Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00255)

Prior to the sacrifice of God the Son, only the priestly caste like 
the Levites or Brahmins were allowed to approach deity. When Christ 
died on the cross, the veil was torn so that now all are allowed 
access to God the Father by their own effort. This is the basis of 
Christian Mysticism:

The Rosicrucian Philosophy
In Questions and Answers Volume II
THE TEMPLE VEIL AND THE PRIEST'S ROBES
QUESTION NO. 82:

..Under the regime of Jehovah it was necessary to give an eye for an 
eye, a tooth for a tooth. That was demanded by the Law dictated by 
Him, and given to Moses. This Law reigned until CHRIST, who then 
brought GRACE and TRUTH, rending the Temple veil. 

Under that ancient law sacrifices of animals were compulsory, for 
humanity had not yet learned how to make a sacrifice of themselves. 
When the Christ showed the way to truth had life by making a 
sacrifice of Himself, the Temple veil was rent, the old system was 
abrogated, and a new way was opened for the salvation of "whosoever 
will." 

In the new dispensation there is therefore no veil on which the color 
of the Initiator may be displayed. A better way has been found of 
marking those that are Christ's with His golden color INDIVIDUALLY, 
and thus it is that those who follow the path of service and self-
sacrifice evolve within their own aura the golden Christ color, which 
is the third of the primary colors. 

This is the priestly robe of the new dispensation without which no 
one can ever enter the Kingdom, and no robe obtained at pseudo 
initiations can ever take its place, no matter what price is paid. 



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Are you saying that prior to the crucifixion of christ (personally 
don't believe it happened) man did not have access to his higher 
self?    There were many great souls who achieved this centuries 
before Christ.
>    
>   Cass
> 
> Richard Semock <semockr@...> wrote:
>           My response to the dessemination of knowledge or better 
yet, wisdom, 
> is that when Christ or God the Son died on the cross, it is said 
that 
> the curtain in the temple was torn at the exact moment of his 
death. 
> 
> This was the curtain that separated the Holy of Holys from the 
outer 
> world. Symbolically or in fact, this meant that mankind in general 
> now had access to God the Father and could approach that presence 
as 
> individuals no longer needing a middleman.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
> >
> > A recent post I received on another forum prompted me to relook 
at 
> Gurdgieff/Ouspensky teachings, and I found the following to be 
> insightful.
> > 
> > Gurdgieff starts by saying that if knowledge is given to a lot of 
> people, the knowledge is spread too thinly and no one benefits. "If 
> knowledge is given to all, nobody will get any. If it is preserved 
> among a few, each will receive not only enought to keep, but to 
> increase, what he receives. At first glance this theory seems very 
> unjust, since the position of those who are, so to speak, denied 
> knowledge in order that others receive a greater sharea appears to 
be 
> very sad and undeservedly harder than it ought to be. Actually, 
> however this is not so at all; and in the distribution of knowledge 
> there is not the slightest injustice."
> > 
> > "the fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any 
> knowledge whatsoever, they refuse their share of it and do not even 
> take the the ration alloted to them, in the general distribution, 
for 
> the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass 
> madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly 
seem 
> to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn 
into 
> complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale 
destruction 
> in vast numbers, in other words even losing the instinct of self 
> preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge 
> remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those 
who 
> realize its value. "
> > 
> > "There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive 
> knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of 
> nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and 
what 
> would in any case be lost if they did not take it."
> > 
> > "There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally 
> coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and 
> civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and 
> begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and 
> millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often 
> coinciding with geoogical cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar 
> phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity 
of 
> the matter of knowledge. Thus the work of collecting scattered 
> matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the 
> destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Cass: Those that are developing at the same time, their three 
> lower bodies, physical, astral and mental through their Master 
> consciousness (4th Body Causal) the knowledge, although the same, 
is 
> viewed from a totally different aspect. So in effect, knowledge or 
> truth is different for each man, and perhaps those who are 
developing 
> their Master consciousness (an individuality dominating the 
physical 
> body and its desires)intuit the teaching as a personal truth for 
> themselves. Those that operate through the lower bodies, the 
> personality (discordant and contradictory) will of course have a 
> different slant on it. I am just musing here, and my intention is 
> not to divide into "them" and 'Us" but Christianity would not have 
> been able to get such a grip on Monads that were operating through 
> their own individual "I" Master. different from the Man who 
functions 
> through his lower three bodies. "On the fourth way a man must 
> satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told. And
> > until he is satisfied he must do nothing.
> > 
> > In conclusion, "Those who possess this knowledge are doing 
> everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest 
> possible number of people, to facilitate people's approach to it 
and 
> enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth.
> > 
> > Looking forward to responses.
> > 
> > Cass
> > 
> > igel_healy <nigelhealy@> wrote:
> > Hi Nigel C,
> > I think this is a very important point you make here: 
> > "The use of "personal" experience as our ultimate 
> > determinant for that which is "right" or "wrong" can be 
> > a highly flawed process."
> > 
> > Cass and I have mentioned in recent postings 
> > experiencing an instant affinity with particular 
> > teachings/philosophies, which may be a reconnecting 
> > with the Ancient Wisdom - or, indeed, may be 
> > something else. It is always worth examining the nature 
> > of these experiences, especially if there is an emotional 
> > aspect attached to the experience. Our personality loves 
> > to feel 'nice' and of course 'right' about these matters.
> > Socrates was spot on when he talked about the futility 
> > of the unexamined life.
> > 
> > Thank you Nigel for your insightful postings recently, 
> > they keep one on one's toes!
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Nigel H
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The use of "personal" experience as our ultimate determinant 
for 
> > > that which is "right" or "wrong" can be a highly flawed process.
> > > 
> > > After all, how much and which part of our self makes these 
> > > determinations? More often than not, isn't it our heavily 
> programmed, 
> > > habit conditioned personality, founded in its inherited and 
> acquired 
> > > fears, preferences, attachments and identifications? 
> > > To continually insist on ourselves and our experience to be our 
> final 
> > > arbiter, can in itself be just another strong dogma, one 
perhaps 
> > > lacking humility and potentially possessing not an 
inconsiderable 
> > > amount of fear-based pride.
> > > 
> > > How are we to approach the works of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr 
or 
> > > Pauli, each giants in their field? Yes, they made mistakes, but 
> are 
> > > we to diminish or even devalue the profundity of their 
> pronouncements 
> > > simply because we have not experienced or perhaps even 
understood 
> for 
> > > ourselves their mental discoveries? Are we even to consider 
> ourselves 
> > > on an equal footing, insisting that we will accept nothing they 
> have 
> > > written and proven until we "discover" or "experience" it for 
> > > ourselves?
> > > 
> > > Of course we need guard against blindly following another's 
> > > pronouncements and we need keep open our mind for new 
discoveries 
> and 
> > > new ways of looking at things. In potential we are told we each 
> have 
> > > unlimited capacities. But let us not presume from our 
programmed, 
> > > possibly arrogant, mundane mind that we are all equal in mental 
> and 
> > > spiritual functioning at this point in time.
> > > 
> > > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers maintained an age-old 
> tradition, 
> > > that of endeavouring to bring the inexpressible truths of life 
> into 
> > > the vernacular and mental culture of the day. We are told 
> > > the "unthinkable and unspeakable" cannot be written or spoken, 
> > > therefore a structure is erected by mental, and in this case, 
> > > spiritual giants in an attempt to ferry us to the "other 
shore." 
> It 
> > > is available for us to accept or reject; it is for us to choose 
> our 
> > > direction and method; it is for us to do the paddling; it is 
even 
> for 
> > > us to build the boat. What they have done is provide what some 
> > > empiricists might consider a less than perfectly described 
> schematic, 
> > > which however, with deep study and continued application might 
> become 
> > > apparent to us, and which may indeed assist us in our attempts 
to 
> > > uncover the actual process and purpose of life in this 
dimension 
> of 
> > > existence.
> > > 
> > > If we cannot, or do not wish to recognise that Madame Blavatsky 
> and 
> > > her teachers possessed extraordinary and demonstrable fore-
> knowledge, 
> > > knowledge and occult abilities, then that is our choice. If we 
> choose 
> > > to focus on what we believe or perceive to be shortcomings, 
that 
> too 
> > > we are free to do. Were they absolutely accurate and correct in 
> all 
> > > they said and did? Are there other traditions which may work 
for 
> the 
> > > same "type" of western-minded person? Perhaps or perhaps not, 
the 
> > > empirical western mind's clamouring for dotted i's and crossed 
> t's 
> > > possibly blinding us from that which truly is. But to consider 
> some 
> > > of those who followed in their name to have equal credibility 
in 
> this 
> > > field of expertise is a matter for considerable debate. To 
> consider 
> > > ourselves as having equal credibility, from our personal 
> experience, 
> > > is perhaps just a little presumptuous?
> > > 
> > > Nigel C
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with 
Yahoo! 
> Search.
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
>                          
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
Try it now.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>