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

Re: Theos-World Does Blavatsky's teaching harm the world?

Dec 09, 2008 08:58 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Dear Anand and all readers

My views are:

Anand wrote:
"Blavatsky had always been humiliated, ridiculed because of
her anti-God statements."

My comments:
Most often not by those who dared to read her book "The Key to Theosophy"
or who have been confronted with its content.

HPB talking in the same book about "Theosophy", p.2:
"The same author tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one consecrated to Amun, the God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of Brahm-Vidya, divine knowledge."

HPB talking in the same book about God:

ENQUIRER. Do you believe in God? 

THEOSOPHIST. That depends what you mean by the term. 

ENQUIRER. I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short. 

THEOSOPHIST. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but the gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best, either. The God of theology, we say â and prove it â is a bundle of contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with him. 

ENQUIRER. State your reasons, if you please. 

THEOSOPHIST. They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But here are a few. This God is called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is he not? 

ENQUIRER. I believe he is. 


THEOSOPHIST. Then, if infiniteâi. e., limitlessâ and especially if absolute, how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE be supposed to thinkâi. e., to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala rejects such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph.* In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an indirect way âi.e., through the emanation from itself (another absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Kabala)â of the Sephiroth. "


My comment:
Do you understand the above words? Do you see the difference better now?
If you nedd help in understanding the above. Then please let me and other persons know.

HPB talking in the same book about God:
ENQUIRER. Well, let us put it otherwise: is it God who endows man with a human rational Soul and immortal Spirit? 

THEOSOPHIST. Again, in the way you put the question, we must object to it. Since we believe in no personal God, how can we believe that he endows man with anything? But granting, for the sake of argument, a God who takes upon himself the risk of creating a new Soul for every new-born baby, all that can be said is that such a God can hardly be regarded as himself endowed with any wisdom or prevision. Certain other difficulties and the impossibility of reconciling this with the claims made for the mercy, justice, equity and


omniscience of that God, are so many deadly reefs on which this theological dogma is daily and hourly broken. 

ENQUIRER. What do you mean? What difficulties? 

THEOSOPHIST. I am thinking of an unanswerable argument offered once in my presence by a Cingalese Buddhist priest, a famous preacher, to a Christian missionary â one in no way ignorant or unprepared for the public discussion during which it was advanced. It was near Colombo, and the Missionary had challenged the priest Megattivati to give his reasons why the Christian God should not be accepted by the "heathen." Well, the Missionary came out of that for ever memorable discussion second best, as usual. 

ENQUIRER. I should be glad to learn in what way. 

THEOSOPHIST. Simply this: the Buddhist priest premised by asking the padri whether his God had given commandments to Moses only for men to keep, but to be broken by God himself. The missionary denied the supposition indignantly. Well, said his opponent, "you tell us that God makes no exceptions to this rule, and that no Soul can be born without his will. Now God forbids adultery, among other things, and yet you say in the same breath that it is he who creates every baby born, and he who endows it with a Soul. Are we then to understand that the millions of children born in crime and adultery are your God's work? That your God forbids and punishes the breaking of his laws; and that, nevertheless, he creates daily and hourly souls for just such children? According to the simplest logic, your God is an accomplice in the crime; since, but for his help


and interference, no such children of lust could be born. Where is the justice of punishing not only the guilty parents but even the innocent babe for that which is done by that very God, whom yet you exonerate from any guilt himself?" The missionary looked at his watch and suddenly found it was getting too late for further discussion. "


My comment:
Anand, do you understand the above words? 
Anand, do you see the difference better now?
If you nedd help in understanding the above. Then please let me and other persons know.

Anand wrote:
"Theosophy based on Blavatsky's atheist
terminology "...

My comments:
In her book "The Key to Theosophy" she clearly stated, why her teachings and the wisdom teachings of all ages never was and never will be an "atheist" teaching.

Try to read this from The Key to Theosophy, p.62:
"ENQUIRER. Then you are Atheists? 

THEOSOPHIST. Not that we know of, and not unless the epithet of "Atheist" is to be applied to those who disbelieve in an anthropomorphic God. We believe in a Universal Divine Principle, the root of ALL, from which all proceeds, and within which all shall be absorbed at the end of the great cycle of Being. " 
( )

Did this help you Anand.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:25 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Does Blavatsky's teaching harm the world?

  "This Subba Row will help you [Sinnett] to learn, though his terms �"
  he being an initiated Brahmin and holding to the Brahmanical
  esoteric teaching �" will be different from those of the "Arhat
  Buddhist" terminology". (Letter 60, chronological.)

  "Upasika (Madam B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same Master,
  have not followed the same philosophy �" the one is Buddhist and the
  other an Adwaitee." (Letter 120, chronological.)

  These passages perhaps explain incredible confusion which we see in
  Theosophical Society about major ideas. Blavatsky had made many
  anti-God statements, that irritated Christians. As these letters
  suggest, Blavatsky was perhaps following Buddhist terminology, which
  does not recognize existence of God.
  There is very small percentage of humanity which follows Buddhist
  religion. Majority of mankind follows religions which are theist. In
  all major religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism,
  God is most important and central in their philosophies. Majority of
  mankind follows these religions, in which God is central, and denying
  existence of God is considered by them as great sin. Naturally,
  Blavatsky's anti-God Theosophy is rejected and will be rejected by
  humanity. Blavatsky had always been humiliated, ridiculed because of
  her anti-God statements. Theosophy based on Blavatsky's atheist
  terminology won't be accepted by humanity, because people believe in
  philosophies that recognized God as central.
  Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater gave Theosophy, which recognizes
  existence of God and they consider God as central. That makes
  Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater more acceptable to people.
  Problem is both Blavatsky's atheist Theosophy and Leadbeater's theist
  Theosophy came from the same Theosophical Society and they both
  considered each other as coworkers and yet there is huge difference in
  terminology they use as well as underlying ideas, according to many
  students. That has caused incredible confusion about position of the
  TS about God.
  I think it is extremely important to understand this situation,
  because it appears that philosophical conflicts which we see in TS are
  caused because of these reasons.
  Theosophical Society's first object is to form nucleus of universal
  brotherhood. If we see condition of the followers of Blavatsky, one
  can see that they fight more than loving one another. Not only they
  fight among themselves, but because of their anti-God philosophy they
  set themselves against people of all religions which believe in God,
  and annoy these followers of other religions. How can this help in
  forming universal brotherhood? And if Blavatsky's writing becomes
  cause of nuisance in the world, is there any point in spreading her

  Anand Gholap


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

[Back to Top]

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