Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00465)

Chuck writes,

> I
> would remind you that when something like the Nag Hammadi Library hits it
> tends to create a new fashion in scholarship which may not be any more
> accurate than the older views.

This is truly often the case.  But surely we all agree that having, for the
first time, complete texts used by the Gnostics themselves in their own words
is far superior to polemic quotes in the works of their enemies!

> In truth, much of what their
> Christian enemies had to say about them was true and had to be in order to
> persuade the gnostics they were trying to convert to listen.

What's the evidence for this?  Rather, I think the target audience of the
Christian Fathers was the Roman government and their own good Christians
flock, housing at it did many secret Gnostics.  Irenaeus, in continuing the
process toward canonization of the "Scriptures" which Marcion began,
complained bitterly that "the Gnostics say the same prayers, attend the same
ceremonies, read the same texts as the real Christians do, and yet meet
secretly at night to discuss the inner meaning of the Scriptures."  The
Church Fathers were very distressed as well that while their own leaders were
being martyred, the Gnostics felt no such compunction, they saw nothing to be
gained by sacrificing the body to the government for an exoteric profession
of faith.

If you have counter evidence as to the audience of the Church Fathers polemic
writings against the Gnostics, I'm all ears.

> The gnostics were real characters in their day, in many ways much like
modern
> pentecostals in their worship, with many of the long, incomprehensible
> invocations being the glossalalia of the worshipers written down and
ossified
> in text form.
I assume you are referring to "mantras"?  It is not clear whether this is, as
you say, more similar to Pentecostals, or more similar to modern day Hindu
teachers passing on sacred sounds which help the practitioner rise above
mundane life.

As for their being real characters, sure.  Why not?  But there is good
evidence that the Gnostics were actually Jewish Buddhists, influence by
missionaries sent west under King Ashoka in 252-3 BCE.  HPB is not the only
one to state this.  See *The Original Jesus: the Buddhist Origins of
Christianity*, 1995, by two respected German scholars.  Good stuff, lots of
data and not just groundless assertions.

> materialistic
> determinism views the cosmos as a closed system.  In such a system, there
is
> no leeway for action and the view of Karma as expressed in the Key to
> Theosophy is a perfect example of such a cosmology.
----CUT-----
>  So we have a problem in interpreting the thought of HPB, because she seems
> to be advocating two mutually exclusive concepts, a universe where
everything
> is tightly close, in which case a strict behavioral code is essential to
> spiritual progress on one hand (which would make the good Victorians in
their
> red flannel waistcoats very happy) and a system of duality in which matter
is
> temporary and the despised creation of the demiurge, existing to be either
> put down or outraged as the path to spiritual liberation.


Your thinking appears (excuse me) confused.  A closed system of matter does
not exclude co-adunated sphere or planes over and above and around such a
system.  You say there is no room left for action, and then suggest a strict
code of action was enforced.  HUH?

HPB time and time again asserts the illusory nature of matter.  But that
illsory matter in its effects upon our illusory personalities is very real on
its own plane.  If she (and we must not forget her Teachers were involved
too) truly wanted to help us poor Theosophists wake up, she had to give
teachings which could be used and understood by the little personality (which
most of are functioning in, most of the time, deluded fools that we
(including me) are), as well as point out the transcendent reality, the monad
which we truly are and its manvantaric life.  Which itself is probably not
the final story ...

This is not a difficulty interpreting, but a difficulty APPLYING the
teachings.  Neither side of the picure painted is false, but the lower one is
considerably relativized when compared to the "higher" story.  No obfuscation
here, just a hesitancy to "confound the planes."

> Now we know, from our science alone, that materialistic determinism does
not
> hold sway.  If it did, there could be no quantum mechanics, but the good
> Victorians did not know this.  So, facing the discernable reality that God
> does play at dice,


Whoa, Nelly!  What makes you think science now has the final word?  In the
words of that immortal beloved, Einstein, "God does NOT play dice with the
universe."  Even in chaos theory, there is the critique from the systems
theory people that chaos is misunderstood order.  Why are we so quick to
blast the poor Victorians for their sad little world view, while assuming
that ours is the last and final one?

Is it not possible that quantum theory is itself just another step along the
way to total understanding?  And wouldn't it be a riot (oops, that five
Theosophists gathered) if science finally comes around to the position of the
Secret Doctrine, of vast ordered hierarchies of intelligence functioning on
an inconceivable number of planes?  This appears to be the teaching of
Mahayana Buddhism as well, discussed in the *Vimilakirtinirdesha Sutra*, the
*Avatamsaka Sutra* (I am referring to the "Indra's Net," passage, etc.  The
same teaching comes up in Plotinus's Enneads on the teaching of the Many and
the One.

And last, but not least, our little Gnostics, teaching the doctrine of the 7
sphere, each headed by a conscious hierarch (whether evil in the Sethian
system or merely neutral in the Valentinian), beyond which is the Pleroma of
infinite delight and union with the ALL.


> HPB ...was capable of soaring in her spirit far beyond the reaches of
> her physical self  and such illumination would have put her in a position
to
> see that the actions of a single lifetime count for nothing in the great
> scheme of existence.  It is simply too short.

We all know the Chinese proverb, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with
a single step."  How can we say the actions of a single short physical life
are meaningless?  Our karma today is the accumulationg of thousands of
earthly life, in whatever form.  Today we throw more fuel into the fire in
forming our futures.  Why is this so disputed?  It may well be true that the
monad has a life of its own, unaffected by physical karma.  This doesn't mean
that it isn't present, overshadowing our present, suffering through our
travails, enjoying our spiritual successes.

This is the meaing of the "great sacrifice" of the Manasaputras, or "Sons of
Mind," who incarnate among men, "who are themselves."