Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00138)

 Re "God" and Theosophy and the Esoteric/Wisdom Tradition.

 In part, KH wrote
(in one of his letters, according to one of today's posts by Daniel on this topic):

<< We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. >>

Intentionally ... (not that some of my "intentionally's" might not occasionally or eventually turn into some kind of "unintentionally's," in some sense, in retrospect, for all I know, but ...)  think I might generally prefer to see if I can keep myself from at least SOME forms of limiting of definitions when thinking about topics like "definition of God."  I think that some thoughts in terms of "proof" or "no proof" "re God" might, in some cases (especially in connection with the likes of Theosophical studies, seems to me), tend to amount to a damper of some kind on whatever b/Broader or more eclectic/inclusive (or "Higher"?) meaning one might come up with for a word like "God" (inasmuch as one's notions on the topic of "God" might be seen to be somewhat involved, or Involved, for a start, in some cases?).  But I suppose if one generally prefers to limit one's definition of "God" along the lines of orthodox Christianity, eg, then I suppose one might not have much interest in speculating about certain kinds of b/Broader meanings in general (of the kind one might occasionally find in Theosophical books---depending on one's interpretive tendencies?).  Inasmuchas "proofs," in general,  might be considered (by some students of Theosophy and/or the EWT?) as having essentially relative (Mayavic) value or meaning ... why would one want to be intentionally limited in one's thinking (in terms of God, Self,  Adept, Atma, Paraprahman, etc?)?  In other words, inasmuchas Theosophy might be seen to represent various "more advanced" or "more enlightened" or "enlightened" or "transcendental" concepts and experiences, in whatever sense/context, I tend not to see why one might not want to make of "God" whatever one might see as having a "possibly better fit in Theosophical terms," eg?  I hope I'm not getting too esoteric/y or anything here.  Anyway I'm wondering if there might be times when notions about "proof" or "no proof" re "God," among other things, might tend to be expressive of rather limited ways of thinking (ie, maybe I should hasten to add: I have been under the impression that some students of Theosophy might not always feel that they have to follow various dictionary-type definitions literally, but can expand on their notions about definitions and guidelines as they see fit).  I feel that KH, eg, if questioned more specifically, might tend to agree with me about that.  Or am I wrong about that?  In other words, I'm thinking that some students of the EWT&T might have some interest in things like "working with karma in order to transcend karma."  

Speculatively,
Mauri

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]