Hi everybody!

Jon K. made this comment in another thread, "There is no separate God which would not experience what you experience."

This brings up the question, Do Theosophists believe in God? It would be good to look at what Blavatsky wrote on the subject.

Let's look at the Stanzas of Dzyan, Book 1, Stanza 3 Sloka 7

"BEHOLD, OH LANOO! THE RADIANT CHILD OF THE TWO, THE UNPARALLELED REFULGENT GLORY: BRIGHT SPACE SON OF DARK SPACE, WHICH EMERGES FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE GREAT DARK WATERS. IT IS OEAOHOO THE YOUNGER, THE * * * HE SHINES FORTH AS THE SON; HE IS THE BLAZING DIVINE DRAGON OF WISDOM...."

This describes the appearance of the Son (from the Father and Mother), which heralds the bringing forth of the Deity into full manifestation.

(It needs to be reviewed that the Father is unmanifested, the Mother is semi-manifested, and the Son (The "Universal Mind") is fully manifested.

“... the three Logoi [are] the unmanifested "Father," the semi-manifested "Mother" and the Universe, which is the third Logos [the Son] of our philosophy or Brahmâ.” (Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine Commentary, vol 1 p. 31)

It is important to note that this Universal Mind, this Son, is the God, the Deity, which is worshipped by many of the world's religions.

“From the Unknown One, the Infinite TOTALITY, the manifested ONE, or the periodical, Manvantaric Deity, emanates; and this is the Universal Mind....” (SD vol I p. 110)

“... the manifested Logos [is] also called the ‘Son’ in all cosmogonies.” (Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine Commentary, vol I p. 4)

“This is the birth of that which the Greeks called the Cosmos, or the adorned one, and worshipped as God.... Blazing with unimaginable Light, a Light that does not dazzle; vibrant with power, yet calmly peaceful as the eyes of Buddha; strong with the male, life-giving splendor of the sun; yet soft with the cool magic of the moon; the strength of man yet the grace of woman; such is this Universal Mind....” (Man, the Measure of All Things, by Prem & Ashish, p. 141)

~~~

Therefore, I say yes, Theosophy teaches there is a God, but He only appears periodically.

Any comments are welcome.

Nick, I'll expand on what I posted in that other thread..

First, I think we need to grant the right to any Theosophist, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in or worship any God or Gods they please. Therefore, I don’t believe there is any right or wrong answer to this question.

You say, “this Universal Mind, this Son, is the God, the Deity, which is worshipped by many of the world's religions.” The Judeo-Christian God is an eternal, supreme “being”, separate from “His” creation. He is also at times wrathful, sometimes loving. He is able to manipulate nature – break any natural law. He is the judge, jury and executioner of every man. He responds to supplication and praise. He has chosen people.
I don’t think this definition corresponds to any or all of HPB’s three Logoi.

As your quote point out, the Third Logos is an emanation of the Second Logos, which is an emanation of the First Logos, and is therefore not “supreme” – perhaps less divine, less perfect. You also point out that the Third Logos is not eternal, but periodically manifests.

I’d like to repeat what I said in the earlier post you referred to: "There is no separate God which would not experience what you experience. Atman is Brahman. Through the individualised Monad, Brahman (Parabrahman) interacts, experiences, grows, evolves." I do believe that the “God” HPB defined in the three Logoi should be understood as part of “All That Is” – not separate from anything including us. They stand at the head of countless hierarchies, which extend all the way down to HPB's Masters, to us, and below.

Finally, after all this, I would say that Theosophy teaches that there is “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."

This PRINCIPLE (Parabrahman) is what I would call the Theosophical “God”, and since it is ineffable, I guess I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. ;)

Jon,

There are several issues here. Let's take a look at them. (Sorry for the disorganized state this is in, but this is a lot of information thrown together way too quickly.)

(1)

The idea of an Almighty God. Blavatsky taught against the idea of an Almighty God. H. P. Blavatsky wrote:

"... 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, Secret Doctrine Commentary: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, vol. I, page 51 online or pp. 43-44 hardcopy)

"Esoteric philosophy ... denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable. (SD vol I p. xx)

(2)

The idea of an anthropormorphic God. Blavatsky taught against the idea of an anthropormorphic God. H. P. Blavatsky wrote:

"…we connote by the word God, not the crude anthropomorphism which is still the backbone of our current theology, but the symbolic conception of that which is Life and Motion of the Universe…. The [crude anthropomorphism] will allow of no other God than the personified secondary powers which have worked out the visible universe, and which became with them the anthropomorphic God of the Christians -- the male Jehovah, roaring amid thunder and lightning." (SD vol I p. 3)

"The orthodox, anthropomorphize [the One Principle]." (SD vol I p. 3)

" 'The Causes of Existence' [of our material universe] mean not only the physical causes known to science, but the metaphysical causes, the chief of which is the desire to exist, an outcome of Nidana and Maya. This desire for a sentient life shows itself in everything, from an atom to a sun, and is a reflection of the Divine Thought propelled into objective existence, into a law that the Universe should exist.... These abstractions must of necessity be postulated as the cause of the material Universe which presents itself to the senses and intellect; and they underlie the secondary and subordinate powers of Nature, which, anthropomorphized, have been worshipped as God and gods by the common herd of every age." (SD vol I p. 44)

"The idea of universal life is one of those ancient conceptions which are returning to the human mind in this century, as a consequence of its liberation from anthropomorphic theology." (SD vol I p. 49)

"Brahma, the male-female, its aspect and anthropomorphic reflection, is conceivable to the perceptions of blind faith, though rejected by human intellect when it attains its majority." (SD vol I p. 61)

"If one searches carefully through the exoteric and grossly anthropomorphic allegories of popular religions, even in these the doctrine embodied in the circle of "Pass-Not" thus guarded by the Lipika, may be dimly perceived." (SD vol I p. 131)

"The whole Kosmos is guided, controlled, and animated by almost endless series of Hierarchies of sentient Beings.... Having no elements of personality in their essence they can have no personal qualities, such as attributed by men, in their exoteric religions, to their anthropomorphic God -- a jealous and exclusive God who rejoices and feels wrathful, is pleased with sacrifice, and is more despotic in his vanity than any finite foolish man." (SD vol I pp. 274-276)

"The Secret Doctrine teaches no Atheism, except in the Hindu sense of the word nastika, or the rejection of idols, including every anthropomorphic god." (SD vol I p. 279)

" 'Glory to the unchangeable, holy, eternal Supreme Vishnu....' This is a grand invocation, full of philosophical meaning underlying it; but, for the profane masses, ... suggestive ... of an anthropomorphic Being." (SD vol I p. 287)

" '...neither genii nor Gods have any power in the presence of a single ray of God....' Now, what 'god' is meant here? Not God 'the Father,' the anthropomorphic fiction; for that god is the Elohim collectively, and has no being apart from the Host." (SD vol I p. 295)

" 'Divine origin' does not mean … a revelation from an anthropomorphic god on a mount amidst thunder and lightning; but, as we understand it, a language and a system of science imparted to the early mankind by a more advanced mankind, so much higher as to be divine in the sight of that infant humanity ." (SD vol I p. 309)

"…it is from Ether in its highest synthetic aspect, once anthropomorphised, that sprung the first idea of a personal creative deity ." (SD vol I p. 332)

"In the Sepher Jezireh, the Kabalistic Book of Creation, the author has evidently repeated the words of Manu. In it, the Divine Substance is represented as having alone existed from the eternity, boundless and absolute; and as having emitted from itself the Spirit.* "One is the Spirit of the living God, blessed be ITS name, which liveth for ever! Voice, Spirit, and Word, this is the Holy Spirit;"** and this is the Kabalistic abstract Trinity, so unceremoniously anthropomorphised by the Christian Fathers ." (SD vol I p. 337)

"... the early Pantheists [left the nameless as nameless, rather] than degrade the sacredness of that Ideal of Ideals, by dragging down its symbols into ... anthropomorphic forms!" (SD vol I p. 383)

"It is not the transcendental, philosophical, and highly metaphysical abstraction of the original Kabalistic thought -- Ain-Soph-Shekinah-Adam-Kadmon, and all that follows -- that we oppose, but the crystallization of all these into the highly unphilosophical, repulsive, and anthropomorphic Jehovah, the androgynous and finite deity for which eternity, omnipotence, and omniscience are claimed ." (SD vol I p. 619)

(3)

An Almighty was needed, to go along with a newly-created "Satan" (This topic -- along with the similar topic that Satan was mistaken by Christians as the Dark Absolute -- is too complicated to go into detail here, but is addressed in SD vol I pp. 413-417. See also SD vol II pp. 507-508. Here is a short example.)

"…there was the grandiose and ideal figure of Jesus of Nazareth to be set off against a dark background, to gain in radiance by the contrast; and a darker one the Church could hardly invent. Lacking the Old Testament symbology, ignorant of the real connotation of the name of Jehovah -- the rabbinical secret substitute for the ineffable and unpronounceable name -- the Church mistook the cunningly fabricated shadow for the reality, the anthropomorphized generative symbol for the one Secondless Reality, the ever unknowable cause of all. As a logical sequence the Church, for purposes of duality, had to invent an anthropomorphic Devil -- created, as taught by her, by God himself. Satan has now turned out to be the monster fabricated by the 'Jehovah-Frankenstein….' " (SD vol II p. 508)

Jehoah can only be seen, at best, as one part of a duality.

"…the Jewish Deity is proved to be, at best, only the manifested duad, never the One absolute ALL. Geometrically demonstrated, he is a NUMBER; symbolically, an euhemerized Priapus; and this can hardly satisfy a mankind thirsting after the demonstration of real spiritual truths, and the possession of a god with a divine, not anthropomorphic, nature. " (SD vol II p. 543)

A true student must avoid using the word God, to avoid describing a duality that does not exist.

"It is to avoid … anthropomorphic conceptions that the Initiates never use the epithet 'God' to designate the One and Secondless Principle in the Universe…. Between speculative Atheism and idiotic anthropomorphism there must be a philosophical mean, and a reconciliation. The Presence of the Unseen Principle throughout all nature, and the highest manifestation of it on Earth -- MAN, can alone help to solve the Problem…." (SD vol II p. 555)

(4)

The Blessed Virgin Mary is a horrible anthropomorphization of a universal principle.

[To} "…the ancient Pagans … the sun and moon … generates and brings forth her 'mind-born' son, the Universe…. With the Christians, 'the first-born' (primogenitus) is … begotten, … and positively conceived and brought forth - 'Virgo pariet,' explains the Latin Church. Thus, she drags down the noble spiritual ideal of the Virgin Mary to the earth, and, making her 'of the earth earthy,' degrades that ideal to the lowest of the anthropomorphic goddesses of the rabble ." (SD vol I p. 399)

(5)

An Almighty cannot be immutable.

"The Jewish Kabalists felt this necessity of immutability in an eternal, infinite Deity, and therefore applied the same thought to the anthropomorphic god. The idea is poetical and very appropriate in its application. In the Zohar we read as follows:--

" 'As Moses was keeping a vigil on Mount Sinai, in company with the deity, who was concealed from his sight by a cloud, he felt a great fear overcome him, and suddenly asked: "Lord, where art thou . . . . sleepest thou, O Lord? . . ." And the Spirit answered him: "I never sleep: were I to fall asleep for a moment BEFORE MY TIME, all the creation would crumble into dissolution in one instant." '

" 'Before my time' is very suggestive. It shows the God of Moses to be only a temporary substitute, like Brahma the male, a substitute and an aspect of THAT which is immutable…." (SD vol I p. 374)

(6)

Christians took a Pantheistic Elohim and turned them into a monotheistic God.

"Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1.26) (where the group of gods who created humanity are somehow "transformed" into a single God.)

(7)

A belief in Divine Principles does not require a belief in an anthropomorphic god.

"We deny the anthropomorphic god of the Monotheists, but never the Divine Principle in nature. " (SD vol I p. 499)

(8)

The idea that God is over "there" and we are over "here." Blavatsky taught against the idea of an "extracosmic" God.

"This is precisely what has been done by the believers in an anthropomorphic Creator, an extracosmic, instead of an intracosmic God. " (SD vol I p. 3)

"Philosophy rejects one finite and imperfect God in the universe, as the anthropomorphic deity of the monotheist is represented by his followers. It repudiates in its name of Philo-Theo-Sophia the grotesque idea that Infinite, Absolute Deity should, or rather could, have any, whether direct or indirect, relation to finite illusive evolutions of matter, and therefore cannot imagine a universe outside that Deity, or the latter absent from the smallest speck of animate or inanimate substance. " (SD vol I p. 533)

(9)

Jehovah was one of the Elohim "promoted" to The Almighty. (A minor deity suddenly became Almighty!)

"…in truth, Jehovah is but a lunar and 'generation' god. " (SD vol II pp. 40-41)

(10)

The Atlanteans were the first to worship anthropomorphism, which on their way down to moral decay.

"It was the Atlanteans, the first progeny of semi-divine man after his separation into sexes -- hence the first-begotten and humanly-born mortals -- who became the first "Sacrificers" to the god of matter. They stand in the far-away dim past, in ages more than prehistoric, as the prototype on which the great symbol of Cain was built, as the first anthropomorphists who worshipped form and matter. That worship degenerated very soon into self-worship…." (SD vol II p. 273)

Is it this decay into anthropomorphization that Moses condemned as idol-worship?

"Bossuet … sees the cause of subsequent universal idolatry in the 'original sin.' 'Ye shall be as gods,' says the serpent of Genesis to Eve, thus laying the first germ of the worship of false divinities. Hence, he thinks, came idolatry, or the cult and adoration of images, of anthropomorphized or human figures." (SD vol II p. 279)

(11)

The idea of an angry God goes against all Theosophical values.

"…if we are made to believe in the 'original Sin,' in one life, on this Earth only, for every Soul, and in an anthropomorphic Deity, who seems to have created some men only for the pleasure of condemning them to eternal hell-fire (and this whether they are good or bad, says the Predestinarian), why should not every man endowed with reasoning powers condemn in his turn such a villainous Deity? Life would become unbearable, if one had to believe in the God created by man's unclean fancy. Luckily he exists only in human dogmas…" (SD vol II p. 304)

(12)

Theosophy teaches pantheism not anthropomorphic monotheism.

"… polytheism is really more philosophical and correct, as to fact and nature, than anthropomorphic monotheism. " (SD vol I p. 575)

"I [HPB] have been often taken to task for using expressions in Isis denoting belief in a personal and anthropomorphic God. This is not my idea. Kabalistically speaking, the 'Architect' is the generic name for the Sephiroth, the Builders of the Universe, as the 'Universal Mind' represents the collectivity of the Dhyan Chohanic Minds. " (SD vol I p. 579)

"…even the Greek and Roman Catholic Christians, are wiser in believing, as they do -- even if blindly connecting and tracing them all to an anthropomorphic god -- in Angels, Archangels, Archons, Seraphs, and Morning Stars…." (SD vol I p. 604)

Let me add this definition (from Merriam-Webster Online):
Agnostic :
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Now I would understand that this definition would not preclude a Theosophist from believing that "Divinity" exists, i.e. the effect of such an unknowable, causeless cause, or knowing that the heirarchy emanating from it (into manifestation) exists.

Here are two more daffynitions from Merriam-Webster Online:

Deism : a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Pantheism :
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

Jon,

You said,

"...I think we need to grant the right to any Theosophist, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in or worship any God or Gods they please."

--> Certainly! Blavatsky was quick to forbid us to hold dogma, like a sword, over someone else's head.

"You say, 'this Universal Mind, this Son, is the God, the Deity....' I don’t think this definition corresponds to any or all of HPB’s three Logoi."

--> The Son is the Third Logos.

“... the three Logoi [are] the unmanifested "Father," the semi-manifested "Mother" and the Universe, which is the third Logos of our philosophy or Brahmâ.” (Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol I p. 31)

“...the Third or manifested Logos....” (Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol. II p. 4)

“...the manifested [Third] Logos, [which is] called the ‘Son’ in all cosmogonies.” (Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol. II p. 4)

“...the Universe or the ‘Son’....” (SD vol I p. 61)

“The student must distinguish between Brahma the neuter, and Brahmâ, the male creator of the Indian Pantheon. The former, Brahma or Brahman, is the impersonal, supreme and uncognizable Principle of the Universe from the essence of which all emanates, and into which all returns, which is incorporeal, immaterial, unborn, eternal, beginningless and endless. It is all-pervading, animating the highest god as well as the smallest mineral atom. Brahmâ on the other hand, the male and the alleged Creator, exists periodically in his manifestation only, and then again goes into pralaya, i.e., disappears and is annihilated." (Blavatsky, Theosophical Glossary, http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Aglossary.htm)

I think HPB would agree that Brahmâ is The Son, The Deity. However, Brahma is not Brahmâ. (Brahma is Parabrahman.)

"You ... point out that the Third Logos is not eternal, but periodically manifests."

--> Correct.

"There is no separate God which would not experience what you experience."

--> I agree. Theosophy teaches the Logos is not separate from us.

“Atman is Brahman.”

--> I see it differently. I like the metaphor that Prem and Ashish use. They say that, at the beginning of our universe, Spirit moved over the waters (Matter), just like Genesis says. Spirit caused “ripples” on the surface of Matter, which become the countless Monads. The way I see it, all of these Monads combined make up the Universal Mind. All of this are merely periodical manifesations from the Absolute. (Brahman, Parabrahman)

I see Atman as something different. It has been said that Atman is the third of seven Planes of Existence. I imagine that the first two Planes of existence need to come into existence before Atman can manifest.

“Through the individualised Monad, Brahman (Parabrahman) interacts, experiences, grows, evolves.”

--> I would prefer to think of Brahman as immutable.

“I do believe that the ‘God’ HPB defined in the three Logoi should be understood as part of ‘All That Is’ - not separate from anything including us.

--> I agree. I see us as the Monads, which are the Universal Mind, or God.

[The dictionary definition of Agnostic] “… would not preclude a Theosophist from believing that "Divinity" exists, i.e. the effect of such an unknowable, causeless cause, or knowing that the heirarchy emanating from it (into manifestation) exists.”

--> I agree.

“Pantheism :1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)”

--> I think Blavatsky is specifially referring to the Hierarchy of our universe, and our Solar System’s own Dhyani Chohans, when she mentiones that we are Pantheists. She is always quick to point out that humanity was created by a group of gods, not a single God -- just like the Bible says. This group of gods fits nicely into the Theosophical (Hierarchical) Pantheon.

Nick, it's interesting that you plan to read The Mahatma Letters. Many of my attitudes towards "God" are influenced by the Master's letters.
Before I respond to your last post, I think I'll post a link to one particular letter where KH responds to an article of Hume's on the concept of god.
You won't be getting to this one soon if you are reading the chrono edition. (This is letter 88 in that ed.)
Letter 10

Jon,

I am reading the Barker version. Hopefully, I can find that quote of K.H. to Hume. (I guess I could just read the page you linked to, huh...?)

I found in my notes on the "God" letter, a reference to a footnote by HPB in The Theosophist, December 1883, commenting on an article from Babu Raj Narain Bose entitled "The God-Idea" (BCW VI pg 9-10)

Thanx to Ton den Hartog for making it so easy to quote from BCW
Namaste!

Jon,

I think you and I agree. I think you and I believe in the Theosophical concept called the Absolute -- something that cannot be described by any adjective or attribute. (I cannot remember ever being asked if I believe in God, but if I was, I would answer that I believe in the Absolute, instead of God.)

Everybody thinks there are only three kinds of people -- Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics. We need to start letting everyone know that there is a fourth group, and that Theosophists belong in this fourth group. (I have chosen the word Emanationists to describe this fourth group.)

Having said that, how does the concept of Oeahoo the Younger, or the Son (described in Stanza of Dzyan i-3-7) fit into your belief system?

Here is a passage from Master K.H. It is taken from “The Mahatma Letters”

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-22.htm

The reader may get more out of reading the entire letter. Anyway, here is Master K.H.'s quote regarding God.

---

“It is the peculiar faculty of the involuntary power of the infinite mind -- which no one could ever think of calling God, -- to be eternally evolving subjective matter into objective atoms (you will please remember that these two adjectives are used but in a relative sense) or cosmic matter to be later on developed into form. And it is likewise that same involuntary mechanical power that we see so intensely active in all the fixed laws of nature -- which governs and controls what is called the Universe or the Cosmos. There are some modern philosophers who would prove the existence of a Creator from motion. We say and affirm that that motion -- the universal perpetual motion which never ceases never slackens nor increases its speed not even during the interludes between the pralayas, or "nights of Brahma" but goes on like a mill set in motion, whether it has anything to grind or not (for the pralaya means the temporary loss of every form, but by no means the destruction of cosmic matter which is eternal) -- we say this perpetual motion is the only eternal and uncreated Deity we are able to recognise. To regard God as an intelligent spirit, and accept at the same time his absolute immateriality is to conceive of a nonentity, a blank void; to regard God as a Being, an Ego and to place his intelligence under a bushel for some mysterious reasons -- is a most consummate nonsense; to endow him with intelligence in the face of blind brutal Evil is to make of him a fiend -- a most rascally God. A Being however gigantic, occupying space and having length breadth and thickness is most certainly the Mosaic deity; "No-being" and a mere principle lands you directly in the Buddhistic atheism, or the Vedantic primitive Acosmism. What lies beyond and outside the worlds of form, and being, in worlds and spheres in their most spiritualized state -- (and you will perhaps oblige us by telling us where that beyond can be, since the Universe is infinite and limitless) is useless for anyone to search after since even Planetary Spirits have no knowledge or perception of it. If our greatest adepts and Bodhisatvas have never penetrated themselves beyond our solar system, -- and the idea seems to suit your preconceived theistic theory wonderfully, my respected Brother -- they still know of the existence of other such solar systems, with as mathematical a certainty as any western astronomer knows of the existence of invisible stars which he can never approach or explore. But of that which lies within the worlds and systems, not in the trans-infinitude -- (a queer expression to use) -- but in the cis-infinitude rather, in the state of the purest and inconceivable immateriality, no one ever knew or will ever tell, hence it is something non-existent for the universe. You are at liberty to place in this eternal vacuum the intellectual or voluntary powers of your deity -- if you can conceive of such a thing.

“Meanwhile we may say that it is motion that governs the laws of nature; and that it governs them as the mechanical impulse given to running water which will propel them either in a direct line or along hundreds of side furrows they may happen to meet on their way and whether those furrows are natural grooves or channels prepared artificially by the hand of man. And we maintain that wherever there is life and being, and in however much spiritualized a form, there is no room for moral government, much less for a moral Governor -- a Being which at the same time has no form nor occupies space! Verily if light shineth in darkness, and darkness comprehends it not, it is because such is the natural law, but how more suggestive and pregnant with meaning for one who knows, to say that light can still less comprehend darkness, nor ever know it since it kills wherever it penetrates and annihilates it instantly. Pure yet a volitional Spirit is an absurdity for volitional mind. The result of organism cannot exist independently of an organized brain, and an organized brain made out of nihil is a still greater fallacy. If you ask me "Whence then the immutable laws? -- laws cannot make themselves" -- then in my turn I will ask you -- and whence their supposed Creator? -- a creator cannot create or make himself. If the brain did not make itself, for this would be affirming that brain acted before it existed, how could intelligence, the result of an organized brain, act before its creator was made.

“All this reminds one of wrangling for seniorship. If our doctrines clash too much with your theories then we can easily give up the subject and talk of something else. Study the laws and doctrines of the Nepaulese Swabhavikas, the principal Buddhist philosophical school in India, and you will find them the most learned as the most scientifically logical wranglers in the world. Their plastic, invisible, eternal, omnipresent and unconscious Swabhavat is Force or Motion ever generating its electricity which is life.

“Yes: there is a force as limitless as thought, as potent as boundless will, as subtile as the essence of life so inconceivably awful in its rending force as to convulse the universe to its centre would it but be used as a lever, but this Force is not God, since there are men who have learned the secret of subjecting it to their will when necessary. Look around you and see the myriad manifestations of life, so infinitely multiform; of life, of motion, of change. What caused these? From what inexhaustible source came they, by what agency? Out of the invisible and subjective they have entered our little area of the visible and objective. Children of Akasa, concrete evolutions from the ether, it was force which brought them into perceptibility and Force will in time remove them from the sight of man. Why should this plant in your garden to the right, have been produced with such a shape and that other one to the left with one totally dissimilar? Are these not the result of varying action of Force -- unlike correlations? Given a perfect monotony of activities throughout the world, and we would have a complete identity of forms, colours, shapes and properties throughout all the kingdoms of nature. It is the motion with its resulting conflict, neutralization, equilibration, correlation, to which is due the infinite variety which prevails. You speak of an intelligent and good -- (the attribute is rather unfortunately chosen) -- Father, a moral guide and governor of the universe and man. A certain condition of things exists around us which we call normal. Under this nothing can occur which transcends our every-day experience "God's immutable laws." But suppose we change this condition and have the best of him without whom even a hair of your head will not fall, as they tell you in the West. A current of air brings to me from the lake near which, with my fingers half frozen I now write to you this letter -- I change by a certain combination of electrical magnetic odyllic or other influences the current of air which benumbs my fingers into a warmer breeze; I have thwarted the intention of the Almighty, and dethroned him at my will! I can do that, or when I do not want Nature to produce strange and too visible phenomena, I force my nature-seeing, nature-influencing self within me, to suddenly awake to new perceptions and feelings and thus am my own Creator and ruler.

“But do you think that you are right when saying that "the laws arise." Immutable laws cannot arise, since they are eternal and uncreated, propelled in the Eternity and that God himself if such a thing existed, could never have the power of stopping them. And when did I say that these laws were fortuitous per se. I meant their blind correlations, never the laws, or rather the law -- since we recognise but one law in the Universe, the law of harmony, of perfect EQUILIBRIUM. Then for a man endowed with so subtle a logic, and such a fine comprehension of the value of ideas in general and that of words especially -- for a man so accurate as you generally are to make tirades upon an "all wise, powerful and love-ful God" seems to say at least strange. I do not protest at all as you seem to think against your theism, or a belief in an abstract ideal of some kind, but I cannot help asking you, how do you or how can you know that your God is all wise, omnipotent and love-ful, when everything in nature, physical and moral, proves such a being, if he does exist to be quite the reverse of all you say of him? Strange delusion and one which seems to overpower your very intellect.

“The difficulty of explaining the fact that "unintelligent Forces can give rise to highly intelligent beings like ourselves," is covered by the eternal progression of cycles, and the process of evolution ever perfecting its work as it goes along. Not believing in cycles, it is unnecessary for you to learn that which will create but a new pretext for you, my dear Brother, to combat the theory and argue upon it ad infinitum. Nor did I ever become guilty of the heresy I am accused of -- in reference to spirit and matter. The conception of matter and spirit as entirely distinct, and both eternal could certainly never have entered my head, however little I may know of them, for it is one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that the two are one, and are distinct but in their respective manifestations, and only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses. Far from "lacking philosophical breadth" then, our doctrines show, but one principle in nature, -- spirit-matter or matter-spirit, the third the ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of the two, -- if I may be allowed to use an erroneous term in the present application -- losing itself beyond the view and spiritual perceptions of even the "Gods" or Planetary Spirits. This third principle say the Vedantic Philosophers -- is the only reality, everything else being Maya, as none of the Protean manifestations of spirit-matter or Purusha and Prakriti have ever been regarded in any other light than that of temporary delusions of the senses. Even in the hardly outlined philosophy of Isis this idea is clearly carried out. In the book of Kiu-te, Spirit is called the ultimate sublimation of matter, and matter the crystallization of spirit. And no better illustration could be afforded than in the very simple phenomenon of ice, water, vapour and the final dispersion of the latter, the phenomenon being reversed in its consecutive manifestations and called the Spirit failing into generation or matter. This trinity resolving itself into unity, -- a doctrine as old as the world of thought -- was seized upon by some early Christians, who had it in the schools of Alexandria, and made up into the Father, or generative spirit; the Son or matter, -- man; and into the Holy Ghost, the immaterial essence, or the apex of the equilateral triangle, an idea found to this day in the pyramids of Egypt. Thus once more it is proved that you misunderstand my meaning entirely, whenever for the sake of brevity I use a phraseology habitual with the Western people. But in my turn I have to remark that your idea that matter is but the temporary allotropic form of spirit differing from it as charcoal does from diamond is as unphilosophical as it is unscientific from both the Eastern and the Western points of view, charcoal being but a form of residue of matter, while matter per se is indestructible, and as I maintain coeval with spirit -- that spirit which we know and can conceive of. Bereaved of Prakriti, Purusha (Spirit) is unable to manifest itself, hence ceases to exist -- becomes nihil. Without spirit or Force, even that which Science styles as "not living" matter, the so-called mineral ingredients which feed plants, could never have been called into form. There is a moment in the existence of every molecule and atom of matter when, for one cause or another, the last spark of spirit or motion or life (call it by whatever name) is withdrawn, and in the same instant with the swiftness which surpasses that of the lightning glance of thought the atom or molecule or an aggregation of molecules is annihilated to return to its pristine purity of intra-cosmic matter. It is drawn to the mother fount with the velocity of a globule of quicksilver to the central mass. Matter, force, and motion are the trinity of physical objective nature, as the trinitarian unity of spirit-matter is that of the spiritual or subjective nature. Motion is eternal because spirit is eternal. But no modes of motion can ever be conceived unless they be in connection with matter.

“And now to your extraordinary hypothesis that Evil with its attendant train of sin and suffering is not the result of matter, but may be perchance the wise scheme of the moral Governor of the Universe. Conceivable as the idea may seem to you trained in the pernicious fallacy of the Christian, -- "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" -- it is utterly inconceivable for me. Must I repeat again that the best Adepts have searched the Universe during milleniums and found nowhere the slightest trace of such a Machiavellian schemer -- but throughout, the same immutable, inexorable law. You must excuse me therefore if I positively decline to lose my time over such childish speculations. It is not "the ways of the Lord" but rather those of some extremely intelligent men in everything but some particular hobby, that are to me incomprehensible.”

Here is the beginning of ML letter 10 that Jon linked to above:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm

While some theosophists believe in God; the Founders, Olcott, Judge, HPB & their Adept gurus of the Occult Brotherhood, did not.

I say it's a matter of semantics. Just another misnomer? If the One Universal Principle is ineffable, then one label is as wrong as the next. Calling it 'Parabrahm' is wrong. Calling it 'absolute immutable law' is wrong. Calling it 'our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity' is wrong, in fact calling it the 'One Universal Principle' is wrong.

If I want to call Parabrahm God (not 'a' God, as the Mahatma says), I will. If we do not agree on the definition of God, what else is new?

As to the rest of his criticism of the Theistic definition, I agree.

I disagree, Jon. Take a look at this link to dictionary definitions of God:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=god&ls=a

The meanings ascribed to God are still, in this 21st century, nearly the same as those of the 19th century. It is those meanings of a supreme being with personal, yet infinite powers etc. that cannot be used for Tat or the One Life.

If your "semantic" argument were true, then almost no words could be used to convey the correct & full meaning when applied to any thing or idea. Does "cat" call to mind every aspect & the full depth of the living creature, especially if you have a cat?

If you think misnomers are OK, then why worry about any term being used or no term at all?

Sloppy thinking is encouraged by indifferent use of words. Using God for Parabrahm or Tat etc. also gives people the exactly opposite idea of what the nature of the Theosophical deity is.

And if people have a strong notion of a personal God it actually blocks their being influenced by Divine Wisdom; as this excerpt from ML 134 says:

My argument is not with the dictionary definition of God. Yes I disagree with the common use of the word.

My argument is that you cannot correctly assign ANY word or symbol to what HPB called ".. 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 call this God or Parabrahm is just as wrong as calling it by any other name.

If someone asks me if I believe in God, I will answer yes, but will not go into a philosophical discussion as to why my definition differs from theirs, or why they are wrong in believing as they do. Let sleeping dogs lie. I am not better than they for believing as I do, nor they less than I. Do I wish to correct their horrific misconception? No. Do I think they will rot in hell for their heretical belief? No. Saying that I believe in God gives me a common ground for interacting with many fine people that I would otherwise alienate. Once a common ground has been established, we can all get down to the business of doing good Theosophical work without any distrust or animosity.

I have far greater trouble with those who say that there is no God at all, and this is just one big goofy accident.

Yes precise definitions are appropriate for 'cat' - but they are impossible for ".. 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”. My argument about semantics had to do with this inexpressable principle, and had nothing to do with cats.

If those who do have a strong belief in a personal God are unduly influenced by the dark forces, then I'm sorry. I can only worry about dealing with my own demons and correcting the flaws in my own character and then perhaps counter the bad influences by the example I set.

I only get worried when someone asks me "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus as your personal Savior?" Then I'm really screwed.

Truly the perfect is the enemy of the good!

Where did you get the idea of precise definitions being impossible for the Boundless Principle? From a string of words that are not perfect, but are good enough to point in the right direction. If the Upanishad had said "thinkable & speakable" then those imperfect words would have pointed in the opposite direction.

God points in the wrong direction. THAT or ONE LIFE or BE-NESS point in the correct direction.

Well, let's see..
"all speculation is impossible"
"transcends the power of human conception"
"could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude"
"beyond the range and reach of thought"

Perhaps it does not transcend the power of your conception?

My first question was rhetorical, Jon. The next sentence answered it, by saying your understanding was based on a string of words. Words that you keep saying are "wrong" because "you cannot correctly assign ANY word or symbol" to the Eternal Principle. And yet you used these very incorrect words that were assigned to the "unthinkable" to gain understanding.

If those words you used were changed to meanings the opposite of what they are now, your understanding would have flipped also. Thus words that are correct enough to lead us in the right direction are good & useful. If they lead us away from the truth - words like "God" - then they should not be used.

Ancient India had a Arundati principle. I snipped this from some site:

In order to teach our younger brothers, we should not tell them about what (we believe) they are doing wrong, but praise them for and encourage them to continue doing that which is right. Then we show them by our example what we might do instead of what they might do in error. The same can be said about their beliefs.

The Christians I speak of are not our enemies. They are not neo-nazi skinheads. If they believe in a personal God, and that belief leads them to serve their brothers, then I will encourage that belief. If their actions are hypocritical, I will not.

No one is fully wise and all-knowing today. Most of us will be a bit wiser tomorrow. I just can't get hung up on believing I know so much that I should go about telling folks they are wrong, or creating suffering because I need to be different (read better?) than they are. I will continue to work side by side with them, though perhaps with different motives. Maybe some of them will change their way of thinking someday (or some life), and besides, I really don't need a bunch of Christians praying for my soul - they have better things to do with their time.

Jon,

You said,

"...I really don't need a bunch of Christians praying for my soul - they have better things to do with their time."

--> I am reminded of a Buddhist who went to a Christian soup kitchen because he was starving. They asked him if he wanted to attend their church service. He respectfully declined. They asked if they could pray for him. He answered, "You may, if you wish. If you get an answer, let me know."

Jon,

I agree that the Xtians are not enemies & they should be the preachers, not theosophists. But neither should we keep our light under a basket. As Luke 11:33 puts it

Hi everybody!

I also agree that there is a lot of animosity between Christians and non-Christians. The very purpose of Theosophy is to help both groups come closer together.

I appreciated the Mahatma Letters that were presented on this thread. It was interesting how it seemed to boil down to motion and force.

"...We do not find it either necessary or profitable to lose our time waging war to the unprogressed Planetaries who delight in personating gods and sometimes well known characters who have lived on earth."

I added bold font to the partial quote I took from Nicholas' post.

It reminded me of another subject concerning the Invisible College and The War in Heaven writings I've glanced upon without any duration worth mentioning, as I felt it was solely based on channels which I do not put much credibility. At times I need to mirror the physical in that believing is seeing and one cannot mirror the spiritual concurrently. Whatever the doeseatoats that means.