I have been interested in both Western and Eastern forms of esotericism for many years but never written much about them and for a variety of reasons. To begin with, if I did it would really just be passing on what I have read elsewhere as is the case with practically everything written on the subject. People learn about it from other people who have learned about it from others and so on. It is largely an intellectual thing. When esoteric knowledge is not just intellectual but is supplemented by experience of some kind that experience has usually arisen because an individual has followed certain techniques or methods designed to induce it. I don't believe real spirituality comes about in this way. Spirituality is of the heart and esotericism, fascinating as it can be, belongs to the occult world not the spiritual one; the difference being that one takes the human being as its centre even if it is the human being in its higher aspects while the other is centred around a relationship with God.
Christians have long considered the esoteric as a diversion from proper religion. This can be a form of spiritual cowardice, intellectual laziness or reluctance to explore the inner worlds which may be seen as belonging entirely to the devil which is a mistake. But it can also be the recognition that the esoteric is not what the spiritual is really about. That is a simple love of God. Only this love takes you beyond yourself without doing harm to the self for it raises you up in a way that transforms the ego from a self-centred thing to a God -centred one. The ego-transcending techniques of certain esoteric practises, even assuming they work, do not sanctify or make holy. They just bring about an expansion of consciousness and this is effectively putting the cart before the horse. Such an expansion is a by-product not the purpose of the religious life.
Increasingly in the modern world the esoteric can potentially be a spiritual diversion or distraction. Everything now that is not centred on Christ is tending towards the triumph of Satan in this world. My younger self would no doubt have been amused or even shocked by such a statement. I didn't and still don't consider myself a fundamentalist in any way. But as the latter days gather pace and history approaches a point of denouement we are either for or against Christ and if we are not for him, for him in spirit and in truth not just nominally, then we are against him. The middle ground is vanishing and there is only high ground or low. The choice must be made. It's a simple question and the esoteric will not really help you answer it. It may even hinder especially if it takes you away from the heart too far into the mind or the desire for personal experience. The devil is the most learned of esotericists. Which is not to condemn the esoteric as such but just to say that it is not the true spiritual.
We are meant to acquire knowledge about God and know our true purpose and destiny but this knowledge must be grounded in Christ, and the true Christ of the Gospels not a re-invented form tailored to fit into a particular esoteric perspective. Christ came to reveal the Mysteries and to make the hidden visible which is why there are no secrets in Christianity. My teachers told me that truth is simple but people love to get caught up in theory and speculation. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to know and to understand but that should always be secondary to a love for God.
8 comments:
Great post, and timely for me personally as I am trying to find the roots of the 'new age' movement which seems to use 'christ consciousness' or 'christed light' as a means of deceiving people into following and perpetuating the ideology. It seems to me this movement is in direct opposition to the current system or powers that be, and while I respect the courage some of these people in the conspiracy/truth movement have in calling out the lies and deception, I also think it's wise to consider they are being led astray. Your point about not getting caught up in the esoteric I was excellent and I think a lot of the new age/truth movement currently is. 'We are Gods', Dark to Light and the usurpation of Christ is something I have my eye on.
So far I have traced to a woman named Alice Bailey.
Do you have any thoughts on this William?
Alice Bailey was a spiritual descendant of Madame Blavatsky the Theosophist, and I suppose if anything was the origin of the New Age movement it was Theosophy. I've read some of her books which she says were dictated to her by a higher being, in her case a Buddhist Master and they contain much that is interesting though they are very long-winded and verbose. But they suffer from the same problem as most works of this nature do which is they demote Christ to more or less the equivalent of a Buddha, just another enlightened being. This does make them spiritually suspicious to me. Whether their actual purpose was to smuggle in a basic lie along with a lot of good teachings or whether they are an example of the fact that there are beings existing on many levels of the higher worlds who may just be expressing the differences we see in religions in this world is not clear to me. The books have a number of prophecies for the future and I don't think any of those have come true, another reason to doubt their authority.
"Everything now that is not centred on Christ is tending towards the triumph of Satan in this world. "
This is almost frighteningly true. The events of 2020 have served to unmask the shallow hypocrisy of almost the whole 'esoteric' movement. Just today, I have followed up a couple of 'oneness'/ perennial philosophy movements - the Dartington Trust, and a leading group of Sufists - and both are on board with the Great Reset and the rule of evil.
It is noteworthy that Rudolf Steiner's institutional legacy - while mostly on the wrong side, has several of the most clear-seeing of commenters on the past year and a half - Terry Boardman, Jeremy Naydler and the editorial people at the New View and Present Age magazines.
This, I think, is because Steiner himself always put Christ at the centre of reality and of creation.
Beyond that fact he was - I think - very mistaken in many of his explanations and interpretations of Christ - nonetheless, it seems that a genuine commitment to the lordship of Christ was enough to provide the basis of a movement that has (unusually) Not become *wholly* corrupt and contains some Men of great spiritual stature and courage.
It was precisely the demotion of Christ that caused Steiner to break with the Theosophists who he recognised as essentially Western Buddhists. But it is quite extraordinary how only those who see the truth of Christ are able to resist the Satanic takeover of the mind. Which rather proves the reality of that truth.
This is when you shine, William. You explain why you remain silent on so many things. Of course, this is a fine balance (one I will never master). You have an impossible task but remember that was the reason why you were placed here. To remember your obligation to lost souls rather than trying to justify yourself to others. It has been a long time coming but you can hold your own ground. I feel so many Good people end up acquiescing, and then spend the rest of their Earthly life virtue signalling. The inversion is clear: If you question anything now, you will automatically be subtly placed in an Alt Right, fascist, privileged, 'enemy' category. It has become insane and I have questioned my own sanity.
You have a good friend in Bruce, but academia is his purpose, yours is yours. This is why I have always felt when you work together, great things come. But sometimes, I feel because of the 'online' partnership you can both get lost in it. Because the foundation is non-reality. I am assuming you have never met eachother...
Maybe it would be a great thing if you both met.
One other problem with their fake perrenialism is they took out the celibate ascetic element and turned everything into a this-world focused be-nice-ism. Their system is thus not distinct from secular be-nice tolerance of everything but sexual morality. Their rallying cry is that Buddha's teaching was not for a spiritual elite (i.e. those who can live celibate) but for all (i.e. the sexually immoral) so just be nice and then go hit the club and sleep with randos. The actual perrenial element in all those ancient relitions was never "be nice" but was the importance of celibacy. Buddhism, Jainism, Gnosticism, Christian monasticism-- they all agree on celibacy, but not much else. After all he who says he rejects the world yet engages in that which propagtes it, logically, what world has he renounced? The next one, not this one!
Post a Comment