Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
theos-talk · discussion list to go with THEOSOPHY WORLD
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
4 Questions between Anand and Daniel   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #45482 of 53303 |
Re: 4 Questions between Anand and Daniel

Anand,

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:

DEFINITION ONE BY H.P. BLAVATSKY
--------------------------------------------------
... [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.
-------------------------------------------------

DEFINITION TWO BY MASTER KH
-------------------------------------------------
"….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...."
-------------------------------------------------

DEFINITION THREE BY MASTER KH
-------------------------------------------------
". . 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:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45464

I tried to answer them in that posting.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc






Fri Aug 1, 2008 9:16 pm

danielhcaldwell
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #45482 of 53303 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Anand, It appears that there are 4 questions posed between us: (1) Does God exist according to Blavatsky ? (2) If yes, what is his nature according to...
danielhcaldwell
Offline Send Email
Jul 31, 2008
8:41 pm

Hello Daniel, 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...
Anand
supreme_1l
Offline Send Email
Aug 1, 2008
8:33 am

Anand, ... 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...
danielhcaldwell
Offline Send Email
Aug 1, 2008
9:16 pm

Hello Daniel, ... Is according to HPB God and Absolute same ? ... Does that mean Blavatsky and Masters did not use God in one sense and used it to give...
Anand
supreme_1l
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
6:40 pm

"Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic deity. And to those who call this atheism, I would say the following. It is illogical to...
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
7:43 pm

... Blavatsky's rejection of worship and prayers is rejection of path of the devotion altogether. This position does not seem to be appropriate, because...
Anand
supreme_1l
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
8:22 pm

Thanks anandaam_11 for giving the quote by Blavatsky from Volume 10. I give the same quote again and ask Anand (not to be confused with anandaam_11) to...
danielhcaldwell
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
10:17 pm

Daniel, Great!! Lol! You raise some very good queries. I enjoyed reading this. I won't start even! But How everyone manages to ignore that "Eden" was in...
Augoeides-222@...
sessesgenbar...
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
1:18 am

Yes. Thanks Daniel. Very good. Especially this: "Therefore, he would do better far to remember that every man has a god within, a direct ray from the Absolute,...
Morten Nymann Olesen
kidhr7
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
8:03 am

Only thing most people think that their god within makes him higher or better than other people for he uses that way in his lower mind. While he uses in higher...
christinaleestemaker
christinalee...
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
9:49 am

What is rejected? "Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic deity." (Madame Blavatsky) What is recommended? "Therefore, he would do...
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
11:07 pm

"One often finds in Theosophical writings conflicting statements about the Christos principle in man. Some call it the sixth principle (Buddhi), others the...
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
3:30 pm

Dear readers My views are: Let me ask a few questions to the ardent promoters of dead-letter confusion... Now the questions are whether Annie Besant and C. W....
Morten Nymann Olesen
kidhr7
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
8:06 am

Dear readers My views are: If I may? We find that the deity in The Bhagavad Gita is a quite different one than the Christians and the Jews use. The deity is in...
Morten Nymann Olesen
kidhr7
Offline Send Email
Aug 2, 2008
11:09 pm

... than the Christians and the Jews use. The deity is in fact a non-dualistic one. ... Unmanifest or non-Atma, - ... But the problem is Blavatsky rejects...
Anand
supreme_1l
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
8:04 am

... you ... That is not what Blavatsky says. She "rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic deity". She states that "occultists do not worship or offer...
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
3:30 pm

... Nor do Blavatsky's and the Mahatma's rejection of an extra cosmic God who is creator of universe, and its worship go against Krishna's path of devotion....
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
3:30 pm

As I said earlier, Dyaneshwari is much more clear and teaches better about God. I hope people read it and bring that knowledge for comparison. I read messages...
Anand
supreme_1l
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
3:53 pm

What Blavatsky states with regards a personal god and its worship is in accord with what Jnanadeva makes Krishna state in his commentary on the Bhagavat Gita,...
A M
anandaam_11
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
11:43 pm

Morten, Thanks for the Git extract it makes me glow. "And LIFE is VICTORIOUS" the Mandaeans "Find out Who You really are" "Find out Where You really are" ...
Augoeides-222@...
sessesgenbar...
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
1:28 am

My views are: No, no dear Anand. I think what Blavatsky rejected in the quote given by Daniel Caldwell was the idea of - ordinary prayer - towards the Absolute...
Morten Nymann Olesen
kidhr7
Offline Send Email
Aug 3, 2008
9:35 am

Daniel and All Thank you for the beautifull exposition and comparitions of ancient thougth regarding The Absolute.        Nor Aught nor Nought existed;...
Raquel Rodríguez
raquel_rpj
Offline Send Email
Aug 4, 2008
8:37 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help