Guest guest Posted November 12, 2002 Report Share Posted November 12, 2002 - "Bhakti Ananda Goswami" <bhakti.eohn > > BELOW I AM PASTING IN SOME MAHATMA LETTERS REFERENCES TO GOD, INCLUDING THE VEDIC GODS. > "Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions attracts millions of foreign influences, living entities and powerful agents around them, with which we would have to use more than ordinary exercise of power to drive them away. We do not choose to do so. " > > > > > "so the light of the Dhyan Chohans and their pure intelligence is contrasted by the "Ma-Mo Chohans" -- and their destructive intelligence. These are > the gods the Hindus and Christians and Mahomed and all others of > bigoted religions and sects worship; and so long as their influence > is upon their devotees they could not destroy evil. No more can the Dhyan Chohans impede the work of the Mamo Chohans, for their Law is darkness, ignorance, > destruction etc., as that of the former is Light, knowledge and > creation. The Dhyan Chohans answer to Buddh, Divine Wisdom and Life > in blissful knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in > nature of Shiva, Jehovah and other invented monsters with Ignorance > at their tail). > > > Mahatma Letter No. 10 > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm > > [Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting. -- Ed] > > NOTES BY K.H. ON A "PRELIMINARY CHAPTER" HEADED "GOD" BY HUME, > INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED). > > Received at Simla, 1881-? '82. > > Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all > in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital G. Our philosophy falls > under the definition of Hobbes. It is preeminently the science of > effects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it > is also the science of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon > defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and > have no right to admit even its possibility. Your whole explanation > is based upon one solitary admission made simply for argument's sake > in October last. You were told that our knowledge was limited to this > our solar system: ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy > of the name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of what > you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being of some sort > beyond the limits of that solar system. But if such an existence is > not absolutely impossible, yet unless the uniformity of nature's law > breaks at those limits we maintain that it is highly improbable. > Nevertheless we deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in > this direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine knows > no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but > that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as > philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other > spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as > God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but > absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, > ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented > to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either > admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and > that we are able to prove what we claim -- i.e. the knowledge of that > cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or > Gods behind them. > > The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we have > but one thing in common with theologies -- we reveal the infinite. > But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the > infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, > sensible and known (to us at least) cause, the theists assign them > spiritual, super-natural and unintelligible an un-known causes. The > God of the Theologians is simply and imaginary power, un loup garou > as d'Holbach expressed it -- a power which has never yet manifested > itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to > teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on > himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for > countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. > Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are willing > to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious > in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic > misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is > not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as > that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth > proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest > substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a > Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can > imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent > outside the manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a > negative which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a > being independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which > is outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself - > - not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that > manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the > theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And > yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not > himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it > penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that > therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its > properties likewise, etc. -- hence is material, is matter itself. How > can intelligence proceed or emanate from non-intelligence -- you kept > asking last year. How could a highly intelligent humanity, man the > crown of reason, be evolved out of blind unintelligent law or force! > But once we reason on that line, I may ask in my turn, how could > congenital idiots, non-reasoning animals, and the rest of "creation" > have been created by or evoluted from, absolute Wisdom, if the latter > is a thinking intelligent being, the author and ruler of the > Universe? How? says Dr. Clarke in his examination of the proof of the > existence of the Divinity. "God who hath made the eye, shall he not > see? God who hath made the ear shall he not hear?" But according to > this mode of reasoning they would have to admit that in creating an > idiot God is an idiot; that he who made so many irrational beings, so > many physical and moral monsters, must be an irrational being. . . . > > . . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life > is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And > no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an > agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every > respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the > microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no > creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on > it and become agnostics. > > . . . . Were we to admit that even the highest Dyan Chohans are > liable to err under a delusion, then there would be no reality for us > indeed and the occult sciences would be as great a chimera as that > God. If there is an absurdity in denying that which we do not know it > is still more extravagant to assign to it unknown laws. > > According to logic "nothing" is that of which everything can truly be > denied and nothing can truly be affirmed. The idea therefore either > of a finite or infinite nothing is a contradiction in terms. And yet > according to theologians "God, the self existent being is a most > simple, unchangeable, incorruptible being; without parts, figure, > motion, divisibility, or any other such properties as we find in > matter. For all such things so plainly and necessarily imply > finiteness in their very notion and are utterly inconsistent with > complete infinity." Therefore the God here offered to the adoration > of the XIXth century lacks every quality upon which man's mind is > capable of fixing any judgment. What is this in fact but a being of > whom they can affirm nothing that is not instantly contradicted. > Their own Bible their Revelation destroys all the moral perceptions > they heap upon him, unless indeed they call those qualities > perfections that every other man's reason and common sense call > imperfections, odious vices and brutal wickedness. Nay more he who > reads our Buddhist scriptures written for the superstitious masses > will fail to find in them a demon so vindictive, unjust, so cruel and > so stupid as the celestial tyrant upon whom the Christians prodigally > lavish their servile worship and on whom their theologians heap those > perfections that are contradicted on every page of their Bible. Truly > and veritably your theology has created her God but to destroy him > piecemeal. Your church is the fabulous Saturn, who begets children > but to devour them. > > (The Universal Mind) -- A few reflections and arguments ought to > support every new idea -- for instance we are sure to be taken to > task for the following apparent contradictions. (1) We deny the > existence of a thinking conscious God, on the grounds that such a God > must either be conditioned, limited and subject to change, therefore > not infinite, or (2) if he is represented to us as an eternal > unchangeable and independent being, with not a particle of matter in > him, then we answer that it is no being but an immutable blind > principle, a law. And yet, they will say, we believe in Dyans, or > Planetaries ("spirits" also), and endow them with a universal mind, > and this must be explained. > > Our reasons may be briefly summed up thus: > > (1) We deny the absurd proposition that there can be, even in a > boundless and eternal universe -- two infinite eternal and omni- > present existences. > > (2) Matter we know to be eternal, i.e., having had no beginning (a) > because matter is Nature herself (b) because that which cannot > annihilate itself and is indestructible exists necessarily -- and > therefore it could not begin to be, nor can it cease to be © > because the accumulated experience of countless ages, and that of > exact science show to us matter (or nature) acting by her own > peculiar energy, of which not an atom is ever in an absolute state of > rest, and therefore it must have always existed, i.e., its materials > ever changing form, combinations and properties, but its principles > or elements being absolutely indestructible. > > (3) As to God -- since no one has ever or at any time seen him or it - > - unless he or it is the very essence and nature of this boundless > eternal matter, its energy and motion, we cannot regard him as either > eternal or infinite or yet self existing. We refuse to admit a being > or an existence of which we know absolutely nothing; because (a) > there is no room for him in the presence of that matter whose > undeniable properties and qualities we know thoroughly well (b) > because if he or it is but a part of that matter it is ridiculous to > maintain that he is the mover and ruler of that of which he is but a > dependent part and © because if they tell us that God is a self > existent pure spirit independent of matter -- an extra-cosmic deity, > we answer that admitting even the possibility of such an > impossibility, i.e., his existence, we yet hold that a purely > immaterial spirit cannot be an intelligent conscious ruler nor can he > have any of the attributes bestowed upon him by theology and thus > such a God becomes again but a blind force. Intelligence as found in > our Dyan Chohans, is a faculty that can appertain but to organized or > animated being -- however imponderable or rather invisible the > materials of their organizations. Intelligence requires the necessity > of thinking; to think one must have ideas; ideas suppose senses which > are physical material, and how can anything material belong to pure > spirit? If it be objected that thought cannot be a property of > matter, we will ask the reason why? We must have an unanswerable > proof of this assumption, before we can accept it. Of the theologian > we would enquire what was there to prevent his God, since he is the > alleged creator of all -- to endow matter with the faculty of > thought; and when answered that evidently it has not pleased Him to > do so, that it is a mystery as well as an impossibility, we would > insist upon being told why it is more impossible that matter should > produce spirit and thought, than spirit or the thought of God should > produce and create matter. > > We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind -- for > we have solved it ages ago. Rejecting with contempt the theistic > theory we reject as much the automaton theory, teaching that states > of consciousness are produced by the marshalling of the molecules of > the brain; and we feel as little respect for that other hypothesis - - > the production of molecular motion by consciousness. Then what do we > believe in? Well, we believe in the much laughed at phlogiston (see > article "What is force and what is matter?" Theosophist, September), > and in what some natural philosophers would call nisus the incessant > though perfectly imperceptible (to the ordinary senses) motion or > efforts one body is making on another -- the pulsations of inert > matter -- its life. The bodies of the Planetary spirits are formed of > that which Priestley and others called Phlogiston and for which we > have another name -- this essence in its highest seventh state > forming that matter of which the organisms of the highest and purest > Dyans are composed, and in its lowest or densest form (so impalpable > yet that science calls it energy and force) serving as a cover to the > Planetaries of the 1st or lowest degree. In other words we believe in > MATTER alone, in matter as visible nature and matter in its > invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus with its > unceasing motion which is its life, and which nature draws from > herself since she is the great whole outside of which nothing can > exist. For as Bellinger truly asserts "motion is a manner of > existence that flows necessarily out of the essence of matter; that > matter moves by its own peculiar energies; that its motion is due to > the force which is inherent in itself; that the variety of motion and > the phenomena that result proceed from the diversity of the > properties of the qualities and of the combinations which are > originally found in the primitive matter" of which nature is the > assemblage and of which your science knows less than one of our > Tibetan Yak-drivers of Kant's metaphysics. > > The existence of matter then is a fact; the existence of motion is > another fact, their self existence and eternity or indestructibility > is a third fact. And the idea of pure spirit as a Being or an > Existence -- give it whatever name you will -- is a chimera, a > gigantic absurdity. > > Our ideas on Evil. Evil has no existence per se and is but the > absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim. It > proceeds from two causes, and no more than good is it an independent > cause in nature. Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she > follows only immutable laws when she either gives life and joy, or > sends suffering [and] death, and destroys what she has created. > Nature has an antidote for every poison and her laws a reward for > every suffering. The butterfly devoured by a bird > becomes that bird, and the little bird killed by an animal goes into > a higher form. It is the blind law of necessity and the eternal > fitness of things, and hence cannot be called Evil in Nature. The > real evil proceeds from human intelligence and its origin rests > entirely with reasoning man who dissociates himself from Nature. > Humanity then alone is the true source of evil. Evil is the > exaggeration of good, the progeny of human selfishness and > greediness. Think profoundly and you will find that save death -- > which is no evil but a necessary law, and accidents which will always > find their reward in a future life -- the origin of every evil > whether small or great is in human action, in man whose intelligence > makes him the one free agent in Nature. It is not nature that creates > diseases, but man. The latter's mission and destiny in the economy of > nature is to die his natural death brought by old age; save accident, > neither a savage nor a wild (free) animal die of disease. Food, > sexual relations, drink, are all natural necessities of life; yet > excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and > physical, and the latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to > future generations, the progeny of the culprits. Ambition, the desire > of securing happiness and comfort for those we love, by obtaining > honours and riches, are praiseworthy natural feelings but when they > transform man into an ambitious cruel tyrant, a miser, a selfish > egotist they bring untold misery on those around him; on nations as > well as on individuals. All this then -- food, wealth, ambition, and > a thousand other things we have to leave unmentioned, becomes the > source and cause of evil whether in its abundance or through its > absence. Become a glutton, a debauchee, a tyrant, and you become the > originator of diseases, of human suffering and misery. Lack all this > and you starve, you are despised as a nobody and the majority of the > herd, your fellow men, make of you a sufferer your whole life. > Therefore it is neither nature nor an imaginary Deity that has to be > blamed, but human nature made vile by selfishness. Think well over > these few words; work out every cause of evil you can think of and > trace it to its origin and you will have solved one-third of the > problem of evil. And now, after making due allowance for evils that > are natural and cannot be avoided, -- and so few are they that I > challenge the whole host of Western metaphysicians to call them evils > or to trace them directly to an independent cause -- I will point out > the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that > pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion > under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal > caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that > man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of > that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that > almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took > advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom > and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that > rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of > him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his > own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is > belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves > of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of > saving them. Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told > that his God or Gods demand the crime?; voluntary victim of an > illusionary God, the abject slave of his crafty ministers. The Irish, > Italian and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family > starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. For two > thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins > alone feeding on the fat of the land, and to-day the followers of > Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other's throats in the > names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. > Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that > day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of > Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false > gods. > > If it is objected that we too have temples, we too have priests and > that our lamas also live on charity . . . let them know that the > objects above named have in common with their Western equivalents, > but the name. Thus in our temples there is neither a god nor gods > worshipped, only the thrice sacred memory of the greatest as the > holiest man that ever lived. If our lamas to honour the fraternity of > the Bhikkhus established by our blessed master himself, go out to be > fed by the laity, the latter often to the number of 5 to 25,000 is > fed and taken care of by the Samgha (the fraternity of lamaic monks) > the lamassery providing for the wants of the poor, the sick, the > afflicted. Our lamas accept food, never money, and it is in those > temples that the origin of evil is preached and impressed upon the > people. There they are taught the four noble truths -- ariya sakka, > and the chain of causation, (the 12 nid[ci]anas) gives them a > solution of the problem of the origin and destruction of suffering. > > Read the Mahavagga and try to understand not with the prejudiced > Western mind but the spirit of intuition and truth what the Fully > Enlightened one says in the 1st Khandhaka. Allow me to translate it > for you. > > "At the time the blessed Buddha was at Uruvella on the shores of the > river Nerovigara as he rested under the Boddhi tree of wisdom after > he had become Sambuddha, at the end of the seventh day having his > mind fixed on the chain of causation he spake thus: 'from Ignorance > spring the samkharas of threefold nature -- productions of body, of > speech, of thought. From the samkharas springs consciousness, from > consciousness springs name and form, from this spring the six regions > (of the six senses the seventh being the property of but the > enlightened); from these springs contact from this sensation; from > this springs thirst (or desire, Kama, tanha) from thirst attachment, > existence, birth, old age and death, grief, lamentation, suffering, > dejection and despair. Again by the destruction of ignorance, the > Sankharas are destroyed, and their consciousness name and form, the > six regions, contact, sensation, thirst, attachment (selfishness), > existence, birth, old age, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, > dejection, and despair are destroyed. Such is the cessation of this > whole mass of suffering." > > Knowing this the blessed one uttered this solemn utterance. "When the > real nature of things becomes clear to the meditating Bikshu, then > all his doubts fade away since he has learned what is that nature and > what its cause. From ignorance spring all the evils. From knowledge > comes the cessation of this mass of misery, and then the meditating > Brahmana stands dispelling the hosts of Mara like the sun that > illuminates the sky." > > Meditation here means the superhuman (not supernatural) qualities, or > arhatship in its highest of spiritual powers. > > Copied out Simla, Sept. 28, 1882. > > > > > Master KH on "God": Mahatma Letter No. 22 > > > > > Mahatma Letter No. 22 > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-22.htm > > [Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting. -- ED.] > > Extract from Letter by K.H. to Hume. Received for my perusal towards > the end of season 1882. (A.P.S.) > > Did it ever strike you, -- and now from the standpoint of your > Western science and the suggestion of your own Ego which has already > seized up the essentials of every truth, prepare to deride the > erroneous idea -- did you ever suspect that Universal, like finite, > human mind might have two attributes, or a dual power -- one the > voluntary and conscious, and the other the involuntary and > unconscious or the mechanical power. To reconcile the difficulty of > many theistic and anti-theistic propositions, both these powers are a > philosophical necessity. The possibility of the first or the > voluntary and conscious attribute in reference to the infinite mind, > notwithstanding the assertions of all the Egos throughout the living > world -- will remain for ever a mere hypothesis, whereas in the > finite mind it is a scientific and demonstrated fact. The highest > Planetary Spirit is as ignorant of the first as we are, and the > hypothesis will remain one even in Nirvana, as it is a mere > inferential possibility, whether there or here. > > Take the human mind in connexion with the body. Man has two distinct > physical brains; the cerebrum with its two hemispheres at the frontal > part of the head -- the source of the voluntary nerves; and the > cerebellum, situated at the back portion of the skull -- the fountain > of the involuntary nerves which are the agents of the unconscious or > mechanical powers of the mind to act through. And weak and uncertain > as may be the control of man over his involuntary, such as the blood > circulation, the throbbings of the heart and respiration, especially > during sleep -- yet how far more powerful, how much more potential > appears man as master and ruler over the blind molecular motion -- > the laws which govern his body (a proof of this being afforded by the > phenomenal powers of the Adept and even the common Yogi) than that > which you will call God, shows over the immutable laws of Nature. > Contrary in that to the finite, the "infinite mind," which we name so > but for argument's sake, for we call it the infinite FORCE -- > exhibits but the functions of its cerebellum, the existence of its > supposed cerebrum being admitted as above stated, but on the > inferential hypothesis deduced from the Kabalistic theory (correct in > every other relation) of the Macrocosm being the prototype of the > Microcosm. So far as we know the corroboration of it by modern > science receiving but little consideration -- so far as the highest > Planetary Spirits have ascertained (who remember well have the same > relations with the trans-cosmical world, penetrating behind the > primitive veil of cosmic matter as we have to go behind the veil of > this, our gross physical world --) the infinite mind displays to them > as to us no more than the regular unconscious throbbings of the > eternal and universal pulse of Nature, throughout the myriads of > worlds within as without the primitive veil of our solar system. > > So far -- WE KNOW. Within and to the utmost limit, to the very edge > of the cosmic veil we know the fact to be correct -- owing to > personal experience; for the information gathered as to what takes > place beyond -- we are indebted to the Planetary Spirits, to our > blessed Lord Buddha. This of course may be regarded as second- hand > information. There are those who rather than to yield to the evidence > of fact will prefer regarding even the planetary gods as "erring" > disembodied philosophers if not actually liars. Be it so. Everyone is > master of his own wisdom -- says a Tibetan proverb and he is at > liberty either to honour or degrade his slave --. However I will go > on for the benefit of those who may yet seize my explanation of the > problem and understand the nature of the solution. > > It is the peculiar faculty of the involuntary power of the infinite > mind -- which no one could ever think of calling God, -- to be > eternally evolving subjective matter into objective atoms (you will > please remember that these two adjectives are used but in a relative > sense) or cosmic matter to be later on developed into form. And it is > likewise that same involuntary mechanical power that we see so > intensely active in all the fixed laws of nature -- which governs and > controls what is called the Universe or the Cosmos. There are some > modern philosophers who would prove the existence of a Creator from > motion. We say and affirm that that motion -- the universal perpetual > motion which never ceases never slackens nor increases its speed not > even during the interludes between the pralayas, or "nights of > Brahma" but goes on like a mill set in motion, whether it has > anything to grind or not (for the pralaya means the temporary loss of > every form, but by no means the destruction of cosmic matter which is > eternal) -- we say this perpetual motion is the only eternal and > uncreated Deity we are able to recognise. To regard God as an > intelligent spirit, and accept at the same time his absolute > immateriality is to conceive of a nonentity, a blank void; to regard > God as a Being, an Ego and to place his intelligence under a bushel > for some mysterious reasons -- is a most consummate nonsense; to > endow him with intelligence in the face of blind brutal Evil is to > make of him a fiend -- a most rascally God. A Being however gigantic, > occupying space and having length breadth and thickness is most > certainly the Mosaic deity; "No-being" and a mere principle lands you > directly in the Buddhistic atheism, or the Vedantic primitive > Acosmism. What lies beyond and outside the worlds of form, and being, > in worlds and spheres in their most spiritualized state -- (and you > will perhaps oblige us by telling us where that beyond can be, since > the Universe is infinite and limitless) is useless for anyone to > search after since even Planetary Spirits have no knowledge or > perception of it. If our greatest adepts and Bodhisatvas have never > penetrated themselves beyond our solar system, -- and the idea seems > to suit your preconceived theistic theory wonderfully, my respected > Brother -- they still know of the existence of other such solar > systems, with as mathematical a certainty as any western astronomer > knows of the existence of invisible stars which he can never approach > or explore. But of that which lies within the worlds and systems, not > in the trans-infinitude -- (a queer expression to use) -- but in the > cis-infinitude rather, in the state of the purest and inconceivable > immateriality, no one ever knew or will ever tell, hence it is > something non-existent for the universe. You are at liberty to place > in this eternal vacuum the intellectual or voluntary powers of your > deity -- if you can conceive of such a thing. > > Meanwhile we may say that it is motion that governs the laws of > nature; and that it governs them as the mechanical impulse given to > running water which will propel them either in a direct line or along > hundreds of side furrows they may happen to meet on their way and > whether those furrows are natural grooves or channels prepared > artificially by the hand of man. And we maintain that wherever there > is life and being, and in however much spiritualized a form, there is > no room for moral government, much less for a moral Governor - - a > Being which at the same time has no form nor occupies space! Verily > if light shineth in darkness, and darkness comprehends it not, it is > because such is the natural law, but how more suggestive and pregnant > with meaning for one who knows, to say that light can still less > comprehend darkness, nor ever know it since it kills wherever it > penetrates and annihilates it instantly. Pure yet a volitional Spirit > is an absurdity for volitional mind. The result of organism cannot > exist independently of an organized brain, and an organized brain > made out of nihil is a still greater fallacy. If you ask me "Whence > then the immutable laws? -- laws cannot make themselves" -- then in > my turn I will ask you -- and whence their supposed Creator? - - a > creator cannot create or make himself. If the brain did not make > itself, for this would be affirming that brain acted before it > existed, how could intelligence, the result of an organized brain, > act before its creator was made. > > All this reminds one of wrangling for seniorship. If our doctrines > clash too much with your theories then we can easily give up the > subject and talk of something else. Study the laws and doctrines of > the Nepaulese Swabhavikas, the principal Buddhist philosophical > school in India, and you will find them the most learned as the most > scientifically logical wranglers in the world. Their plastic, > invisible, eternal, omnipresent and unconscious Swabhavat is Force or > Motion ever generating its electricity which is life. > > Yes: there is a force as limitless as thought, as potent as boundless > will, as subtile as the essence of life so inconceivably awful in its > rending force as to convulse the universe to its centre would it but > be used as a lever, but this Force is not God, since there are men > who have learned the secret of subjecting it to their will when > necessary. Look around you and see the myriad manifestations of life, > so infinitely multiform; of life, of motion, of change. What caused > these? From what inexhaustible source came they, by what agency? Out > of the invisible and subjective they have entered our little area of > the visible and objective. Children of Akasa, concrete evolutions > from the ether, it was force which brought them into perceptibility > and Force will in time remove them from the sight of man. Why should > this plant in your garden to the right, have been produced with such > a shape and that other one to the left with one totally dissimilar? > Are these not the result of varying action of Force -- unlike > correlations? Given a perfect monotony of activities throughout the > world, and we would have a complete identity of forms, colours, > shapes and properties throughout all the kingdoms of nature. It is > the motion with its resulting conflict, neutralization, > equilibration, correlation, to which is due the infinite variety > which prevails. You speak of an intelligent and good -- (the > attribute is rather unfortunately chosen) -- Father, a moral guide > and governor of the universe and man. A certain condition of things > exists around us which we call normal. Under this nothing can occur > which transcends our every-day experience "God's immutable laws." But > suppose we change this condition and have the best of him without > whom even a hair of your head will not fall, as they tell you in the > West. A current of air brings to me from the lake near which, with my > fingers half frozen I now write to you this letter -- I change by a > certain combination of electrical magnetic odyllic or other > influences the current of air which benumbs my fingers into a warmer > breeze; I have thwarted the intention of the Almighty, and dethroned > him at my will! I can do that, or when I do not want Nature to > produce strange and too visible phenomena, I force my nature- seeing, > nature-influencing self within me, to suddenly awake to new > perceptions and feelings and thus am my own Creator and ruler. > > But do you think that you are right when saying that "the laws > arise." Immutable laws cannot arise, since they are eternal and > uncreated, propelled in the Eternity and that God himself if such a > thing existed, could never have the power of stopping them. And when > did I say that these laws were fortuitous per se. I meant their blind > correlations, never the laws, or rather the law -- since we recognise > but one law in the Universe, the law of harmony, of perfect > EQUILIBRIUM. Then for a man endowed with so subtle a logic, and such > a fine comprehension of the value of ideas in general and that of > words especially -- for a man so accurate as you generally are to > make tirades upon an "all wise, powerful and love-ful God" seems to > say at least strange. I do not protest at all as you seem to think > against your theism, or a belief in an abstract ideal of some kind, > but I cannot help asking you, how do you or how can you know that > your God is all wise, omnipotent and love-ful, when everything in > nature, physical and moral, proves such a being, if he does exist to > be quite the reverse of all you say of him? Strange delusion and one > which seems to overpower your very intellect. > > The difficulty of explaining the fact that "unintelligent Forces can > give rise to highly intelligent beings like ourselves," is covered by > the eternal progression of cycles, and the process of evolution ever > perfecting its work as it goes along. Not believing in cycles, it is > unnecessary for you to learn that which will create but a new pretext > for you, my dear Brother, to combat the theory and argue upon it ad > infinitum. Nor did I ever become guilty of the heresy I am accused > of -- in reference to spirit and matter. The conception of matter and > spirit as entirely distinct, and both eternal could certainly never > have entered my head, however little I may know of them, for it is > one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that the > two are one, and are distinct but in their respective manifestations, > and only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses. Far > from "lacking philosophical breadth" then, our doctrines show, but > one principle in nature, -- spirit-matter or matter-spirit, the third > the ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of the two, -- if I may be > allowed to use an erroneous term in the present application -- losing > itself beyond the view and spiritual perceptions of even the "Gods" > or Planetary Spirits. This third principle say the Vedantic > Philosophers -- is the only reality, everything else being Maya, as > none of the Protean manifestations of spirit-matter or Purusha and > Prakriti have ever been regarded in any other light than that of > temporary delusions of the senses. Even in the hardly outlined > philosophy of Isis this idea is clearly carried out. In the book of > Kiu-te, Spirit is called the ultimate sublimation of matter, and > matter the crystallization of spirit. And no better illustration > could be afforded than in the very simple phenomenon of ice, water, > vapour and the final dispersion of the latter, the phenomenon being > reversed in its consecutive manifestations and called the Spirit > failing into generation or matter. This trinity resolving itself into > unity, -- a doctrine as old as the world of thought -- was seized > upon by some early Christians, who had it in the schools of > Alexandria, and made up into the Father, or generative spirit; the > Son or matter, -- man; and into the Holy Ghost, the immaterial > essence, or the apex of the equilateral triangle, an idea found to > this day in the pyramids of Egypt. Thus once more it is proved that > you misunderstand my meaning entirely, whenever for the sake of > brevity I use a phraseology habitual with the Western people. But in > my turn I have to remark that your idea that matter is but the > temporary allotropic form of spirit differing from it as charcoal > does from diamond is as unphilosophical as it is unscientific from > both the Eastern and the Western points of view, charcoal being but a > form of residue of matter, while matter per se is indestructible, and > as I maintain coeval with spirit -- that spirit which we know and can > conceive of. Bereaved of Prakriti, Purusha (Spirit) is unable to > manifest itself, hence ceases to exist -- becomes nihil. Without > spirit or Force, even that which Science styles as "not living" > matter, the so-called mineral ingredients which feed plants, could > never have been called into form. There is a moment in the existence > of every molecule and atom of matter when, for one cause or another, > the last spark of spirit or motion or life (call it by whatever name) > is withdrawn, and in the same instant with the swiftness which > surpasses that of the lightning glance of thought the atom or > molecule or an aggregation of molecules is annihilated to return to > its pristine purity of intra-cosmic matter. It is drawn to the mother > fount with the velocity of a globule of quicksilver to the central > mass. Matter, force, and motion are the trinity of physical objective > nature, as the trinitarian unity of spirit-matter is that of the > spiritual or subjective nature. Motion is eternal because spirit is > eternal. But no modes of motion can ever be conceived unless they be > in connection with matter. > > And now to your extraordinary hypothesis that Evil with its attendant > train of sin and suffering is not the result of matter, but may be > perchance the wise scheme of the moral Governor of the Universe. > Conceivable as the idea may seem to you trained in the pernicious > fallacy of the Christian, -- "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" -- > it is utterly inconceivable for me. Must I repeat again that the > best Adepts have searched the Universe during milleniums and found > nowhere the slightest trace of such a Machiavellian schemer -- but > throughout, the same immutable, inexorable law. You must excuse me > therefore if I positively decline to lose my time over such childish > speculations. It is not "the ways of the Lord" but rather those of > some extremely intelligent men in everything but some particular > hobby, that are to me incomprehensible. > > As you say this need "make no difference between us" -- personally. > But it does make a world of difference if you propose to learn and > offer me to teach. For the life of me I cannot make out how I could > ever impart to you that which I know since the very A.B.C. of what I > know, the rock upon which the secrets of the occult universe, whether > on this or that side of the veil, are encrusted, is contradicted by > you invariably and a priori. My very dear Brother, either we know > something or we do not know anything. In the first case what is the > use of your learning, since you think you know better? In the second > case why should you lose your time? You say it matters nothing > whether these laws are the expression of the will of an intelligent > conscious God, as you think, or constitute the inevitable attributes > of an unintelligent, unconscious "God," as I hold. I say, it matters > everything, and since you earnestly believe that these fundamental > questions (of spirit and matter -- of God or no God) "are admittedly > beyond both of us" -- in other words that neither I nor yet our > greatest adepts can know no more than you do, then what is there on > earth that I could teach you? You know that in order to enable you to > read you have first to learn your letters -- yet you want to know the > course of events before and after the Pralayas, of every event here > on this globe on the opening of a new cycle, namely a mystery > imparted at one of the last initiations, as Mr. Sinnett was told, -- > for my letter to him upon the Planetary Spirits was simply > incidental -- brought out by a question of his. And now you will say > I am evading the direct issue. I have discoursed upon collateral > points, but have not explained to you all you want to know and asked > me to tell you. I "dodge" as I always do. Pardon me for contradicting > you, but it is nothing of the kind. There are a thousand questions I > will never be permitted to answer, and it would be dodging were I to > answer you otherwise than I do. I tell you plainly you are unfit to > learn, for your mind is too full and there is not a corner vacant > from whence a previous occupant would not arise, to struggle with and > drive away the newcomer. Therefore I do not evade, I only give you > time to reflect and deduce and first learn well what was already > given you before you seize on something else. The world of force, is > the world of Occultism and the only one whither the highest initiate > goes to probe the secrets of being. Hence no-one but such an initiate > can know anything of these secrets. Guided by his Guru the chela > first discovers this world, then its laws, then their centrifugal > evolutions into the world of matter. To become a perfect adept takes > him long years, but at last he becomes the master. The hidden things > have become patent, and mystery and miracle have fled from his sight > forever. He sees how to guide force in this direction or that -- to > produce desirable effects. The secret chemical, electric or odic > properties of plants, herbs, roots, minerals, animal tissue, are as > familiar to him as the feathers of your birds are to you. No change > in the etheric vibrations can escape him. He applies his knowledge, > and behold a miracle! And he who started with the repudiation of the > very idea that miracle is possible, is straightway classed as a > miracle worker and either worshipped by the fools as a demi- god or > repudiated by still greater fools as a charlatan! And to show you how > exact a science is occultism let me tell you that the means we avail > ourselves of are all laid down for us in a code as old as humanity to > the minutest detail, but everyone of us has to begin from the > beginning, not from the end. Our laws are as immutable as those of > Nature, and they were known to man and eternity before this strutting > game cock, modern science, was hatched. If I have not given you the > modus operandi or begun by the wrong end, I have at least shown you > that we build our philosophy upon experiment and deduction -- unless > you choose to question and dispute this fact equally with all others. > Learn first our laws and educate your perceptions, dear Brother. > Control your involuntary powers and develop in the right direction > your will and you will become a teacher instead of a learner. I would > not refuse what I have a right to teach. Only I had to study for > fifteen years before I came to the doctrines of cycles and had to > learn simpler things at first. > > But do what we may, and whatever happens I trust we will have no more > arguing which is as profitless as it is painful. > > > > > "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> > Sun Nov 10, 2002 6:19 am > Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions > > > > > Mahatma Letter No. 134 > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm > > [Letter from H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. This letter > includes a > message from Master Morya.] > > Dehra Dun. Friday. 4th. > > Arrived only yesterday, last night late from Saharampur. The > house > very good but cold, damp and dreary. Received a whole heap of > letters > and answer yours first. > > Saw at last M. and showed him your last or rather Benemadhab's > on > which you have scratched a query. It is the latter Morya > answers. I > wrote this under his dictation and now copy it. > > I wrote to Sinnett my opinion on the Allahabad theosophists. > (Not > through me though?) Adetyarom B. wrote a foolish letter to > Damodar > and Benemadhab writes a foolish request to Mr. Sinnett. Because > K.H. > chose to correspond with two men, who proved of the utmost > importance > and use to the Society they all -- whether wise or stupid, > clever or > dull, possibly useful or utterly useless -- lay their claims to > correspond with us directly -- too. Tell him (you) that this > must be > stopped. For ages we never corresponded with anyone, nor do we > mean > to. What has Benemadhab or any other of the many claimants done > to > have a right to such a claim? Nothing whatever. They join the > Society, and though remaining as stubborn as ever in their old > beliefs and superstitions, and having never given up caste or > one > single of their customs, they, in their selfish exclusiveness, > expect > to see and converse with us and have our help in all and > everything. > I will be pleased if Mr. Sinnett says, to everyone of those who > may > address him with similar pretensions the following: "The > 'Brothers' > desire me to inform one and all of you, natives, that unless a > man is > prepared to become a thorough theosophist i.e. to do as D. > Mavalankar > did, -- give up entirely caste, his old superstitions and show > himself a true reformer (especially in the case of child > marriage) he > will remain simply a member of the Society with no hope whatever > of > ever hearing from us. The Society, acting in this directly in > accordance with our orders, forces no one to become a > theosophist of > the IId. Section. It is left with himself and at his choice. It > is > useless for a member to argue 'I am one of a pure life, I am a > teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice. All my > aspirations > are for good etc.' and he, at the same time, building by his > acts and > deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and us. > What > have we, the disciples of the true Arhats, of esoteric Buddhism > and > of Sang-gyas to do with the Shasters and Orthodox Brahmanism? > There > are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis and Saddhus leading > the > most pure lives, and yet being as they are, on the path of > error, > never having had an opportunity to meet, see or even hear of us. > Their forefathers have driven away the followers of the only > true > philosophy upon earth away from India and now, it is not for the > latter to come to them but to them to come to us if they want > us. > Which of them is ready to become a Buddhist, a Nastika as they > call > us? None. Those who have believed and followed us have had their > reward. Mr. Sinnett and Hume are exceptions. Their beliefs are > no > barrier to us for they have none. They may have had influences > around > them, bad magnetic emanations the result of drink, Society and > promiscuous physical associations (resulting even from shaking > hands > with impure men) but all this is physical and material > impediments > which with a little effort we could counteract and even clear > away > without much detriment to ourselves. Not so with the magnetism > and > invisible results proceeding from erroneous and sincere beliefs. > > > SECTION HERE MOVED TO TOP > > > it either necessary or profitable to lose our time waging war to > the > unprogressed Planetaries who delight in personating gods and > sometimes well known characters who have lived on earth. There > are > Dhyan-Chohans and "Chohans of Darkness," not what they term > devils > but imperfect "Intelligences" who have never been born on this > or any > other earth or sphere no more than the "Dhyan Chohans" have and > who > will never belong to the "builders of the Universe," the pure > Planetary Intelligences, who preside at every Manvantara while > the > Dark Chohans preside at the Pralayas. Explain this to Mr. > Sinnett (I > CAN'T) -- tell him to read over what I said to them in the few > things > I have explained to Mr. Hume; and let him remember that as all > in > this universe is contrast (I cannot translate it better) so the > light > > of the Dhyan Chohans and their pure intelligence is contrasted > by > the "Ma-Mo Chohans" -- and their destructive intelligence. These > are > he gods the Hindus and Christians and Mahomed and all others of > bigoted religions and sects worship; and so long as their > influence > > is upon their devotees we would no more think of associating > with or > counteracting them in their work than we do the Red- Caps on > earth > whose evil results we try to palliate but whose work we have no > right > to meddle with so long as they do not cross our path. (You will > not > understand this, I suppose. But think well over it and you will. > M. > means here, that they have no right or even power to go against > the > natural or that work which is prescribed to each class of beings > or > existing things by the law of nature. The Brothers, for instance > could prolong life but they could not destroy death, not even > for > themselves. They can to a degree palliate evil and relieve > suffering; > they could not destroy evil. No more can the Dhyan Chohans > impede the > work of the Mamo Chohans, for their Law is darkness, ignorance, > destruction etc., as that of the former is Light, knowledge and > creation. The Dhyan Chohans answer to Buddh, Divine Wisdom and > Life > in blissful knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in > nature of Shiva, Jehovah and other invented monsters with > Ignorance > at their tail). > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.