Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00429)

Hello Daniel,
I asked your conclusions about two questions
1) Does God exist according to Blavatsky ?
2) If yes, what is his nature according to Blavatsky ?
Instead of giving answers, you simply pasted some paragraphs from
Mahatma Letters. I asked you what you concluded from the study of
Mahatma Letters and Blavatsky's writing.
I will appreciate your answer to above two questions, without copying
paragraphs from ML or SD.
Please don't avoid answering these most important questions.

Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Anand,
> 
> Thank you for your most recent response at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45458
> 
> But did you read my previous posting to you at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45420
> 
> 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 
> DOCTRINE.
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45420
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45421
> 
> Once again thanks for your response and hoping that we 
> can have a very productive discussion about this subject.
> 
> Daniel
> Blavatsky Study Center / Blavatsky Archives
> http://blavatskystudycenter.net
> http://blavatskyarchives.com
> http://blavatsky.info
> 
> http://theosophy.info
>