Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00001)

Hello Daniel,
At least you answer one question definitely. You said according to
Blavatsky God exists. Let us not focus on gender issue.
Pl. answer the second question and describe nature of God in your
words, as you understand what Blavatsky meant. 

Anand Gholap



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>