Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00281)

Anand, while I appreciate your thoughtfulness in giving me reading 
guidance, I actually don't think I have enough life left in this 
incarnation to read and absorb everything you mentioned. I am a 
relatively slow reader, and fairly old, so my ideas are somewhat set 
for now. Not that any of your references are wrong, just that I 
don't have time to re-orient my whole life now. I still find pure 
gold in the founders' books, esp. in the Secret Docrine, which, 
whether we call it an "authority" or not, contains enough for one 
person to study for a lifetime. I find myself referring back to it 
frequently, and it satisfys my intuitive mind more than anything 
else. We would do well as Theosophists of whatever type or 
background to keep pointing others back to this superb work of HPB.

RE: thalprin: Apparently no one is going to give you a satisfactory 
answer about our equation of SPACE with Deity, but let me only add 
that you must make a distinction between deity ("theos", e.g., 
divine) as wisdom or knowledge, and Deity as the old Jehovah that we 
all have more or less rejected. HPB did call it "Father-Mother 
Space", but as she said in other contexts, this was not to 
anthropomorphize Space, but to see it as our "ground of being" as 
Aldous Huxley called it. It contains all and is contained by 
nothing. That fact alone makes it a "singularity" (BE-ness, not 
Being) beyond words to explain it. Ultimately, words fail and we 
have to rely upon our intuition to give a feeling for some concepts. 
Superstring theory, as well as physics generally, has the same 
problem. Because "quarks" (name taken from Finnegans Wake)
have "charm", that does not make it any more realizeable to common 
sense. Wasn't it T.S. Eliot who said, in Four Quartets, I believe, 
that words slip, slide, and ultimately escape us? Anyway, something 
like that.