Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00250)

Pedro,
ML 88 says there is no God personal or impersonal and Key say people 
are "soaked" in God, inside out.
Even if one takes absolutistic stance, according to Vedas and 
Upanishats parabramha is omnipresent reality. Perhaps there is 
fundamental difference between idea of God in Hinduism and Buddhism.
How would you explain the statement "there is no God personal or 
impersonal" My life is happy because I don't read much what was 
written before 1880. That always presents big contradictions. Dallas 
studied and discussed for decades that writing but could not reach 
conclusion. Writing done after 1880 is quite consistent.
Regards.
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
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