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

Re: Theos-World Was Blavatsky a wrong choice for the foundation of TS?

Mar 17, 2009 08:34 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Dear Anand and all

My views are:

As long as you do not understand the logic of the below words, you cannot possbily understand what H. P. Blavatsky was talking about and the truth in her words. A truth backed by hundreds of Seers through time, and by their students. I can only confimr H. P. Blavatsky's view. We do not consider the God mentioned by the Christian Church as a valid God. And this is the same God most Christians are encouraged to and honestly believe is real - even if we theosophists claim it to be utterly fake and false.

H. P. Blavatsky tells us why in the below - in the beginners book 
"The Key to Theosophy", Chapter 5 - p. 61-66.

Now it could be helpfull, If Anand would be so kind to tell me and others were H. P. Blavatsky is out of line on these pages???

I am here qoting the important parts og the pages:


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. "

. . . . . . .

"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. 

ENQUIRER. This is the old, old claim of Pantheism. If you are Pantheists, you cannot be Deists; and if you are not Deists, then you have to answer to the name of Atheists. 

THEOSOPHIST. Not necessarily so. The term "Pantheism" is again one of the many abused terms, whose real and primitive meaning has been distorted by blind prejudice and a one-sided view of it. If you accept the Christian etymology of this compound word, and form it of pan, "all," and qeod, "god," and then imagine and teach that this means that every stone and every tree in Nature is a God or the ONE God, then, of course, you will be right, and make of Pantheists fetish-worshippers, in addition to their legitimate name. But you will hardly be as successful if you etymologise the word Pantheism esoterically, and as we do. 

ENQUIRER. What is, then, your definition of it? 

THEOSOPHIST. Let me ask you a question in my turn. What do you understand by Pan, or Nature? 

ENQUIRER. Nature is, I suppose, the sum total of things existing around us; the aggregate of causes and effects in the world of matter, the creation or universe. 

THEOSOPHIST. Hence the personified sum and order of known causes and effects; the total of all finite agencies and forces, as utterly disconnected from an intelligent Creator or Creators, and perhaps "conceived of as a single and separate force"âas in your cyclopÃdias? 

ENQUIRER. Yes, I believe so. 

THEOSOPHIST. Well, we neither take into consideration this objective and material nature, which we call an evanescent illusion, nor do we mean by pan Nature, in the sense of its accepted derivation from the Latin Natura (becoming, from nasci, to be born). When we speak of the Deity and make it identical, hence coeval, with Nature, the eternal and uncreate nature is meant, and not your aggregate of flitting shadows and finite unrealities. We leave it to the hymn-makers to call the visible sky or heaven, God's Throne, and our earth of mud His footstool. Our DEITY is neither in a paradise, nor in a particular tree, building, or mountain: it is everywhere, in every atom of the visible as of the invisible Cosmos, in, over, and around every invisible atom and divisible molecule; for IT is the mysterious power of evolution and involution, the omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omniscient creative potentiality. 

ENQUIRER. Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative of something that thinks, and you deny to your Absoluteness the power of thought. 

THEOSOPHIST. We deny it to the ABSOLUTE, since thought is something limited and conditioned. But you evidently forget that in philosophy absolute unconsciousness is also absolute consciousness, as otherwise it would not be absolute. 

ENQUIRER. Then your Absolute thinks? 

THEOSOPHIST. No, IT does not; for the simple reason that it is Absolute Thought itself. Nor does it exist, for the same reason, as it is absolute existence, and Be-ness, not a Being. Read the superb Kabalistic poem by Solomon Ben Jehudah Gabirol, in the Kether-Malchut, and you will understand:â"Thou art one, the root of all numbers, but not as an element of numeration; for unity admits not of multiplication, change, or form. Thou art one, and in the secret of thy unity the wisest of men are lost, because they know it not. Thou art one, and Thy unity is never diminished, never extended, and cannot be changed. Thou art one, and no thought of mine can fix for Thee a limit, or define Thee. Thou ART, but not as one existent, for the understanding and vision of mortals cannot attain to Thy existence, nor determine for Thee the where, the how and the why," etc., etc. In short, our Deity is the eternal, incessantly evolving, not creating, builder of the universe; that universe itself unfolding out of its own essence, not being made. It is a sphere, without circumference, in its symbolism, which has but one ever-acting attribute embracing all other existing or thinkable attributesâITSELF. It is the one law, giving the impulse to manifested, eternal, and immutable laws, within that never-manifesting, because absolute LAW, which in its manifesting periods is The ever-Becoming. "



ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray? 

THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We act, instead of talking. "

- - - - - - -

Now it could be helpfull, If Anand would be so kind to telle me and others were H. P. Blavatsky is out of line???

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:57 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Was Blavatsky a wrong choice for the foundation of TS?

  I wrote this message at other group. Some people here might like to think on this topic, so I am pasting it here.
  Blavatsky had strong Buddhist inclination. She was critical about Christianity and she attacked Christian ideas, some of her statements were highly insulting to Christians, e.g. when she said their God did not exist. First command for Christians is to love God with all of heart, mind and strength. And when Blavatsky said their God did not exist, it brought much opposition to Blavatsky, her Theosophy and the TS.
  After the death of Blavatsky, philosophical leadership of TS went to Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater gave Theosophy with God as central idea. After Annie Besant all Presidents of Adyar TS followed Theosophy of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, which considered God as central idea.
  That raises the question why Blavatsky, with her Buddhist inclination, was sent to Christian world. (Buddhism does not recognize existence of God). By sending Buddhist Blavatsky to Christian world Blavatsky only attracted harsh criticism. The headquarters of TS had to be shifted to India. Indians believe in God. In India also Blavatsky was not loved, and she had to go to London, where she died, without spreading Theosophy in England. England too had majority Christian population. It appears that if in the first place founder of TS was chosen as somebody who could explain Theosophy in THEIST terminology of Christians or Hindus, TS would have gained much more support and lot of unnecessary criticism would have been avoided.
  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