Theos-Talk Archives (May 2007 Message tt00066)

Hi Cass,
Here's a quote from an interview with Joseph Campbell speaking of 
myth as metaphor or symbol pointing towards a greater reality rather 
than actually being that reality in concrete form.

"CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That 
is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, 
reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the 
connotation. 

MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality. 

CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that 
which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, 
gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are"


If all is a Oneness and no real separation exists then we are that 
reality and so all its potentials and possibilities, those potentials 
are what we might call gods and goddesses.


Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> OK Perry, but I still don't get what you mean.
>    
>   Cass
> 
> plcoles1 <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>           Hi Cass, When I mentioned the gods being symbolic 
representations, I 
> was simply giving my opinion not quoting from a text.
> Cheers
> Perry
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
> >
> > Where does the text refer to symbolic representations. We are 
gods 
> in the becoming, one either believes it or rejects it. Watering it 
> down with intellectual argument is, perhaps, ego driven. I do not 
> have any proof that I am a "god in the becoming" but faith in this 
> belief, as "a definite maybe" is what keeps me true to HPB and her 
> teachers.
> > 
> > Cass
> > 
> > plcoles1 <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > 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]
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > 
> > [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]
>