that she was commissioned by
some 'higher power' perhaps, a cabal of mystic/philosophers, probably associated with the various European noble houses/Vatican, to create a 'mythos'
for the new era. Blavatasky provided that. And Bailey came around and created neotheosophy. And nowadays you have a bunch of different schools with
Her writings were for public consumption. Thats all it is. The naive believe every word that comes out of her mouth.
The problem you have is that the Pagan view was of a celebratory attitude to life with its pantheons of Gods and goddesses representing different
aspects of human life.
And Judaism is not celebratory of life?? Whats the whole "Le'Chaim" - to life! " thing all about then?
I think "paganism", although fine in some areas, can be a little overly ambitious. It can be downright pure vanity. It in other words, lacks the grace
of humility. Something Judaism seeks to inculcate in the world; and infact which its been WILDLY succesful in accomplishing (see Christianity and
Islam. ie over 2/3rds of the people on planet earth).
As for the aristocrats again. I like to emphasize this point because it is relevant to understanding theosophy. The aristocrats, "noble" heirs of
ancient political power, are pagans. Look up Henri, Duke of Luxembourg, or Otto Von Habsburg, head of the house of lorraine-Habsburg for a quite
astonishing patrilineal background that goes back into Byzantium times, circa 400 CE, and undoubtedly goes further back (as if 1600 years of
father-son lineage, holding temporal power as dukes, mayors, kings etc isnt enough proof of conspiracy to maintain power)...Blavatasky came from such
stock. Her stories of hidden tibetan monks with a secret knowledge of the history of mankind...all of that is complete nonsense and doesnt deserve to
be taken with faith. Buddhism fits the goals of the secularists; ie, it is a secular belief system, divorced from any theological beliefs. Its morally
neutral enough to serve as the spiritual philosophy of the future. Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Neo-Pagan traditions.
I have no problem with 'paganism', persay. My problem is with arrogance, and immorality.
am sure you know Ezxra combined YHWH, Canaanite/Judah to El the Israelite God. How you can claim a relationship with two Pagan Gods lumped into one is
either interesting or purely delusional.
Actually no, im not. unless of course this is taken from the long ago debunked documentary hypothesis. ANY cognizant, that is, awake, person who has
studied the bible can see how pathetically weak that hypothesis is.
This was a political mechanism which the Jewish Scribes and Priesthood not only used to galvanise two warring factions, but used it also to qualify
their power and existence. Don't you realise they would have had no work or jobs had this optomistic view of life continued, so they twisted it
thereby perverting it into giving the idea that man had made life worse and consequently needed rules, laws and their services to intercede with God.
The Pagan world did not support a priesthood of men and their families, it wasn't necessary.
Righhhtt. Again. Id love to debate you on this subject. I wrote up a piece a year or two ago and i have no problem posting it here. For this theory to
work, you have to essentially speculate beyond rational control. You would have to ignore the whole "G-d creating the universe", and an original man,
Adam, being the universal father of all mankind (therefore debunking the whole "Hebrew nationalism" theory. The bible being a book of UNIVERSAL
relevance)..You would basically have to assert that even the book of genesis, exodus, and numbers were changed, with Ezra........
Its just so weak this argument. Its nothing but a case of 'wanting to believe it' that is has caught on. Just as the archeologists ignore and deny any
historical kingdom of israel, or a Solomons temple, or even an historical King David, they likewise deny the historicty of the bible, and this entire
culture is obsessed with opposing biblical morality in every shape or form; even going so far in San Francisco to outlaw circumcision.
You are not grasping what Blavatsky said and I suggest that before you comment on Theosophy and Blavatsky you read the Secret Doctrine because it is a
fascinating and highly informative book which benefits anyone who is passionate about their spiritual beliefs.
Did you not read my original post? I read it. I own it. And in some places its interesting, but in others, quite obnoxious.
edit on 15-7-2011
by dontreally because: (no reason given)