Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00430)

Anand,

It appears that there are 4 questions posed between us:

(1) Does God exist according to Blavatsky ?

(2) If yes, what is his nature according to Blavatsky ?

(3) is there an identity of thought between what Jnaneshwar teaches
and Koot Hoomi teaches concerning "God"?

In other words, is Jnaneshwar and Koot Hoomi espousing the
same "view", "teaching", about "God"?

(4) does Madame Blavatsky in THE SECRET DOCTRINE teach something
similar if not identical to what Jnanaeshwar taught and what we
find in the letter from Master Koot Hoomi?

Let me try to briefly answer them.  

(3)  First I will answer #3.  If you Anand have accurately summarized 
Jnaneshwar's teaching about God, then I would say that 
unless you have definitions of certain words which are different than 
the way I understand then, then yes Jnaneshwar and Koot Hoomi are 
talking about the same thing.

(4)  Now to question #4.  I would say that it appears to me that 
Jnaneshwar and Koot Hoomi and Blavatsky are giving the same teaching 
or idea about "God".  

(1) Now Question #1. In light of the answers to (3) and ($) then
yes, it appears to me that Blavatsky teaches the "existence" of "God".

But I hesitate to use both of the words:  "existence" and "God".

For what does "to exist" actually mean?  And to what does the 
word "God" refer to?

Certainly HP Blavatsky gives a teaching about the "Absolute".  If you 
or anyone else can equate "God" with the "Absolute" then that could 
be said to be Blavatsky's teaching too.

(2) Now to your Question 2.

 "...what is his nature according to Blavatsky?"   

I would ask why you use the word "his"?  Why not use the word "her" 
or even "its"?

Are you suggesting "God" is a "he"?

Or are you using "his" just as an everyday convention.

If I speak of Anand and say he or him I am referring to the fact that 
you are a male as opposed to when speaking of Cass, I say she or her 
I am referring to the fact that she is a woman.   Whereas I believe a 
paramecium is an "it".   Neither male or female.  I hope I'm not 
confused about the parmecium not having gender!

If God IS everything.  And this is how I read your following 
description:

> 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 each of us and everything in the universe is "in" God or is God 
and "separation" or "duality" is maya or illusion, then why say "he" 
or "his" or "him"?

And what is the "nature" of God if he or she or it or ____ IS 
everything?

I find it hard to describe how Blavatsky might describe "God".  Maybe 
her description is best given by referring you to what she writes 
about the Absolute in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  I quoted what she wrote 
about the Absolute in one of my postings earlier today.

Does this help?  And I hope Anand that you will grapple with these 4 
questions and try to answer them, too.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc