Theos-Talk Archives (May 2012 Message tt00171)

   Upon reading de Zirkoff's comments on this article ("Isis Unveiled and the Visishtadvaita") in BCW 7, pp 50-2,  I see that he says that HPB wrote Olcott on it saying that she did not write the article and that it had some "flapdoodles" in it.  Apparently Olcott thought it was her's and signed her name to it.  Whose it was is unknown.  What the "flapdoodles" are I'm not sure, but one of them might be that a person's individual/divine monad again arises out of Universal Pralaya (which is the biggggg sleep of everything) to continue on its pilgrimage - which considering how immense this conception is and immense the presumption, might be called a flapdoodle. 
         I think it is a good idea not to use the word "god" at all, or as little as possible.  In original Theosophy it is rarely used unqualified.  Words have influences around them from how they have been used, and 99% of the influences around this word are terrible. 

           MKR says elsewhere that the Founders never gave an exclusive definition of "Theosophy."  Maybe this is true, but also in the MLs they write "Our doctrine knows no compromises.  It either affirms or denies...." (TUP, p. 52)
                               - jake j.


----------------
1a. Blavatsky's views on god
    Posted by: "Ramanujachary" srivirinchi@nkR7pxrOqDjXQ0qB48LxE58ntr43weEgHDKZvHZTWC1AT1MWwaLS3kF5nXLDVMIXYNDPY6bgt8Ewl22P7Jmh.yahoo.invalid ensiar
    Date: Sun May 20, 2012 4:13 am ((PDT))

>Madame Blavatsky and her views on God


>In an article published under correspondence in The Theosophist, January 1886, Madame Blavatsky has taken exception for a view expressed by a correspondent that her Isis Unveiled (1877)'taught substantially the doctrine of Visishtadwaita.'
She made certain preliminary remarks as to why her book 'lacks symmetry', and was wanting in 'literary production.' Though we may not agree with this understatement about her own work, we may see her reasons for stating so. 
>1. This is her first book. Incidentally, this is also the very first book on 'theosophical philosophy' as such.
>2. She was writing in a language that is foreign to her. 
>3. The language (in which the book was written, viz. English) was not familiar to the Asian philosophers who rendered their assistance in the preparation of the text.
>4. Col. Olcott, in the years of writing the book (1875 &76) was ignorant of 'Aryan Philosophy.'   He 'revised the manuscript and worked throughout with her.'

>Madame acknowledges that she was a 'sceptic' in her earlier life and was later taught by the MASTERS OF THE WISDOM on 'the existence of a boundless and fathomless ocean, a Principle (not Personal God) of which 'her soul' (for that matter any soul in manifestation) was a drop.

>She maintains as an occultist and on the authority of the Secret Doctrine (not exactly the book she wrote later) the following:
>1. Man's spirit is merged entirely into Parabrahm, when it is not individual per se.
>2. Man's spirit maintains/preserves its distinct individuality in Paranirvana.
>3. After each death, the highest faculties of the Manas are accumulated in it (the spirit) in aggregate or Skandhas.
>4. Such accumulation is the cause for the preservance of 'individuality.'
>5. The most spiritual (the highest and divinest aspirations of every personality) follow Buddhi and the Seventh Principle into Devachan (Swarga) after the death of each personality and they become part and parcel of the Monad.
>6. The personality disappears before the occurrence of a new set of bodies (a new personality) evolves from the Devachan.
>7. The individuality of the Spirit-soul is preserved till the end of the great cycle, the Maha-Manvantara.
>8. At the end of the Maha-manvantara, each Ego enters Para nirvana, or is merged in Parabrahm.
>9. This position, is understood as 'the human spirit losing itself in the One-spirit', similar to the drop entering the ocean and loses any chance of its retrace. This understanding is from the point of view of our limited or conditioned comprehension. 
>10. In the world of Immaterial thought, this view is not the final. 
>11. The world of Immaterial thought is huge and vast, while that of human dynamic thought, in a comparative sense, too limited. 
>12. Parabrhamic and Paranirvanic 'spirits' (or units) preserve their 'divine' individualities (and not human individualities).
>13. Even when the Maha Pralaya ends, the same Individual Divine Monad resumes its majestic path of evolution. 
>14. This resumption is on a more 'perfected' and 'more pure chains of earths than before. It carries with it all the essence of compound spiritualities from its previous countless rebirths.

>Madame Blavatsky concludes with a statement that spiral evolution is dual, and the path of spirituality turns corkscrew like, within and physical, semi-physical, and supra-physical evolution. She reserves further comments on the subject for her future books The Secret Doctrine (1888) and The Key to Theosophy (1889). Her more settled views on the anthropomorphism and the like are available there.         
>                                             Dr N C Ramanujachary
-----------------


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