Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00249)

I am not BAG but I will comment. First, the very notion of a location for
God has already begun the limiting process that reduces our consciousness of
God to the symbols of our existence on the physical plane. Any explanation
of God is limited to the tools of the explainer. If, when we ask, "Does God
exist?" we mean exist separate from us on the physical plane as an objective
reality then certainly we may use logic to deny the plausibility of such.
However the same logic can give us lesser gods (masters) of enormous and
seemingly insurmountable power and knowledge. If, however, we mean 'exist'
in the similar spirit in which one might ask, "Does life have a deeper
meaning?" then our logic processes fail us at some limiting point often best
recognized by the unanswerable question, "Why is that?" At that location
where we fall silent before the ineffable we may get an intuitive glimpse of
God. Such a glimmer may change our consciousness of being such that we
sense that God is the source of our freedom to ask such questions.

If Theosophy is reduced to a dogmatic set of beliefs about the ineffable,
then it is but another religion on the backburner of the Universe. Of
course this is just my opinion and everyone is free to form their own
opinion using whatever tools they have.

Bill




----- Original Message -----
From: <inquire@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Theos-World "Location of God" and other issues dealing with theism,
etc.


> As far as I know, BAG never commented on the following philosophical
> points about the "Location of God".
>
> In a chapter titled "Location of God" in his book THE COSMIC WOMB,
> Arthur W. Osborn wrote:
>
> ". . . when we ask such a question as, 'Does God exist?' we are
> virtually implying someone or something OBJECTIVE in the same sense
> that we as individuals are objective. To be existent is to
> objectively real; it is a particular manifestation of a
> primal 'isness.' We are therefore back again to the problem of
> immanence; and transcendence and immanence, if universal, would be
> pantheism."
>
> "If God exists, therefore, He must represent some Reality having
> objectivity RELATIVE to man and, indeed, to the universe. But this
> poses the problem of reconciling the postulated quality of
> universality with the objective implication of being in existence.
> As we have noted, universality leads logically to pantheism, whereas
> existence, with its aspect of objectivity, implies LIMITATION." p.
> 57. caps added.
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>