Blavatsky on the the theosophical idea of deity:

[Theosophy rejects] the idea of a personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God... It is an eternal and periodical law which causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning of every... new cycle of life. 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.

I agree.

Blavatsky said,

“... Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic deity.... [A believer]...would do better far to remember that every man has a god within, a direct ray from the Absolute, the celestial ray from the One; that he has his ‘god’ within, not outside, of himself.”

(H.P. Blavatsky, Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol. I, page 51 online or pp. 43-44 hardcopy)

http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Transactions.htm (online)

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/sdcomtbl.htm (hardcopy)

Blavatsky on the God within:

The only God man comes in contact with is his own God, called Spirit, Soul and Mind or Consciousness, and these three are one.

Christ, the true esoteric Saviour, is no man, but the Divine Principle in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the “sepulchre” of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him.

The context of Blavatsky's quote is here:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-sio/sio-eso1.htm

Once I [HPB] was in a great cave-temple in the Himalaya mountains, with my Master,” and she looked at the picture of the splendid Rajput; “there were many statues of adepts there; pointing to one of them, he [Master M.] said: ‘This is he whom you call Jesus. We count him to be one of the greatest among us.’

Meaning a member of the Brotherhood working for the salvation of all creatures.

So HPB had great respect for what is true and fine in any religion, but if a literal meaning was masking an important truth, she would point it out.

Did you know that she said the greatest exemplar for Theosophists to follow was the Catholic Father Damien, the priest who served the lepers of Molokai?

You should study more of the Christian & Jewish mystics. Their view of bible events is often very different and more profound than the plain textual meaning.

Long before HPB, the Church Father Origen suggested a three-fold interpretation of scripture, based on a verse in Proverbs. Just as man is made of body, soul & spirit, so also is holy scripture. For the literal minded, the body of the writings, ie the literal meaning, will do for them. For those more open minded, the soul of the scripture should be given and for the wisest, the spirit of the text should be revealed.

This statement by HPB goes straight to the heart of Christological debates that began in the earliest days of Christianity - in fact before there was a "Christianity".
Some followers believed that Jesus was a Divine being, and his humanity was an illusion (docetism). Others denied Jesus' Divinity, some saying, for example, that he was 'adopted' by God.
At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, it was decided that Jesus Christ was both man and god. In fact, the Nicene creed reflects this idea to this day.
Many Christians today believe that their Savior was indeed both man and God, and so I fully understand how this statement can be offensive. It blasphemes their Faith.

However, this is not a forum dedicated to discussing Christology, or Christianity. It is dedicated to the study of Theosophy, primarily as put forward in the writings of HPB.

It is difficult for some to look at their religion, their Faith objectively. I have gotten in trouble many times for discussing the vengeful Old Testament God as if He were a concept to be analyzed with people who were quite offended that I could talk about their God in such a manner. How dare me?!?

However here, I do not believe we should be walking on eggshells, afraid that we might upset someone. Buyers beware. We talk about religion here - as a thing - in all its bits and pieces.

I don't think HPB ever meant to offend anyone, but her writings can easily offend someone who is not ready to look at his own beliefs and Faith in an intelligent, thoughtful way, just as those early Church Fathers did so many years ago.

Namaste

Esoteric Philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of a Divine Absolute Principle in Nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the sun.

Christian,

We have several issues here:

1. What specifically was offensive in HPB’s quote?

2. Are the teachings given by HPB and the Mahatmas anti-Christian?

3. Was HPB anti-Christian?

4. Are we correct to “call a turnip a turnip”, even if it offends someone?

5. Do Theosophists need to be more aware of any unconscious bias against Christianity?

6. Does Theosophy see Jesus as being the Son of God?

7. What is the Theosophical view of people who see Jesus as the Son of God?

8. Is Theosophy trying to “change” Christianity?

9. Do you have information about Jesus that you have gained through your abilities as a medium?

~~~

1. What specifically was offensive in HPB’s quote?

--> This puzzles me. You condemn the quote, but you do not tell us why. Please be specific. The more we discuss specific concepts, the better.

2. Are the teachings given by HPB and the Mahatmas anti-Christian?

--> Blavatsky has been accused of having been anti-Christian. (I do not feel she was, but some people do.) Theosophy exists for one purpose -- to expose people to a set of teachings called the Ancient Wisdom. HPB was Buddhist, and the Mahatmas themselves were Buddhists. They were merely expounding a set doctrines. This set of doctrines does not work for everybody, and that is unfortunate. But to make a deductive leap and say the Ancient Wisdom is inherently anti-Christian is a mistake.

3. Was HPB anti-Christian?

--> HPB has definitely been accused of being anti-Christian. I personally disagree with such an idea, although I can see how people would think she was anti-Christian.

4. Are we correct to “call a turnip a turnip”, even if it offends someone?

--> Now THIS gets to the core of our debate. Is it OK to tell someone what we believe, when we know they disagree? For example, take the idea of reincarnation. I have no problem telling another Theosophist that “reincarnation happens”, because it is a basic Theosophical concept. However, is it right to tell a conservative religion person that “reincarnation happens”, when I know it is offensive to them?

I have an example that fits this discussion well. HPB described the Christian concept of the Blessed Virgin Mary as being pure heresy. Was that going too far? When DO we “call a turnip a turnip”, even if it offends someone?

5. Do Theosophists need to be more aware of any unconscious bias against Christianity?

--> I am repeating myself here, but Blavatsky has been accused of having been anti-Christian. All Theosophists need to be aware of any unrealized bias against Christianity that may exist in Theosophy. we are constantly working on becoming more sensitive to what Christians are thinking, and how all of us can learn to communicate better, and respect each other's belief systems.

6. Does Theosophy see Jesus as being the Son of God?

--> The idea of Jesus being the Son of God is an issue in Theosophy. Theosophy respects that Christians believe such an idea, but such an idea does not appear in any of the writings by HPB or the Mathatmas. I know that Christians are trying to consolidate Jesus' divinity with Theosophical teachings, but I have not seen it yet. (Perhaps some Christian Theosiophists out there could shed their opinions on this subject?)

--> Theosophy does say we should be able to embrace our religion of choice. This is the very reason for Theosophy's existence.

7. What is the Theosophical view of people who see Jesus as the Son of God?

--> Theosophy fully supports anyone in believing such a thing, if that is what they wish to believe. Freedom of religion, and the staunch support of religious pluralism is what Theosophy is all about.

8. Is Theosophy trying to “change” Christianity?

--> Yes and no.

No: Christians have the right to believe what they choose. Theosophy is not interested in going into Christian churches and telling them what to believe. Proselytizing is strictly forbidden in Theosophy.

Yes: Theosophy feels the original Christian teachings have been lost, and if anyone wants to hear them, Theosophy is more than willing to teach them.

11. Do you have information about Jesus that you have gained through your abilities as a medium?

--> You are a profession medium. Have you talked with Jesus? What psychic insight can you share with us, that leads you to be a Christian? I am not being flippant in asking this question. I ask the questions because I would like to know. Perhaps you have access to information we do not have, that will shed light on the subject.

Christian, I'm with Nick here. Other than the idea I mentioned in my last post, I'm not sure what you find offensive in your selection from HPB's remark.

HPB certainly see's the Christ as an internal rather than an external principle, but this is not anti-Christian - "The Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21)

Here she is talking about working upon one's own self (Buddhism coming through) to find that Kingdom of God.

Perhaps the idea that one should not look to an external Christ for salvation bothered you?

Jon

The Ancient Wisdom (HPB's Theosophy is only a fragment of that) is the source of all religions' origin. As the distance from the source increases corruption occurs.

HPB, her gurus and some theosophists understand that opposition to churchianity, priestly impostures, human theological overlays and cant are needed. How can one discern the wheat from the chaff, and more importantly "unveil isis" or truth, if one accepts the religions of today as if equal to their founders' visions?

If all HPB taught was destructive, then Christian might have a point. But she presented an noble alternative; an esoteric or mystic reading of all scriptures and the innate divinity of mankind that needs not priestcraft or intermediaries.

Emerson had the same idea - and yes, many Xtians felt insulted, so he left the church.

But I think the Christianity of today is a vast improvement over the 19th century version. Mainly because of Blavatsky, the Transcendentalists, and critical biblical scholarship.