23 June 2016

THE AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST, June 2016

 

This is the opening thought of the June edition:      

Only those whose goal is to help mankind liberate itself from unnecessary pain have the Right Angle from which the esoteric doctrines can be understood.

On page one the reader sees the article “On the Solidity of Foundations”.  Page two brings “The Door to Knowledge”. On p. 3 we have “The Spirit of Research”, and then “Learning to Learn From Every Circumstance”.

The Universe as a Mirror: a Cosmic Dimension in Self-Knowledge” is at p. 5. After that, “The Process of Self-Identification” and “Human Happiness and Law”.

On p. 7, “On Deserving Help”.  On pp. 8-10, “Literature, Art, TV and Thought: Soul Change is the Source of Social Change”.

These are some of the other topics in the June 2016 edition:

* Seven Levels of Beauty;

* Brazil, the Sleeping Giant in South America; 

* Thoughts Along the Road;

* Theosophy 100 Years Ago: an article by John Garrigues, on the ethics of Science;

* The 1889 Book ‘Esoteric Studies’, by the Viscount de Figanière;

* The Secret of Unspeakable Peace; and

* Transfiguration and the Birth of Wisdom.

The 19 pp. edition includes the List of New Texts in Our Websites.



000

You can find the entire collection of The Aquarian Theosophist” at  www.TheosophyOnline.com.

000

On the role of the esoteric movement in the ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline.  

  
Published in 2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist, the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.


000

18 June 2016

MASTERS TEACH THAT THERE IS NO GOD

Letter Ten in the Mahatma Letters Explains:
 “God” is But a Sad Fabrication, Made by Priests

A Mahatma of the Himalayas 



00000000000000000000000000000000000

Editorial Note:

The present letter from a Mahatma
was received by Alfred P. Sinnett at Simla,
India, in 1882.  It was transcribed from a copy
in Mr. Sinnett’s handwriting and published in “The
Mahatma Letters” as Letter number 10, or X.  In the
Chronological edition of the Mahatma Letters, it is
Letter 88. It constitutes one of the most important
texts in the theosophical literature of all time.

(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000



“The God of the Theologians is simply an 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.”

“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.”

“…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.”

“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.”

“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.”

(A Mahatma of the Himalayas)



NOTES BY K.H. ON A “PRELIMINARY CHAPTER”
HEADED “GOD” BY HUME, INTENDED TO PREFACE
AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED).


Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. 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 Ishwar 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 and un-known causes. The God of the Theologians is simply an 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, “praeter 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 (c) 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 (c) 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 nidanas) 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.)

000

On the role of the esoteric movement in the ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline.  


Published in 2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist, the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.

000

17 June 2016

SPINOZA AND WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS

An Unfinished Manuscript on the
Theosophy of Western Philosophers

Helena P. Blavatsky
   

Epicurus of Samos, Baruch Spinoza and G.W.F. Hegel


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Editorial Note:

The following text is reproduced from volume
XIII of the Collected Writings of HPB, pp. 307-312.
Editor Boris de Zirkoff writes in an opening note:

“The Manuscript of this unfinished essay in H.P.B.’s
handwriting exists in the Adyar Archives. It has been
originally published in The Theosophist, April, 1962, pp. 8-13.”

The article was also published at the November
2015 edition of “The Aquarian Theosophist”, pp. 15-18.

(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


One of the greatest materialists that ever lived, and than whom no one adduced stronger arguments in defence of his theory - was Epicurus. The great, the virtuous, the noble and chaste Epicurus, who called the higher ends and divine laws mere inventions of the human mind, and rejected the idea of the human Soul as being immortal. Who of our modern positivists has ever said of the origin of our being, anything stronger than this:

“The soul……. must be material, because we trace it issuing from a material source; because it exists, and exists alone, in a material system; is nourished by material food; grows with the growth of the body; becomes matured with its maturity; declines with its decay; and hence, whether belonging to man or brute must die with its death.”  [1]

And yet, he was a Deist and a Theosophist; for apart from a system entirely his own, the profound philosophy of which is evinced in the cohesive power of his school never equalled by any other ancient school of philosophy - he devoted his whole life to the study of natural sciences and the analysis of divine action in its relations to nature. His conclusion was that the Universe which is infinite could not be the product of divine action, since the existence of evil cannot be accounted for. Notwithstanding this, and though disbelieving in a God as an intelligent Principle, he admitted the existence of both a Supreme Being and gods or Spirits, living and immortal beings, of human shape but colossal proportions.

On the other hand, Spinoza was a recognized “systematic Atheist” as Bayle brands him [2]; against whom was pronounced the terrific Anathema Maranatha, and whose system of negation Malebranche terms a chimera both ridiculous and terrible. And yet, no more refined, spiritual nature than Spinoza’s ever breathed upon earth. If by Epicurus abstract ideas were continually transformed into the gross concrete forms of a material Universe; by Spinoza the material conceptions of Science, from the Solar system down to the molecular structure of a leaflet, were mellowed down to the most Raphaelic hues, and the grossest substances assumed the shadowy, ethereal outlines of an ideal world. So much did this martyr of transcendent Theosophy impress himself upon the subsequent generations of thinkers that Schleiermacher speaking of “the holy but proscribed Spinoza” reaches the most touching pathos. “The Divine Spirit transfuses him”, he says. “The infinite was his beginning and end, the universe was his only and everlasting love. In holy innocence and deep humility he mirrored himself in the eternal world, and saw also how he was its noblest mirror. Full of religion was he, and full of a holy spirit, and therefore he stands alone and unrivalled, master of his art, but exalted above profane Society, without disciples and without even citizenship!” [3]

The conceptions of this “atheistical” Theosophist, about God are among the most original. Iron-bound as they are by the law of necessity reigning everywhere in physical nature, we find him solving the most abstract ideas by rigidly geometrical definitions. His is a system of metaphysical ideas from which evolve a series of theorems - a demonstration from the eight definitions and seven axioms of the first book of the Ethica. [4]

One acquainted with the Hindu philosophy would be singularly reminded of both the Vedanta and that extreme Buddhist system known as the school of the Svâbhâvikas. According to his ideas God is “a Substance consisting of infinite attributes each of which expresses an absolutely infinite and eternal essence.” It follows that this Substance - necessary and infinite, one and indivisible, is God, the only Self-existence, All-Perfection and absolute Infinitude. Take away the name of the Deity, and you have here the abstract ideas about the only creative Power of the World, of the Svâbhâvikas. “Nothing exists in the Universe but Substance - or Nature”, say the latter. “This Substance exists by, and through itself (Svabhavat) having never been either created or had a Creator.” “No” - echoes unconsciously Spinoza, “nothing exists in this world but Substance, and the modes of its attributes; and, as Substance cannot produce Substance there is no such thing as Creation.” This is the claim of most of the Hindu philosophies. And again ……. It (creation) - says Spinoza, has no beginning and no end, but all things have to proceed or emanate from the Infinite One and will so proceed eternally. According to his philosophy, only two out of the innumerable infinite attributes of the Deity are known to us - extension and thought, the objective and the subjective of which He (the Infinite) is the identity. God is the only free Cause (causa libera), all other beings having neither free will nor contingency are moved by fixed laws of causation. The Deity is “The causa immanens omnium, not existing apart from the Universe, but manifested and expressed in it, as in a living garment.” In the Zohar the creation or universe is also called “the garment of God” woven from its own Substance.

’Tis thus at the roaring Loom of Time I ply
And weave for God the garment thou seest Him by,

says Goethe, another German Theosophist in his Faust. And, in Vedanta, we find Brahma the Absolute God, unconscious of the Universe, and remaining ever independent of all direct relation to it. Says Pandit Pramadâ Dâsa Mittra of Benares - in his Vedântic Conception of Brahma: “While the Vedântin denies this mundane transitory consciousness to the Deity he declares …….. emphatically ……. that He is Consciousness Absolute ……. He and His Consciousness are not distinct ……. It is this permanent Self partially manifested [in man,] but prevailing all conscious beings that is the Omnipresent Spirit ……. The Vedântin believes that it (the world) was nothing and is nothing apart from the One absolute Being - God.” [5] It is only when the Jewish philosopher speaks of the “attributes” of God - however infinite, that he differs from the Vedanta; for the latter allows man alone to call his consciousness an attribute of his soul “because it varies, whilst the consciousness (chaitanya) of God is one and unchangeable, hence no such distinction of substance and attribute holds with Him.” As to Spinoza’s Deity - natura naturans - conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity - as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple. The same subtle metaphysical distinction is found in the mystery by which the impersonal Brahma - One and Indivisible, the Absolute “consciousness” - unconscious of the Universe, becomes through sheer metaphysical necessity Ishvara, the personal God, and brings himself into direct relation to the Universe - of which it is the Creator - respectively under the definitions of Maya (illusion), Shakti (power) and Prakriti (nature).

So pre-eminent is the Vedantic Brahmâ-Ishvara in Spinoza’s philosophy that we find this idea strongly colouring the subsequent views of Hegel, one of the philosophers who was the most influenced by the Jewish idealist. In the Hegelian scheme the Absolute asserts its rights to the fullest extent. Hegel declares that he would rather deny the existence of the material universe than to identify God with it. Fichte whose transcendental idealism was originally intended to amplify that of Kant, and served as a basis for Schelling’s Nature-philosophy had gone still further than Hegel in that direction. Unable to free human will from subjection to the iron laws ruling despotically all over physical nature, he denied the reality of both nature and law and denounced them as the product of his own mind - (maya?). Hence he denied God, for in his philosophy the Deity is not an individual being but merely a manifestation of Supreme laws, the necessary and logical order of things, the ordo ordinans of the Universe. If we take in consideration that by a peculiar modification of language, that which the ancients called “Substance”, modern philosophy terms as the Absolute, or the Ego, we will find still more striking similarities between the pantheistical mysticism of the ancients and the extreme transcendentalism of today, whether in physical or spiritual sciences.

To sum up, then, whether with Robert Boyle one considers the Universe in the light of a gigantic clock-work and strives to fathom the mystery of that Self-existing Key, which winds it up so periodically and mechanically. Or, belonging to the class of those thinkers, whom the Duke of Argyll accused in his Reign of Law [6] of constantly speaking of “mere ticketing and orderly assortment of external facts”, and is a Positivist. Or again maintains with Dr. Tyndall that “the order and energy of the Universe is inherent and not imposed from without, - the expression of fixed law and not of arbitrary will”, and is regarded as a materialist. Or yet, without being necessarily a Sectarian bigot, he reflects the early teachings of his childhood and regards God as a tangible, gigantic operative and intelligent Being, with personal attributes, who descends periodically into various Avataras, becomes a “divine male” like Viraj and others, and rejects a deity incomprehensible and incomprehensive - an invisible mist. Or following in the footsteps of the ancient Yogis, starts out in search of the Boundless and the Unconditioned One, and hopes of meeting face to face the Absolute and Subjective, or believes in Alchemy and expects to rival Raymond Lully in the art of making gold and finding the philosopher’s stone; or finally, like Iamblichus, or a modern Spiritualist, experiments in Theurgy and Spiritualism, and calls out forth superior and inferior spirits from the supermundane spheres …….

(The manuscript is interrupted at this point.)

NOTES:

[1] Note by B. Zirkoff: “This is probably H.P.B.’s own translation from the Greek. A summary of the thought of Epicurus on the Soul is translated in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Diogenes Laertius’, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol. II, Book X, § 63-68.”

[2] Note by B. Zirkoff: “See Bayle en Spinoza….. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1961; also Latin ed. of Pierre Poiret: Cogitationum Rationalium…. pp. 80, 87, 304-305. Joannem Pauli, Amsterdam, 1715.”

[3] Note by B. Zirkoff: “Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Speech 2 (‘Nature of Religion’) in his work On Religion, N.Y., Harper Bros., 1958, p. 40 of Eng. repr.”

[4] Note by B. Zirkoff: “Many editions. H.P.B. may have consulted The Chief Works of Spinoza, by R. H. M. Elwes (2 v.) Bohn’s Lib. ed., London, George Bell & Sons, 1883, or W. H. White’s Trans. of Ethics in the same year.”

[5] Note by B. de Zirkoff: “A Dialogue on the Vedantic Conception of Brahma, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2nd series, Vol. X, Pt. 1, 1877; see pp. 35 & 36.”

[6] Note by B. de Zirkoff: “The 8th Duke of Argyll is actually George Douglas Campbell. See New York edition of 1888.”

000

On the role of the esoteric movement in the ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline.  

  
Published in 2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist, the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.

000