[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Blavatsky's mistake about "God" ???

Jul 28, 2008 08:32 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

My views are:

Well...I guess it is like you do not go around confusing another persons wallet (this one made in Iraq) as being yours saying: "This is my wallet", when it is not. You do similarily not go around saying that ParaBrahman is the same as what people in general understand to be God, when it is not true. At least not without explaining, what your views are.
Are you?

It is almost the same a the Joke: "Jesus is Watching you":

Try the below:

H. P. Blavatsky and Master says:
"Parabrahm is not "God," because It is not a God. "It is that which is supreme, and not supreme (paravara)," explains Mandukya Upanishad (2.28)."
( THE SECRET DOCTRINE - Vol. 1, Page 6)

From The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky:
"An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."
(The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 14)

H. P. Blavatsky and Master says:
"Parabraham is not this or that, it is not even consciousness, as
it cannot be related to matter or anything conditioned. It is not Ego nor is
it Non-ego, not even Atma, but verily the one source of all manifestations
and modes of existence."
(written in The secret Doctrine, Vol 1., page 130 by Blavatsky )

"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. "
"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
knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain
THERE IS NO God OR Gods BEHIND THEM." ...(Master KH)

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- From: "revigani" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky's mistake about "God" ???

GOD is. I do believe that HPB believed that there is God but her concept of God might differ from that of the average Christian. Every thing divine is from God so Divine Wisdom emanates from God.

Rev. Igani

--- On Sat, 7/26/08, danielhcaldwell <> wrote:

From: danielhcaldwell <>
Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky's mistake about "God" ???
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 5:28 PM

Dear Anand,

Thank you for your prompt reply!! And you are halfway around the
globe right now I assume in India.

I do hope that you will try to answer some of the questions I listed.

But what you bring up is interesting in itself and is related to some
of the core subjects which we have only began to discuss.

You write:

Have you read
Jnaneshari (also spelled as Dyaneshawri) ?
St. Jnaneshwar writes in it that it is sin to consider ourselves
separate from God. He wrote that God is the only one who exists, all
forms which we see with senses are maya or illusion.
If Blavatsky rejected existence of God, was she under mayavic
influences when she called Jnaneshwari king of mystic works ?

Yes, I have read JANESHARI some years ago. But that doesn't mean I
know much about it!!

So I will assume that for the purposes of this posting that your
description of what you say Jnaneshwar taught is an accurate

If so, I would suggest that maybe HPB would not deny the "existence"
of such a "God".

But I get the impression from what I have read in your few emails on
this subject that maybe you have not read and certainly have not
studied what HPB actually wrote and taught about "God." Now my
impression may be wrong and you may indeed have done that reading and
study. But you will have to tell me if I am wrong.

I would suggest that you cannot read HPB like you might some
newspaper in the morning.

That if you want to understand her view, her teaching, her exposition
on "God" you need to actually read what she says, for example, in THE
SECRET DOCTRINE and in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and actually take the
time to correlate and collate her various statements, etc.
about "God" from these two sources. Actually you should probably do
more than simply read these two books by her. But I will limit the
example to those two.

You might also just ponder on what she is writing. Try to go beyond
the words to the "ideas" behind her words.

So when she rejects "God"? What is she rejecting?

What is your definition of "God"? This in my opinion is one of the
vaguest words in the English language. You say "God" and different
people view it differently. Plus people in America may understand
the word in ways that may be different than people in other
countries, for example people in India. And I would think that not
everyone in India holds the same view of "God".

So unless we take the time to define (if that can even be done) what
we mean by "God", then we may be first of all not even talking about
the same subject!

When I tell you about my cat, you probably have at least some idea of
what a cat is. Of course, unless I'm actually talking about my cat
which is a lion! Maybe you visualize my cat as yellow while he is
actually black. But if I take the time to describe in enough detail
my cat, you should end up with a pretty concrete picture in your mind
of my cat although you are in India. And if I send you a picture of
my cat, then that is even better. And a video even better!

But when you talk about "God", what do you mean by that word?!!

I'm not so sure I know.

You wrote in a previous posting:

"As I have considerable contact with Christians, I asked some of the
Christian teachers and pastors about what idea of God is according to
Christianity. They said God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient
creator of the universe."

Yes some of my Christian friends and acquaintances have also said
similar things.

But I doubt that many of them would agree with
Jnaneshwar as you describe his teaching:

St. Jnaneshwar writes in it that it is sin to consider ourselves
separate from God. He wrote that God is the only one who exists, all
forms which we see with senses are maya or illusion.

Most of the Christians I've had contact with would reject the view
that only God exists and all else is maya.

These Christians might agree God is omnipresent, omnipotent and
omniscient and the creator of the universe. But
they would consider what you say is Jnaneshwar's teaching as
wrong, as some form of pantheism!!

I will not hazard to generalize what the majority of the Christians
in the world

But my impression is they would NOT agree with Janeshwar's view.

At least the majority of Christians I've talked too.

They would say: Yes God can be everywhere, know all things, and "he"
is the creator of the Universe. But he is NOT his creation. Just as
you can create or make a watch, God created the universe and all
souls. But just as you are not the watch, God is not the universe
but the creator of the world and all creatures including human beings.

Most of the Christians I know even believe that
you live just one life and then either go for eternity to hell or to

I do know a few Christians more contemplative and mystical that might
have views bordering those of Janeshwar.

But I will not trying to generalize to all Christians.

How many billion are there in the world today?

Maybe there are surveys of Christians that give us some insight into
what the majority believe about God????

I'm just speaking of those I've talked to or many of the books
written by certain Christians. Of course there are many churches and
not all believe exactly the same thing.

So if you are saying Christians would agree with Janeshwar, well
maybe some would, but how many would? I doubt that the majority

Now take another example even in Hinduism.

In the entry on Madhva (the Hindu philosopher and exponent of Dvaita)
in THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY, one finds the following

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
...Warning that you cannot adore God if you think that you are
identical with him, he [Madhva] also celebrates all five differences
denied by the idealist monists, namely,

God...[is distinct from] the world,

God...[is distinct from you or I am distinct from God],

I... [am distinct from] you,

I...[am distinct from] the table,

the table...[is distinct from] the chair....

Liberation, attainable only through devoted worship of the personal
God, brings blissful proximity to, but never equality with, God,
though some sinners (non-dualists? ) remain eternally damned!
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Now if this is an accurate description of Madhva's views, then
it would appear that this is contrary to what you say is
Jnaneshwar's view.

Maybe you have a different take on this so you tell me.

One more point and I will close for now.

You wrote:

St. Jnaneshwar writes in it that it is sin to consider ourselves
separate from God. He wrote that God is the only one who exists, all
forms which we see with senses are maya or illusion.

Well tell me is Master Koot Hoomi saying the same thing
or something similar when he writes:

I quote from what is called Mahatma Letter No. 10 online:

"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. ... 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.."

[Then in the next paragraph the Master writes:]

"..Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are
willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and
unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more
gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that
there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than
God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his
fourteenth proposition, "praeter Deum nulla dari neque concepi potest
substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a
Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can
imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent
outside the manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a
negative which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a
being independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which
is outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself -
- not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that
manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the
theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And
yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not
himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it
penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that
therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its
properties likewise, etc. -- hence is material, is matter itself.."

[And in the next paragraph notice what the Master writes:]

". . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life
is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And
no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an
agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every
respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the
microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no
creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on
it and become agnostics."

So is there an identity of thought between what Jnaneshwar teaches
and Koot Hoomi?

And does maybe Blavatsky in THE SECRET DOCTRINE teach something
similar if not identical?

I should say that a number of Theosophical students are literally
appalled by what the Master KH writes above. This has even been
expressed to me in letters and emails.

But is what KH so different from what you say Jnaneshwar taught?

I hope you will think about this, ponder on it and share your
thoughts with readers of Theos-Talk.


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


Yahoo! Groups Links

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application