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

Re: Blavatsky's mistake about God

Aug 02, 2008 11:40 AM
by Anand

Hello Daniel,
--- In, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
> I tried to explain that if we want to use the word "God"
> to mean the Absolute of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, then HPB would probably 
> approve of that equation.  

Is according to HPB God and Absolute same ? 

> But I really hesitate to use the word "God" because it conjures up so 
> many different images and definitions and emotions.

Does that mean Blavatsky and Masters did not use God in one sense and
used it to give different meanings in different places ?

It appears that three definitions of God which you gave, don't convey
the same meaning. Does that mean Blavatsky and Masters had different
understanding of the word God ?

Anand Gholap

> In one sense, "God" could refer to the "inner God" --- the Atma-
> Buddhi-Manas or the Atma-Buddhi Monad or just the Atman which might 
> be defined in turn as the Universal Spirit or Universal Self or 
> Trancendental Self or one could say that the word "God" could also 
> refer to one of the Planetary Spirits.  See THE SECRET DOCTRINE index 
> under "Planetary Spirit", Dhyan Chohan, etc.
> But I think one could use the word "God" when referring to the 
> following 3 definitions:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ... [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.
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> "?.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...."
> -------------------------------------------------
> I don't think I need to rewrite into my own words what is given in 
> these 3 definitions.  In fact, I would feel I would have to write a 
> mini-article and I don't have the hours right now to work on 
> composing something of that size.
> Read for yourself some of the entries in HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE and 
> THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and try to understand it for yourself.
> BUT if you have questions about parts of HPB's or KH's definitions 
> GIVEN ABOVE, I  will try to give you my 2 cents about the part you 
> don't understand or would like more clarification on.
> I've tried to give you various material in my several previous 
> postings on the subject.
> Now I'm hoping you will try to answer at least 3 of the 4 questions 
> that I posted at:
> I tried to answer them in that posting.
> Daniel

[Back to Top]

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