Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00092)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:

> And she never use the words "Divine all" in that article.

It is simply not true.

"Or, again, accepts the Vedantic conception of Brahma, who in the
Upanishads is represented as "without life, without mind, pure,"
unconscious, for?Brahma is "Absolute Consciousness." Or, even finally,
siding with the Sv&#226;bh&#226;vikas of Nepal, maintains that nothing exists
but "Svabhavat" (substance or nature) which exists by itself without
any creator?any one of the above conceptions can lead but to pure and
absolute Theosophy. That Theosophy which prompted such men as Hegel,
Fichte and Spinoza to take up the labours of the old Grecian
philosophers and speculate upon the One Substance?the Deity, the
Divine All proceeding from the Divine Wisdom?incomprehensible,
unknown, and unnamed?by any ancient or modern religious philosophy,
with the exception of Christianity and Mohammedanism. Every
Theosophist, then, holding to a theory of the Deity "which has not
revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis," may accept
any of the above definitions or belong to any of these religions, and
yet remain strictly within the boundaries of Theosophy."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v2/y1879_020.htm