Occult versus Esoteric - The Correct Meanings

a reply to: TerryDon79

My reply addressed the comment...

however, secrecy does not denote ill-intent.

To which I said, yes, it mostly does.

Welcome to the thread.

a reply to: Sahabi

Occultism doesn't have to be evil, but it usually is. It's why it needs to remain "hidden."

It usually refers to knowledge of the forces inherent in nature.

Esoteric is merely the correct interpretation discovered by or taught to initiates of esoteric wisdom, every religion has this and it is because not everyone is of "Outstanding" mind (if you call yourself what you do for the reason I suspect you should get that. If not it's from the Ihya Ulum ud-din, book 1, knowledge).

The alternative is basically, you are not intelligent enough to comprehend something and it is a waste of everyone's time to even try.

In this case you are exoteric. You can be a great person still, but you likely enjoy the simplicity of the exo and that's fine.

It urks me when these people who have not learned it put down the esoteric. It's the soul of religion and source of enlightenment.

Of course their are so many new age Charlatans I understand somewhat. But it's the esoteric in their own religion they are really concerned with and comparison with the new age is inappropriate​.

a reply to: intrptr

I was giving examples of secrets with no malicious intent.

Just because something is a secret, doesn't always make it evil, harmful or malicious.

There's even examples of something being a secret that's both good AND bad.

Like not telling an attacker you have a pistol, knife, keys etc.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Just because something is potentially harmful in one hand doesn't exlude its beneficial potential in the other.

Never let the left hand know what the right hand is holding if the left hand is out to do evil.

Which it usually is. To bad the left hand holds the secrets of power that the right hand can't do anything about.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Just because something is a secret, doesn't always make it evil, harmful or malicious.

I said mostly. Your gun, keychain, whatever, pales in comparison to the subversion by covert (secret) means of entire nations.

That 'Mostly'.

Third time clarifying the direction of my opinion.

a reply to: intrptr

OK. Secrets by nations.

You mean like in wars? Would you want the enemy to know where your best fighters, weapons or anything else is?

Now, you'll say war is bad. I'll agree. But what if it was your country getting invaded? Would you want the "bad guys" to know where everyone and everything is?

a reply to: Sahabi

Can I give you an example of an esoteric Sunnah and ask you what you personally interpret it as?

If you don't mind, From the Ihya (Revival of the Sciences of Religion) book 1, Knowledge, page 175 The Exposition of People's Disparity of Mind by Imam Abu Hamed Al-Ghazali

In confirmation to the disparity of the mind, it is narrated (by Ibn Al-Muhabbar and At-Tirmidhi on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Salam) that the Messenger of Allah "s.a.w.s" at the end of a long conversation, described the throne and stated that the angels asked Allah Almighty: "O our Lord! Have you created aught greater than the throne? Allah replied: "Yes, the mind." The angels said: "How great is it?" Allah answered: "Verily no one can grasp is greatness. Can you calculate the numbers of the sand of the sea?" They said: "No." Allah responded "Verily I have created the mind in different kinds as numerous as the sand of the sea. Some men were given one grain, others two, three and four grains, still others recieved a good portion, others a portion equalling a camel-load, others even greater."

I would say, the mind being greater than the throne of God, is one of the best quotes I've ever meditated on yet I wonder if I am missing something because I get it and I don't get it.

Everywhere is God's throne as He is Transcendent and not capable of being anthropomorphized and doesn't need a chair.

So his throne is something greater than the human definition of a throne merely applied to Allah. Making it even MORE esoteric because people might interpret it as talking of a literal throne, a fancy chair, as if Allah needs such things.

The remainder is basically the reason you need to make this thread (I imagine at least one of them). People do have different natural​ intellectual​ abilities, degrees of naivety applicable to the educated and uneducated alike, and different educations and level of expertise in their field.

That diversity is not absent in places of faith or religion in general.

"For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, blind are the hearts of men which are in the chest." Al-Hajj 46

This is interesting because I understand "heart" is usually not talking about the literal organ even more so in Arabic. It usually means mind.

It seems an exception has been made.

What is a blind, literal heart, whose function is to pump blood to the organ that stores what heart usually means, the mind?

Certainly something esoteric is going on. I will consult Ibn Kathir and get back to you but feel free, anyone, to comment on the esoteric interpretation of the mind is more glorious than the 'throne' of God. Or anything else.

I have 3,000 pages worth of Al-Ghazali, "Proof of Islam" as he is known. A Sufi, he was a sort of mediator between the near-heretical interpretation of Islam and the ultra-Orthodox and was read and admired by Thomas Aquinas, influenced him as much as Proclus and pseudo-Aristotelian, Hermetic and Alchemical literature, Liber de Causis I have and he was its foremost European student attributing its ideas to Proclus. I will probably share some quotes from that too.

In Ihya Ulum Ad Din, 40 books, 10 per "quarter" are covered 40 topics and using Sunnah and Qur'an on almost every page offering tafsir or exegesis in English, commentary really.

I assume without ever having looked up the actual definition which I will have to do now, I imagine exegesis to be the exoteric interpretation and eisegesis the esoteric and he does quite a bit of that form of tafsir as well.

One more: Same source

"That those gifted with pure understanding may remember." Sad 29

"...but is their anyone who will remember?" Al-Qamar 17

This remembrance is of 2 kinds: one is to recall an image which once existed in one's mind but has vanished, the other is to recall an image which is inherent in one's mind by nature.end quote

The second form, a naturally inherent image in the mind, is occult.

It is hidden both by being in one's mind and not all, it's natural too so it fits my previous definition of occult referring to hidden powers in nature, one being the mental image that develops into a reality, without the actual source of the knowledge required being known other than mental intstinct that compelled the individual to accomplish the manifestation of whatever the image is, physical or ideological.

In other words nature or God put the image there, if you don't know it or if you do, and either way it is occult knowledge (different from occult wisdom), because you can't say you learned it and can't take all the credit for inspiration unless you are an atheist and even then...who can say?

Scientific knowledge is often occult knowledge because we don't all always understand how or why it works, sometimes nobody does, they know it works is all.

That's occult. And only evil if used FOR evil.

Jack Parsons of JPL and OTO fame invented, with no education in rocket fuel at any institution, solid rocket fuel that was at one time used by NASA.

A perfect example of the occult acquisition of knowledge by natural means.

a reply to: Sahabi


Here is a good esoteric interpretation from Ghazali:

Allah is the Extensive Light of the heavens and the earth; and the like of his Light is as if there were a Pillar and within it a Lamp. An-Nur 35

Ghazali has "Niche" but I took Pillar from my personal Qur'an which adds (Lustrous), I didn't know they were synonymous so I will have to look into that more.

Ghazali applies this to his Exposition of the Honour of Mind. In its literal context Allah IS the Light but esoterically interpreted by Ghazali it is applied to the honour of the mind.

"It is true that the honour of the mind is intuitively known, our aim here is to relate many traditions and narrations which make a mention of such honour. Allah Almighty gives it the name of light in His saying: "Allah is the Light..."

In other words, Allah is the "Honour of Mind" through the reception of His Light, a "Lamp within a Pillar" "inside a crystal globe...of glass as if it were a glittering star."

Ghazali did not expound on the last part but it is part of Al Nur 35 and I can not word my own thoughts on it. They are not that developed yet.

The famous Kryptos CIA sculpture was named from the Greek word "hidden".
For those that have not solved the puzzle the Occult powers remain.
Once solved the puzzle becomes merely esoteric.

The knowledge of the Pythagorean inner circle would be a good example of "esoteric" information.
The membership requirements for the inner circle required lifestyle changes including a 40 day fast that was designed to enhance cognitive abilities. Exactly how that was accomplished could not be explained to the uninitiated.

a reply to: Cauliflower


Pythagoras was extreme.

A 3 year vow of silence is a mind control technique and one of his "initiation" methods.

To deprive man of one of the things that makes him man is to dehumanize and subordinate. A person can't even plead his case when told to do something and if they don't they are out of the academy.

Plato was a fascist or communist even, advocating the ban of marriage and family and turning all children over to the state to be raised by pederast Hellenes so he was even worse. His writings are full of references to pederasty as the Romans were said to also do with out fear from the law. In Greece it was totally legal and in Rome it was the Caesars said to be doing it. Nobody is going to stop Caesar. Makes you think when the RCC started this apparently old disgusting crime of nature.

Makes you question everyone who is an admirer of Plato and his plan for world government that is the least democratic plan ever conceived of and an alleged goal of many today is to accomplish this "great work" as it is called.

Plato is the blueprint for some seriously disturbed people and probably was for Karl Marx. Animal House is a popular, almost to the point of obsession, book about Stalinism, allegorically​, too. It is practically unreadable to me and I love to read. I also get allegory too it just isn't good, I don't get why it's so famous or popular at all.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Muslims pray 5 times a day, Muhammad was into underage brides and yet you criticize Pythagoras mystery schools....hmmmm. No mind control in Islam?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Hello Disturbinatti, and thank you for weighing-in on the topic.

"Esoteric is merely the correct interpretation discovered by or taught to initiates of esoteric wisdom, every religion has this and it is because not everyone is of "Outstanding" mind (if you call yourself what you do for the reason I suspect you should get that. If not it's from the Ihya Ulum ud-din, book 1, knowledge)."

We call this the Perennial Philosophy, Ancient Wisdom, or Ageless Wisdom. I agree that there are core esoteric teachings shared by nearly all of the mainstream religions of the world.

Your suspicion led you in the right direction. The name is based upon my former convictions when first joining ATS. I no longer hold those beliefs.

"Can I give you an example of an esoteric Sunnah and ask you what you personally interpret it as?"

[ "O our Lord! Have you created aught greater than the throne?" Allah replied: "Yes, the mind." The angels said: "How great is it?" Allah answered: "Verily no one can grasp is greatness. Can you calculate the numbers of the sand of the sea?" They said: "No." Allah responded "Verily I have created the mind in different kinds as numerous as the sand of the sea. Some men were given one grain, others two, three and four grains, still others recieved a good portion, others a portion equalling a camel-load, others even greater." " ]

I'd be happy to lend my personal interpretation of this hadith. Please allow me to frame my answer with a few quotes from The Kybalion:

"THE ALL IS MIND; The Universe is Mental."

"THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IT CONTAINS, IS A MENTAL CREATION OF THE ALL. Verily indeed, ALL IS MIND!"

"The Infinite Mind of THE ALL is the womb of Universes."

"THE ALL creates in its Infinite Mind countless Universes, which exist for aeons of Time--and yet, to THE ALL, the creation, development, decline and death of a million Universes is as the time of the twinkling of an eye."

"This Principle embodies the truth that "All is Mind." It explains that THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe"; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND. It also explains that all the phenomenal world or universe is simply a Mental Creation of THE ALL, subject to the Laws of Created Things, and that the universe, as a whole, and in its parts or units, has its existence in the Mind of THE ALL, in which Mind we "live and move and have our being."

I tend to understand my existence and reality in terms of a Panentheistic Monism. That, is to say; God is within all, all is within God, and God is transcendent of all.

Macro
If we posit that all of existence is of God's Mind, we can better understand how He is said to be omnipresent and omniscient; for He sees through the eyes of all creatures, for all creatures are of His Mind. The hadith mentions that the Mind was created in numerous and different kinds, which is in reference to all of the existent beings and objects of our universe. The mention of a difference of proportion is in reference to differences of perception, awareness, sentience, intelligence, and consciousness. The Mind is said to be greater than the Throne, because the Throne is fixed and static, whereas the Mind is fluid and dynamic. We may also take the Throne to represent physicality, and the Mind to represent the greater immaterial.


Man
In relation to the personal man, the Throne, or Seat of God, can be viewed as being the life-force within man, or the Divine Spark/Flame within man, the Nur of Allah, a Ray from the Absolute, or the Atman. This is the animating force that gives life to all.

The Mind of the personal man is his personal nous and faculty of mind. The hadith mentions giving different grains and portions of Mind to man, with an increased portion being mentioned as good. In a metaphysically mystical sense, a greater portion of Mind (expansion of consciousness) relates to a greater communion/union with the Godhead and/or the Higher Self.

In relation to the personal man, the Mind is greater than the Throne, because the Spirit of God is inherent within all, but Mind brings one closer to God and/or Higher Self.



All of this is, of course!, my personal, subjective, and relative opinion.

Esoteric Schools of thought:

Islamic…Sufism


Judaic…Kabala

Christian…Gnosticism…Mystic ChristianityText


Hinduism…Vedanta


Buddhism….Zen Buddhism

Though Buddhism and Taoism and forms of Hinduism of all the paths in some regard has an integral healthy mix of the Exoteric and Esoteric teachings since they are practically the sole religions that have within their teachings a doctrine of enlightenment.

That’s what makes an esoteric path esoteric, basically


The three major religions have unfortunately fallen to being practically 100 percent Exoteric with little to no tradition of the esoteric.


Understand that any good esoteric school of thought also takes in their version of the exoteric side of the Path.


Treading a spiritual path without one or the other is like trying to walk with one leg…you cannot.

a reply to: Sahabi

Great stuff!

Is this Ibn Arabi or Al Ghazali or either.

Of course the light motif, was very much a great part of their teachings.

Lets get real deep here...

The great Ibn Arabi, known as The Greatest Sheik was a renowned Sufi Master.

He formulated a doctrine called waḥdat al-wujūd "Unity of Existence" or "Unity of Being that basically says everything is God!

In averse to this is another school of thought, waḥdat ash-shuhūd, “meaning "Apparentism" or "Unity of Witness", holds that God and his creation are entirely separate.”


Personally, I agree with the first proposition.

I think ultimately, there’s nothing but God.

a reply to: Willtell

Hello Brother Willtell. Thanks for helping to enrich the thread.

Esoteric Schools of thought:

Very nice post, and I agree. Modern Theosophy takes this same view.

Is this Ibn Arabi or Al Ghazali or either.

It is my own personal interpretation. I'm glad you enjoyed it

I think ultimately, there’s nothing but God.

Me too!!!



Thanks again!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Muslims pray 5 times a day, Muhammad was into underage brides and yet you criticize Pythagoras mystery schools....hmmmm. No mind control in Islam?

I enjoy 5 (and sometimes more) daily prayers, it helps me control my mind, builds discipline, the only form of "mind control" I will ever associate with Islam is self(mind)-control.

The fact that the first wife of the Messenger of God (saws) was his elder means he was not a pedophile, they only like pre-pubescent children.

I don't know anyone who believes that Sunnah is reliable as other exegetical techniques show Aisha (God be pleased with her) was 12-14, the same age as Mary (pbuh) at the time of her wedding to Joseph (pbuh).

According to Matthew they were told to not have relations until AFTER the birth of Jesus(pbuh), I imagine they would if told to.

You are not going to shame me for my dislike of Plato whose writings are full of pederasty references by citing a Sunnah written 300 years after the death of the Prophet (saws).

I have no reason to believe it and don't. Mistakes get made in oral transmission and I don't doubt this is one.

Don't be mad because I dissed Plato, unless you want to be mad AT Plato. He wrote about pederasty not me and Islam certainly doesn't allow it.

Aisha (Gpbwh) was very important to Islam, and Mohammed's (saws) biggest supporter, at least one of.

a reply to: Sahabi


You would have loved to have been alive when the Greek philosophical texts were introduced into the Muslim world and the Hermetic texts of the Harranian "Sabians."

I bought Liber de Causis thinking it was pseudo-Appolonius "Secrets of Creation." I like it, it talks of first cause, second cause, third cause, etc; do you know if Balinus (not just the Emerald Tablets section of S. Secretorum) is available in English?