Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00385)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
>
> The second God referred to in theosophical metaphysics is the 
supreme spirit 
> or consciousness of the primal universal "space" before and after 
its 
> manifestation, that is aware and willful with respect to its 
inherent abstract motion 
> that contains, encoded in it (most likely in the form of 
vibrational wave 
> interference patterns of its fundamental spin-energy or G-force 
sometimes called 
> the Akasha) all the information or experiential knowledge of all 
its previous 
> cyclic existence's plus the wisdom of its own inherent nature -- 
as the basis 
> of determining the initially involved fractal fields and   their 
ideal forms 
> and, through the guidance of its initial hierarchy of spiritual 
beings (i.e., 
> the Dhyan Chohans) the subsequent evolution of inorganic matter, 
leading up to 
> the evolutionary ladder of sentient and super sentient organic 
beings... With 
> the apparent purpose of ultimately replicating itself in mankind, 
and observing 
> their evolution... Until they further evolve to the state of super 
conscious 
> existence equivalent to itself... Thus, adding infinite lines of 
new 
> individual experiences and knowledge to its previous store of self 
knowledge.   
> 

Similar to the 'cosmological supergod' concept that began evolving 
from the time of King Solomon in the Old Testament, except perhaps 
for the expansion part.  The Christians and biblical Jews had 
adopted a slightly lesser god concept than the one that you present 
here when they declared their god to be omnisicent, omnipotent and 
omnipresent.

However, I personally regard this not so much as a god concept, but 
instread a 'multiverse' concept.  Namely, I believe that 
the 'multiverse' itself has the same qualities which you present, a 
living organism in and of itself, yet I do not call it a god, nor do 
I worship the 'multiverse'.  Nor do I believe that we can 
qualitatively 'know' the 'multiverse' much beyond the abstract 
mathematical calculation that you've presented.

> And if that "God" refers to the one that is 
> separate and personal, then that person could not be a true 
theosophist.
>

Not even all Christians believe in a separate god as you suggest.  
Some do and some don't.  The god concept that you've extrapolated 
from is largely borrowed from the Christians, with various 
modifications made for perhaps scientific value.

> But, even then, 
> agnostic would only apply to the separate Gods of those cults or 
sects.
>

I believe that you're putting agnosticism into a box.  There are 
several strains of agnosticism.

> Thus, a 
> Christian or follower of the teachings of Yeshua or Jesus, without 
believing in 
> his divinity, or the God of the churches that worship them, can 
still be a true 
> theosophist.   
> > 

I believe that Jesus is a perfected human being, with the same 
potentials of any other human being.

> since 
> > atheism is
> > > as much a religious belief or faith as theism.
> > >

A common assertion made among Christians themselves concerning 
atheists, which atheists nonetheless deny.

>
> I was speaking of organized religions that require a faith or 
belief in a 
> personal and separate God or his representative, such as Jesus.   
> > >
> > > Leon
> > > >

Modernized Christianity teaches the omniscience, omnipotence and 
omnipresence of the Trinity in it's orthodox textbooks at it's 
mainstream seminaries.  The concept of omnipresence does not imply 
separateness.  Some Christian god concepts are more evolved than 
others and some less than others.  Variations of god concept 
presentations may occur if presented by educated seminary scholars 
versus street corner lay-evangelists.

Vince