Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00699)

Dec 27 2002

Possibly this article of H P B might have some important things t
say about the principles of such things.

---------------------------


IS CREATION POSSIBLE FOR MAN?





Answer by H. P. Blavatsky




THE EDITOR OF THE THEOSOPHIST,
MADAME,

Talking the other day to a friend, who, like me, without being a
Theosophist, takes a very great interest in the movements of your
Society, I incidentally happened to remark that the "Brothers of
the first section" were credited with such large powers, that
even creation was not at times impossible to them. In support of
my assertion, I instanced their own cup and saucer phenomenon, as
narrated by Mr. Sinnett in his "Occult World," which phenomenon
appeared to me to be something more than the mere reproduction,
transference or unearthing from its hiding-place of an article
lost or stolen, like the brooch. My friend, however, warmly
objected to my statement--remarking that creation was not
possible to man, whatever else he may be able to accomplish.

Believing, as I then did, in Christianity as the most perfect
heaven-descended code of ethics on earth, there was a time in the
history of my chequered life, (chequered, I mean, as regards the
vast sea of doubt and unbelief on which I have been tossing for
over twenty years) when I would have myself as warmly, even
indignantly, repelled the idea of creation as a possibility to
man; but the regular reading of your journal, and a careful
perusal of Mr. Sinnett's book and of that marvel of learning and
industry your own "Isis Unveiled," have effected quite a
revolution (whether for good or bad has yet to be seen) in my
thoughts, and it is now some time since I have begun to believe
in the possibility of phenomena beyond the range of my own narrow
vision.

Will you kindly tell me which of us is right, my friend or I? Not
having the honour of being personally known to you, I close this
letter only with my initial.

H.
----------------------------------------

OUR ANSWER -- H P B


The question to be dealt with is hardly whether our correspondent
or his friend is right, for we understand him to take up the
prudent attitude of a seeker after truth who shrinks from
affirming dogmatically that creation is possible for man, even
while unwilling to accept the dogmatic negative assertion of his
friend that "it is impossible."

Before coming to the gist of the question raised, we have,
therefore, to notice the illustrations which this letter affords
of the ways in which such a question may be considered.

When our correspondent's friend denies that creation is possible
for man, we can hardly assume that he does so from any conviction
that he has sounded all the mysteries of Nature, and knowing all
about the universe ,-- being able to account for all its
phenomena -- has ascertained that the process, whatever that may
be, which he conceives of as creation does not go on anywhere in
obedience to the will or influence of man, and has further
ascertained that there is something in man which makes it
impossible that such a process should be accomplished. And yet
without having done all that, it is bold of him to say that
creation is impossible.

Assuming that he is not a student of occult science,--and the
tone of the letter before us conveys the impression that he is
not--our friend's friend when he makes his dogmatic statement,
seems to be proceeding on the method but too commonly adopted by
people of merely ordinary culture and even by a few men of
science--the method which takes a large group of preconceived
ideas as a standard to which any new idea must be applied. If the
new idea fits in with, and seems to support the old ones, well
and good; they smile upon it. If it clashes with some of these
they frown at it, and ex-communicate it without further ceremony.

Now the attitude of mind exhibited by our correspondent, who
finds many old beliefs, shattered by new ideas, the force of
which he is constrained by moral honesty to recognize, and who,
therefore, feels that in presence of the vast possibilities of
Nature he must advance very cautiously and be ever on his guard
against false lights held out by time-honoured prejudices and
hasty conclusions,--seems to us an attitude of mind which is very
much better entitled to respect than that of his over-confident
friend. And we are the more anxious to recognize its superiority
in the most emphatic language, because when we approach the
actual question to be discussed the bearing of what we have to
say will be rather in favour of the view which the "friend" takes
of "creations," if indeed we are all attaching the same
significance to that somewhat overdriven word.

It is needless after what we have just said to point out that if
we are now going to make some statements as to what is, and what
is not the fact, as regards some of the conditions of the
universe we are not on that account infringing the rules of
thought just laid down. We are simply giving an exposition of our
little fragment of occult philosophy as taught by masters who are
in a position to make positive statements on the subjects and the
credibility of which will never be in danger from any of those
apparently inexplicable occurrences related in the books to which
our correspondent refers, and likely enough, as he justly
conceives, to disturb many of the orthodox beliefs which he has
seen crumbling around him.

It would be a volume we should have to write and not a brief
explanatory note, if we attempted to begin, by elucidating the
conviction we entertain that the Masters of Occult Philosophy
above referred to are entitled to say what is and what is not.
Enough for the present to say what we believe would be said in
answer to the question before us, by those who know.

But we must have a clear understanding as to what is meant by
creation. Probably the common idea on the subject is that when
the world was "created," the creator accorded himself or was
somehow accorded a dispensation from the rule ex nihilo nihil fit
and actually made the world out of nothing--if that is the idea
of creation to be dealt with now, the reply of the philosophers
would be not merely that such creation is impossible to man but
that it is impossible to gods, or God; in short absolutely
impossible.

But a step in the direction of a philosophical conception is
accomplished when people say the world was "created" (we say
fashioned)--out of CHAOS. Perhaps, they have no very clear idea
of what they mean by Chaos, but it is a better word to use in
this case than "nothing." For, suppose we endeavour to conceive
chaos as the matter of the universe in an unmanifested state it
will be seen at once that though such matter is perfectly
inappreciable to ordinary human senses, and to that extent
equivalent to "nothing" creation from such materials is not the
production of something which did not exist before, but a change
of state imposed upon a portion of universal matter which in its
previous state was invisible, intangible and imponderable, but
not on that account non-existent. 1
<http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/#FNT1>
Theosophists-Occultists do not, however, use the word "creation,"
at all, but replace it by that of EVOLUTION.

Here we approach a comprehension of what may have been the course
of events as regards the production of the mysterious cup and
saucer described in Mr. Sinnett's book. It is in no way
inconceivable that if the production of manifestation in matter
is the act accomplished by what is ordinarily called creation
that the power of the human will in some of its transcendent
developments may be enabled to impose on unmanifested matter or
chaos, the change which brings it within the cognisance of the
ordinary human senses.

Theosophist, December, 1881
_____

1 It is one of the many reasons why Buddhist philosophy refuses
to admit the existence and interference in the production of the
universe of a direct creator or god. For once admit, for
argument's sake, that the world was created by such a being, who,
to have done so, must have been omnipotent, there remains the old
difficulty to be dealt with--who then created that pre-existing
matter, that eternal, invisible, intangible and imponderable
something or chaos? If we are told that being "eternal" and
imperishable it had no need of being "created," then our answer
will be that in such a case there are TWO "Eternals" and two
"Omnipotents"; or if our opponents argue that it is the
omnipotent No. 1 or God who created it, then we return from where
we first started--to the creation of something out of nothing,
which is such an absolute absurdity before science and logic that
it does not even require the final unanswerable query resorted to
by some precocious children "and who created God!"--Ed.

-------------------------

I hope this may be of help

Dallas





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]