Theos-Talk Archives (July 2000 Message tt00044)

July 24th 2000

I think this will be of general interest to all of us.

Dallas

D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Odin Townley
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 9:49 PM
To: CoNewsNet2@aol.com
Subject: NY SD Class Report, Monday, July 17, 2000

Subject: NY SD Class Report, Monday, July 17, 2000


===============================
(Please, anyone on this list who prefers not wish to receive
these reports,
reply to this email and place "unsubscribe" in the subject line,
and your
name will be removed. You can resubscribe any time by request to
the sender.
Thank you.)
===============================

During the class of July 10, 2000, the question was asked, "Who
among us
would say they believe in GOD"? It seemed the majority of
students answered
in the affirmative. Femia asked to be allowed time during next
class warm-up
period to explore this further. The following sharing was the
result:

The class opened with a reading from the opening paragraph of the
Tao Te
King  by Lao Tzu, translated by Mr. Lionel Giles, which set the
keynote:

Tao in its Transcendental Aspect, and in its Physical
Manifestation

The Tao which can be expressed in words is not the eternal Tao;
the name
which can be uttered is not its eternal name. Without a name, it
is the
Beginning of Heaven and Earth; with a name, it is the Mother of
all things.
Only one who is eternally free from earthly passions can
apprehend its
spiritual essence; he who is ever clogged by passions can see no
more than
its outer form. These two things, the spiritual and the material,
though we
call them by different names, in their origin are one and the
same. This
sameness is a mystery-the mystery of mysteries. It is the gate of
all
spirituality.

A quote was read from "COLLATION OF THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARIES"
(found on
the net http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/ctg-hp.htm )

"Before we can come to an understanding among ourselves, we
should lay down
definitions -- not necessarily hard and fast, but on the contrary
definitions which would be elastic -- nevertheless definitions
which we can
understand when we converse together and when we study
together." --
G. de Purucker

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of god was read:
1.  Being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshipped
by a people; especially, a male deity thought to control some
part of nature
or reality or to personify some force or activity
2.  An image of a deity; idol
3.  One that is worshipped or idealized as a god.
4.  A man godlike in aspect or power.

Funk & Wagnalls dictionary:
1. One of various beings, usually male, in mythology, primitive
religions,
etc. conceived of as immortal, as embodying a particular quality
or having
special powers over some phase of life.
2.  A statue, image, or symbol of such a being.
3.  In monotheism; the ruler of life and the universe.

Universal Webster dictionary:
1. A being of superhuman qualities and powers, thought to rule
fate of the
world;
   An image etc. worshipped as symbol of such superhuman being.

Another of American Heritage Dictionary:
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and
ruler of the    universe, the principal object of faith and
worship in
monotheistic religions
2.  The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being
3.  The single supreme agency postulated in some philosophical
systems to
explain the phenomena of the world, having a nature variously
conceived in
such terms as prime mover, an immanent vital force.

Webster encyclopedia of Dictionaries:
"A being of more than human powers; a divinity; an idol; any
person honored
unduly; any object esteemed as the chief good;"

After these quotes many hands were raised mostly to explain why
they
answered
in the affirmative when they were asked, "Do you believe in God"?
It was not
the monotheistic, anthropomorphic definitions they had in mind.
All agreed
that the definition closest to the Theosophical one was: "prime
mover, an
immanent, vital force."

Laotzu's definition was felt to closely approximate the first
fundamental
proposition of the SD. Several translations of the first verse of
the Tao Te
King were compared:

(Tao Te Ching  - From a translation by S. Mitchell )
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao -
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real. -
Naming is the origin of all particular things."

(The Essence of the Tao)
http://tuffley.hispeed.com/tao/the_essence_of_the_tao.htm

"The Tao can be looked at but not seen, listened to but not
heard,
reached for but not obtained; it's name is formless, soundless
and
intangible. Therefore it is beyond analysis, it can only be known
by the
intuitive mind."

(The Tao Te Ching - A Translation by Stan Rosenthal )
"Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. -
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced, -
and without a name, it can be known."

(The Way http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html)
"The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not true.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist."

(Translation by James Legge. )
"The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging
Tao.
The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging
name.
Having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth;
Having a name, it is the Mother of all things."

(Jeff Rasmussen )
"Spoken Tao is not eternal Tao - Spoken name is not eternal name
Nameless is the source of all - Named is the source of the myriad
things."

This was followed by reading from the Section "ON GOD AND PRAYER"
from:"The
Key to Theosophy":

Theosophy 'Divine Wisdom,' (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods.
The word
theos means a god in Greek, one of the divine beings, certainly
not "God" in
the sense attached in our day to the term. Therefore, it is not
"Wisdom of
God," as translated by some, but Divine Wisdom such as that
possessed by the
gods. The term is many thousand years old."

ENQUIRER. Do you believe in God?

THEOSOPHIST. That depends what you mean by the term.

ENQUIRER. I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus,
and the
Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short.

THEOSOPHIST. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea
of a
personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but
the
gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best, either. The
God of
theology, we say -- and prove it -- is a bundle of contradictions
and a
logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with
him.

ENQUIRER. State your reasons, if you please.

THEOSOPHIST. They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But
here are a
few. This God is called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is
he not?

ENQUIRER. I believe he is.

THEOSOPHIST. Then, if infinite -- i. e., limitless -- and
especially if
absolute, how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything?
Form implies
limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to
create, a
Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE be supposed to
think - i.e.,
to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite,
and
conditioned?
This is a philosophical, and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew
Kabala
rejects such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the
Absolute
Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph. (1) In order
to create,
the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible for
ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the
cause of
evolution (not creation) in an indirect way -- i.e., through the
emanation
from itself (another absurdity, due this time to the translators
of the
Kabala) (2) of the Sephiroth.

Many students spoke about the religion of their early years, and
how the
study of Theosophy has helped them to understand those teachings.
We also
talked about individuals in history who were able to transcend
the dogmas of
their particular religions and became great movers of the
evolution of men's
minds.

We then read from SUMMING UP,  SD I, 280, including the footnote:

"...neither the collective Host (Demiurgos), nor any of the
working powers
individually, are proper subjects for divine honours or worship.
All are
entitled to the grateful reverence of Humanity, however, and man
ought to be
ever striving to help the divine evolution of Ideas, by becoming
to the best
of his ability a co-worker with nature in the cyclic task.  The
ever
unknowable and incognizable Karana alone, the Causeless Cause of
all causes,
should have its shrine and altar on the holy and ever untrodden
ground of
our heart-invisible, intangible, unmentioned, save through "the
still small
voice" of our spiritual consciousness.

Those who worship before it, ought to do so in the silence and
the
sanctified solitude of their Souls*; making their spirit the sole
mediator
between them and the Universal Spirit, their good actions the
only priests,
and their sinful intentions the only visible and objective
sacrificial
victims to the Presence."
-----
* "When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. .
.  but
enter into thine inner chamber and having shut thy door, pray to
thy Father
which is in secret." Matt. vi.), Our Father is within us "in
Secret," our
7th principle, in the "inner chamber" of our Soul perception.
"The Kingdom
of Heaven" and of God "is within us" says Jesus, not outside.
Why are
Christians so absolutely blind to the self-evident meaning of the
words of
wisdom they delight in mechanically repeating?
-----
Also SD I, 330:

"...all those who sought to give a name to the incognizable
Principle have
simply degraded it.  Even to speak of Cosmic Ideation-save in its
phenomenal
aspect-is like trying to bottle up primordial Chaos, or to put a
printed
label on ETERNITY."

The above quotes will provide us with a spiritual orientation, a
safe haven
for our minds and thoughts in meditation. "Christos", HPB says,
is the
Higher Self. The symbology of the crucifixion, she says, is that
the Christ
within us is "crucified on the cross of matter." Whenever we are
born into a
physical body, loaded with personal karma, sin and suffering, we
are
metaphorically "crucifying" that Christos Principle within us.
(KEY)

We returned to the symbol of the circle and the central point
from last week
and considered the next developments: SD I, page 4. First the
horizontal
line emerges from the energy center symbolizing nature, and then
the
vertical line, forming a cross, represents man.

Several questions were considered:

Can we imagine anything without a plan?
What has to come before the blueprint is created for a building?
An idea? A thought? A desire?
Where do ideas come from?
Where do thoughts come from?
Where does desire originate?
Is an idea an already existing image?
If so, where does that image originate?
Which comes first, "the chicken or the egg"?

The impossibility we discover in locating or describing the
source of
"ideas" and "thoughts" with our finite minds, helps us understand
why the
Absolute cannot be described or located. It is like the
"circumference that
is nowhere and the point that is everywhere."

We reread the definition "KAMADEVA" (from the Theosophical
Glossary)

"Says the Rig Veda, "Desire first arose in IT, which was the
primal germ of
mind, and which Sages, searching with their intellect, have
discovered in
their heart to be the bond which connects Entity with
non-Entity", or Manas
with pure Atma-Buddhi..."

These complex teachings, yet very simple in essence, are revealed
to our
humanity in these direct terms for the first time.
"Reincarnation" was one
of the "secret doctrines", and was not even fully presented in
"Isis
Unveiled". The reason for it is because these doctrines give a
clue to the
psychic nature of man, and to the enormous powers of the universe
to which
man is heir. Our materialism in the present cycle "protects" us.

WILL is a universal force, immanent, ever-present within and
around us. Even
the growth of a tree, or the flowering of a plant is an
expression of WILL,
says HPB in "Transactions Of The Blavatsky Lodge."
 Several student contributed "Mantra" that expressed this idea:

"Everything in Nature knows exactly what it is supposed to do.'
"There is even intelligence at the cellular and atomic level."
"Everything we see around us is the result of intelligence."

We examined The Secret Doctrine TITLE PAGE: ---"The Synthesis of
SCIENCE,
RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY." When any one of the three are omitted,
the system
or doctrine of necessity becomes incomplete and false, it was
brought out.

We read SD I , PROEM (unnumbered page 1):
PAGES FROM A PRE-HISTORIC PERIOD, which began:

"AN Archaic Manuscript-a collection of palm leaves made
impermeable to
water, fire, and air, by some specific unknown process-is before
the
writer's eye.  On the first page is an immaculate white disk
within a dull
black ground.  On the following page, the same disk, but with a
central
point.  The first, the student knows to represent Kosmos in
Eternity, before
the re-awakening of still slumbering Energy, the emanation of the
Word in
later systems.  The point in the hitherto immaculate Disk, Space
and
Eternity in Pralaya, denotes the dawn of differentiation."

We were fascinated by the fact that HPB has the power to see this
Manuscript
with it's symbols, before her "writer's eye". We spoke about
HPB's
suffering, her amazing power to act as amanuensis for the Masters
of Wisdom.
How the Adepts said they searched the world over  for a suitable
body that
had the capacity to do this Work. When we study The Secret
Doctrine, we
touch the soul garments of the Masters.

>From HPB's article "She Being Dead Yet Speaketh":

"I do not believe in the success of the . . .T.S. unless you
assimilate
Master or myself; unless you work with me and THEM, hand in hand,
heart. . .
"

It was stressed how VERY important is how we think of ourselves.
Are we
"physical, mental, emotional, psychic, psychological" beings? We
should
always hold in mind that our REAL nature is "MONAD" -- a High
Spiritual
Essence. This is how such "assimilation" is possible, because the
"Master
Soul is One" (Voice of the Silence). A quote used during the
prior night's
Sunday talk provided a powerful image for this (SD II,112:

"It is shown in every ancient scripture and Cosmogony that man
evolved
primarily as a luminous incorporeal form, over which, like the
molten brass
round the clay model of the sculptor, the physical frame of his
body was
build by, through, and from, the lower forms and types of animal
terrestrial
life."

The closing reading was from Judge's "Letters That Have Helped
Me", p.115:

"...all yoga practices have disastrous results unless guided by a
competent
teacher. . . .the greatest help will now come to you from
concentration upon
the Higher Self, and aspiration toward the Higher Self. Also, if
you will
take some subject or sentence from the Bhagavad Gita, and
concentrate your
mind upon that and meditate upon it, you will find much good
result from it,
and there is no danger in such concentration."

Much love to all,

Femia van der Horst - Odin Townley -


==========================
I think this will give food for much thought and further inquiry.
Those who wish can subscribe to this at blavatsky.net (BASIC)

Dallas








-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.