Esotericism
As this journal is going to touch in a large part on areas such as mysticism and esotericism, I should at least describe at the outset what I understand by this. Not what it actually is necessarily, because I may be wrong in my understanding. This is just how I understand it at this point in time. I shall probably deny it all tomorrow…
But I digress. In the above regard, it is a commonplace (in some circles) to suggest that esotericism and religion are two entirely different things. That religion deals with belief and faith, whilst the esoteric is in fact a quest for knowledge rather than an actual belief. This does not mean that a mystic has no faith, but rather that his faith is subordinate to (and constantly being redefined in the light of) whatever knowledge he possesses of these matters.
This is (more or less) my position. That humankind is in a state of development and is going from A to Z. We don’t know what those positions are as such but the journey to knowledge is itself a journey of discovering this. On a wider human level we can say that we are evolving and that successive generations are actually undergoing a process of development. This is a natural process and at some point will achieve its final goal (if there is one).
Parallel to this ‘natural development’ which takes millennia on a wider human scale, there exists the possibility to undergo such development individually and rapidly during one’s lifetime. This practice is the ‘knowledge’ that true esoteric studies are concerned with. It is held that individuals such as Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad were in actuality, men who had undergone this training and achieved knowledge of what is generally called ‘the meaning of life’. Their teachings were instructions to disciples who were attempting to achieve such knowledge and, more importantly, such Esotericism holds that such a teacher is absolutely necessary for the disciple’s progress. This is fundamental. When such an individual dies, the disciples often try to ‘carry on’ and the group will often then stabilise on belief rather than knowledge, due to the fact that the possessor of the knowledge is no longer present. This is in fact the genesis of religions - the substitution of a working framework towards a higher knowledge with a belief system centered to a greater or lesser degree around faith rather than action.
Seen in this light, the concept of ‘sin’ is not understood in the same way in esotericism as in religion. In religion God has laid down some laws and man sins when he deviates from these laws. Salvation lies in recognising this, ‘repenting’ and once again making a commitment to observe those laws. In esotericism, the ‘laws’ are not to keep one from ‘sin’ but are neccessary to move towards the goal of higher knowledge. They are also, as mentioned above, personal and prescribed by the teacher. In fact, in the esoteric sense, humanity is moving from A to Z and may only be at (say) ‘F’. How then can there be ‘sin’ in failing to be at ‘Z’ ? Z is the goal for sure, but if one moves from ‘F’ to ‘G’ then this is progress that should be applauded, not chastised because one ‘fails’ to reach ‘Z’. This is one reason why religions often preach a past ‘Golden Age’ or ‘Garden of Eden’. Because it legitimises the teaching on ‘sin’ (and the consequent action needed to remedy it) which makes sense only if humanity is not in fact developing but is ‘backsliding’. That is to say, religion has to teach that we have already experinced ‘Z’ but are in rebellion against that (or otherwise fallen) if it is to avoid the esoteric ‘developmental’ approach to the matter.
Links
Godbothering
Techieness &
Design
Mystic Mayhem
ParaPolitics
Everything Else
Archives
Recent Entries
Meta
