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

Re: 4 Questions between Anand and Daniel

Aug 01, 2008 02:16 PM
by danielhcaldwell


You write:

At least you answer one question definitely. You said according to
Blavatsky God exists. Let us not focus on gender issue.
Pl. answer the second question and describe nature of God in your
words, as you understand what Blavatsky meant.

Anton, 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.  

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

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.


[Back to Top]

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