Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00700)

Nov 22 2002

Dear Robert:

How would you classify the presentation Mme. Blavatsky makes at the
beginning of The SECRET DOCTRINE ? Let me paraphrase it:

I'm sure that Nature (or the Universe as a WHOLE) came up with that a
good long time ago.

The idea was, as I grasp it:


The ABSOLUTE SPIRITUAL ONE (Parabrahman) wanted to know itself and
therefore needed a "mirror."

[ There is this most ancient Vedic verse: "Desire first arose in IT
which was the primal germ of mend; 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 --
S D II p. 176, T. Glossary p. 171 ]

IT agreed at that most remote period to divide itself into two
sections

1. SPIRIT or PERFECTION; and

2. A "material" ( or substantial but temporary 'form') whereon to
try to see (or evoke) its own reflection. [ Suddha Sattwa" ? ]

That primordial matter/substance was almost but not quite SPIRIT --
As experience accumulated it served as a "memory" to record it, and
that memory became known as WISDOM or ( Buddhi). However the
interaction between PERFECTION and "almost Perfection (Buddhi)
required an intermediary that could see and understand both.

UNIVERSAL MIND (or Mahat) was born -- able to see past, present and
future, and able to assume either a supreme idealism or involve itself
in the grossest limits of form. A "Ray" of this universal MIND is
present in every Monad or "life-atom" in illimitable SPACE.

Mankind represents now (as I grasp the concept) the median aspect of
"Mind." It can like the God Janus, look both ways: past and future,
while living in the present. It has to be free to enable choice to be
free. It can look at ideals and it can look at the selfishness of
isolation and self-interest.

This dichotomy forced the birth of Kama-deva. The "god" of pure
desire of universal love, compassion, charity and mercy for all.

This universal concern may be translated "Brotherhood." An excess (
loss of balance) of love brings on tyranny. A lack of brotherhood
brings on the mismanagement of procrastination and inertia. Thus in
opposition to ideals and "virtues" there came "vice" upon the scene.

Does this not describe our situation?


The Thinking instrument -- Mind -- needs contrast and a foundations of
constancy in order to establish a basis or a platform.

This platform (where we are in the here and now) includes memory,
new thought, and anticipation. Anticipation is valuable to preview
potential benefits or losses which may accrue to us depending on
whether we are able to so some judicious choosing. But even
anticipation will be found to be based on memory of past experiences
of an analogous character.

The main problem is : Are we (as MIND-BEINGS) independent? Are we
partially independent? Are we interactive with others and are there
any limits to this interaction situation ? Further do we actually
share in the regulation and the laws of the universe?

Have we been able to establish some idea of what those Laws might be ?

If there are some ( as in mathematics, chemistry,. physics
astro-physics, mechanics, etc...) then why should the life and
interaction of the human family be devoid of law?


As to "God"

If we personalize this concept we dwarf it. In reality it has no
"Form." If we give one mentally to IT, we make it in our mind smaller
than the Universe or illimitable SPACE.

If we perceive that the DIVINE PRINCIPLE is universal, we admit that
it is everything and cannot be separate from or different from
anything in Nature (the Universe.) We as well as everything else are
included. God is within each of us, as well as in all else.

How then will we, as immortal spiritual beings, treat other immortal
spiritual beings ?

It is quite fruitless to discuss individual views about "God." They
are the result of self-limited ideas and premises. If we examine such
premises, we soon discover where the restriction arises.

If we use the BIBLE, then we soon realize by going to its SOURCES,
that the translations which we so commonly use, are very poor
renditions of the original teachings of the Jews and the Kabalists --
or of some other philosophy -- therefore to use our present BIBLE as
a basis is only productive of a continuing error. Once we eliminate
that, then discussion becomes agreement on principles of universality
and of co-existence. Everyone is found to be :"right" once we go back
to SOURCES. And that is what Theosophy seeks to demonstrate.

If we were to limit our concepts to "Manifestation," we might envisage
a UNIVERSAL BEING -- a "Spiritual Entity" -- whatever that might be.
But there is the problem of Non-manifestation.

Surely "God" is there also -- in which case, we may think of "God"
immanent (omnipresent) in manifestation, but we are forced by logic to
conclude that Non-manifestation demands that "God" be immortal and
transcendent. Such a God as DIVINITY or SPIRITUAL EXCELLENCE can
never "die" or be eliminated.

It (HE) is present in each of us, as also in every 'atom" and in
everything else. If we debate, we are only arguing for or against
OURSELVES.

This eliminates debate. All debates concern limitations. DEITY is
timeless and unlimited. IT IS.

If "God" is unlimited and permanent, then a philosophy based on its
ALL-PRESENCE, and EVER-BEING has to be Theosophy. It is also
ALL-KNOWING. (Omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.)


Curious if true.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=====================


-----Original Message-----
From: rnewman2003
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:26 AM
To:
Subject: Theism Can't Honestly Be Dismissed

Greetings.

My name is Robert Newman. I'm an American Vaishnava and a friend of
Bhakti Ananda Goswami, who has been active on this list recently. My
own, much less learned angle on the Mahatma Letters and Theosophy in
general, focuses on the denial of the supreme personality of Godhead
in this philosophy. Unlike BAG, I am not an expert in religious
history, nor am I what would be called a 'practicing' member of my
faith tradition. I am a seeker of the truth, plain and simple, and I
take it where I find it.

It's admittedly difficult to find satisfactory, reasonable
metaphysics in the theistic traditions, but it's there. Most
esotericists, including myself in my younger days, see the exoteric
aspects of these traditions and decide that they're all nonsense.
But both Vaishnavism and Christianity (the two theistic traditions
that I'm most knowledgeable about) contain a similar core of esoteric
content dealing with transcendence in a most intellectually and
emotionally satisfying way. It behooves any sincere seeker of the
truth to view theism from this higher angle, which is not only
satisfying but remarkably consistent from tradition to tradition (to
get a glimpse of this last point, see some of BAG's writings at
http://www.saragrahi.org/columns/).

Why take so much trouble? (And it is trouble, make no mistake.)
Well, as one contributor to this list mentioned a few dozen posts
ago, one of the criteria of truth is the testimony of credible
people. There are many credible people who have testified to the
personal experience of a supreme personality at the pinnacle of
conscious experience. Coupled with the metaphysical rationale that
intellectually gifted theists have constructed, this evidence for the
existence of God cannot be simply dismissed or ignored. Well, it
can, but only to one's spiritual detriment.

Robert