Theosophical Hierarchy

[Nick the Pilot]

"...not even the greatest TECHNOLOGY (such as spy satellites) can penetrate the Secrecy of the Brotherhood ..."

--> Can you believe I have actually used Google Earth to look for Shamballa in the Gobi Desert? No luck yet....

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophical Hierarchy

(In Theosophy, Jehovah is not seen as Almighty God, but as a minor diety.)

Peace Br. Nick,
The above sounds like religious dogma. Since Theosophy is not a religion it should stated like this- "Blavatsky said this, that or the other."

Theosophy itself predates the TS by hundreds of years, and contains may doctrines.

Blavatsky also said that Jehovah is a Moon god.

Jehovah is not the First Person of the Trinity.
Comments from H.P.Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine:

"Parabrahm is, in short, the collective aggregate of Kosmos in its infinity and eternity, the "THAT" and "THIS" to which distributive aggregates can not be applied. "In the beginning THIS was the Self, one only" (Aitareya Upanishad); the great Sankaracharya, explains that "THIS" referred to the Universe (Jagat); the sense of the words, "In the beginning," meaning before the reproduction of the phenomenal Universe."

"Since there can be neither two INFINITES nor two ABSOLUTES in a Universe supposed to be Boundless, this Self-Existence can hardly be conceived of as creating personally. In the sense and perceptions of finite "Beings," THAT is Non-"being," in the sense that it is the one BE-NESS; for, in this ALL lies concealed its coeternal and coeval emanation or inherent radiation, which, upon becoming periodically Brahma (the male-female Potency) becomes or expands itself into the manifested Universe."

-HPB, Secret Doctrine
"In the beginning, my dear, the world was just Being (sat), one only, without a second. To be sure, some people say: 'In the beginning this world was just Non-being (a-sat), one only, without a second; from that Non-being Being was produced."

-Chandogya Upanishad, i. 9.1.

The speaker then goes on to contest the idea that Being could arise from Non-being.

Greetings,
Br. Bruce

[Nick the Pilot]

Bruce,

Are you a Theosophist?


You said,

"Since Theosophy is not a religion it should stated like this- 'Blavatsky said this, that or the other.' "

--> The phrase "In Theosophy...." in my quote performs that function.

"Since Theosophy is not a religion it should stated like this- " 'Blavatsky said this, that or the other.' "

You have made an interesting point. I would disagree, as I do not feel it is necessary to use the phrase "Blavatsky said...." for every Theosophy teaching. Theosophy has doctrines (you may wish to call them teachings), and many Theosophists have incorporated these teachings into their own personal belief system.

"Theosophy itself predates the TS by hundreds of years, and contains many doctrines."

--> Indeed it does. I would say Theosophy predates the TS by millions of years.

"Blavatsky also said that Jehovah is a Moon god."

--> Correct. Blavatsky sees Jehovah on about the same level as the seven Kumatra that are referred to in Genesis 1:26.

"Jehovah is not the First Person of the Trinity."

--> I agree!


You have mentioned the Theosophical concepts of This, That, Suchness, and Non-being.

"Parabrahm is, in short, the collective aggregate of Kosmos in its infinity and eternity, the 'THAT' and 'THIS' to which distributive aggregates can not be applied."

--> This applies well to the concept of the Absolute.

"...the sense of the words, "In the beginning," [came] before the reproduction of the phenomenal Universe." "Since there can be neither two INFINITES nor two ABSOLUTES in a Universe supposed to be Boundless, this Self-Existence can hardly be conceived of as creating personally."

--> This is a good way to show how Theosophy does not teach the idea of a personal God.

"THAT is Non-'being,' in the sense that it is the one BE-NESS...."

--> This is a good way to describe the state of things between universes. When one universe disappears, the Light of Genesis 1:3 goes out, and (according to Theosophy) everything becomes "unmanifested". The next universe then starts, the Light reappears, and everything "remanifests". Non-being is another way to describe the unmanifested nature of things between universes.

"...which, upon becoming periodically Brahma (the male-female Potency) becomes or expands itself into the manifested Universe."

--> Please allow me to point out that the original quote contains the word Brahmâ not Brahma. Brahma refers to the Absolute, while Brahmâ refers to the Son, the second aspect of the Triple Logos.

"-HPB, Secret Doctrine"

--> The quote is from The Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 7.

"In the beginning, my dear, the world was just Being (sat), one only, without a second. To be sure, some people say: 'In the beginning this world was just Non-being (a-sat), one only, without a second; from that Non-being Being was produced."

--> It is definitely a difficult concept for us to understand: Non-being, which is True Being, precedes Being.

[Sunny C.]

It is definitely a difficult concept for us to understand: Non-being, which is True Being, precedes Being.

I am the egg man; they are the egg men; I am the walrus?

[Nick the Pilot]

"I am the egg man; they are the egg men; I am the walrus?"



Coo coo kee choo....

[Sunny C.]

Cool!

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Bruce,

Are you a Theosophist?


You said,

"Since Theosophy is not a religion it should stated like this- 'Blavatsky said this, that or the other.' "

--> The phrase "In Theosophy...." in my quote performs that function.

"Since Theosophy is not a religion it should stated like this- " 'Blavatsky said this, that or the other.' "

You have made an interesting point. I would disagree, as I do not feel it is necessary to use the phrase "Blavatsky said...." for every Theosophy teaching. Theosophy has doctrines (you may wish to call them teachings), and many Theosophists have incorporated these teachings into their own personal belief system.

"Theosophy itself predates the TS by hundreds of years, and contains many doctrines."

--> Indeed it does. I would say Theosophy predates the TS by millions of years.

"Blavatsky also said that Jehovah is a Moon god."

--> Correct. Blavatsky sees Jehovah on about the same level as the seven Kumatra that are referred to in Genesis 1:26.

"Jehovah is not the First Person of the Trinity."

--> I agree!


You have mentioned the Theosophical concepts of This, That, Suchness, and Non-being.

"Parabrahm is, in short, the collective aggregate of Kosmos in its infinity and eternity, the 'THAT' and 'THIS' to which distributive aggregates can not be applied."

--> This applies well to the concept of the Absolute.

"...the sense of the words, "In the beginning," [came] before the reproduction of the phenomenal Universe." "Since there can be neither two INFINITES nor two ABSOLUTES in a Universe supposed to be Boundless, this Self-Existence can hardly be conceived of as creating personally."

--> This is a good way to show how Theosophy does not teach the idea of a personal God.

"THAT is Non-'being,' in the sense that it is the one BE-NESS...."

--> This is a good way to describe the state of things between universes. When one universe disappears, the Light of Genesis 1:3 goes out, and (according to Theosophy) everything becomes "unmanifested". The next universe then starts, the Light reappears, and everything "remanifests". Non-being is another way to describe the unmanifested nature of things between universes.

"...which, upon becoming periodically Brahma (the male-female Potency) becomes or expands itself into the manifested Universe."

--> Please allow me to point out that the original quote contains the word Brahmâ not Brahma. Brahma refers to the Absolute, while Brahmâ refers to the Son, the second aspect of the Triple Logos.

"-HPB, Secret Doctrine"

--> The quote is from The Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 7.

"In the beginning, my dear, the world was just Being (sat), one only, without a second. To be sure, some people say: 'In the beginning this world was just Non-being (a-sat), one only, without a second; from that Non-being Being was produced."

--> It is definitely a difficult concept for us to understand: Non-being, which is True Being, precedes Being.

Hi Br. Nick,
A theosophist? I guess I could. It just means a student of the Divine Wisdom.
There are many societies that use that term. There is room for differing views too.

I agree with the author of theChandogya Upanishad, that being cannot proceed from non-being.

Best Regards,
Br. Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Francis king

as far as I know, the milky way doesn't have a guardian spirit, and nor does the sun... as u probably already know, nothing lives on the sun, as its a big ball of gas... same as in the rest of the milky way- no air, or summat, or so I hear...

..

Peace Sr. Francis,

The sun means the spiritual sphere of the Sun. What conditions do spiritual beings need for survival?

Best Regards,
Br. Bruce

[Nick the Pilot]

Bruce,


You said,

"...being cannot proceed from non-being."

--> How do you see the relationship of being with non-being? Do you see non-being as it is described in The Secret Doctrine?

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Bruce,


You said,

"...being cannot proceed from non-being."

--> How do you see the relationship of being with non-being? Do you see non-being as it is described in The Secret Doctrine?

Greetings Br Nick,
In truth I cannot discern the Unknowable Rootless Root.

When we are dealing with the highest theology, there are some big imponderables to confront. Such as the biggest of all: why does anything exist at all, why isn't there just one big nothing? Obviously there is a something or I wouldn't be bringing this to you!

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:37-38
This is the first and great commandment."

Through following this commandment firstly, love for neighbour follows secondly. This is why paradoxically, the Desert Fathers could enstrenghen their love for humanity while living in brutal solitude.

Therefore our Father as spoken of by Christ, is a most definite Divine Persona.

How does, what is called in Christian Esotericism, "our Heavenly Father" relate to the Hindu concepts of Brahma or even the Hindu Trimurti? In India there are many temples dedicated to Shiva, less to Vishnu and only a handful dedicated to Brahma.

Parabrahm is THAT (tat) being a “term for the unknowable Rootless Root” - a good description. This describes the principle of our Heavenly Father but not His Persona. Can an infinite Principle create? - No, Being (Persona) creates.

Maybe we can reconcile the Persona of Father God with Brahma, I don't know.

One must keep in mind the difference between the Principle (and working power) of something and its persona (in being primarily and in quality).

From the discourse "The Greater and Lesser Principles"- This had some very good points in it which are heplful to the present discussion:

"All manifestation is being and comprised of beings firstly. Substance makes it its own by gravitating around being (or more correctly, a being). Beings are not born of substance, substance is born of they.

Out from the being of Father God has spun whorls of substance. We cleave to His Persona essentially, yet live in His Principle finding the lively realities therein made manifest."

And more:
“Life with Christ in Man and throughout his multifarious adjuncts, is Principle.
Principle builds worlds.
And the substance of Principle is Love.”

"This passage is saying that the Principle is Christ. It is Christ that builds the worlds and out from Christ we know the Love, that being His own and very substance.

“...What is Principle?”- half of the question answered here is - that Christ Himself is that Principle. That Being (Christ) precedes any projection, principle or subsequent substance. All life comes from a personified being firstly.

"Before we examine the lesser principles which maintain the world and Man we can acknowledge also that as well as Christ being the greater Principle here He is, though dearly held, the lesser Principle to that of Father God too. This of course goes without saying, but needs be said
anyhow!

"If we are given to understand that love is the very substance of Principle - and of all subsequent principles - then there may be no real principle of substance without it. It is interesting here to note that the whole entire concept of Maya, of illusion, is born from loveless conceptualising. When reality is underpinned by love, ie. by principle, by the Principle, it is no illusion. The only illusory material is that which is artificial: without true life existing or origins thereof - without love."

I hope this is not too much. We can carry it further with a look at how the Trinity manifest in the principles of the four Elements.


Br. Bruce

[Nick the Pilot]

Bruce, You said,

"In truth I cannot discern the Unknowable Rootless Root."

--> Theosophy teaches that attempting such a thing is a waste of time.

"When we are dealing with the highest theology, there are some big imponderables to confront. Such as the biggest of all: why does anything exist at all, why isn't there just one big nothing? Obviously there is a something or I wouldn't be bringing this to you!"

--> This is why Buddhism de emphasizes such imponderables and only concentrates on the here and now. Theosophy does discuss such imponderables, but only as much as our finite brains can handle.

"...our Father as spoken of by Christ, is a most definite Divine Persona."

--> Are you aware that Blavatskian Theosophy says such a Father is only another name for the Atman?

"How does, what is called in Christian Esotericism, 'our Heavenly Father' relate to the Hindu concepts of Brahma or even the Hindu Trimurti?"

--> It is Atman.

"Parabrahm is THAT (tat) being a “term for the unknowable Rootless Root” - a good description. This describes the principle of our Heavenly Father but not His Persona."

--> Theosophy does not recognize the Father as Parabrahm. Rather, Father refers to the first aspect of the Triple Logos in Blavatskian Theosophy. Also, Blavatskian Theosophy would never describe "our Heavenly Father" as having a Persona. Such anthropomorphism is forbidden in Theosophy.

"Can an infinite Principle create? - No, Being (Persona) creates.

--> I wonder if you are aware of the Theosophical distinction between creation and emanation. According to Theosophy, the universe emanated, it was not created. The human race, however, was created. Do you share this distinction?

Maybe we can reconcile the Persona of Father God with Brahma, I don't know."

--> Are you aware that Blavatskian Theosophy distinguishes Brahma from Brahmâ?

"All manifestation is being and comprised of beings firstly. Substance makes it its own by gravitating around being (or more correctly, a being). Beings are not born of substance, substance is born of they...."

--> Where are you quoting from?

"This passage is saying that the Principle is Christ. It is Christ that builds the worlds and out from Christ we know the Love, that being His own and very substance."

--> I would describe such a Christ-concept as not a part of Blavatskian Theosophy.

"That Being (Christ) precedes any projection, principle or subsequent substance."

--> How do you relate this to people who are not Christians? What is the relationship of Buddha to Christ in your belief system?

We can carry it further with a look at how the Trinity manifest...."

--> It seems you and I have different definitions for concepts such as Father, Christ, etc. (Up to now, I have been assuming you use Blavatskian definitions for such terms.) Perhaps we need to define terms before continuing our discussion. (This would be a great way to review the Theosophical Hierarchy, which is the topic of this thread.)

"...how the Trinity manifest in the principles of the four Elements."

--> I would be even more curious to hear how you see the Triple Logos "manifesting" in the yet-to-appear three Elements.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

"That Being (Christ) precedes any projection, principle or subsequent substance."

This, it seems, is a reversal of the facts, at least as I understand them, and as I believe HPB presented them in her Secret Doctrine. Note the First Fundamental Proposition:

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 render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out with the postulate that 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.

Cosmic Christ, is an EMANATION of Be-ness, not the other way around.

[Bruce Michael]

Shalom Br.Nick,

--> Are you aware that Blavatskian Theosophy says such a Father is only another name for the Atman?

I am aware that Blavatsky does not speak of a personal God.
Atman is the Father but not in totality.

--> Theosophy does not recognize the Father as Parabrahm. Rather, Father refers to the first aspect of the Triple Logos in Blavatskian Theosophy. Also, Blavatskian Theosophy would never describe "our Heavenly Father" as having a Persona. Such anthropomorphism is forbidden in Theosophy.

There is no such thing as "forbidden in theosophy". That is dogmatic- which Theosophy isn't meant to be.

The Madame supported Anna Kingsford when she was leader of the London Lodge and had her own Hermetic teachings.

Besant and Leadbeater had their own views.

Rudolf Steiner was leader of the German Section for about 10 years.

--> I wonder if you are aware of the Theosophical distinction between creation and emanation. According to Theosophy, the universe emanated, it was not created. The human race, however, was created. Do you share this distinction?


No.

--> Are you aware that Blavatskian Theosophy distinguishes Brahma from Brahmâ?

If you see Brahmâ as the Son why don't you see Brahma as the Father?

"All manifestation is being and comprised of beings firstly. Substance makes it its own by gravitating around being (or more correctly, a being). Beings are not born of substance, substance is born of they...."

--> Where are you quoting from?

My Teachers.

"This passage is saying that the Principle is Christ. It is Christ that builds the worlds and out from Christ we know the Love, that being His own and very substance."

--> I would describe such a Christ-concept as not a part of Blavatskian Theosophy.

Blavatsky didn't understand Christ.

--> How do you relate this to people who are not Christians? What is the relationship of Buddha to Christ in your belief system?

Buddha brought the teaching of Love and Compassion, Christ brought the substance.


--> It seems you and I have different definitions for concepts such as Father, Christ, etc. (Up to now, I have been assuming you use Blavatskian definitions for such terms.) Perhaps we need to define terms before continuing our discussion. (This would be a great way to review the Theosophical Hierarchy, which is the topic of this thread.)

Yes, we do have different understandings.

"...how the Trinity manifest in the principles of the four Elements."

--> I would be even more curious to hear how you see the Triple Logos "manifesting" in the yet-to-appear three Elements.

For another time.
Further on the Persona of Father God. (Per-sona -to sound forth.):
The title given to God by Christ Jesus in the Gospels is Abba- Father, Daddy. Obviously this designation is one of warmth showing a loving and caring God who is deeply connected with us. We share a "signature key" with Father God. God is not remote from us.

How is it that Father God is the achetype of personality?:

1) Q - What is the Eternal Absolute?
A - THAT
2) Q - How came Cosmos into being?
A - Through THAT
3) Q - How, or what will it be when it falls back into Pralaya?
A - In THAT
4) Q - Whence all the animate, and suppositionally the ‘inanimate’ nature?
A - From THAT
5) Q - What is the substance and essence of which the universe is formed?
A - THAT
6) Q - Into what has it been and will be again and again resolved?
A - Into THAT
7) Q - Is THAT then both the instrumental and material cause of the Universe?
A - What else is it or can it be than THAT?

H.P.Blavatsky “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. III

The Brothers comment:
"There is principle and then there is persona. Madame Blavatsky spoke of the divine principle of deity - of THAT (tat) being a “term for the unknowable Rootless Root”. This original substance and essence of all that followed describes the principle of our Heavenly Father - yet not of His Persona.

We may realise with confidence that all men are regarded with an individual identity and personal complex - that each deifying and ensouling spirit is not just a corporate entity, but a Supreme Persona to whom the rest conform to. Our model for personification is drawn from the reality of it existing in Father God firstly - He is, therefore, more, much more than THAT."

-Br.Bruce

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Our model for personification is drawn from the reality of it existing in Father God firstly - He is, therefore, more, much more than THAT."

-Br.Bruce

I'm with you on this, Bruce, though I am quite content to keep `Our Father Who Art in Heaven' as the Monad. Nor the Monad of Liebnitz, but a Spark of the Divine Essence (or Parent Flame). We can speak of individual monads, but of course, to pluralize the term is meaningless. We cannot even rightly conceive it, as the plane of the Monad is beyond Atma(n).

While in manifestation, there is Atma-Buddhi-Manas. But even this Triadal Spirit, the `Eternal Pilgrim,' is a `Being' Who must remain a mystery to us, because - in agreement with Thomas - neither the human Intellect (lower manas), nor even our Illumined mind (Higher Manas) can rightly, or fully, comprehend even our (collective, singular) Atma(n).

I believe what is handy about Theosophy is that it is a unique presentation of something that has hitherto been available to the public only as Mysticism. It would have made little sense, save to Initiates - and the true Occultists of all times - to speak of ATMA, before the Theosophy of HPB's day ... because I have found that even the educated person in the West, versed in Eastern Mysticism, usually still cannot grasp the notion of Individualization within UNITY.


In between the Atma(n) of Humanity's singular highest SPIRIT, and the Manas-Taijasa of our Illumined Higher Mind (wherein we may gain an inkling only of these things, presumably after much, much meditation - and lifetimes of study) ... there is what HPB termed our 6th Principle, `Buddhi.' Consider de Purucker's definition of Buddhi:

The spiritual soul, the faculty of discriminating, the channel through which streams divine inspiration from the atman to the ego, and therefore that faculty which enables us to discern between good and evil -- spiritual conscience.

The qualities of the buddhic principle when awakened are higher judgment, instant understanding, discrimination, intuition, love that has no bounds, and consequent universal forgiveness.

Is it any wonder that I have wanted to call this, the Christ Principle, or "the Christ within?" Surely we would agree, that a Humanity in which the 6th Principle had been successfully stimulated (developed, unfolded) into action ... would be veritably a "race of Christs!"

And so shall our 6th Round Humanity, in the vast-distant future, appear and manifest - though only three fifths of our 60 billion souls (36 billion) will have made it past the 5th Round `Judgment Day.' Even 5th Round Humanity, we should consider, will be a race of Initiates.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

But there is a sense in which, as I ponder it, I do think that Parabrahman can be thought of as the Father. Inasmuch as we know that Mulaprakriti is the Cosmic Womb - or can be likened to such, based on our experience within the dual-gendered Human Kingdom - then we may consider the periodic emergence into manifestation (or Emanation) of Parabrahman as like the seeding of the Hiranyagarbha ... from `the Father.'

If this makes us more comfortable pondering the Imponderable ... then, perhaps with a paintbrush as at Easter, we may certainly draw eyes, a nose, and a smilie-face upon the exterior of the `egg' ... and if we wish to depict upon it a male figure, then so be it. But we may as well give it effeminate features, and given that all of Cosmos is born from this egg - would not THAT make a bit more sense?

~+~+~+~+~

There are basically three issues that I have so far with what you're suggesting, Bruce. I can quote three footnotes from Section 5 of Blavatsky's `Key to Theosophy' to address them (my point in each case is bolded in blue):

1. Ain-Soph [is] the endless, or boundless, in and with Nature, the non-existent which IS, but is not a Being.

2. How can the non-active eternal principle emanate or emit? The Parabrahm of the Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the Ain-Soph of the Chaldean Kabala. It is an eternal and periodical law which causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning of every maha-manvantara, or new cycle of life. [This entire footnote, plus the one above, makes the point Nick and I share in common, I believe.]

3. One often finds in Theosophical writings conflicting statements about the Christos principle in man. Some call it the sixth principle (Buddhi), others the seventh (Atman). If Christian Theosophists wish to make use of such expressions, let them be made philosophically correct by following the analogy of the old Wisdom-religion symbols. We say that Christos is not only one of the three higher principles, but all the three regarded as a Trinity. This Trinity represents the Holy Ghost, the Father, and the Son, as it answers to abstract spirit, differentiated spirit, and embodied spirit. Krishna and Christ are philosophically the same principle under its triple aspect of manifestation. In the Bhagavatgita we find Krishna calling himself indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, Kshetragna, the Higher or reincarnating Ego, and the Universal SELF, all names which, when transferred from the Universe to man, answer to Atma, Buddhi and Manas. The Anugita is full of the same doctrine.

~+~+~

Since I am a student of Alice Bailey's teachings, and others later still ... I have come to regard `the Christ' as being one and the same as the Bodhisattva, the World Teacher, the Imam Mahdi, Kalki Avatara, the Saoshyant.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Blavatsky didn't understand Christ.

Lol ... this, I'm afraid, is pretty well absurd. HPB would have met the Christ, during her stay in Tibet. If, that is, we mean that guy from 2100 years ago by `the Christ.' Not that this means she would have known Him in perhaps the same way the Initiate Jesus did ... but then, that's another story.

We may safely rest assured ... that even while HPB was a 1st Ray student of `the Finger of God,' and even though she wrote for 2nd Ray, 5th Ray, 4th Ray, and 7th Ray Adepts, plus the 3rd Ray Maha Chohan, in addition to her own 1st Ray Master ... she most certainly had an understanding of the very Head (and Heart) of the One True Occult Hierarchy, whose Trans-Himalayan Branch she represented.

There are, of course, other branches ... and it is quite possible that HPB never even met the Master Jesus of the Lebanese Branch - or at least, I have yet to find a clear account of any such meeting or interaction. But then, out of 63 Adepts (including the Christ), we can't expect a lay-chela, who only found her way into the Hierarchy officially in her subsequent incarnation, to have known everyone.

HPB didn't understand Christ ... ha!

She started out a twice-born, and we may safely assume she stood before Him during the `Baptism.' I'd say she understood something of what was going on ...

[Nick the Pilot]

Bruce,

You said,

"I am aware that Blavatsky does not speak of a personal God."

--> Blavatsky taught there is no personal God.

-- Personal God --

"...we refuse to see that which Monotheists call a personal, anthropomorphic God." (SD vol 1 p 545)

In Theosophy, the Absolute is seen as unchanging. In Christianity, a personal God undergoes changes in his personality (He gets mad), and so is not seen in Theosophy as changeless (a condition of the Absolute).

"The personal God of orthodox Theism perceives, thinks, and is affected by emotion; he repents and feels "fierce anger." But the notion of such mental states clearly involves the unthinkable postulate of the externality of the exciting stimuli, to say nothing of the impossibility of ascribing changelessness to a Being whose emotions fluctuate with events in the worlds he presides over. The conceptions of a Personal God as changeless and infinite are thus unpsychological and, what is worse, unphilosophical." (SD vol 1 p 2)

Blavatsky says a personal God is an invention of the people.

"Lipika ... are the "Hosts" of what we loosely call "celestial Beings." But they are, in fact, nothing of the kind. They are Entities of the higher worlds in the hierarchy of Being, so immeasurably high that, to us, they must appear as Gods, and collectively -- GOD. (SD vol 1 p 132-133)

Theosophy does not see physical phenomena as the results of the changing whims of a personal God, but the results of karma. Here is one example.

" 'The curse is pronounced' does not mean, in this instance, that any personal Being, god, or superior Spirit, pronounced it, but simply that the cause which could but create bad results had been generated, and that the effects of a Karmic cause could lead the "Beings" that counteracted the laws of Nature, and thus impeded her legitimate progress, only to bad incarnations, hence to suffering." (SD vol 1 p 193)

Karma is impersonal, the very antithesis of a personal God.

“The ONE LIFE is closely related to the one law which governs the World of Being -- KARMA.... no theological definition of a personal deity can give an idea of this impersonal, yet ever present and active Principle...." (SD vol 1 p 634)

The cause of the universe is impersonal, not personal.

[The Waters of Genesis 1:1] "...is called "Substance-Principle," for it becomes "substance" on the plane of the manifested Universe, an illusion, while it remains a "principle" in the beginningless and endless abstract, visible and invisible SPACE. It is the omnipresent Reality: impersonal, because it contains all and everything. Its impersonality is the fundamental conception of the System. It is latent in every atom in the Universe, and is the Universe itself." (SD vol 1 p 273)

Theosophy does not teach the existence of any personal God.

"The Secret Doctrine ... admits a Logos or a collective "Creator" of the Universe; a Demi-urgos.... But that Demiurgos is no personal deity, -- i.e., an imperfect extra-cosmic god, -- but only the aggregate of the Dhyan-Chohans and the other forces." (SD vol 1p 280)

The Absolute Essence cannot be identified as a Being.

"The Universe is the periodical manifestation of this unknown Absolute Essence. To call it "essence," however, is to sin against the very spirit of the philosophy. For though the noun may be derived in this case from the verb esse, "to be," yet IT cannot be identified with a being of any kind, that can be conceived by human intellect." (SD vol 1 p 273)

In Theosophy, Divine Thought cannot be described as a Deity.

"Divine thought cannot be defined, or its meaning explained, except by the numberless manifestations of Cosmic Substance in which the former is sensed spiritually by those who can do so. To say this, after having defined it as the Unknown Deity, abstract, impersonal, sexless, which must be placed at the root of every Cosmogony and its subsequent evolution, is equivalent to saying nothing at all." (SD vol 1 p 327)

You said,

“Atman is the Father but not in totality.”

-- The Father --

--> Theosophy does not recognize the Father as Parabrahm. Rather, Father is referred to as the first aspect of the Triple Logos.

[The one Logos] “... works in three fundamental modes, which are symbolized in the great religions as those of the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer [in Hinduism]; or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [in Christianity]. In modern Theosophical. nomenclature, this triple activity is described as that of the First Logos (Father), the Second Logos (Son), and the Third Logos (Holy Ghost).” (C. Jinarajadasa, The First Principles of Theosophy, page 197-198)

The First Logos — The Father — is the first “emanation” of the Absolute, described as a ray being emitted from the Absolute.

“... the One unknown [the Absolute], without beginning or end, identical with Parabrahm [Hindu] and Ain-Soph [Jewish], emits a bright ray from its darkness. This is the Logos (the first), or Vajradhara, the Supreme Buddha (also called Dorjechang {Tibetan}).” (SD vol 1 p 571)

-- The Forbidding of Dogma --

You said,

“There is no such thing as ‘forbidden in theosophy".

---> All use of dogma — telling someone they must believe a particular idea, or they must get out — is strictly forbidden in Theosophy.

“…there is no doctrine, no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, that is in any way binding on any member of the Society, none which any member is not free to accept or reject. Approval of its three objects is the sole condition of membership. No teacher, or writer, from H.P. Blavatsky onwards, has any authority to impose his or her teachings or opinions on members. Every member has an equal right to follow any school of thought, but has no right to force the choice on any other.” (italics emphasis added.)
Theosophical (Adyar) Webpage
The Theosophical Society-Adyar - About Theosophical Society

“…since there is complete freedom for each and every member of the Society in thought and action….” The Theosophical Society and Freedom of Thought

You said,

“There is no such thing as ‘forbidden in theosophy". That is dogmatic- which Theosophy isn't meant to be.”

The forbidding of dogma is not dogmatic.

-- Anthropomorphism --

Anthropomorphism is not forbidden in Theosophy (because it is an idea), and it is soundly denounced by Blavatsky.

“… 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….” (SD vol 1 p 3)

“…the real cause of … existence … remains for ever hidden, and its first emanations … which, anthropomorphized, have been worshipped as God and gods by the common herd of every age.” (SD vol 1 p 44)

“The Secret Doctrine teaches no Atheism, except in the Hindu sense of the word nastika, or the rejection of idols, including every anthropomorphic god.” </i> (SD vol 1 279)

You said,

“We share a "signature key" with Father God.”

--> Here is an example of anthropomorphism Blavatsky was talking about.

“How is it that Father God is the achetype of personality? --> What is the Eternal Absolute?”

--> Here is an example of “Father God” being identified as the Eternal Absolute, another example of anthropomorphism Blavatsky was talking about.

-- Persona --

" ‘There is principle and then there is persona. Madame Blavatsky spoke of the divine principle of deity - of THAT (tat) being a “term for the unknowable Rootless Root’. This original substance and essence of all that followed describes the principle of our Heavenly Father - yet not of His Persona.”

---> Here is your undocumented quotation (please supply a source). Also, I see that you use the word Persona, but your quote does not. Does the term Persona appear in Theosophical literature?

Also, I have never seen Blavatskian Theosophical literature describe "our Heavenly Father" as having a “Persona”. (Do you have a quote?) It seems curious to find such anthropomorphism in Theosophy.

-- Undocumented Quotations --

“Where are you quoting from? --> My Teachers.”

--> Please do us the professional courtesy of documenting the sources of your quotes.

~~~

“The Madame supported Anna Kingsford when she was leader of the London Lodge and had her own Hermetic teachings.”

---> Indeed, she did. When Kingsford got out of control, Blavatsky was the first to support the idea of Kingsford starting her own chapter.

-- Creation vs. Emanationism --

“…creation and emanation…. Do you share this distinction? ---> No.”

---> The distinction between creation and emanation is a key Theosophical concept. This is a complicated topic, but I will share one aspect. According to Theosophy, the universe was not simply created, causing the appearance of humans who will not change once they enter Heaven or Hell. Rather, the entire universe is seen as constantly changing (emanating) .

“Everything in the Universe progresses steadily in the Great Cycle, while incessantly going up and down in the smaller cycles. Nature is never stationary during [an active universe phase], as it is ever becoming, not simply being; and mineral, vegetable, and human life are always adapting their organisms to the then reigning Elements… According to the great metaphysician Hegel also. For him Nature was a perpetual becoming. A purely esoteric conception. Creation or Origin, in the Christian sense of the term, is absolutely unthinkable.” (SD vol 1 p 257)

In Theosophy, every form, every atoms is constantly striving for progress.

"Every form on earth, and every speck (atom) in Space strives in its efforts towards self-formation to follow the model placed for it…” [and continue evolving – emanating] (quoted in SD vol 1 p 183)

-- The Father ---

You asked,

"If you see Brahmâ as the Son why don't you see Brahma as the Father?"

--> In Theosophy, Brahmâ is indeed the Son, which is the Third Logos. (More on the Son below.)

Father refers to the First Logos or “Spirit”, not the Absolute. It is this Spirit, this First Logos that Theosophy says the Theists have turned into a personal God.

"The existence of spirit in the common mediator, the ether, is denied by materialism; while theology makes of it a personal god. But the Kabalist holds that both are wrong...." (SD vol 1 p 343)

According the Theosophy, the idea of a personal God was created in order to balance out the idea of a Satan. (Each concept is required to make the other concept possible.)

"Satan never assumed an anthropomorphic, individualized shape, until the creation by man, of a "one living personal god," had been accomplished; and then merely as a matter of prime necessity." (Sd vol 1 p 412)

"Christian theology has evolved its self-created human and personal God, the [concept] from whence flow in two streams the dogmas of Salvation and Damnation." </i> (SD vol 1 p 613)

"The Church enforces belief in a personal god and a personal devil, while...." [Theosophy does not]. (SD vol 2 p 475)

-- Christ --

“Blavatsky didn't understand Christ.”

--> She understood the Christ concept perfectly. It is time to give the Theosophical concept of Christ.

"Note well, ‘Christos’ with the Gnostics meant the impersonal principal, the Atman of the Universe, and the Atma within every man's soul -- not Jesus...." (SD vol 1 p 132)

The Christ principle is called the Son, The Third Logos, and the Manifested Logos in Theosophy.

“... the manifested Logos [is] also called the ‘Son’ in all cosmogonies.” (Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol I p. 4) (online) Secret Doctrine Commentary by H. P. Blavatsky (hardcopy) "Secret Doctrine Commentary: Stanzas I-IV: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge by H. P. Blavatsky, from Theosophical University Press

By the way, here is the first appearance of the Son in Theosophical scripture.

“Behold, oh Lanoo [Disciple]! 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.... Behold Him lifting the veil and unfurling it from east to west. He shuts out the above, and leaves the below to be seen as the great illusion. He marks the places for the Shining Ones, and turns the upper into a shoreless sea of fire, and the one manifested into the great waters.” (SD vol 1 p 29)

-- Buddha vs. Christ --

You said,

“Buddha brought the teaching of Love and Compassion, Christ brought the substance.”

--> Let me re-phrase my question in a more specific way. Do you see Buddha superior to Christ in some type of Hierarchy, or vice versa? (Since you have identified yourself as a type of Theosophist, you are probably aware of the Theosophical idea of a Hierarchy.)

-- Seven Elements --

"...how the Trinity manifest in the principles of the four Elements. --> I would be even more curious to hear how you see the Triple Logos "manifesting" in the yet-to-appear three Elements. --> For another time.”

--> I await your response on this issue.

-- Pralaya --

“…Pralaya….”

--> I am glad to see you are familiar with the concept of Pralaya. Have you heard of the difference of Cosmic Pralaya vs. Solar Pralaya?