Re: To Pedro - Biggest Contradiction in Theosophy
Nov 21, 2004 03:31 AM
by Anand Gholap
As you said it is difficult to understand how Buddhist teacher uses
terms like Atma and soul while explaining to Sinnette. It appears to
me that Theosophy as given by Annie Besant, Leadbeater and HPB is
more like what Vedas and Upanishats tell. First of all idea of the
God in Advait Vedanta is same as given by Annie Besant,Leadbeater and
HPB. Secondly Theosophy considers man had different bodies like
physical, astral, mental, buddhic which have equivalent terms in
Upanishats as Sthul Sharir, Vasanamay Kosha, Manomay Kosha and
Anandmaya Kosha. Thirdly Theosophy recognizes existence of Devas or
Angels (these should not be confused with God) Rituals or sacraments
form significant part of Hindu religion and they are there in
Christianity. These rituals depend on cooperation with Devas or
Angles. It appears that Buddhism denies existence of Devas and Angels.
Fourthly Buddhism denies existence of God but the whole subject given
under the name of Theosophy which literally means wisdom of the God.
So if one takes Buddhist philosophy, lot of most important questions
can not be answered.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> 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"
> Anand Gholap
> --- In email@example.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...>
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Anand Gholap"
> > wrote:
> > > Perhaps there is
> > > fundamental difference between idea of God in Hinduism and
> > > How would you explain the statement "there is no God personal
> > > 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
> > a particular expression of the teaching to be the definitive one,
> > because the theosophical teaching is a *living* teaching it may
> > fit into our expectations or notions about it. The teaching, it
> > 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
> > of a sudden, by a written or even verbal communication. If so,
> > the "Brothers" would have to do, would be to publish a Hand-book
> > 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
> > and of our own will refuse — "wantonly and deliberately" to
> > communicate it. The truth is that till the neophyte attains to
> > condition necessary for that degree of Illumination to which, and
> > which, he is entitled and fitted, most if not all of the Secrets
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > directed to the Aristotelian-Tomist theological view of God,
> > 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",
> > 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"
> > more importantly, to realise that no view is absolute and final.
> > example, both M. and K.H. regarded the Maha-Chohan as their
> > 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
> > found just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us
> > to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent self, to
> > our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would
> > selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, to
> > recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddha,
> > Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric
> > 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
> > was Eckhart (from the translation by M. O'C. Walshe). Talking
> > the deeper aspect of the soul, he said:
> > "Now pay attention! So one and simple is this citadel in the
> > elevated above all modes, of which I speak and which I mean, that
> > noble power I mentioned is not worthy even for an instant to cast
> > single glance into this citadel; nor is that other power I spoke
> > 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
> > citadel, so mode- and power-transcending is this solitary One,
> > 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
> > instant, in so far as he exists in modes and in the properties of
> > persons. This should be well noted: this One Alone lacks all mode
> > property. And therefore, for God to see inside it would cost Him
> > 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
> > one and indivisible, without mode or properties (can He do this):
> > 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.
> > them, it is not a notion, a concept, a construct, an idea: it is
> > very core of their lives.
> > Pedro
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application