"The Essence of Christianity", by Ludwig Feuerbach

This book especially interests me since it derives from the great mind of one of the post-Hegelian philosophers of the 19th century. He was a precursor to the Marxists, and not the least an atheist in his own right. Feuerbach's description of Judaism and Christianity are "spot on" and he ably points out the fact that man created god before god created man. His thesis revolves upon the idea that Christianity (and Judaism) come from man's emotional nature and not from his rational mind. This would be interesting to all Theosophists who think about rational things in objective terms. In fact, Feuerbach's dichotomy between objective and subjective leads almost to solipsism, or to a bracketing of the subjective mind from all the objective facts in the universe. I would be interested to know who may have also read this book and what they brought from it. Subjectivity is a great problem all its own and we have to get to the existentialists, namely Sartre, to find out just how much of a problem it is. In Sartre's terminology, if the "in-itself" were able to assimilate the nothingness of the "for-itself," then we could have a basis for god; but, as it is, nothing like that can be brought forth and the barrier between the "en-soi" and the "pour-soi" can never be breached. Hence, no god---ever. Can Theosophy ever come to this point where the two can be combined? Or, has HPB done this in the "Book of Dzyan"?

Some people think that Theosophy is an aetheisitic philosophy, but it is not. One way to describe Theosophy is that it is a pantheism, because Theosophy teaches that humanity was created by a group of gods (not a single God), and that this pantheon of gods still partially controlls humanity.

Theosophy teaches that there is a god, but not an almighty God. It is a minor distinction but an important one. Christians say that God created the universe, but Theosophy say that God IS the universe. Also, God is the sum total of everything that exists, but there are also things that "are," but are in a state of non-existence, and these things are separate from the God which is the sum total of everything that exists in the universe. We also say that God (the Son, the Third Logos) emanated from Father-Mother (Spirit-Matter), which in turn emanated from the Absolute. Spirit is said to be in a state of non-manifestation, while Matter is both manifested and non-manifested. (We are obviously talking about cosmic concepts here that we are unable to understand.)

Theosophists also do not strive to have a personal relationship with either God or the Absolute, which is an important divergenece from the Christian way of looking at things.

Agree! The whole idea of a personal god is repugnant to me, for one. Also the idea of a trinity of persons or gods. I'm not a monotheist. I'm not a theist at all, hence an a-theist, in the strictest sense of the term. But that does not deny any sort of spiritual universe (or, as I and others like to call it, a multiverse). The 11 dimensions of the multiverse, according to modern physics, leaves one quite a bit of room for the seven "dimensions" of Theosophy. The early Christians were called atheists because they denied the godhood of Caesar and other gods and goddesses, but they certainly were theists. The Theosophical idea of a BE-NESS, or SPACE, goes along with what I believe about reality. And it also accords with the pantheism of the Stoics, which I also follow. Stoicism is a moral philosophy and not a metaphysical one as is Theosophy. That is, Stoicism is a way of doing things as opposed to a way of thinking about things, but it does not deny that thinking precedes practice. Theosophy posits altruism, via HPB in "The Key to Theosophy," but I cannot accept that without qualifications. We cannot live for others alone! We are egotistical whether we like it or not---that's why socialism is out of the question. Socialism (Marxism) seems like a truly good theory until it is tried in practice, and then it inevitably fails due to our inherent egotism. I allied with the Marxists when I was young because they were primarily atheistical, not because I felt that Marxism would work in practice. It is one of those ideas that seem good on paper, but never work out in practice. Atheism, however, does work in practice, if for nothing else than to cease praying to a god who answers our wishes and desires as humans. (The "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" points this out brilliantly.) HPB may not have been an atheist or a socialist, but she was opposed to prayer and religion. Note that Annie Besant left her atheistic, Fabian socialism to come over to Theosophy.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the Stoic idea of the universe. I too am more interested in their virtue, and am planning to invest some time with them and contemporary commentators.

They seemed to have held to a 'recurrence' or eternal return. It is cyclical, but does not seem to evolve. Do you see this a a completely recurrence in all aspects, after the Fire.

In Letter XV, K.H. wrote, " After each solar pralaya there is a complete destruction of our system and after each solar p. begins the absolute objective reformation of our system and each time everything is more perfect than before."

This does seem more lineal.

Jim

Actually, this sounds more like the teachings of Heraclitus, but I know the Stoics were eclectic in their ideas too. Franklyn Merril-Wolff's "High Indifference" seems to be a new take on Stoicism's view of cosmic matters, but I think that the Stoics did not explain their ideas with any depth.

http://deoxy.org/gacwao.htm

See Epictetus, for instance. He, and Zeno and Marcus Aurelius, were more interested in "moral purpose" than in describing cosmology, it appears to me. If you want to read good Stoicism, I highly recommend Seneca! He has saved me a lot of useless time thinking about useless things. To him philosophy alone was the salvation of mankind, much like in Boethius. Seneca's "Moral Essays" (in 3 volumes) are superb and I can hardly finish a page without underlining something. "High Indifference" seems like a mystical approach to Stoicism, but it does carry one's thinking to new heights (no pun intended). Read Seneca---more I cannot add.

Andrew,

You said the idea of a trinity of persons or gods is repugnant to you. I, too, do not agree with the idea of a personal God/Trinity as taught in Christianity. But the Theosophical concept of a Triple Logos is quite different, and does not suffer from being anthropomorphic as the Christian Trinity does. It is important to keep the two ideas distinct. We can be spiritual without being anthropomorphic.

Another important concept is that Theosophy does not believe in a God that circumvents natural law on a whim. In the Bible, God circumvents natural law and creates miracles, which is something that Theosophy does not teach. Theosophists believe that great things can happen, but these things are not circumventions.

“… the pantheism of the Stoics…”

--> How is the Stoic pantheon different or similar to the Theosophical pantheon?

“We cannot live for others alone!”

--> Of course. We must have a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear, etc. We must make these things a high priority in life. But this is why I like the concept of nirvana. I see nirvana as a place where we do nothing but go around and do nice things for others 24/7 for thousands, perhaps millions of years. This is why selfish people cannot get into nirvana -- their selfishness prevents them from doing so. The way I see it, the very nature of nirvana is to be utterly unselfish Once we escape from the limitations of the physical world, we can start practicing such altruism.

"We can be spiritual without being anthropomorphic. "

And, thank god for that! (God seen as a reference point and not as a person.)

Seven dimensions of Theosophy?! Are you implying its first, the material plane, is one-dimensional?

I don't understand the question at all. Please elaborate.

Hi everybody!

I think that Theosophy is saying that we have three dimensions here in the physical world. There seem to be more dimensions at higher levels of consciousness. One person once said at a Theosphical lecture that there is an infinite number of dimensions, but of course I haove no way of knowing if that is true.

Geometrically, you can work in as many dimensions as you like, even an infinite number of dimensions. This is called Hilbert Space.
Whether that has any relationship to physical reality, I don't know. 'String' or 'M' theory talks of 10 or 11 spatial dimensions (2 temporal).

Theosophy uses 'dimensions' (more often 'planes') differently.

Jon

I assume you mean the seven planes, but you called them dimensions. That would imply the first plane had only one dimension rather than three, and if it has three then the seven planes may have at least nine dimensions.

No, I was talking about "Hilbert space" as above. Theosophical planes and dimensions in physics may not correspond at all, and I may be just muddying the water, so to speak. I was talking about the dimensions of modern physics which allegedly have 10 or 11 dimensions in strings or branes, but not planes as in Theosophy. I need someone to sort this out for me. Please! Thanks!

It is a fascinating idea that there is a correspondence between dimensions and Theosophical planes. Our physical plane has three planes, and I had a great psychic tell me once that the astral plane has a fourth dimension. I do not know if there is a specific number of dimensions per plane. Does the Hilbert Space say there are a certain number of dimensions per Theosophical plane?

Actually, I don't know if anyone has compared Hilbert Space with any Theosophical ideas. That would be a good project for a David Pratt or some other physicist-Theosopist in-the-know. If anyone runs across such a thing, please let me know where it can be found. The Theosophical idea of "planes" seems to have developed quite apart from modern physics with its Hilbert Space dimensions. That is unfortunate for many reasons. But, I'm not the one to explore the concepts since I can barely keep 2 + 2 together to make 4. (And now they---the physicists---are talking about a multiverse where 2 + 2 may NOT make four in certain places!)

http://davidpratt.info/