A Counterpoint to the Organism Of Humanity

by Dell

The following post is in response to The Organism of Humanity: an Analogy by Anonymous.

When addressing esoteric matters, I have found it useful to switch my usual exoteric way of interpreting ideas to a concentrated focus on esoteric principles in order to intelligently discuss what I see, hear or read. I find this helps keep me closer to reality. That being said, I will continue…

To begin with, I find Anonymous's analogy extremely well-written, creative and inspiring. However, in keeping with my opening statement on addressing esoteric matters, I would argue (from a purely esoteric perspective) that while his compelling message may be profoundly useful for an individual to contemplate, practice or promulgate there is simply no esoteric principle to support its viability as a collective endeavor neither national, international nor global. Here’s why…

Laurency describes in some detail the development of human consciousness as falling along a continuum of five stages of consciousness development containing 777 levels or sub stages. Laurency also posits that negative emotional consciousness dominates the first three stages (or 700 levels) of development.

What’s more, Laurency goes on to reveal that “The difference in age between human individuals can amount to seven eons (7 billion astronomical years)”. In addition, he also says “the immense difference in experience of life is greater than ignorance can possibly grasp.”

Given just these two profoundly significant esoteric principles, it’s not difficult to see the virtual impossibility of five divergent levels of human consciousness (all existing at the same time) yet eons apart in their consciousness development, ever coming together in the spirit of cooperation and brotherhood (or for any other reason for that matter). What’s more, In deference to the same esoteric principles, it is unlikely that the replacement of competition with cooperation is apt to occur any time in the near future. As Laurency says, “Consciousness development is a very slow process”!

Comments for A Counterpoint to the Organism Of Humanity

Click here to add your own comments

Jul 25, 2016
 RE: PART II
by: Anonymous

"At best, I can trust in what teachers from the planetary hierarchy reveal to us, before we have activated causal consciousness and can obtain facts ourselves"

Now it seems, however, that you have introduce yet another word: "Trust". Now we have, "Faith", "Belief", and, "Trust" - all being used interchangeably according to your whim. Brother, what I am trying to say in all of this is that all of these words stand for completely separate concepts. "Faith" is not "Belief" or "Trust"; "Belief" is not "Faith" or "Trust; and "Trust" is not "Faith" or "Belief". They are three different words with three different meanings. Perhaps you will think that I am just being finicky; however, this is how you will sharpen your mental consciousness, brother - by being finicky, by trying to be more precise. Make the concepts clear and sharp in your mind. Try to find out their differences. After all, what use are three words that mean precisely the same thing?

"Put shortly, since we do not possess knowledge, we can only follow, with free will, what we believe from our own limited experiences"

Another matter to consider is that we do not need to act from belief. We can act from critical assumption. For example, I - personally - do not believe in Pythagorean Hylozoics; rather, I accept it - tentatively - as I would any other hypothesis. As such, I live in accord with it, as best I can, in so far as I see that nothing is better. Given my studies in science, religion, philosophy, and the occult, I have seen nothing that even comes close to it as of yet. So, I accept the system of Pythagorean Hylozoics. I study it. I follow it as best I can. There is nothing of belief in it.

"When Christians really trust in God or Jesus loves them, they are motivated to follow the law of love, or follow what they believe is truth and good"

What I mean is that, in a lot of cases, a great many of my religious brethren (Christians in this particular case) assume that prostration - itself - is enough to absolve themselves of their sins. They feel that, as long as they have attended church on Sunday and eaten their little wafer, said their little prayers, then they are absolved of all their sins and can go on sinning (i.e.: hating, ironically enough) until next Sunday. What you are talking about is actually a minority of church-goers, brother. Very few of them are so moved by their church services so as to actually commit themselves to real service. In fact, if all of them were so moved, to the tune of x many billion followers the world over, our world ought to be a paradise already - or what would you say to that?

Another point worth mentioning is this little thought:

"…or follow what they believe is truth and good"

There is that word again: "Belief". We have had enough belief, already, to last us the next couple millennia. It is about high-time that we had some knowledge. The same people you are talking about, the same "beliefs" of truth and goodness, are the same ones that sent countless innocent lives to the stake to be burned alive, the dungeons to be tortured, and the gallows to be hanged. This is the problem with "belief". This brutality has been their "truth and goodness". It is about high-time that religion and theology - religious fictionalism - were separated. Religion is not belief. Religion will never be belief. Likewise, faith is not belief. People who can "believe" that truth and goodness is men and women being burned alive cannot possibly know the meaning of the word faith.

I apologize… my concentration is beginning to wane after some hours now and, so, it seems that I am ranting a bit. That being said, I will leave the ranting in and not edit it out for the sake of interesting reading. Hopefully this will suffice for the time being. I will have to see about addressing the last matter more carefully at a later date. I need a break.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.
Jul 25, 2016
 RE: PART I
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

"First and foremost, thank you very much for taking so many hours to reply me"

You are welcome.

"I am sorry for the delayed reply, since I took a trip last week and your reply took me several days to digest. Hope you do not mind my slowness"

There is no need to apologize, brother. I am well aware of the fact that it can take a long time to respond. Please, by all means, feel free to take as much time as you need to respond in the future - in fact, I would encourage you to do so. You will get more benefit out of taking the time to write a well thought out response as opposed to quickly writing a poorly considered response merely for the sake of responding. Think, brother. I encourage you to think. You have all the time in the world to do so. Do not worry about how it all seems to me. I am exceedingly patient, I can assure you of that.

Another thing: this is the most action these forums have seen in quite some time.

"As there are so many ideas in your reply, it is hard for me to catch them all"

Admittedly, I have a penchant for writing rather lengthy responses.

"Since you mentioned you could never doubt the existence of superphysical reality, I wander why are you so sure of the fact, given the materialist world view has predominated the scientific community for quite a long time? (Or do you have some solid evidence or personal experience of paranormal?)"

In the first case, it was just something that I never could doubt even as a young child. I knew it be true; however, I couldn’t possibly have explained why or how I knew it be true. Likewise, a great many things which people considered to be impossible, even as a young child, I never really doubted as being quite possible. Some part of me just knew.

In the second case, I have had my fair share of interesting experiences which lend more credence to the existence of superphysical reality - experiences that scientists could not possibly explain. When you have such experiences, it is kind of hard to take the scientists and their ignorance of these matters seriously. They chalk everything up to either:

A). Faulty perception
B). Hallucination and/or mental illness
C). Deliberately lying

You’ll notice that they never even consider the
possibility that they are wrong.

Some of the experiences were of such a kind and with such circumstances that both A). and B). could be ruled out immediately.

In the third case, I will admit that I have rudimentary objective consciousness in higher molecular kinds. Please note the word, "Rudimentary". This is not a full-blow objective consciousness; rather, it is the rough beginnings of higher objective consciousnesses. I say, "Consciousnesses" in that I suspect I have the rudiments of both physical-etheric objective consciousness of some sort (likely the beginnings of 49:4, which is in keeping with the literature) and emotional objective consciousness of some sort. As such, I can see a tad more than what most people see - things which, once more, science would be hard-pressed to explain.
I tend to avoid exacerbating the rudimentary emotional objective consciousness as I know full well that it won’t do much good, anyways; however, I have made a few experiments with physical-etheric objective consciousness. One thing that I will say is this: the stuff the HTL and LA say about it, so far as I have been able to see it, is quite correct. Nearly all of things that I have observed, thus far, have been corroborated in the works of HTL and LA. That probably doesn’t mean very much to you, seeing you cannot see it yourself; however, it is just one more voice confirming what has been observed down the ages. This is not a bunch of made-up hocus-pocus.

Please be aware that I am not looking for your belief, brother. I could care less whether or not you believe me. I am not sharing this with you here so that you may believe; rather, I am sharing this with you here so that I may answer your question to the fullest extent. All I would ask of you is this: be open-minded to the distinct possibility that there could be more. Do not believe, but do not doubt unnecessarily either. Reserve your judgement until you can see for yourself one fine day.

Of course, the danger of sharing this information with people is that they, all at once, want to have the same thing. They jump up and down, like children in a schoolroom declaring, "Me too, me too!" I would advise against making experiments, however. These sorts of objective consciousness - as with all "siddhis" or "powers", even - are best attained when they come by themselves as a matter of course. For example, I did not - try - to develop these sorts of objective consciousness; rather, they just happened. They have started to unfold by themselves. That’s why I noticed them. Why are they developing, why are the rudiments there? I honestly cannot say, nor will I pretend to know why. I do not know and that is that. I just go with the flow and take it as it comes. If I will see, then I guess I will see. I have other things to work on besides amusing myself with all sorts of visions. Perhaps they are developing due to my meditation practices, perhaps they are developing due to my being essentially a vegetarian, and/or perhaps they are developing due to the fact that I have been an Indian yogi before in a previous life (as I suspect at times for various reasons) - who can say for sure? The thing to remember is that I am not making them happen. I am not obsessing over them. Likewise, I hope that you, my brother, and any others who read this, will not obsess over them either. It isn’t worth it. "Siddhis" or "powers" are incredibly dangerous. They can easily side-track us. Then we spend all our days trying to attain useless "siddhis" or "powers" and not trying to achieve the greatest "siddhi" or "power" of all: full subjective and objective causal consciousness; and if we are "blessed" with achieving some one "siddhi" or "power", we may end up abusing it and burying ourselves in terrible sowing. Please, my brother, keep your eye on the goal.

I might write an article on this matter at some point, actually. It never hurts to reiterate the warning.

"Thank you for sharing your experience. Both Initiate’s and your experiences are good lessons for anyone who want to teach esoterics"

A thing that really ought to be kept in mind is that not everyone is suited to be a teacher. Another thing besides this is that not everyone is ready to be a student.

"I hope you could share this thought-provoking work with us, just as HTL did, because I think there are many people (including me) who need it, and can benefit from it. As a matter of fact, I learn lots of things about the essence of religion from your treatise"

Well, I am flattered that you would put it anywhere near HTL’s work - but, I must admit that it doesn’t even come close to that caliber of work. The work of HTL and LA is incredible and I can only hope to achieve that level of finesse some fine day, likely in a previous life. In the meantime, I will do as best I can and that will have to do. I am a bungler and an idiot more often than not. To you it doesn’t seem that way - I probably seem quite polished, actually; however, I make my fair share of mistakes. The thing is, my mistakes are much more subtle and are harder for new-comers to detect. I don’t expect that you will be able to point them out. As such, I would implore you - and anyone else reading - to be mindful of the fact that even I am still learning. I make mistakes.

On the matter of the second part of the Essence of Religion, I will see about it. There is a lot of work to be done at the moment and, so, it will be added to the to-do list.

"Firstly, we, not being a causal self, cannot know the reality or Laws ourselves"

This is partly false. Though it is certain true that we cannot, as of yet, "know the reality" (i.e.: attain full subjective and objective causal consciousness) by ourselves, it is not exactly true that we cannot know the Laws ourselves. In fact, we must know the Laws ourselves and be able to apply them, at least to some degree, before we can even become causal selves.

Generally speaking, there are two ways in which this can be achieved:

1. By authoritative communication of the Laws
2. By trial-and-error over the course of many lives

The first case, 1., can be broken down into a number of steps:

A). Communcation of the Laws
B). Theoretical study of the Laws
C). Application of the Laws
D). Knowledge of the Laws

The first step, A)., communication of the Laws, indicates that we must be told what the Laws are. We are told - by members in a higher kingdom - and, as such, it is authoritative. The second step, following closely on the first step, B)., is theoretical study of the Laws. It is not enough that the Laws are communicated to us, but we must also study them as we would any other thing. The third step, C)., is the application of the Laws. This is one of the most important steps there is for it is only by applying what we have studied that we acquire true knowledge. It is by making experiments that we, ultimately, know what we know. Thus, the result is D)., a knowledge of the Laws. Only after studying and applying the Laws can we truly know the Laws. Likewise, knowledge of the laws and their correct application is the means to attaining the next higher kingdom.

This is the most efficacious method: of authoritative communication of the Laws by members of a higher kingdom. This is the esoteric method.

Trial-and-error, the exoteric method, is much slower and more trying. I suspect that I do not need to explain how trial-and-error works.

In any case, knowledge of the Laws is not a matter of belief.
Jul 23, 2016
 RE: RE: Questions PART I & II by: Fr. E.S.Q.S. by roamingclouds
by: Anonymous

Dear bro. Fr. E.S.Q.S.

First and foremost, thank you very much for taking so many hours to reply me. Your works have been certainly appreciated by me.

Then, I am sorry for the delayed reply, since I took a trip last week and your reply took me several days to digest. Hope you do not mind my slowness.

As there are so many ideas in your reply, it is hard for me to catch them all. Given my limited understandings, I will just select some points to reply.

You wrote, "I would certainly encourage you to work through the material yourself, my dear brother. You will get more benefit from it by actively studying it and trying to grasp it than by asking questions and hearing answers; however, at some point, I would also encourage you to engage in discussion with your fellows for a number of reasons ...... Study first, ask questions later. Know what it is that you are asking."

Thank you very much for your instructive advice and encouragements. I have decided to follow them. Thus I will not ask questions until I have became fairly familiar with the system and finally can formulate a good question worth discussing after several years’ studies.

You wrote, "my esoteric work largely consists of meditation on esoteric matters ...... Every instance of meditation on esoteric matters, producing mental thought forms in the mental world ...... produces an effect in the mental world ...... I suspect that it is probably best not to bog newcomers down with details they will discover later on in their studies.

I appreciate your expansion on what you meant. By virtue of what you revealed to us, I went to read what HTL wrote about meditation: "we help the planetary hierarchy by our thoughts; we help by sending out vibrations in the mental world in order to teach people to think...... By thinking we work new mental molecules into our own and other people’s brains, molecules that make it ever easier to think rationally."( kl1_1) Now I have became to admire your esoteric work.

Your sharing with us of other key ideas, such as reincarnation, karma, etc., is also appreciated by me. Since you mentioned you could never doubt the existence of superphysical reality, I wander why are you so sure of the fact, given the materialist world view has predominated the scientific community for quite a long time? (Or do you have some solid evidence or personal experience of paranormal?)

You wrote, "Now that I think of it, I am reminded - very much - of what happened to that Initiate fellow on ATS."

Thank you for sharing your experience. Both Initiate’s and your experiences are good lessons for anyone who want to teach esoterics.

You wrote, "Actually, I wonder if I ought not to post the second part of ’The Essence of Religion’..

I hope you could share this thought-provoking work with us, just as HTL did, because I think there are many people (including me) who need it, and can benefit from it. As a matter of fact, I learn lots of things about the essence of religion from your treatise.

As for faith, after reading your excellent response several times, I still have a different view as follows,

Firstly, we, not being a causal self, cannot know the reality or Laws ourselves. At best, I can trust in what teachers from the planetary hierarchy reveal to us, before we have activated causal consciousness and can obtain facts ourselves. This trustfulness is what I consider as good, for it is the foundation for all that follows. When I said faith has its own merits, I didn’t mean that it does not entail certain actions. In other words, faith is the first step before actions. And the degree of faith can also be proved by actions.

Put shortly, since we do not possess knowledge, we can only follow, with free will, what we believe from our own limited experiences. If we do possess knowledge, there is no need to believe. Given our current stage of development, faith still has its merits.

Secondly, according to my observations, Christians do not just prostrate to their God. When Christians really trust in God or Jesus love them, they are motivated to follow the law of love, or follow what they believe is truth and good. Their faith in God or Jesus does motivate many, if not most, of them to open their heart, to sacrifice for others, and to follow the way of love. That's why I respect their chosen way.

Though short in size, it has taken me half a day to write this reply. I hope it is reasonable. I welcome any comment or correction from you. Just take your time, for I will get an email when anyone replies here.

Hope all goes well for you, my brother.

Roamingclouds
Jul 08, 2016
 RE: Questions PART II
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Granted, most occult literature also contains these same fundamental ideas - not least all because they have been cribbed from esoteric sources, such as HPB; however, the explanations of the occultists were always rather lack-lustre. Though they had the fundamental ideas, thanks to esoteric sources - which they always neglect to mention, they did not have the system to explain them. Thus, they tried to explain them by all manner of imaginative systems - and especially quasi-qabalistic ones. That was their forte. Everything was a symbol and nothing was ever explained. Everything was bound up in all manner of mystical correspondences until it was made that everything corresponded to everything else in a senseless, ever-changing medley of confusion. Symbols were explained by more symbols, mysteries were explained by more mysteries; likewise, they always assure you that they know and that it is only a matter of time before you, too, will know - perhaps for a price. I have seen countless imbeciles pretend to be alchemists, hermeticists, rosicrucians, magicians, etc., etc., ad inf./ad naus. I have seen them lecture each other on all manner of things, pretend to be wise and knowledgable men. I have even seen them - so-called "adepts", no less - squabble amongst each other, like school children in a schoolyard, over who's lineage was true. Eventually, a reasonable man learns to see through the charade.

Before studying Pythagorean Hylozoics, I was studying occult literature; likewise, once I found Pythagorean Hylozoics, I made a relatively quick comparative study and saw that Pythagorean Hylozoics was decidedly superior in many respects. As such, I set aside the occult literature and focused my attention on esoterics. I tried to help my fellow occultists out on a number of occasions, but it seems that they would have none of it. They were all quite convinced of their systems. More often than not, I got into fairly intensive arguments with my fellow occultists - often over the silliest of matters. Now that I think of it, I am reminded - very much - of what happened to that Initiate fellow on ATS. Again, I could say more on this, but then it might take days to complete this response.

"3. You wrote, 'belief is no power, will effect no change.' And 'freedom from sin is earned. You need to square your debts with God. You pay by service and hard work, motivated by real genuine love and kindness.'

My comments: many Christians think the sin cannot be paid off simply by good works, because men can not save themselves by their own, instead, they need surrender themselves humbly and completely to Jesus or God. As they think they cannot save themselves by their own, faith in Jesus Christ or Love becomes the key of salvation, and is powerful to transform the imperfect. I do think faith has its own merits.

P.S. I know you mentioned 'faithfulness is measured in how much you love.' But I think faith is measured in how much you believe some idea, such as unity"

What follows will be a rather lengthy response. There are a number of problems that need to be addressed here.

The first and foremost problem, the most generalized problem, is concerning the meaning of the word "faith". It is a rather typical sort of thing these days that the word "faith" has become all but synonymous with the word "belief". The truth of the matter, of course, is that the words "faith" and "belief" are not synonymous at all. The meaning of the word "faith" has been distorted over the course of time. In the original sense, it had meant "law" and "faithfulness", then, had meant "law-abidingness". Eventually, the word "faith" was distorted so as to mean "trust" and, then, later on "belief". HTL writes on this, actually. In terms of the treatise, "The Essence of Religion" I referred to the word "faith" - in many instances - as "love" so as to be in keeping with the entire message of brotherhood - which is not, necessarily so far off the mark when we consider the close relationship between "love" and "law".

The second problem, concerns what many Christians think - or, more precisely, believe: many, if not all of those concepts are ill-defined and misunderstood. For example, the words "sin", "salvation", and "surrender". They have no idea what these things actually mean. I tried to explain them - especially the words "sin" and "salvation" - in "The Essence of Religion" in a simple enough manner, but - of course - ultimately, I cannot force my Christian brethren to accept my particular interpretation. As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Actually, I wonder if I ought not to post the second part of "The Essence of Religion". It has more material in it concerning the matters of "sin" and "salvation".

Finally, I will begin going through each part of this last question.

"many Christians think the sin cannot be paid off simply by good works, because men can not save themselves by their own, instead, they need surrender themselves humbly and completely to Jesus or God"

They are both right and wrong here. They are right to say that men cannot "save" themselves in the sense that no man can become a second self with it the help of a second self; however, they are wrong to say that "sins" cannot be paid off simply by good works. In fact, if they wish to be "saved" at all, this is precisely what they must do. Then there is the matter of the word "surrender". They seem to think that this means to prostrate themselves before the deity or some such; however, this is not quite the meaning. In truth, the word "surrender" here means devotion to the will of the deity - whether apparently Jesus, God, Mary, Krishna, Allah, etc., etc., - to accept its guidance as our personal representative of the Law - this "deity", of course, being esoterically the Augoeides. This explains the passage:

"Not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42).

Prostration will not eradicate sins anymore than belief will eradicate sins. They must act. Love must be put into action - but then that is always the problem, isn't it? We always look for the easiest way out. The church pews are full every Sunday with people who have bought into the theological fiction that all they need is to prostrate themselves and believe and then they will be "saved". They like that idea very much. It's easy. It takes a couple of hours, one day in a week, and they are made "perfect" - as if by magic.

Thus, the church - by peddling this incorrigible theological fiction - is, in effect, standing in the way of their conscious development. The church is encouraging them to sit and be idle. The church promises them paradise, the "Kingdom of Heaven", if only they will believe in all manner of spurious doctrines, come to church regularly to be brain-washed by their preachers, make their tithes, and pray for the forgiveness that only the theologians can bestow upon them - being the representatives of "gods work", of course. They make people believe that they have the power, to be sure, to absolve a man of his "sins" - actually, to subvert the laws of cause and effect.

"As they think they cannot save themselves by their own, faith in Jesus Christ or Love becomes the key of salvation, and is powerful to transform the imperfect"

This kind of depends on what we mean by "faith" now, doesn't it? Do we mean "faith" as in "belief" or do we mean "faith" as in "love"? Love of the deity is, indeed, a most helpful sort of thing; however, belief - alone - is fairly useless. We need to be careful here with our words and our meanings. If we do mean "faith" as "love", then we are at least on the right track; however, love of the deity, alone, is not enough. Love of the deity does not eradicate "sins". It can certainly help us to cultivate the necessary attractive qualities and powers and combat hatred within ourselves, but it will not set right the wrongs that we have already committed. After all, no matter how much you love the deity, the deity will not subvert the law of cause and effect. No matter how much you love, it is worth very little if it is not put into action. You reap what you sow. If a man wishes to be free, to be "saved", then he must earn it by making reparations or suffering his lot - let the Christians believe what they will.

"I do think faith has its own merits"

I may or may not agree with you, depending on what you mean by "faith" now.

"I know you mentioned 'faithfulness is measured in how much you love.' But I think faith is measured in how much you believe some idea, such as unity"

Then it is clear to me now that "faith" means "belief" in your eyes. Perhaps after reading this response, you will re-think that position.

One more thought: unity isn't a matter of belief, my dear brother. Unity exists whether or not you believe in it. That is a whole other discussion, however, and I will not engage in it just now. I have been writing this response for - quite literally - 5-6 hours now. I need a break. My concentration is waning. It started waning hours ago, actually, but I pushed on in the hopes of completing thus response today.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.
Jul 08, 2016
 RE: Questions PART I
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Ah, Roamingclouds - my dear brother, it is certainly nice to hear from you again.

"Thank you very much for your detailed reply and sharing of your experiences regarding the ATS affair"

And

"Following your suggestion, I have just finished reading what you left on the Pythagorean Hylozoics thread on ATS, and nearly all passages posted by you (both Fr. E.S.Q.S. and Anonymous) in this website. Your contributions do improve my understanding. I am very grateful for that"

You are more than welcome, my dear brother.

"As for my last comment, I would said I didn't mean you missed any reality. I knew from your reply to Dell that you agree the reality as expressed by the counterpoint made by Dell. What I really meant in my last comment is an appreciation of your efforts in working for unity, love, brotherhood, or harmony.

So your question for me may have been addressed now"

I suppose that you have addressed it. I was initially concerned, given the fact that it had seemed as if you were saying that I had missed Dell's counterpoint. I did not. I am acutely aware of the difficulties there are inherent in communicating esoteric concepts and principles. The fact is: I have, quite often, found myself in the position of being a resident "expert" concerning esoterics - and Pythagorean Hylozoics especially. In this, I do not mean to say that I am - in any way - an "expert"; rather, that - by comparison with the people who would gather around me - I apparently had a superior grasp of the matter and, so, became - by force of circumstances, even - a teacher. Take what happened on ATS as an example. As such, I have had to learn more and more about the subtle art and science of teaching - not only from reading, but from experience. In fact, I had started writing a short treatise on the subtle art and science teaching a while back; however, I have yet had the time to finish it.

Dell's counterpoint was largely moot by virtue of the fact that "The Organism of Humanity: An Analogy" and even "The Essence of Religion" are exoteric works informed by esoteric principles, not esoteric treatises. They are meant for certain types and kinds of peoples, at certain stages of development, who harbour certain idiologies - or "languages", as I tend to call them. The reason I posted them here is partly so people could see some of the work being done and partly because the work might very well prove beneficial to some people here or who happen to drop by - after all, if we are being honest with ourselves, most of us here are certainly not hylozoicians, esotericians, and/or mental selves as of yet. Most of us will not meet even the basic criteria. There is no harm in some emotionally stimulating material, insofar as we can realize that the key point in it is the message of brotherhood.

Likewise, having been a student of Pythagorean Hylozoics for a number of years already, I was also well aware of the difficulties inherent in promoting the cause of brotherhood. What was it - a good 65% or so of people in incarnation are at the stages of barbarism? As such, over 50% of the worlds population currently in incarnation would not be able to benefit from a message of brotherhood; however, there is the matter of the remaining 35% who are at the civilization, cultural, and humanist stages which could, undoubtedly, make use of such a message - not least of all, as a reminder of the incredible importance there is in developing a solid will to unity. Without a solid will to unity, our "fall from grace" - so to speak - is almost an inevitability, given world conditions. I could go on here for quite some time yet, but I suppose that this will suffice for a response to this matter. After all, anyone can also read the previous posts and conclude as much.

"I appreciate the opportunities that you offer us to freely ask you questions. I do have many questions when reading through KofR and PhS. Nevertheless, many of these questions may be solved by re-reading the material myself. It just takes more time to grasp. Thus, if I get good questions I can't solve, I will definitely post them here, hoping that you, or other learned brothers and sisters, could help to assist me"

I would certainly encourage you to work through the material yourself, my dear brother. You will get more benefit from it by actively studying it and trying to grasp it than by asking questions and hearing answers; however, at some point, I would also encourage you to engage in discussion with your fellows for a number of reasons:

A). To get unique perspectives
B). To try your hand at formulating your thoughts and feelings
C). To learn the subtle art and science of social interactions
D). To practice critical thinking
...

There are so many reasons, in fact, that I'm not even sure that I could list them all. Once more, I would certainly encourage you to work through the material yourself. Part of the trick with studying esoterics - and Pythagorean Hylozoics especially - is that you have to give it time. A large part of the work actually goes on in the subconscious, automatically. Supply it with the right materials, and it cannot fail to produce the right product in due course of time. After all, you can't really engage in a fruitful discussion on these matters without first grasping - at the very least - the basics. You can't even ask the right questions without the basics; hence, the requirement of the Pythagorean school that the new members would remain silent for at least two years. Study first, ask questions later. Know what it is that you are asking.

"1. You said in the ATS thread, 'Initiate was behaving like a complete and utter fool to think that they could communicate such things to a site like this. My esoteric work, on the other hand, is subtle in approach; it is completely anonymous and widely distributed, but requires a key to be understood.' I wonder, what is the key you meant here. I know you also said 'love is the key' in the treatise, but I don't think these two keys are the same"

Everyone asks me about this. I suppose that there is no real harm in elaborating at this point.

First and foremost, what I had meant - in that particular case - is that my esoteric work largely consists of meditation on esoteric matters. That's it. A little anti-climactic, isn't it? To understand how this is an esoteric work, however, does require a "key" of sorts - namely, a grasp of the three aspects of reality. Thus, point by point:

"Subtle in approach" = Not a physical work
"Completely anonymous" = The source of mental inspiration cannot be so easily detected
"Widely distributed" = The mental thoughtforms are in the mental world shared by all
"Requires a key to be understood" = Requires a grasp of the three aspects of reality to understand how meditation on esoteric matters is an esoteric work

This esoteric work is, ultimately, rooted in the fact that thoughts are things. Every instance of meditation on esoteric matters, producing mental thoughtforms in the mental world - whether in a more formal meditation or in the act of writing, even - produces an effect in the mental world. It is all somewhat akin to a radio tower broadcasting radio waves, actually. I could be even more detailed in these descriptions, but I suspect that it is probably best not to bog newcomers down with details they will discover later on in their studies.

When I say that "love is the key" in "The Essence of Religion", I am referring to the fact that scripture - and especially Biblical scripture - cannot properly be understood without "love": a knowledge of unity, of essentiality. You have to approach Biblical scripture from the right point of view to really grasp the meaning behind the passages. My Christian brethren all assume that they understand; however, their explanations of the passages prove otherwise. They are unaware of the meaning of various Gnostic symbols.

"2. You said, when you firstly found the works by HTL, 'I mostly skimmed through the sections of the various papers, looking for key ideas - ones that I had come to recognize in the past as representing the highest and most sensible things.' Could you share with us the key ideas? (I guess one of them is unity. Then I am curious about what's the others?)"

You are quite right that one of the first and foremost ideas I was looking for was unity. Without this, it would have went down into the slop pail immediately. The idea of unity - which I had discovered "again", if you will, in my teenage years - was an immovable requirement. It made sense to me, automatically. I didn't need convincing. It was this idea, in fact, which - ultimately - lead me esoterics and Pythagorean Hylozoics in particular. This idea lead me through a veritable maze of idiologies, was a guiding light unlike any other. It even lead me through the smoke and haze of occult literature.

Other ideas would have been ones such as:

A). Reincarnation - the only sensible way to explain the meaning and purpose of life
B). Karma or the law of cause and effect - it just made sense, especially given the nature of unity
C). The existence of superphysical reality - I could never doubt the existence of superphysical reality
...

Basically, all the fundamental ideas of esoterics.

End of RE: Questions PART I
Jul 06, 2016
 RE: RE: A appreciation of the point and counterpoint by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.
by: Roamingclouds

Dear Fr. E.S.Q.S.,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply and sharing of your experiences regarding the ATS affair.

Following your suggestion, I have just finished reading what you left on the Pythagorean Hylozoics thread on ATS, and nearly all passages posted by you (both Fr. E.S.Q.S. and Anonymous) in this website. Your contributions do improve my understanding. I am very grateful for that.

As for my last comment, I would said I didn't mean you missed any reality. I knew from your reply to Dell that you agree the reality as expressed by the counterpoint made by Dell. What I really meant in my last comment is an appreciation of your efforts in working for unity, love, brotherhood, or harmony.

So your question for me may have been addressed now.

I appreciate the opportunities that you offer us to freely ask you questions. I do have many questions when reading through KofR and PhS. Nevertheless, many of these questions may be solved by re-reading the material myself. It just takes more time to grasp. Thus, if I get good questions I can't solve, I will definitely post them here, hoping that you, or other learned brothers and sisters, could help to assist me.

For now, when reading through your other posts and the treatise on the essence of religion, I get several questions for you.

1. You said in the ATS thread, "Initiate was behaving like a complete and utter fool to think that they could communicate such things to a site like this. My esoteric work, on the other hand, is subtle in approach; it is completely anonymous and widely distributed, but requires a key to be understood." I wonder, what is the key you meant here. I know you also said "love is the key" in the treatise, but I don't think these two keys are the same.

2. You said, when you firstly found the works by HTL, "I mostly skimmed through the sections of the various papers, looking for key ideas - ones that I had come to recognize in the past as representing the highest and most sensible things." Could you share with us the key ideas? (I guess one of them is unity. Then I am curious about what's the others?)

3. You wrote, "belief is no power, will effect no change."And "freedom from sin is earned. You need to square your debts with God. You pay by service and hard work, motivated by real genuine love and kindness."

My comments: many Christians think the sin cannot be paid off simply by good works, because men can not save themselves by their own, instead, they need surrender themselves humbly and completely to Jesus or God. As they think they cannot save themselves by their own, faith in Jesus Christ or Love becomes the key of salvation, and is powerful to transform the imperfect. I do think faith has its own merits.

P.S. I know you mentioned "faithfulness is measured in how much you love." But I think faith is measured in how much you believe some idea, such as unity.

Thanks for your attention,

Best wishes,

Roamingclouds
Jul 02, 2016
 RE: A appreciation of the point and counterpoint
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Introduction:

First and foremost, before I begin, let me just say that it is nice to meet you, brother. Admittedly, it has been quite some time since anyone last posted here; however, I suppose that that could all change in the blink of an eye given the right circumstances.

Ah, but then where are my manners? I really ought to introduce myself. The nom de plume I use most often at this particular juncture is Fr. E.S.Q.S., but I have also gone by both Fr. T.E.U. and Anonymous on occasion. Fr. T.E.U. was the nom de plume I used when I visited ATS some number of year ago, actually. I often signed my posts Fr. T.E.U. - Fr. E.S.Q.S. indicating that I was both; however, I do not use Fr. T.E.U. nearly as much anymore. Fr. E.S.Q.S. is my most recent "motto", indicating an interest in, shall we say, "discovering my Self".

Concerning ATS:

As I already mentioned above, I visited ATS some number of years ago under the nom de plume Fr. T.E.U. Understand: on a fairly regular basis, I look up certain esoteric terms on Google to see whether or not esoterics is catching with the general populace. A few years ago, when I typed in the term, "Pythagorean Hylozoics" a thread on ATS came up - in the Grey Area started by nimrod20032003 - and, so, I decided to look into it. What I saw were a handful of "lost souls", as it were, left reeling after what had happened on the thread started by that Initiate fellow, as he called himself. As such, I decided to help these few "lost souls" out. By "lost souls" here I mean that they seemed very much like the survivors of a shipwreck, stranded on an island in the middle of nowhere.

This Initiate fellow - it seems - had come, shook their world view and life views to pieces, and then got himself banned for engaging in countless petty arguments with the locals on ATS. So many people had so many burning questions concerning Pythagorean Hylozoics - and no one was there to help them anymore. After all, Pythagorean Hylozoics isn't exactly a popular system, now is it? What were the odds that another person would come along and answer the questions now that this Initiate fellow was gone? With a hum and a sigh, I decided that I would try to help these poor, "lost souls" wading about in the wreckage of that thread. In fact, my posts - under Fr. T.E.U. - are still there for all to read, should they ever choose to.

That being said, I am no longer an active participant on ATS - I never really was, in fact. Shortly after I had begun posting there - on the Pythagorean Hylozoics thread, to be more precise - a handful of posters begun to message me privately about establishing a private forum elsewhere, dedicated to the study of Pythagorean Hylozoics. Of course, seeing as ATS wasn't exactly friendly towards proponents of Pythagorean Hylozoics - both that Initiate fellow and nimrod20032003 were banned already, I gave it the nod and went with them - hence the Pythagorean Hylozoics thread went dead.

Initially, the private forum was doing alright. It consisted of myself, as a sort of resident "expert", and a handful of individuals from ATS; however, shortly after the private forum began, it all fell apart. My ATS friends were very much involved in conspiracy theory - as you can imagine - whereas I, quite heartily, discouraged their "darker musings" on more than one occasion - what I had called, "dwelling in a stinking cess pit". I actually wrote an article explaining, in excruciating detail - esoteric detail, mind you - as per why they ought to "climb out of that labyrinth of sewage", at least for some time; however, they did not heed my warnings. Instead, they revolted. Soon enough, they became suspicious even of HTL, LA, HPB - and myself! They didn't know who to trust! Once they started talking about HTL, LA, HPB and myself as being - potentially - in cahoots with their preferred bogeyman, I pulled away from the forum. All of my energy, all of my attention, was removed and I watched it crumble into dust. It simply had to die. There was no way that I was going to support a group of people who were speaking out against HTL, LA, HPB, and myself. Eventually, after that rather unfortunate scenario, I found this website and have been contributing to it ever since.

Concerning "The Organism of Humanity: An Analogy" and the responses to Dell's counterpoint:

Well, you are in luck - I am the one who wrote both "The Organism of Humanity: An Analogy" and the responses to Dell's counterpoint. I had my name changed on those posts - and a few others - from Fr. E.S.Q.S. to Anonymous a while back due to privacy concerns; however, those privacy concerns have since passed and, so, there really is no need to hide that matter any longer. As such, please feel free to direct any other comments/questions concerning those matters to myself.

A question for you, then, might be as follows:

What reality was I missing, do you think? I would encourage you to read all the posts through, once more - and very carefully, mind you - before you respond.

Beyond that, I look forward to conversing with you in the very near future. I do love a good conversation on esoterics.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.
Jun 30, 2016
 A appreciation of the point and counterpoint
by: Roamingclouds

Dear all,

When reading the point and counterpoint to the organism of humanity, I recall a thread I happened to read three years ago on ATS (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread951125/pg1) where the original poster "Initiate" (who have studied Hylozoics for many years) said he could provide "an important scientific/socio-political-philosophical-linguistic-economic treatise (as to how the present 21st century shall proceed) that will revolutionize the arts and sciences for mankind, for the 21st century and beyond". It seems to me that he thought there is a very promising future in this century, and that his revolutionary treatise can serve that goal. So he also seems to miss the counterpoint expressed in this thread. Anyway, his treatise, though not posted before he's account was banned on ATS, did lead several seekers, including me, to study Hylozoics seriously.

We need to accept the reality as expressed by the counterpoint. Nevertheless, we also need to praise the efforts made for the point express by Anonymous. All in all, Laurency also said in KoR 3.9,

"So much should be said that the planetary hierarchy is doing its utmost to prevent another world war and is using every willing tool to help men solve their most urgent problems: those of education, world economy, universal brotherhood,and the world religions. It appeals to all to work together (not separately) to solve these problems. All who will and can contribute to this will be given all possible "inspiration".

D.K. points out that the individual has not been given the knowledge to enjoy it with a pleasant feeling of superiority. It entails responsibility, as does all knowledge."

Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Roamingclouds
Jan 08, 2016
 RE: RE: Rebuttal
by: Anonymous

"Thank you for taking the time to read and provide a 'rebuttal' to my counterpoint"

Yes, I called it a "rebuttal" - and appropriately so. That being said, you must understand that I was rebutting the implications of the counterpoint - not the counterpoint, itself. After all, I have no qualms with the esoteric principles presented in the counterpoint. As I have already mentioned, I am acutely aware of them as I am all but forced to take them into consideration when I communicate with others.

"However, I found nothing in your words that impel me to explain, defend or justify my original point of view regarding your article"

You are quite right to declare that - the esoteric principles - presented in the counterpoint need no defense. They do not, not least of all because they were not being rebutted; however, the implications are another matter altogether.

The implications - and especially the implication that there is no point in communicating with others - simply had to be addressed. Now, I am well aware of the fact that you may not have actually meant it that way; however, the onus is on you - as a communicator - to make that clear from the outset if that is not what you had actually meant. If it - is - what you had actually meant, then you certain do have something to defend.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Anonymous
Jan 03, 2016
 RE: Anonymous rebuttal to Dell's counterpoint
by: Dell

To Anonymous

Thank you for taking the time to read and provide a "rebuttal" to my counterpoint. I do very much respect the sentiment, idealism and great conviction you expressed in it.

However, I found nothing in your words that impel me to explain, defend or justify my original point of view regarding your article.

Consequently, I have no further response for you other than to say, I wish you all the best as you pursue your sincere work for the betterment of human kind.

In addition, I look forward with great interest to reading any new posts you may submit.

With kind regards,
Dell

P.S. I see you have already submitted some new posts.
Dec 25, 2015
 RE: A Counterpoint to the Organism of Humanity
by: Anonymous

Interesting - I must admit that I had hardly expected someone to challenge the presentation of an analogy. Live and learn, I suppose. First and foremost, before I begin my rebuttal, I just wanted to offer the fellow my thanks - the comment is much appreciated. That being said, I will waste no more time with niceties but get right to it.

"When addressing esoteric matters, I have found it useful to switch my usual exoteric way of interpreting ideas to a concentrated focus on esoteric principles in order to intelligently discuss what I see, hear or read. I find this helps keep me closer to reality"

In general, I concur; however, be that as it may, it has been my experience that discussing esoteric matters with others rather requires a certain flexibility in your mode of presentation - and this precisely because of the various levels of the growth and development of human consciousness; the various levels of comprehension and/or understanding; the psychological and idiological peculiarities of the various races, nations, faiths, etc.,; ad inf./ad naus. In short: you have learn to, effectively, speak the language of your audience. Recall: not everyone is an Esoterician. Not everyone is even remotely interested in Esoterics. Though it is certainly true that, in doing so, you may appear less knowledgable in the process, but then what of appearances; have we not learnt a thing in all of history about jumping to hasty conclusions? Is it not entirely possible that a man, full of Esoterics, a brilliant Esoterician even, might take it upon himself to concretize esoteric principles and make them more generally accessible and appealing to people at various stages of growth and development, comprehension and/or understanding, and with various psychological and idiological peculiarities?

"To begin with, I find Fr. E.S.Q.S. analogy extremely well-written, creative and inspiring. However, in keeping with my opening statement on addressing esoteric matters, I would argue (from a purely esoteric perspective) that while his compelling message may be profoundly useful for an individual to contemplate, practice or promulgate there is simply no esoteric principle to support its viability as a collective endeavor neither national, international nor global"

It seems that, for all your analyzing, you have perchance missed the obvious point of the article. Now, I could spell it out for you - but I think that it may be more beneficial for you to figure it out on your own: why did I write it, do you suppose? What is its purpose? Who is the audience, do you suppose? What is the size, approximately, of the audience? What does the audience, generally, know of Esoterics? Does the audience, generally, care to know of Esoterics? All of these things, and more, ought to be carefully considered before jumping to any hasty conclusions, such as: "there is simply no esoteric principle to support its viability as a collective endeavour neither national, international nor global". Consider the following points in response:

1. The esoteric principle underlying the analogy is the Law of Unity, the Law of Laws, with all of its inherent implications.

2. The presentation of a useful analogy isn't meant to be a collective endeavour itself; rather, it is meant to inspire collective endeavours. As such, the point is moot.

"Given just these two profoundly significant esoteric principles, it’s not difficult to see the virtual impossibility of five divergent levels of human consciousness (all existing at the same time) yet eons apart in their consciousness development, ever coming together in the spirit of cooperation and brotherhood (or for any other reason for that matter). What’s more, In deference to the same esoteric principles, it is unlikely that the replacement of competition with cooperation is apt to occur any time in the near future. As Laurency says, 'Consciousness development is a very slow process'!"

...And I am acutely aware of that; however, be that as it may, it is certainly not a viable excuse to do nothing at all for our brothers, for the cause of evolution, for the cause of Unity, and/or for the cause of the Universal Brotherhood of Life. Promoting the ideals of Love, Unity, and Brotherhood, as best we can, is quite a necessary task. Cooperation may not come to pass tomorrow, but does that mean that we shouldn't even bother with it? It is of no real use to throw up your hands in despair and call it all a hopeless endeavour. In that way, nothing is ever achieved. We must do our small part to prepare the way for a better tomorrow, no matter how hopeless it all seems.

Enough sitting and twiddling your thumbs. After all, what good is all of your esoteric learning if you will do nothing but sit and watch the world go to hell in a hand basket?

I will leave it at that for the time being.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Your Pythagorean Hylozoics (Esoteric) forum.