Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00262)

Pedro,
You said
" From a Buddhist point of view, Mahatma K.H.'s statement in Letter 
88 is quite clear and understandable. " 
Does that mean nature of God depends on audience to whom He is 
explained ? Probably that is the method used by Teachers.
I would like to get the article "God: A Theosophical View", March
2004 issue of "Theosophy in Australia"
Regards.
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" 
<AnandGholap@A...> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Anand,
> 
> Every student of Theosophy, imo, is bound to meet contradictions, 
> antinomies and paradoxes along the way. Perhaps some of us would 
like 
> a particular expression of the teaching to be the definitive one, 
but 
> because the theosophical teaching is a *living* teaching it may not 
> fit into our expectations or notions about it. The teaching, it 
would 
> seem, keeps pointing to something deeper, noetic, even mystical. 
> Consider the following passage from the Mahatma Letters (ML 20, 
> chronological):
> 
> "The Occult Science is not one in which secrets can be communicated 
> of a sudden, by a written or even verbal communication. If so, all 
> the "Brothers" would have to do, would be to publish a Hand-book of 
> the art which might be taught in schools as grammar is. It is the 
> common mistake of people that we willingly wrap ourselves and our 
> powers in mystery — that we wish to keep our knowledge to 
ourselves, 
> and of our own will refuse — "wantonly and deliberately" to 
> communicate it. The truth is that till the neophyte attains to the 
> condition necessary for that degree of Illumination to which, and 
for 
> which, he is entitled and fitted, most if not all of the Secrets 
are 
> incommunicable. The receptivity must be equal to the desire to 
> instruct. The illumination must come from within."
> 
> This seems to indicate that the essential teaching of the Occult 
> Science is not completely present in any book. 
> 
> If we keep this in mind, the "God question" in theosophical 
> literature can be seen in a broader perspective. From a Buddhist 
> point of view, Mahatma K.H.'s statement in Letter 88 is quite clear 
> and understandable. My difficulty, expressed earlier this year on 
> theos-talk, is to understand how a Buddhist teacher uses concepts 
> like "Atma" and "Soul" while explaining the human constitution to 
> Sinnett. I am still trying to work on this one.
> 
> In his pamphlet "The Story of the Mahatma Letters", Jinarajadasa 
> rightly says that not all Mahatmas are Buddhists, and he points out 
> to the example of Serapis who wrote a number of letters to Olcott 
> during the early days of the TS in New York, invariably invoking 
> God's blessing on the Colonel.
> 
> Perhaps the criticism of the concept of God in Letter 88 is 
primarily 
> directed to the Aristotelian-Tomist theological view of God, which 
is 
> dualistic, mechanistic and fear-producing (K.H. called it a "loup 
> garou", werewolf), and which has dominated the western psyche for 
> twenty centuries. No wonder the forcefulness in which the Mahatma 
> expressed his views.
> 
> I wrote an article on this subject ("God: A Theosophical View", 
March 
> 2004 issue of "Theosophy in Australia"). As it is too long to be 
> posted here I can send you a copy if you want.
> 
> I think it is important to consider the different views on "God" 
but, 
> more importantly, to realise that no view is absolute and final. 
For 
> example, both M. and K.H. regarded the Maha-Chohan as their teacher 
> and chief. It is interesting to note his view on God:
> 
> "Mystical Christianity, that is to say that Christianity which 
> teaches self-redemption through our own seventh principle—this 
> liberated Para-Atma (Augoeides) called by some Christ, by others 
> Buddha, and equivalent to regeneration or rebirth in spirit—will be 
> found just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us 
have 
> to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent self, to recognize 
> our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not 
be 
> selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, to 
> recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddha, the 
> Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric Buddhism 
> is the surest path to lead men towards the one esoteric truth."
> 
> Although the Aristotelian view of God prevailed in the western 
> culture, the great mystics held to a completely different 
> understanding, which was based on their own experience. One of them 
> was Eckhart (from the translation by M. O'C. Walshe). Talking about 
> the deeper aspect of the soul, he said:
> 
> "Now pay attention! So one and simple is this citadel in the soul, 
> elevated above all modes, of which I speak and which I mean, that 
the 
> noble power I mentioned is not worthy even for an instant to cast a 
> single glance into this citadel; nor is that other power I spoke 
of, 
> in which God burns and glows with all His riches and all His joy, 
> able to cast a single glance inside; so truly one and simple is 
this 
> citadel, so mode- and power-transcending is this solitary One, that 
> neither power nor mode can gaze into it, nor even God Himself! In 
> very truth and as God lives! God Himself never looks in there for 
one 
> instant, in so far as he exists in modes and in the properties of 
His 
> persons. This should be well noted: this One Alone lacks all mode 
and 
> property. And therefore, for God to see inside it would cost Him 
all 
> His divine names and personal properties: all these He must leave 
> outside, should He ever look in there. But only in so far as He is 
> one and indivisible, without mode or properties (can He do this): 
in 
> that sense He is neither Father, Son nor Holy Ghost, and yet is a 
> Something which neither this nor that."
> 
> For many mystics, "God" is the experience of the Gound of Being. 
For 
> them, it is not a notion, a concept, a construct, an idea: it is 
the 
> very core of their lives.
> 
> 
> Pedro