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

To Anand: Concerning Blavatsky on "God"

Jul 31, 2008 12:16 PM
by danielhcaldwell

Hello Anand,

Thank you for your most recent response at:

But did you read my previous posting to you at:

In this posting I attempted to grapple with some of the issues
involved concerning "God" starting with what you had written
about Jnaneshwar's teaching on "God".

I call SPECIAL ATTENTION to what I quoted in the above
posting from Mahatma Letter #10 online:

"?.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...."

". . 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 trained 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...."

How do these quotes from Master KH RELATE to what you said was 
Jnaneshwar's teaching on "God"?

And keep in mind also what H.P. Blavatsky writes in THE SECRET 
DOCTRINE about the Absolute.  She writes that the Absolute is:

... [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." 

To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out 
with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which antecedes 
all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause --
 dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current 
European philosophy -- is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or 
ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is 
essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It 
is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all 
thought or speculation. 

This "Be-ness" is symbolised in the Secret Doctrine under two 
aspects. On the one hand, absolute abstract Space, representing bare 
subjectivity, the one thing which no human mind can either exclude 
from any conception, or conceive of by itself. On the other, absolute 
Abstract Motion representing Unconditioned Consciousness. Even our 
Western thinkers have shown that Consciousness is inconceivable to us 
apart from change, and motion best symbolises change, its essential 
characteristic. This latter aspect of the one Reality, is also 
symbolised by the term "The Great Breath," a symbol sufficiently 
graphic to need no further elucidation. Thus, then, the first 
fundamental axiom of the Secret Doctrine is this metaphysical ONE 
ABSOLUTE -- BE-NESS -- symbolised by finite intelligence as the 
theological Trinity....

Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute 
Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to 
conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a 
conditioned symbol. But once that we pass in thought from this (to 
us) Absolute Negation, duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit 
(or consciousness) and Matter, Subject and Object...

I will NOT at this juncture quote more from THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

But as you reread my posting to which I refer ABOVE, I would ask you 
to focus on the words of Master Koot Hoomi quoted ABOVE and also try 
to relate that to what is said about the ABSOLUTE in THE SECRET 

I hope that you will maybe reread this posting and kindly
respond to the issues I raised.

Again the posting I previously did can be read at:

And I also did another posting which I think brings up
again some of the issues that need to be dealt with as
one tries to understand the teachings on "God" as given
by H.P. Blavatsky and by Master Koot Hoomi in his letters.

This posting can be read at:

Once again thanks for your response and hoping that we 
can have a very productive discussion about this subject.

Blavatsky Study Center / Blavatsky Archives

[Back to Top]

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