Theos-Talk Archives (May 2007 Message tt00045)

Hi Sveinn,
My impression is that in terms of philosophy, from what I can see, 
this letter is consistent with the rest of the teachings given in 
both the Secret Doctrine and the Mahatma Letters.

However as theosophical students we don't have to agree with what is 
said, we can interpret the concept of "God" however we choose to.

Personally I see the term "God" as a symbol and try not to get too 
hung up on it as a word the problem is that as a concept it can make 
a separation in terms of creator and created and therefore can be 
used in a seperative sense.

However most mystics use the term in a very inclusive and Unifying 
sense, I personally have a great love of the mystical tradition and 
so see "God" more in that sense.

Cheers

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Sveinn Freyr <Sven04@...> wrote:
>
> This controversial letter "No. 88"?  Is by my 
> opinion not a letter written by an adept. It is a note scrap
> that should not have been issued and designated 
> to master K.H. This scrap note has done much harm.
> 
> Sveinn Freyr
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> "Now we come to what is probably the most 
> controversial letter ... it is not a letter but some notes ...
> 
> These "Notes" have caused some people to reject 
> the whole occult philosophy because of the denial
> of the traditional concept of God.
> 
> The student is therefore asked to withhold judgment."
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Letter No. 88 
> 1                              (ML-10) Copied by APS Sept. 28, 1882
> 
> Now we come to what is probably the most 
> controversial letter in the volume. Actually, it 
> is not a letter but some notes made by the 
> Mahatma K.H. on what Hume called a "Preliminary 
> Chapter on God," intended as a preface to a book 
> he was writing on Occult Philosophy. The copy in 
> the British Museum is in Sinnett's handwriting.
> These "Notes" have caused some people to reject 
> the whole occult philosophy because of the denial 
> of the traditional concept of God. The student is 
> therefore asked to withhold judgment.
> 
> NOTES BY K.H. ON A "PRELIMINARY CHAPTER" HEADED 
> "GOD" BY HUME, INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION 
> OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED).
> 
> Received at Simla, Sept. 1882.
> 
> Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, ...
> 
>   least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates 
> a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the 
> definition of Hobbes. It is preeminently the 
> science of effects by their causes and of causes 
> by their effects, and since it is also the 
> science of things deduced from first principle, 
> as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such 
> principle we must know it, and have no right to 
> admit even its possibility. Your whole 
> explanation is based upon one solitary admission 
> made simply for argument's sake in October last.
> 
> You were told that our knowledge was limited to 
> this our solar system: ergo as philosophers who 
> desired to remain worthy of the name we could not 
> either deny or affirm the existence of what you 
> termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being 
> of some sort beyond the limits of that solar 
> system. But if such an existence is not absolutely impossible, ...
> 
> yet unless the uniformity of nature's law breaks 
> at those limits we maintain that it is highly 
> improbable. Nevertheless we deny most 
> emphatically the position of agnosticism in this 
> direction, and as regards the solar system. 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.
> 
> The word "God" was invented to designate the 
> unknown cause of those effects which man has 
> either admired or dreaded without understanding 
> them, and since we claim and that we are able to 
> prove what we claim  i.e. the knowledge of that 
> cause and causes  we are in a position to 
> maintain there is no God or Gods behind them. ...
> 
> 
> Copied out Simla, Sept. 28, 1882.
> 
> 1 Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting. ? ED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>