Theos-Talk Archives (May 2007 Message tt00049)

Hi Cass,
If we see gods / goddesses in terms of symbolic representations I 
don't see any conflict.
Tantric Buddhist practice uses these symbolic forms and so does the 
Hindu Tantras.
The problem is as I see it, is when we concretise the symbol as 
Joseph Campbell speaks about.

Perry   


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> 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. ...
> 
>   Cass:  Perry, a question, does this mean that there is no "god" 
or "gods" behind/within us?
>    
>   Cass
> 
> plcoles1 <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>           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]
> >
> 
> 
> 
>          
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>