Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00028)

Dear readers


My views are:

If I may?
We find that the deity in The Bhagavad Gita is a quite different one than the Christians and the Jews use. The deity is in fact a non-dualistic one.


Bhagavad Gita says chapter viii, v. 16-22:
"The worlds, Arjuna!- even Brahma's world-
Roll back again from Death to Life's unrest;
But they, O Kunti's Son! that reach to Me,
Taste birth no more. If ye know Brahma's Day
Which is a thousand Yugas; if ye know
The thousand Yugas making Brahma's Night,
Then know ye Day and Night as He doth know!
When that vast Dawn doth break, th' Invisible
Is brought anew into the Visible;
When that deep Night doth darken, all which is
Fades back again to Him Who sent it forth;
Yea! this vast company of living things-
Again and yet again produced- expires
At Brahma's Nightfall; and, at Brahma's Dawn,
Riseth, without its will, to life new-born.
But- higher, deeper, innermost- abides
Another Life, not like the life of sense,
Escaping sight, unchanging. This endures
When all created things have passed away;
This is that Life named the Unmanifest,
The Infinite! the All! the Uttermost.
Thither arriving none return. That Life
Is Mine, and I am there! And, Prince! by faith
Which wanders not, there is a way to come
Thither. I, the PURUSHA, I Who spread
The Universe around me- in Whom dwell
All living Things- may so be reached and seen!"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/bg08.htm


So the devotion in the Bhagavad Gita is happening through the Unmanifest or non-Atma, -
or what we call ParaBrahman or Not this, Not that.
The idea of using images of Krishna for worhsip and turning the Above unmanifest version of Krishna into his physical body is just another silly and materialistic idea.

But, to focus on ones own highest Deity is the best one can do. But first lesson is to avoid images and sculptures, and close ones physical eyes, and perhaps also the computer. :-)

But as theosophist we always maintain that Parabrahman is the highest Deity and not the dualistic Teological male nightmare of the Christians. This basic knowledge about theosophical metaphysics are a part of what is required to be learned before on can become a healthy Occultist and a healthy clairvoyant.

When authoring books, One just aught to avoid giving others the view, that the Deity in question is a Creator Deity,  and a Teological dualistic Christian Deity and even a male one.
It was here Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeater and also Alice A. Bailey to a certain degree failed because they overemphasised a dualistic Deity called "God" and also "he" or "him" so very very much. H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters did not do that.




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:22 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: 4 Questions between Anand and Daniel


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "anandaam_11" <anandaam@...> wrote:
  >
  > "Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic 
  > deity. And to those who call this atheism, I would say the following. 
  > It is illogical to worship one such god, for, as said in the 
  > Bible, "There be Lords many and Gods many." Therefore, if worship is 
  > desirable, we have to choose either the worship of many gods, each 
  > being no better or less limited than the other, viz., polytheism and 
  > idolatry, or choose, as the Israelites have done, one tribal or 
  > racial god from among them, and while believing in the existence of 
  > many gods, ignore and show contempt for the others, regarding our own 
  > as the highest and the "God of Gods." But this is logically 
  > unwarrantable, for such a god can be neither infinite nor absolute, 
  > but must be finite, that is to say, limited and conditioned by space 
  > and time. With the Pralaya the tribal god disappears, and Brahmâ and 
  > all the other Devas, and the gods are merged into the Absolute. 
  > Therefore, occultists do not worship or offer prayers to them, 
  > because if we did, we should have either to worship many gods, or 
  > pray to the Absolute, which, having no attributes, can have no ears 
  > to hear us. The worshipper even of many gods must of necessity be 
  > unjust to all the other gods; however far he extends his worship it 
  > is simply impossible for him to worship each severally; and in his 
  > ignorance, if he choose out any one in particular, he may by no means 
  > select the most perfect. Therefore, he would do better far to 
  > remember that every man has a god within, a direct ray from the 
  > Absolute, the celestial ray from the One; that he has his " god " 
  > within, not outside of, himself."
  > 
  > (Collected Writings volume 10, page 345)

  Blavatsky's rejection of worship and prayers is rejection of path of
  the devotion altogether. This position does not seem to be
  appropriate, because Bhavavad Gita also recognized path of devotion.
  And also Christianity and Judaism have devotion to God as central.
  Many spiritual traditions in India also have strong element of
  devotion. So the anti-devotion position stated above by Blavatsky does
  not appear right. 
  Best
  Anand Gholap



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]