Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00193)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> Mahatma Letter No. 10
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm
> 
> [Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting. -- Ed] 
> 
> NOTES BY K.H. ON A "PRELIMINARY CHAPTER" HEADED "GOD" BY HUME, 
> INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED). 

People who look at all this as mere theory miss the fact that from 
the point of view of a yogi, whether there is or is not a God is only 
of interest inasmuch as the notion is useful in practice.

Thus Kapila's original formulation of the Samkhya philosophy does not 
include any sort of God, but the system of Raja Yoga as laid down in 
the Yoga Sutras includes a special Purusha called Isvara (Lord) even 
though it is derived from Kapila's system. This is because Raja Yoga 
is in part a devotional system and it does not make sense to be 
devoted to something the existence of which one denies. Most 
commentators on Raja Yoga say the devotional element is there because 
ancient yogis found this practice produced mystically interesting 
results.

Buddhism, on the other hand, does not include a belief in God because 
the Buddha wished to force his students to take personal 
responsibility for their own salvation. The way it has been 
explained to me, Buddhism does not deny the existence of a God, but 
does discourage dependence on any external entity. This is the 
opposite of Christianity, in which the believer is told the 
responsibility for him lies squarely on the shoulders of a fellow who 
died two thousand years ago. By pulling God completely out from 
under the student, Buddhism radically throws him or her back on his 
or her own resources. Here again the question is: what position 
produces mystically interesting results?

It is never admitted to my knowledge, but I think this same rationale 
applies to the doctrine of anatman (anatta in Pali). Whether there 
is or there is not a soul is a philosophical question (and in any 
other system but Buddhism a religious one.) Buddhism denies the 
existence of a soul because this denial is central to the practice of 
Mindfulness and the various techniques for experiencing 
enlightenment. Except from a practical point of view, it does not 
really make any difference whether there is a soul or not.

And then there is the soi distant system called "chaos magick." One 
website I have seen says the "chaote" strives to "believe" in the 
Virgin Mary as stridently as any catholic for the purpose of getting 
goodies from her. Then as soon as he gets whatever he wants, he 
discards her. A sort of mystical one night stand. There is 
something to me a little distasteful about this whole system, but 
here we have a frank admission that "belief" to a practical minded 
person is utilitarian and not philosophical.

The mahatma is obviously coming from a Buddhist perspective, as is 
admitted in the mahatma letters. But his system is also theurgic, 
meaning something such as a planetary spirit can be believed in if it 
can be evoked or invoked successfully. This suggests that he is a 
siddha or Tantric Buddhist of some sort. Here again there is a 
utilitarianism. If the Christian God cannot be evoked, then he is of 
no practical interest as far as the mahatma's system is concerned.

The system of seven principles which he espouses is also a practical 
mystical system and not a mere theory. If you once grasp the true 
meaning of the system (and I have seen no evidence that anyone has) 
much (but not all) of the practice that it implies suddenly becomes 
plain. At this level of understanding it is impossible to believe 
the whole thing is a mere fraud as some have said, but there are 
still many questions which were left unanswered.