I think the general distinction can be said to be Theosophy says 'As below, so above' whilst Traditional metaphysics says 'as above, so below' allowing, as ever, that what is predicated of the above can only ever be analogous.
No, I have
never heard any Theosophist suggest anything different. "The Tao that can be named is
not the Eternal Tao." All speculation on the UNKNOWN [ABSOLUTE] is useless. Perhaps Nick understands this differently.
What Theosophists DO posit is that, just as all religions and philosophies have done, speculation on
the Absolute as revealed THROUGH, IN and BY Cosmos is or can be fruitful and positive. Thus, we make the attempt, and entire theologies are born. Again, I would like to hear what Nick has to say. But NEVER have I heard of any Theosophist suggesting that simply by observing the world around us, or that by having some insight into the within, we have managed to
once and for all `figure out' the innermost nature, identity and modus operandi of [God]. That seems
more than vain, yet I know of plenty of folks who are thus [temporarily] deluded.
Thomas said:
Then the principles are relative and contingent, according to nature, whereas Christian 'principle' always refers to the Absolute.
Here, again, I do not consider
you qualified, or ANYONE ELSE qualified,
save the Absolute `qua Absolute' ... to treat of the subject. We may SPECULATE on such, believing that Absolute to be
all-Wise, all-Loving, all-Powerful and all-Pervasive, yet this is simply because we already KNOW [Gnostics do, at any rate] that such capacity rests within us all. We KNOW this because we can witness, even experience it, on lesser scale.
If you are still hung up in paradoxes, suggesting that there can be no
relative applications or experiences and expressions of these
Omni-___ qualities ... then clearly you yourself have no experiences of [this type of thing] yet, and I would suggest that you stop drawing premature conclusions, let along speaking for the rest of us, until you take a few more steps and realize that -
indeed, Perfection CAN BE `relative.' Or do you deny it?
As a matter of fact, even a young child knows this, for there is a true, Inner JOY which comes from even ANY degree of Mastery, as for example, learning to play a musical instrument to a certain degree. The child will perhaps not compare himself to the piano virtuoso or the master harpist, if s/he has a good sense of perspective and aptitude, but my point is that
as aspirants, disciples and IMperfect human beings [at this stage], we often do not [have this right sense of perspective]. Hence we fail to realize and recognize the Perfection all around us [though
Christ Himself TOLD us it was and is so] ... let alone the fact that Perfection, like the mighty Oak relative to the tiny acorn, rests within us ALL, as potential
[vide Ephesians 4:13].
The Hermetic Axiom,
`As Above, So Below' only reminds us that we CAN learn and gain insight into the world, the Universe and Cosmos Itself by learning to properly *observe* the world, the Universe and Cosmos ... and by doing our best
humbly to relate ... which naturally entails the constant refinement of our VIEWS [which Buddha taught us NOT to hold to so tenaciously], plus Humility [embodied Beautifully by the Christ, and other Masters].
Alas, the theologian will often build
his ivory tower, ego locked safely within, vainly elevated as high in that tower as he can get it ... thereby supplanting, denying, substituting the
God-given TEMPLE,
the body [and its subtler counterparts/prototypes] ... which Christ *raised* even after effort was made to destroy it. That false means of approach to God must
one day yield to a genuine, direct recognition of the
God within ALL MEN, but until this earnest & wonderful recognition comes, all that's really possible is a whole lot of standing around, whistling Dixie.
Thomas said:
Here again we can see the supernatural interpreted through nature.
I would say that the Theosophical triune offers a 'how' creation occurs. The Christian model offers a 'why'.
Not in my
book, but again, Nick may differ.
To me, it's plain and simple, and I've never heard a Theosophist disagree. While there is much speculation about
God, in God's infinite Wisdom, it is almost made abundantly clear [in Theosophical gatherings I've attended or groups I've discussed with] that the same
God of LOVE as preached and taught by Christ in Christianity ... *expresses* or manifests Cosmos. This process, as you aptly observe, is most definitely described by modern Theosophical teachings, and in some detail, inasmuch as we might understand it, with our limited and aspiring intellect [plus yearning, a sense of
Wonder, Majesty and AWE regarding the whole subject ... unless we have truly reached the stage of a Don Quixote].
But the notion that Theosophy cannot, or does not, attempt to treat of
WHY the Cosmos was and is Manifest[ed] is not quite true. Theosophists simply do not attempt to tackle, or take on, what
NO HUMAN OR DIVINE INTELLECT [even when blended with deepest, most penetrating Spiritual INSIGHT] CANNOT!
In short,
"The Tao that can be named is NOT the Eternal Tao." Let me remind YOU again, Thomas, of that which you have been glad to remind ME a time or two.
Thus, while it really should not make a man feel any more SMUG in his own, ivory-tower
faux-understanding of WHY any of this has come to be [for you and I have no more idea of it than the greatest Maha-Chohans or Buddhas to have Graced our System] ... I will gladly point out that many a Theosophist is just as fascinated by the ancient philosophical question as
you are, namely:
Why is there *something* rather than *nothing*?
For, remember
old Friend, when this question is put to you [or me, or anyone] squarely ... we have NO possible reply that is other than pure speculation!
Why does a baby cry when it is put down to rest, or smile when its Mother picks it up again? If you can answer that, maybe you're on the right track.
Maybe.
Why does the salmon swim
upstream to spawn, struggling against great odds and defying this very tendency of nature to
avoid predation and "go with the flow?" Science may give us several answers ... but do these fully satisfy you?
WHY does the Flower appear to us with such amazing variety, such Beauty and with an array of such amazing, heavenly fragrances ... when
surely Nature Itself could have settled for less, or managed to work out the Divine Plan in a
less aesthetically pleasing way? Or could She? Perhaps this simply
is one way that we may
observe and enjoy certain aspects of that
Divine Plan, direct. [
vide Luke 12:27, Matt 6:29]
No, Thomas, please do not presume to speak
for Theosophists, since, unless I am mistaken, your current circles
do not bring you into direct contact with more than a mere handful of us [or those who identify with this line of thinking]. I will grant you that Theosophy and Christiany are quite different, exoterically ... for modern Theosophical doctrine, though well established upon the foundation of
the ancient & Ageless Wisdom-religion, is no more than ~150 years old, at best. But let this not confuse you as to what it is
Theosophers are all about.
Theosophical-minded [and
-hearted] people the
world over are as interested in the `WHY' questions as you [and Christians] are, and since we are equally committed to helping to SOLVE the world's problems, and
bring INTO expression the solution(s) to Humanity's current struggles ... I think it would be extremely disingenuous to suggest that we do not look through the lens, holding to the notion, of
God as a Loving God. Perhaps you should re-investigate and re-familiarize yourself with some of the Prayers, Meditations, Mantrams and subjects of study before you continue to incorrectly speculate about
what Theosophists think about, and how they approach or view subjects like
`the Trinity.'
Time and again you have suggested that Christianity somehow
corners the market on the notion of the Trinity, with either
a direct or subtle air of superiority ... while yet you accuse
Theosophists [or myself, or Nick] of being smug, and so forth. Differences of nuance, yes, I would acknowledge that, and
because the world's different traditions have a slightly different take on this UNIVERSAL and MOST ANCIENT of doctrines, we try to discuss it like
civilized human beings at an Interfaith site.
But if, and when, someone steps
boldly forward, declaring - or even subtly implying - that
HIS NOTION [or his tradition's notion] of a certain concept is simply,
superior to all others (offering something which those other traditions DO NOT) ... that someone places himself on SHAKY GROUND.
My friend, my foil is in my hand ...
and YOU are challenged.
FOIL ME if you will. For I CALL YOUR BLUFF.
YOUR TRINITY is no different than mine, no greater, no lesser, NO OTHER.
Either there
is ONE, or your entire religion IS A SHAM. And mine, and everyone else's along with it.
Oh, so greatly we err [*better expressed* "O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!"
]
Assuming your error was entirely innocent and not intended to offend, even in the least,
you have my humble apologies. But if it be otherwise, know that I will be the first - to do my part - to set things right.
You CANNOT have multiple Trinities [inasmuch as we would agree that the Supreme Logos is
THE Threefold Logos], only various notions about such, and so I say again, I think it
absurd to suggest that those who subscribe to one of the most
sublime, ancient and well developed religious and spiritual philosophies on the planet ... simply do not ask WHY.
But before you accuse me of getting my bowels in an uproar all for nothing, I'd like to hear you
say more of what we must only assume was simply an innocent observation: and that is, that Theosophists do like to sometimes discuss the rather elaborate
processes, as best we've been able to contemplate and investigate them,
by which our Cosmos [meaning {
God}
via {an ultimate, and in that sense Absolute} Trinity, and Septenate] has come into expression.
For certain, along with studying the HOW of things, we do enjoy smiling, e'en scrunching up our brow at times and asking WHY?
Thomas said:
there is only one real 'reality', our realities are finite and ephemeral, and if we live according to them, inevitably we die ...
Not the one that
I'm seeking to be[come] a part of, and which I trust that every other Soul in Cosmos already belongs us. Or has the
Prodigal in some people's case simply wandered
so far from the Father that s/he forgets his or her own heritage and [Potential] inheritance?
I think I understand. But I will stand my ground and argue for the New Kingdom, nonetheless. In other words, I won't fight you for your limitations.
Keep 'em if they mean that much to you! 
Stand
with me for a moment, see that my ground IS NO DIFFERENT than your ground [or would you still waste all that breath for a
Kingdom without a King, an empty castle full of empty rooms?] ... and suddenly you may find that there is NOTHING that cannot be done [virtually speaking] once we put our mind to it!
God did not create the Cosmos that part of it might be a
throwaway. That's as absurd as suggesting that
ONE FACE [Aspect] of the Trinity isn't really important, and that with the snap of his proverbial, anthropomorphic fingers, God will just
do away with whichever of these Aspects [He] decides aren't important.
Interesting, for that begs further discussion
and can be understood as conditionally true ... but not while our metaphysical differences are so vast. In the meantime, I suggest revisiting the
LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ... for, as dear Mr. Einstein put it:
God does not play dice [with the Universe].
When a man can see that this CERTAINLY applies to our SOULs ... he is ready for the realization that our own thoughts, speech and actions determine our Destiny ... and nothing else. Grace, though he may come to deepen his understanding of it, and relation to God via Grace, will never replace Good, Honest Hard WORK.
For if
Christ Himself came to
SERVE,
what gives US the gumption ... to elevate ourselves BEYOND Him?
Thus the lowest of the low ... even as the highest of the high [shall meet and once again be with ~ His Lord]. 
Namaskar
