THE SPIRITUAL BIBLE: "The Epic of Arya", A Theosophical Novel

[Aryana]

A Spiritual Journey of Self-Discovery beyond Eastern Fundamentalism and Western Materialism

“Alas! The god in man remains a child waiting to mature. Shall man grow into a god, or is he doomed in his humanity?” This question, posed in the prologue of Abir Taha’s inspirational new philosophical novel, The Epic of Arya: In Search of the Sacred Light (published by AuthorHouse), is central to the sacred mission of its main character, Arya, who seeks to find the god within.

The Epic of Arya is a spiritual bible, an allegorical novel that follows its narrator on a mesmerizing journey of self-discovery that will heal, awaken and transform readers with its messages on love, truth and spirituality.

Arya has a secret longing and a silent pain: half-woman, half-goddess, she is torn between Love and Truth, between passion and duty. When she wakes up from her eternal sleep into a new world that is surrounded by darkness and confusion, she wonders, “Why has the gloomy veil of Maya, goddess of illusion, covered the radiant face of Gaia our Earth? Where and why has the sun disappeared? Why is God dead?” But what she will discover is that the world has descended into ignorance, wearing the mask of “faith” in the East, when it is truly obscurantist fundamentalism, and the mask of “reason” in the West, which disguises atheist materialism.

In exasperated despair, Arya resolves to roam the Earth in search of the lost sacred light that would end humanity’s eternal night. She travels from East to West in search of Hyperborea, otherwise known as Shambhala, the “land beyond the North wind,” where legend has it that the sun never sets and where gods first existed on the earth and lived among men by speaking through them.

On her journey, Arya meets various characters that serve as mediators to the discovery of her own identity and divinity, including a wise old man from the East, an old woman from the North, a knight with whom Arya falls in love, the King of the World, and a prophet who is Arya’s soul-mate and the invisible, constant presence which guides her.

As Taha explains, these characters are aspects of Arya’s own soul and the souls of all people. “Life is first and foremost an inner journey of self-discovery,” writes Taha. “All the people we meet on our path are archetypes, symbols, states of mind, milestones that lead us back to our own inner journey on the path of awakening.”

Full of practical wisdom, poetic prose and spirituality steeped in philosophy, The Epic of Arya conveys a universal message of unity, hope and salvation in a world torn apart by the clash of civilizations and religions, offering a spiritual alternative.

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi Aryana, and welcome to the Forum.

Please feel free to tell us about yourself, which part of the world you are in, etc. Also, please feel free to tell us which parts of Theosophy do and do not fit into your personal belief system.

[Aryana]

Hello Nick, fellow Theosophist,

It's a real pleasure to be part of this forum, where we all share a common vision of the world and of Man's divine vocation. Where I come from is not important, it is what I believe in which matters, for our souls are worlds unto their own, they alone are our true nations.

I currently live in Paris, I am a diplomat/writer, but, most importantly, I am a Theosophist, that is, I believe in the Natural Religion, the Eternal Religion which views the Divine as immanent in Nature and Life; mine is a holistic, pantheistic view of Life which does not separate between the Creator and His Creation, between God and Man, between Life and Truth. The anthropomorphic, personal god of men is not the real God, for God, as Truth, is the WHOLE, and you cannot judge nor perceive the Whole away from its parts, and we are all parts of the Soul of the World.

I know that Theosophy is not a religion in the narrow sense (thank God! Who needs another religion? We need Truth), and that any Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Mustlim, etc... can be a Theosophist, because the Divine, Wisdom Science or Religion is inherent in - and lies at the heart of - all human religions, still, I believe that Theosophy, with its motto "There is no religion higher than Truth", offers a complete vision of how we can reach the Divine in the here and now. I thank you for this opportunity and wish you peace.

[Nick the Pilot]

Aryana,

I am glad to see that your being a Theosophist is one of your most important callings in life. From your post, I am reminded how the Mahatmas, when they "set up" the Theosophical Society in the 1800's, decided not to set up a set of priests and clergy. They said (rightfully so) that the last thing we need is another set of priests to tell people what to believe. We most certainly do not need a Theosophical Pope. Everyone must decide for themselves what to believe -- it is a painful system, but I cannot think of a better system.

You mentioned God in your post. (Forgive me, but I am not a monotheist, so I am not sure I share your beliefs on the subject of God.) What do you see as the relationship between God and the Absolute? What do you think of HPB's distinction between God and Almighty God?

I remember HPB said that Theosophy is not a religion, it is religion, which is what you are saying. We all hope that people can remain in their present religion, and use Theosophy to revive the original teachings of their religion, and bring each religion back to what its founder meant it to be.

[Aryana]

Dear Nick,

Don't worry, we're alike, I too am NOT a monotheist, I too do not believe in Almighty God, or what I call "the tyrant-god above the clouds" in the Epic of Arya. In fact, in my book, I draw a clear distinction (much like the great HPB does) between the "god of men", the god born out of the childish imagination of men, the idol born from fear, and the real god, the I AM THAT, the Divine Principle, the Great Breath, Atman.

In fact, I rarely use the word God (it is too tainted), I prefer Brahma, Pan, Surya... and in my book I also contend that the One God, the totality of life, the Absolute, by no way contradicts the existence of gods (in that sense I reconcile monotheism and polytheism, being a Pagan myself). In other words, life is Whole, but Spirit, manifesting in matter, creates diversity. Thus Unity is manifested through diversity. All planes of existence (mineral, vegetal, animal, human, ... divine) form Life. Therefore, it is futile and infantile to make an "outside" God accountable for our lives, for He is the All which cannot be conceived or judged apart, he is the Life Divine expressing Herself through motley forms.

[Nick the Pilot]

Aryana,

I am still not clear on how you distinguish between God and the Absolute. You said,

"...I also contend that the One God, the totality of life, the Absolute, by no way contradicts the existence of gods..."

--> HPB gave us a clear distinction between God and the Absolute. First, let's take a look at the Absolute. The Absolute is the one life, the one Reality, with all other aspects of the universe merely being an illusion.

[The Absolute is] “ ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE.” (SD vol 1 p 2)

Before any of the events occurred at the beginning of the universe, there was only the Absolute.

“ ... 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.” (SD vol 1 p 14)

Now, let's take a look at God. Between universes, there is an unmanifested, undifferentiated "pre-substance" called Father-Mother, Spirit-Matter, or Mulaprakriti. At the first step of the beginning of a new universe, Mulaprakriti differentiates into Spirit (Purusha, Father, the First Logos) and Matter (Mulaprakriti, Mother, the Second Logos). Spirit then fecundates Matter, and Mahat (the Son, the Third Logos) appears.

“Behold, oh Lanoo [Disciple]! The radiant child of the two [Father and Mother] ... He shines forth as the Son; he is the Blazing Divine Dragon of Wisdom...” (Shloka i-3-7)



“Mahat, in the Esoteric interpretations, is in reality the Third Logos or the Synthesis of the Seven creative rays, the Seven Logoi.” (Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, vol 1 p 14)

In my opinion, it is this Mahat or Third Logos which is referred to, when someone uses the word God.

Mahat (the Son, the Third Logos) is the first “manifestation” of the universe.

“... we come to the most dramatic point of the whole creation, namely the flashing forth into full and conscious manifestation of the Universal Mind....” (Man the Measure, p. 138)

It is important to note that Mahat is the God which is worshipped by most 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 1 p 110)

“... the manifested Logos [is] also called the ‘Son’ in all cosmogonies.” (Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, vol 1 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, p. 141)

I think that the word God refers to the Third Logos. I would not say God refers to Spirit (the First Logos), although I suppose there are people who disagree with me. As you may know, the word Logos refers to each of the three individual Logoi, as well as all three of them as one singular Logos. I suppose there are people who refer to the singular Logos as God, but I do not. I reserve the title God for the Third Logos.

It is in this way that Theosophy says there is a God (much to the disappointment of many non-monotheistic Theosophists). But Theosophy says there is no Almighty God as defined in Christianity. It is important for people to understand the difference between God and Almighty God, in order to understand the Theosophical definition of God.

Getting back to the question of the Absolute vs. God, HPB refers to them as the Unknown One vs. the Manifested One in the quote listed before, which gives a gleaning of the difference between the two.

Does all of this agree or disagree with your personal belief system?

[mensagitat]

An interesting discussion. Purusha would also be known as Prakriti, Brahma, and a list of other names. When I think of Mahat as the emanation from Purusha and Mulaprakriti, I see a mistake made by my comparison to Mahat.

I would be returning to the Globe Consciousness as one of many consciousnesses upon this Earth. All the Globes of this Terra Planetary Chain combine and this is Mahat.

If I were to be casting my gaze upon the physical Sun, it would only be toward the goal of using this symbol as representitive of my Source, and looking for it within.

To touch upon the subject being tested between the two of you, monotheism or polytheism, I remember reading in several parts of the two "Isis Unveiled" volumes, by HPB, her replies toward assertions made toward certain religions as being pagan or polytheistic. Her conclusions seemed to be along the lines of evolved entities existing in higher realms than we humans exist upon or within, and First Cause as in the diagram above by Nick.

Her intention, in my opinion was to mitigate this accusative or prejudiced view toward particular religions, and showing that they did and do possess at least as much possession of a monotheistic perspective. I also think it was done in a verbum sapienti (a few words to the wise suffice) manner. In otherwords, I don't feel she attempted to nail down a specific point of Origin. I may be wrong, I'm not sure, does anyone want to correct me and inform me of this Primal Cause?

[Aryana]

Fellow Theosophists,

It is true we are all Theosophists, although it is our minor differences of interpretation, differences of form, not substance, that make Theosophy richer and more fascinating, since Truth is infinite and cannot be encapsulated in books (that is precisely why we do not stick to one specific religion, for we believe that the same divine message - Religion - lies at the heart of all religions, manifesting itself in different cultures and historical periods).
I personally believe that there is no distinction between God (the real God, not the God of men, i.e. not the Almighty god) and the Absolute, which is without beginning nor end (as such, I don't believe in "creation" but in "perpetual creation"). The ignorant have accused us Theosophists of being "atheists" and "anti-monotheists" simply because we refuse to believe in the "God in heaven" who watches over us from above... to me, God is simply Being as well as Non-Being, the ALL, Totality. God is Unity in diversity, and diversity in unity, "transcendence in immanence". As such, monotheism and polytheism reconcile, since Life is an endless scale of spiritual entities, and gods are the sons of God, and men are but fallen gods.

Permit me to quote my book in order to make my conception clear. Below you will find my vision of divinity (it is lengthy, but that lengthy explanation is necessary to justify and prove my point); it is a theosophical vision, but of course I might have minor differences of interpretation:

“In the beginning was the Light, the Light of Pure Being, Absolute Silence, the sacred One who bore the Holy Trinity of Unity, Force, and Supremacy. The Light in His pure essence is unseen and shapeless, yet in the physical realm He takes form in the life-giving power of the Sun, whose rays radiate the invisible energy that rules the universe.”

“The Light is One and remains One, though He has manifold names among men: His Sons, the sons of Nature, the pagans, worship Him as Surya, Savitri, Ar, Agni, Mithra, Shams, Shamash, Estan, Istanu, Suri, Sowelu, Sul, Aton, Helios, Aditi, Sunna, Sol. His Chosen Ones, the Initiates, call Him the I Am That, the Great Breath, the Great Principle, the Supreme Spirit, AUM, OM, the Tao. The philosophers, His seekers, call Him Sophia, Geist, Reason, Logos, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. His lovers, the poets, call Him the Eternal and the Sublime, and sometimes Eros. The sceptics, His slayers, call Him Doubt – for even though doubt slays faith, still, is not doubt a veil worn by a wavering faith? - ; and even His ungrateful sons, those who call themselves godless and deny Him, still secretly acknowledge Him and openly revere Him as Nihil. The pious, His servants, know Him as the Unique and the Almighty. And among all His faithful, He is Known as Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Pan, Ammon, Baal, Ra, Apollo, An, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Wotan, God, Allah, and as many names as there are nations, religions, and cultures. But He remains One, indivisible and Supreme.”

“With you, Arya, I shall refer to Him as God, Brahma, Pan, or Surya, the god of All who shines on all – for these names are the closest to your heart - , though throughout His manifestations, He has taken countless names, even if His qualities remain the same, and He remains the Unmanifest and nameless, That which is without form and beyond names.”

“In the beginning was the Light of Surya. But the Perfect and the Absolute had His own divine longing for self-realisation and creation. And though His realm of Pure Ideas, of Unity and Supremacy was immaculate and ideal, still, even Perfection needs to look at Herself in the mirror of reality; even God needs to see Himself in the mirror of His sons and His creation. Thus, Pure Being became Eternal Becoming, the Unmanifest pervaded the World with His divine Energy, Unity manifested Herself in diversity, the One became the many, and God sent His gods and embraced Nature as his abode on earth.”

“And so, in order to behold Himself in the mirror of reality, the Absolute and the Eternal, the One God with many names, Surya the Unmanifest and Brahma the Supreme, paid the ultimate price of divinity: He entered the realm of the finite and the limited. Thus began the divine odyssey on earth, the sacred journey of God in the realm of men. And the divine alchemy, which merged the immaculate Light of Surya and the Infinite Wisdom of Brahma with the world of phenomena, transformed the blind universe of Chaos into a harmonious Kosmos of Awakening, hallowing and uplifting Life below as a faithful reflection of Life above by imbuing Her with the divine essence of Pure Spirit, while bestowing upon That which is without form and above Time the blessing of self-awareness, and the gift of creation.”

“Surya thus pervaded the universe with His Light, the life-force that imbues the world of forms with divine Energy, and bequeaths to the world of ideas the blessing of Life. Hence began God’s descent into the spheres of men and the realm of creation, and His divine sacrifice, His fall into matter, gave birth to man’s rise towards the peaks of the Spirit.”

“I have revealed to you Brahma’s nature, essence, and goal; now I shall reveal to you His different manifestations on earth and among men, although, Eternal and Infinite, He only takes form through the Divine Hierarchy of the cosmic spheres, first through His Sons, the gods, and then through their sons, the saints and prophets, those gods with a human face, those men with a divine soul. Brahma’s eternal message to men ever remains the same: ‘become gods yourselves’, but His Word echoes differently in the ears of men, and His message touches in diverse ways the hearts and minds of the faithful.”

“Thus, the Higher Men, those sons of the gods endowed with divine Sight and blessed with inner Light, see the eternal Spirit behind the fading Letter, and grasp with the depth of their sublime souls the timeless essence and the sacred mystery of His Truth, their inner eyes beholding with awe the glorious yet oft hidden meaning of His message; for Wisdom commands that Her Divine Daughter, Isis, wear a veil before men, as a shield against the wicked baseness of the ignorant - that ignorance of conceit which distorts and violates and mocks everything great - , and as an invisible entrance to the sacred Temple of the gods, a temple where no mortal can tread – and are not the wisest among men immortals, heirs and forerunners to the gods?”

“But to lower men, those flat souls and narrow minds unable and unwilling to look across the mirage of transience and see beyond the world of forms, the illusion of names, and the futility of rites, to those trapped in the blind darkness of matter, God remains a mystery eternally unsolved, and a Spirit ever unreachable, for they only see His fleeting shadow vanishing into the blond waves of sand in the desert of their existence, and they only hear the waning echo of His Word in their sombre valleys of death and desolation. Hence they cling to form and forego the spirit, they worship the name and ignore the essence, and they perform the rites, impervious to their meaning.”

“Hence, Brahma the Unborn and the Undying remains eternally the same, His message remains ageless and His Spirit timeless, but it is men, those eternal prisoners of the Circle and its ruthless law, who differ and change, it is men who evolve and decline, who live and die, it is men who rise and fall, and with them, the image of the god that they created and venerated… and so men see Surya in a varying light and through motley shades and hues, according to their own level of evolution on the endless scale of the spiritual hierarchies, and He takes on different names and forms according to the age and culture into which He bestows His hallowed presence.”

“Pan is changeless, but it is men who confer upon Him both their highest hopes and their deepest frustrations, and they create Him in their image and behold Him in their twisted mirror which reflects only the fleeting forms and the waning letters of the physical realm, ever blind to the invisible reality and the divine Energy that pervade and govern all Life.”

“And so, That which is nameless and formless, both Pure Being and Non- Being, has been called manifold names, and has embodied various qualities among mortals, acquiring the attributes of men and races – for to each man and to each race their own god - , and His relationship with men is governed not by what He is – for He is the All That is beyond names and attributes and forms - , but by how they view Him: personal, tribal God, or impersonal, universal God; ruthless Tyrant, or loving Father; Creator or Destroyer; distant Lord, or Inner Christ; almighty Judge, or merciful Redeemer; god of Wrath, or god of Love.”

“But beyond these attributes, different facets of the same God that men and races bestow upon Him as mirrors of their own soul, Brahma, Surya, Pan, remains the One God of Nature and Life, the Father of all gods, the God of Unity and opposites, the God of All and Everything: He is Ankh, the Life Eternal, and Anibus, guardian of the dead; He is Ahura Mazda, God of Light, and Ahriman, God of Darkness; He is Ares, God of War, and Eros, God of Love; He is Wotan, God of Wisdom and War; He is Thot, God of Wisdom, and Thor, God of Thunder; He is Apollo, God of Order, of Reason, and Elevation, and Dionysus the twice-born, Deva Nahusha (7), God of Frenzy, Passion, Chaos and Creation; He is Adonis, God of enchanting Beauty, and Tammuz, God of eternal rebirth; He is the Creator, the Preserver and the Destroyer, Shiva, Vishnu, and Kalki, the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Osiris, Isis, and Horus.”

“He is Krishna the Highest, Lord of Lords, and Buddha the humblest and the Selfless; He is Hermes Trismegistus, Messenger and guardian of the Occult; He is Allah the Just and the Merciful; He is Christ the Saviour and the Healer; He is the Judge and the Redeemer, the Avenger and the Liberator; He is the God of Good and Evil, the inner voice of the Archangel Gabriel, and the divine longing of Lucifer the Rebel Light bearer. These are all manifestations of the same God, for God is Whole, and the Whole cannot be separated from His parts, nor can He be reduced to His parts, or confused with His parts, even though the Whole takes shape through His parts and fragments, His perfect and His imperfect Sons: gods and men.”

“The Light of Surya shines on All, and His redeeming rays radiate His Energy which blesses and permeates all existence, for He is endless and immeasurable, and so He remains innocent of men’s ignorance and folly – that ignorance which wears the mask of sublime yet impenetrable Truth to hide its ugly, dark face, and claims to know everything and wants to label everything; and that folly which proclaims itself Wisdom, though it has never lifted the unfathomable veil of Isis - ; but despite men’s idle labels and hollow names, Surya cannot be confused with Maya; thus the god of men remains ever a stranger to the real God.”

“Surya the Highest, Brahma the Absolute, Pan the Infinite, remains the One, the Light which reflects Himself in the World of motley forms and shades, the transcendent and the potential which lives through the immanent and the actual. The Light touches the world with His sacred rays and bestows upon it the gift of Life and the blessing of Love, yet He remains above the world and beyond all forms. Thus He reflects Himself in the life-giving Sun, in Fohat, the life-force, in the infinite power of the Vril, in the hidden force of Kundalini, in the divine beauty and harmonious hierarchy of Nature, in the electric Force of the Thunder and the divine spark of the Lightning, in the purifying flame of Fire, and in the all-pervading Energy which fills this universe. He is the faith that moves mountains and awakens the dead, He is the resurrection which triumphs over death; but His essence remains elusive, His Word remains ineffable, and, though His Spirit transforms the world, He remains ever indefinable.”

“Thus began the Seven manifestations of Brahma in the world: Unity, to know Herself, descended into the visible realm of Duality, where the cosmic drama of opposites ever unfolds, begetting Life and Her twin daughters that deny each other, Good and Evil; and ever since, Light and Darkness have been at war within man and between men, and within Life itself. The One That became Two – both transcendent and immanent, potential and actual - then manifested Himself in the Trinity and Her Law of perfection which governs life and men below. Delving into the world of forms and phenomena, the Spirit then took shape and actualised Himself through the Seven realms of Nature and the microcosm man. Finally, Brahma manifested Himself in the Nine, then the Ten spheres that faithfully reflect the macrocosm on earth, thus closing the Sacred Circle of Life, above and below.”

“Unity remains absolute, the Whole remains complete, but His manifestation is multiple and wears many shades and forms; and so the antinomy between God and gods is false, it is a mirage of the human mind, an illusive war that only rages within man’s divisive spirit and narrow soul, as Pan rules All, and He alone is real, whatever names and forms He borrows to manifest Himself before men. There is a unity of God and gods, of God and His Sons. God is Life, God is Nature, and gods are the divine expression of Her forces on earth.”
[/I][/I]

[Nick the Pilot]

Aryana,

Several people have tried to bring God (and Jesus) into Theosophy in a non-HPB way, as you are doing. You may want to take a look at the writings of Alice Bailey, Rudolf Steiner, and C. W. Leadbeater.

mensagitat,

Purusha is a fascinating topic of study. Have you heard of the difference between Brahma (non-accented final-a) from Brahmâ (accented final-a)?

[mensagitat]

Using my memory and without referring to notes or definitions, I might be able to describe the difference. I hope I don't give them in a reversed order. I think the accented Brahmâ could be associated with the CIRCLE. This is where I might mention the Kosmos with the 'K' rather than the 'C'. We discussed this once before. My image of the k being utilized is more along the line of force and substance, as well as denoting a difference in scale. Cosmos is the description of Hierarchies or even Universes within the KOSMOS. I believe HPB has mentioned Kaballah, and on the same page, mentions Caballah, and I see that the former is used when she is describing material science or focus. The latter appears to be used when she describes Purusha (Spirit).

In reply to your query regarding Brahma with unaccented a, I don't know that I would focus so much on the difference, but on motion when it is not a constant momentum or vector. The POINT.

Prakriti is a direct connect to Brahma, which is also a direct connect to Purusha, and Atma. My conclusion is that we will not separate force from substance, even when it seems very many written texts upon the subject, appears to do precisely this very thing. Life is not separate from force and substance. Consciousness utilizes Life, Force, and Substance, but the Four are One. All individuals return as consciousnesses to a Consciousness, retaining individuality, but having different or varying levels to which they are relatively subsumed or relatively able to express.

Aryana seems to have an eclectic manner of viewing this area of thought. I would immediately place Surya with Agni and Vayu. I'm trying to remember the source Pan arises from, as far as culture is concerned. I thought Pan was associated with the Greek Pantheon, but I'm uncertain. Using these names and placing correct attributes and characteristics seems the proper form of eclecticism. I didn't check thoroughly enough to determine this is the case for each name rendered.

[jon_k]

I think one of our biggest problems is the use of the English word "God". It is used as a translation for many different non-English words, with a variety of meanings and nuances of meaning. The single English word has its own variety of meanings, and uses, sometimes qualified by capitalization or adjectives, i.e. "Almighty". When the word is spoken, inflection may carry as much of a qualification as the absent capitalization.
Every reader or listener will have a prejudice on the meaning of the form used, and IMHO will misunderstand the writer or speaker's intended meaning better than half the time, even with qualification. Some of these forms, particularly the capitalized "God", are extremely emotionally charged in the modern Judeo-Christian world, and therefore the word may be rather inappropriate for technical or philosophical discussion.
I know we have been trying very hard to describe our understanding (belief?) of deity, describing monotheism, panentheism, Elohim, and more, but we're still stuck dancing around this word.

It is unfortunate that the English language has such a dearth of commonly understood words for the various distinctions we are trying to make here. Perhaps we should all go out and learn Sanskrit. I'll call ya when I'm done.

[mensagitat]

Yeah Jon, I think an error on my part is in the first two paragraphs of my last post. Nick only asked me about Brahmâ and Brahma, and I went to Parabrahmâ and Parabrahma. I think that would be an error on my part.

Also, I would like to add that Aryana's work appeared very nicely done and I possessed no doubts about her descriptions.

JonK doesn't like Capitolized letters because they indicate an intensity of emotion. I simply accept the existence within Theosophical study and discussion, the idea of hierarchical layout which is very often illustrated. I use the word 'layout' to describe a template, plan, pattern or blueprint.

The foundation of any structure is stout, strong, and written or drawn to illustrate the required strength for supporting the micro or macro cosmic conglomeration of subsumed forces/substances. When I use the word subsumed, I wonder to what extent this image pertains to me. How much of this that I am is simply conscious while upon a thread, and once usage is complete, is subsequently discarded.

Like Frankenstein's Monster exclaimed, "I want to live". This touched me.

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

Yes, the word God is an emotionally charged and negatively polarized topic of discussion. Unfortunately, the negative polarization of the topic has affected even Theosophy. I remember reading about how the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society became extremely polarized regarding God, and HPB had to step in and take charge of the situation. (Does anyone have a link to that story?) The result was that the lodge was split in two, and the "pro-theistic" lodge promptly failed.

I suppose we should realize that such a polarizing topic is bound to come up in Theosophy. After all, Theosophy and HPB embrace all religions and philosophies, and many Theosophists end up jumping onto one side or the other of the polarization. Theosophy is trying to put apples and oranges together (because that is the very nature of Theosophy), and the irritation that results is something we have to learn to deal with. Theosophy has struggled with this over the years, and will continue to do so for a long time.

All that we can do is to refer everyone to the most basic Theosophical concept which is brotherhood, and ask people from both sides of the polarization to respect each other's opinions. Some religions authorize their members to proselytize (some religions actually require it), while Theosophy strictly prohibits proselytizing.

Even saying who is a theist and who is not is difficult. Aryana said,

"I personally believe that there is no distinction between God (the real God, not the God of men, i.e. not the Almighty god) and the Absolute...."

To me, that sounds like the words of a theist. Yet Aryana says she is not a theist. Clearly, this is an issue that is difficult to deal with.

There is one more issue. HPB and Theosophy have been accused to having an anti-theistic bias. I think that is a fair accusation to make. I see Theosophy as being "somewhat" anti-theistic. (Does anyone disagree with me on this one?) I can see how this rubs theists the wrong way, and how it may motivate them to try even harder to get their side of the story voiced in Theosophical circles. (Readers of this Forum may remember a fellow named Bupanishad, who angrily accused HPB, Master KH, and Master M of having a pro-Buddhist and anti-Christian bias.) These are issues that Theosophy will struggle with for many years to come. I can see how some Christians may see themselves as "second-class citizens" in Theosophy, and I do not see how we can resolve such unhappiness easily.

I am also fascinated by the growing number of people who call themselves both Christian and Buddhist. Perhaps they are trying to bring both sides of the polarization into their lives? Perhaps they are trying to embrace non-theistic ideas while being unable to let go of their theistic beliefs? We can only hope that Theosphy will be in the forefront of supporting this newly emerging aspect of religion. Many Christians as well as Buddhists criticise such Christian-Buddhists. Should they? It is a question we all must consider.

[Nick the Pilot]

mensagitat,

I see Brahmā as being the Third Logos, and Brahma as being the First Logos.

“...Brahmā [is] the vehicle of Brahma....” (SD vol 1 p 17)

“Brahma (neuter), the unmanifested, is that Universe in abscondito, and Brahmā, the manifested, is the Logos, made male-female in the symbolical orthodox dogmas.” (SD vol 1 p 9)

However, Brahmā sometimes refers to the Third Logos, and at other times refers to the single Father-Mother-Son Logos. Trying to tell which meaning is being used by HPB in a particular quote can be difficult.

By the way, I have never seen the terms Parabrahmâ and Parabrahma used in Theosophical literature. Have you?

[mensagitat]

The late great President Ronald Wilson Reagan was known to have said at least once, "Well... I, uh". I didn't think the 'a' belonged there at the end of Parabrahm, but I risked the error.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/pl-pral.htm

Prakriti prakrti (Sanskrit) [from pra forwards, progression + the verbal root kri to make, do] Production, bringing forth, originating, primordial state or condition, original substance. Nature; spiritual and ethereal substances in all their forms, visible and invisible. Its root or parent is mulaprakriti (root of prakriti), and it is to be considered with vikriti, which signifies change, alteration, or a production or evolution from the prakriti which precedes it.

"In common usage Prakriti may be called Nature in general, as the great Producer of entities or things, and through this Nature acts the ever-active Brahma or Purusha. Purusha, therefore, is Spirit, and Prakriti is its productive veil or sheath. Essentially or fundamentally the two are one, and whatever Prakriti through and by the influence of Purusha produces is the multitudinous and multiform Vikritis which make the immense variety and diversity in the Universe around us.
"In one or more of the Hindu philosophies, Prakriti is the same as Sakti, and therefore Prakriti and Sakti are virtually interchangeable with Maya or Maha-Maya or so-called illusion, Prakriti is often spoken of as 'matter,' but this is inexact although a very common usage; matter is rather the 'productions' or phases that Prakriti brings about, the Vikritis. In the Indian Sankhya philosophy Pradhana is virtually identical with Prakriti, and both are often used to signify the producing element from and out of which all illusory material manifestations or appearances are evolved" (OG 129-30).
In the Sankhya philosophy prakriti is sevenfold. These seven prakritis are mahat, ahankara, and the five tanmatras (rudimentary or subtle elements) -- sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa, and gandha.

The Visishtadvaita Vedantists teach as do theosophists that "every particle or atom of Prakriti contains Jiva (divine life), and is the sarira (body) of that Jiva which it contains, while every Jiva is in its turn the sarira of the supreme spirit, as 'Parabrahm pervades every Jiva, as well as every particle of matter'" (SD 1:522).