Re: Theos-World Issues dealing with Theism
May 05, 2007 04:00 PM
by Bill Meredith
Daniel, I am sending my complete response to the message that you
quoted me in part from.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: "Location of God" and other issues dealing with
> Bill, you wrote in part:
> "If, when we ask, 'Does God exist?' we mean exist separate from us on
> the physical plane as an objective reality then certainly we may use
> logic to deny the plausibility of such."
> But why confine the above comment ONLY to the physical plane?
The objective physical plane seemed to me to be the sense in which Arthur
Osborn was asking the question.
> Does "God" exist SEPARATE from us (as an objective reality?) on some
> higher plane of existence?
I would say that on the higher planes, which as you know are simply modelled
elements of the one continuum that is sometimes refered to as the triune and
other times as the seven levels, it is more likely from a logical point of
view (again because Osborn evoked logic as the tool to use) that it is 'us'
that disappears, so that while it is accurate to surmise that God does not
exist separate from us at any location on the continuum, it does not
necessarily follow that it is God that does not exist.
> Notice what BAG wrote:
> "MAHA VISHNU IN NOT WITHIN ANY MATERIAL UNIVERSE. HE IS IN THE
> MAHATATTVA PORTION OF THE SPIRITUAL SKY, AND THE INFINITE NUMBER OF
> FINITE MATERIAL UNIVERSES (LIKE OUR OWN) ARE MANIFEST LIKE BUBBLES
> OUT OF THE 'PORES' OF HISBODY. THESE ARE EMPTY UNTIL HE GLANCES ON
> THEM. HIS GLANCE IS CALLED SHAMBHU,AND THROUGH THIS LOVING GLANCE, HE
> MANIFESTS ALL OF THE FINITE JIVA-SOULS WITHIN EACH FINITE UNIVERSE.
> MAHA VISHNU THEN ENTERS INTO EACH UNIVERSE AS GARBODAKSAYI VISHNU,
> THE SELF-SACRIFICED COSMIC PURUSHA AND THE PARAMATMA 'HOLY SPIRIT',
> LORD OF ALL HEARTS. HE ALSO MANIFESTS HIMSELF AS THE GUNA AVATARAS
> BRAHMA, VISHNU AND SHIVA, AND AS INFINITE DIRECT LILA INCARNATIONS AND
> 'EMPOWERED' SHAKTYAVESHA INCARNATIONS."
> Compare the above by BAG with one of the images he referred readers
> Should we take what BAG writes in a literal way?
No more than we should take what Blavatsky writes in a literal way. Her
monads and globes and rounds and races are but a model for her understanding
of beness. Whether she got this model from keepers of the ancient models is
immaterial to the actual condition of beness. Neither is BA G's model.
Both models are useful constructs by the human mind which itself is limited
and serves only as a temporary vessel for consciousness.
> Does Vishnu REALLY look like he is depicted in the above image?
> Is "God" really a "male"?
> Does he really have a "body" with "pores"?
Does the Monad really send out "monadic rays?" If so, does the Monad
continue to exist as a separate objective reality from the ray?
I appreciate your reluctance to go near the concept of "personal God", but I
am not as offended by monadic rays that view the Monad in that light as you
and some others (including HPB) seem to be. I will say though, that the
petty triffling that often occurs here over whether a 'real' man can make a
teacup materialize runs the risk of personalizing the theosophical masters
into gods -- something they did not want. I have pointed out before that
once one chooses to believe in the written accounts of others as a
substitute for their own personal experience with masters, then an uncertain
path seems inevitable.
> Bill, you go on to write:
> ". . . At that location where we fall silent before the ineffable we
> may get an intuitive glimpse of God. Such a glimmer may change our
> consciousness of being such that we sense that God is the source of
> our freedom to ask such questions."
> "If Theosophy is reduced to a dogmatic set of beliefs about the
> ineffable, then it is but another religion on the backburner of the
> Universe. Of course this is just my opinion and everyone is free to
> form their own opinion using whatever tools they have."
> It's good that you bring up these issues, but what about BAG's views
> about a "personal God" in light of what I just quoted from you?
I don't know about BA G's views except what he has made available here. I
did not write to defend BA G's views although I do defend his theosophical
right to have and share those views in a forum of mutual respect. The
central issue seems to be one of whether we should revere and possibly
worship that Monad that sparked the monadic ray that enlightens our beness.
BA G seems to be saying that it was from love that the Monad sparked itself
into rays and that we should love it because in loving it we love our fellow
rays and ourself. I'm not sure theosophy will disagree. I think maybe that
the language is simply different. What do you think?
> Maybe the Vaishnava views expressed by BAG are ALSO "a dogmatic set
> of beliefs about the ineffable."
Maybe so. But if they are, it is still theosophy that must strive to be the
better path. The better path is the one that does not point to the weakness
of other paths as a source of its own strength.
> Yes, I believe in the "ineffable". In fact, I think I
> have "experienced" the "ineffable."
It is not the thinking function that confirms a glimpse of God. Thought is
transcended and when this happens a certainty is revealed that changes ones
consciousness of being. To my knowledge, nothing can be thought, or said, or
written down, that will undo such a change.
But why must one declare that
> the "ineffable" MUST BE a "personal God" as apparently BAG was trying
> to do? He advocated monotheism and (it appeared to me) abhorred
> pantheism. Time and time again he spoke of the PERSONALITY OF GOD OR
> THE GODHEAD but never really explained what he meant by using such
Again, why must one declare that the "ineffable" MUST NOT BE a "personal
God?" Theosophy must accept people and love them where they are if it ever
hopes to draw them to its path. This is the greatest error that I see
repeated on these lists. Nearly every newcomer is challenged, beaten down,
and driven away. I think I know what BA G means by the Godhead. Often I
have a better idea what he means than I do what you mean by the title Master
and 'real' man in quotes. Still I hang on and read and go where you point
because you seem as sure of your position as BA G seems of his.
> I got the impression from what BAG wrote that somehow "God" was
> separate from you or me or the universe. This is dualism, isn't it?
> Please compare Jerry's views on this specfic subject with BAG's.
Well God is separate from the personalities that are you and me. Jerry can
address dualism far better than I. I shall only offer that any concept of
the universe that does not make room for dualism and for the ineffable is
not universal after all.
> Written in a hurry so excuse any incompleteness on my part.
Some very thought provoking comments Daniel. Personally I had a very bad
experience with the Christian God in my youth which has caused me to look
upon all religion skeptically.
I don't think that most of the participants on these lists are in danger of
succumbing to the exoteric concepts of salvation and forgiveness. However,
the same or similar language can be used to point to the esoteric ideas that
underlie these "mass-appeal" concepts. I like to give the other writer the
benefit of their own experiences in the language most comfortable to them.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application