Re: Theos-World Hi there, I'm new.
Jan 17, 2007 11:31 PM
In a message dated 1/14/07 9:43:00 PM, email@example.com writes:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, leonmaurer@... wrote:
> > Not my definition, but quoted directly from a standarddictionary. What
> > the definition created by agnostics themselves that contradicts this
> > dictionary definition?
> > >
> You didn't actually give me a full dictionary quotation, despite
> your claim. Suffice it to say that a truer agnostic believes that a
> god is 'unknowable' (even by theists/deists), versus
> simply 'unknown', whether in the context of existence or
You're right. The full definition in my dictionary is: a person who
believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or
of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor
disbelief in God.
> > >
> > Not dogmatic, since the specific God disbelieved in by learned
> > is the personal Christian one that stands outside of the universe itself
> -- but
> > does NOT refer to the Supreme Spirit or divine God consciousness that
> > pervades all of nature.
> Which god are we then referring to in the context of our
> conversation? I am atheist to the first god and agnostic to the
> second god that you mention.
The second God referred to in theosophical metaphysics is the supreme spirit
or consciousness of the primal universal "space" before and after its
manifestation, that is aware and willful with respect to its inherent abstract motion
that contains, encoded in it (most likely in the form of vibrational wave
interference patterns of its fundamental spin-energy or G-force sometimes called
the Akasha) all the information or experiential knowledge of all its previous
cyclic existence's plus the wisdom of its own inherent nature -- as the basis
of determining the initially involved fractal fields and their ideal forms
and, through the guidance of its initial hierarchy of spiritual beings (i.e.,
the Dhyan Chohans) the subsequent evolution of inorganic matter, leading up to
the evolutionary ladder of sentient and super sentient organic beings... With
the apparent purpose of ultimately replicating itself in mankind, and observing
their evolution... Until they further evolve to the state of super conscious
existence equivalent to itself... Thus, adding infinite lines of new
individual experiences and knowledge to its previous store of self knowledge.
As the Kabbala says (to quote HPB who quotes Eliphas Levi) "First a stone,
then a plant, then an animal, then a man, then an angel, and finally a God."
In my view, I might add before a stone, initially an "idea" in the mind of that
universal God. This is the root of Pantheism, which is closest to the
theosophical metaphysics that sees unchanged spirit or consciousness in close
communion with (pervading) all changing aspects of matter, both metaphysical and
> > Thus, theosophy is rooted in the practical idealism's that
> > underlies either Pantheism or Deism. Therefore, a learned theosophist
> can be
> > either a Pantheist or a Deist, which precludes being an agnostic who
> > considers the possibility that a separate God might exist.
> You're perhaps not understanding agnosticism then. An agnostic
> would not consider the possibility of a separate god's existence in
> the first place.
If an agnostic is "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" --
If taken in the ordinary sense, such lack of disbelief leaves open the
possibility that God could exist. And if that "God" refers to the one that is
separate and personal, then that person could not be a true theosophist. (Unless,
of course, we accept the definition of HPB quoted by Robert Crosbie in the
Declaration of the United Lodge of Theosophists (ULT), "It regards as Theosophists
all who are engaged in the true service of Humanity, without distinction of
race, creed, sex, condition or organization, and ... The true Theosophist
belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each and all." But, even then,
agnostic would only apply to the separate Gods of those cults or sects. Thus, a
Christian or follower of the teachings of Yeshua or Jesus, without believing in
his divinity, or the God of the churches that worship them, can still be a true
> > However, it accepts that
> > most beginning students of theosophy are usually agnostics -- since
> atheism is
> > as much a religious belief or faith as theism.
> Religion does not require a belief in a god or gods. Many religious
> Buddhists are atheist and/or agnostic. Buddhism does not require a
> belief in a god or gods. Neither does Theosophy, as far as I'm
I was speaking of organized religions that require a faith or belief in a
personal and separate God or his representative, such as Jesus. It's true that
with respect to such a personal God, neither Buddhism nor theosophy has any
such belief. However they both recognize the higher spiritual Force or
consciousness that imbues all of Nature. Thus the Buddhist say Annata, or there is
no such thing as an individual self separate from the universal self.
> > >
> > The Theosophical Society does not speak for theosophy --
> Then what does it speak for?
The Society can only speak for the Theosophical Movement in accord with its
three objects, and for the rules that govern its organization. In no way can
it speak for theosophy which is the teaching of the Masters given out by HPB,
who speaks of it and about it, but not for it -- since it contains its own
truths that speaks for it. It's up to each individual theosophist to discover
those truths for themselves through their own self devised and self determined
study and effort.
> > which speaks for
> > itself.
> Theosophy may speak for itself, but this does not preclude the
> Theosophical Society (or anyone else, for that matter) speaking for
> Theosophy also. Even as you are now speaking for Theosophy at this
> moment, even if you say that the Theosophical Society does not.
I am speaking OF and ABOUT theosophy as I see it, not FOR it. Others may
see it and speak of it differently. But neither I nor others can change its
fundamental truths or principles and all that they imply -- which doesn't depend
on the definition of words, or our opinions and interpretations, but only on
their inherent reasonableness -- that leads to profound conviction when fully
understood in all their ramifications.
> > The Society also has a governing charter given it by HPB that doesn't
> > allow it to discriminate between members religious or non religious
> > Thus both atheists and agnostics or those of any or no religious belief
> > welcome as members.
> That's good to hear, and amounts to what they told me.
> > Also, theosophy itself is not a "creed" but a synthesis of
> > science religion and philosophy -- although it is sometimes called
> > "Wisdom religion" in the sense of being a form of Jnana Yoga.
> An assertion that learned Theosophists cannot be agnostic sounds
> pretty much like a creed to me. At least such is your personal
> creed, even if not Theosophy's or it's society.
Since, a creed is defined as a "faith, religion, religious belief, religious
persuasion, church, denomination, sect. or a System of belief, set of beliefs,
beliefs, principles, articles of faith, ideology, credo, doctrine, teaching,
dogma, tenets, canons" .. Therefore, as theosophy is none of those belief or
faith based systems, but a definitive teaching of the true nature of
fundamental reality that requires no faith or blind belief but simply a knowing
understanding, it cannot be called a creed in the usuall sense... Although, its yoga
practice could be considered, like Buddhism, a "religion" when taken in the
sense of yoking or attachment of our individual selves with the higher self of
all... Since, the primary goal of theosophical study and practice is a "truer
realization of the SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood."
> > Leon
> > >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application