Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00171)

Hello Pedro,

Interesting choices you made for examples of absolutistic statements. 
Indeed, I can think of many students of Theosophy who would at the drop 
of a hat recite any one or all of those quotes and declare it as the 
final authority on the matter. 

I also like your statement in your original post that

>When 
>there is no inquiry, the theosophical teaching may become nothing 
>more than a description instead of an exploration into an 
>unchartered territory.
>
I think that quite aptly summarizes the situation we have in the 
Theosophical Orgs. 

I think we can take the quotes you offer below in an unathoritative way: 
Here is how I might respond:

Letter ten (which I hear people rattle off all the time) is a statement 
of certitude from KH. If quoted to me, I might reply: "Fine. Now that 
you have told me what a Master believes, why don't you tell me FROM YOUR 
OWN EXPERIENCE (as opposed to quoting authorities), what you believe and 
what life experiences you have had that led you to that belief.

In the Key, HPB is here posing a philosophical argument. Philosophical 
arguments are for exploring--not reciting.


The three fundamental propositions of the SD, are just that: fundamental 
propositions. Why people insist upon reciting these propositions as 
some kind of authoritative statement is something I never understood. 
Once again, I would say that they were offered as a beginning point for 
the exploration of the ideas in the SD. 

--j


prmoliveira wrote:

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
>wrote:
>
> 
>
>>Can you give me some examples of absolutistic statements in the SD 
>> 
>>
>and 
> 
>
>>the Mahatma Letters?
>> 
>>
>
>Thanks, Jerry. Here they are:
>
>"Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for 
>it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, 
>we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are 
>planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our 
>system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm 
>is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of 
>Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion." (ML 88, 
>chronological)
>
>HPB seemed to take a less absolutistic stance in The Key:
>
>"ENQUIRER. Then you make of man a God? 
>THEOSOPHIST. Please say "God" and not a God. In our sense, the inner 
>man is the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this be 
>otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally diffused, 
>infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from being soaked 
>through by, and in, the Deity? We call our "Father in heaven" that 
>deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in our heart and 
>spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to do with the 
>anthropomorphic conception we may form of it in our physical brain or 
>its fancy: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 
>spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?" Yet, let no man 
>anthropomorphise that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if he would 
>hold to divine, not human truth, say that this "God in secret" 
>listens to, or is distinct from, either finite man or the infinite 
>essence -- for all are one."
>
>
>In the SD, for example, we read:
>
>"The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental propositions:--
>(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on 
>which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of 
>human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or 
>similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought--in the words 
>of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable.""
>
>Although I have no qualms with the universal truth expressed in it, 
>the statement above seems to suggest that the One Reality is beyond 
>the field of human experience. This seems to contradict, for example, 
>one of the Mahavakyas ("Great Utterances") of the Upanishads which 
>says that Atman is Brahman. This utterance suggests that when one 
>reaches the knowledge of one's true Self (Atman), one realises one's 
>identity with the Supreme Reality, for the two are really one.
>
>My above comments are tentative, very tentative.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>
>Pedro
>
>
> 
>



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