Lessons in Theosophy


Lesson 4, Do Theosophists
believe in God?



      Theosophists believe in the Absolute, which is different than God. Both God and the Absolute may seem to be similar, but the characteristics of the two are quite different. Let's compare the two.


-- Definition of God --


      The orthodox idea of God is seen as a existing, cognizant (thinking thoughts and feeling emotions) entity who takes an active role in all activites and events in the universe, from events as great as the creation of the universe and galaxies, to events as small as the day-to-day details of every human's life. It is said that we are able to have a personal relationship with God.

      In contrast, Theosophy teaches the concept called the Absolute:


-- Names and Characteristics of the Absolute --


        1. Names.

      The Absolute is called in Theosophical literature by many names. Some of them are: (“SD” refers to The Secret Doctrine.)
  • The Boundless (SD Vol. I pg. 56)
  • The Unknown (and Unknowable) (SD Vol. I pg. 56)
  • The Self-Existing (SD Vol. I pg. 56)
  • The absolute Divine Essence (SD Vol. I pg. 56)
  • The First Cause (SD Vol. I pg. 327)
  • one absolute Reality (SD Vol. I pg. 14)
  • The One Reality (SD Vol. I pg. 327)
  • Non-Being (SD Vol. I pg. 88)
  • Divine Thought (SD Vol. I pg. 327)
  • Heavenly Man (SD Vol. I pg. 215)
  • Darkness (being impenetrable to human perception) (SD Vol. I pg. 56)
  • The Unknown Darkness (SD Vol. I pg. 425)
  • Cosmic Ideation (SD Vol. I pg. 328)
  • The Causeless One Cause (SD Vol. I pg. 15)
  • The Rootless Root (SD Vol. I pg. 88)
  • The One (SD Vol. I pg. 113)
  • Infinite Unity (SD Vol. I pg. 356)

        2. Characteristics.

      The important thing about the characteristics of the Absolute is that there are none. The Absolute cannot be described, cannot have have any attributes that can be used to describe it. It had been said that trying to describe the Absolute is like trying to find attributes for something that has no attributes. However, in a discussion of what the Absolute is, an attempt at describing it will now be made:


-- The Absolute as described in The Secret Doctrine --


The Absolute is described in The Secret Doctrine as,
      “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.’” (SD I pg. 14)
This postulation is made:
      “... 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.” (SD I pg. 14)
The issue of the Absolute being the “First Cause” is discussed.
      “Herbert Spencer [asserted] that the nature of the ‘First Cause,’ which the Occultist more logically derives from the ‘Causeless Cause,’ the ‘Eternal,’ and the ‘Unknowable,’ may be essentially the same as that of the Consciousness which wells up within us: in short, that the impersonal reality pervading the Kosmos is the pure noumenon of thought.” (SD I pg. 14)
The answer: The Absolute is not the “First Cause.”
      “The ‘first’ presupposes necessarily something which is the ‘first brought forth, the first in time, space, and rank’ — and therefore finite and conditioned. The ‘first’ cannot be the absolute, for it is a manifestation. Therefore, Eastern Occultism calls the Abstract All the ‘Causeless One Cause’, the ‘Rootless Root’, and limits the ‘First Cause’ to the Logos, in the sense that Plato gives to this term.” (SD I pg. 14 note)
      In the above paragraph, Blavatsky brings up a key argument on the nature of the Absolute: All of nature and the Universe is a manifestation of the Absolute. The Absolute itself is not a manifestation, and does not manifest. Anything that manifests or is a manifestation is, by definition, limited. The Absolute is not limited in any way. Therefore, the Absolute is completely unmanifested.

      Parabrahm, another name for the Absolute, is used often in the Secret Doctrine.
      “Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a conditioned symbol.... ” (SD I pg. 15)
The manifesting begins. Spirit and Matter appear:
      “Spirit (or Consciousness) and Matter are, however, to be regarded, not as independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the Absolute (Parabrahm), which constitute the basis of conditioned Being whether subjective or objective.” (SD I pg. 15)
      Next is the idea of Periodicity, the idea that everything in the universe happens in cycles. Planets, solar systems, and universes “come and go,” in that they have active periods followed by periods of rest.
      “...the Secret Doctrine affirms ... The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically ‘the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing,’ called ‘the manifesting stars,’ and the ‘sparks of Eternity.’ ‘The Eternity of the Pilgrim’ [the Monad] is like a wink of the Eye of Self-Existence .... ‘The appearance and disappearance of Worlds is like a regular tidal ebb of flux and reflux.’ (See Part II. [Secret Doctrine], ‘Days and Nights of Brahma.’) (SD I pp. 16-17)”
      The above paragraph speaks of the Periodicity of the Universe. It is important to note that the Absolute is not effected by any Periodicity (periods of activity followed by periods of inactivity), such as the appearing and disappearing of universes.


-- God vs. the Absolute --


      In Theosophy, from the Unmanifest comes a manifestation. This manifestation, this active participation with the univere-to-be is what has been called “God” by the major religions. Therefore, “God” is seen as having come forth from the Unmanifest.

      The point needs to be made that, yes, Theosophists believe in God. However, God is seen as merely a manifestation of the Absolute. Theosphists call God by the name Logos.

      Theosophy teaches that from the Unmanifest comes a manifestation. This manifestation has various facets. One facet is the appearance of the Seven Dhyani Chohans. Thesosphy teaches that these seven Beings actually do the “creating” referred to in the Bible. It is time to examine the theory that Gods (plural) not a God (singular) did the “creating” in the book of Genesis.


-- God in the Bible, and the Creation Story in Genesis --


Thesosphy teaches two ideas about the God of the Bible:
  • The word “God“ in Genesis 1.26 was originally “Gods” (plural) and was mis-translated into English.
  • God (Gods, actually) was preceeded by the Absolute
      This entire story of the beginning of the Universe will be covered in detail in Lesson 18. (A chart is also available, which uses the name “Unmanifest” in place of “Absolute.”) For now, we will only consider the idea that the word “God” in the Bible was originally “Gods” (plural) and was mis-translated into English. The Book of Genesis says:
“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)
      When the Bible was translated into English, the word “God” was translated from the word “Elohim”. The word Elohim is plural, not singular:
“The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine....” (www.answers.com/topic/elohim, in the Section titled, “Entymology”.)
Therefore, the sentence from Genesis should read:
“Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26)
... which is what Theosophy teaches. Let’s take another look at the original line from Genesis:
“Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (underlines added.)
      Here, the Bible clearly categorizes the speaker(s) as plural, which again agrees with the Theosophical teachings.

      One Theosophical writer has characterized Genesis as being two creation stories, one a psychic creation, the other a physical creation.
      “There seem here to be two separate accounts of the creation of man, a fact which must have puzzled some Bible readers, but which is explained when we remember that man is a threefold being, so that three, or at least two, distinct creations can be recorded. In the Bible the two accounts seem to have become transposed, and it is more logical to begin with that in chapter II. And it is most important to observe that the Hebrew word translated God and Lord God is elohim, which is a plural word and in Young’s Biblical Concordance is given as ‘God, gods, objects of worship’. In fact it means creative powers and includes a large range of such beings. To Theosophy, the whole universe consists of living beings, endowed with intelligence in varying degrees, and all of them creative each in its own sphere. In the second of the accounts (which, as said, we take first) the Elohim form man out of earth and breathe into him the breath of life, making him a living soul. This represents two stages of creation, physical and psychic. The word translated ‘living soul’ is nephesh, the correct meaning of which is given by Young as ‘animal soul.’ Next we find Elohim endowing man with their own likeness (observe the plural pronouns ‘us’ and ‘our’) and thereby rendering him lord of the other animated creation.” (Henry T. Edge, Theosophical Light on the Christian Bible


-- The Seven Dhyani-Chohan --


      Theosohy gives specific teachings about the “Gods” of Genesis who created Adam and Eve. They are called the Dhyani-Chohan, of which there are seven. The Dhyani-Chohan, existing on the Anupadaka Plane of Existence, planned out and caused our physical Universe to appear. They are the same as the Christian Archangels.
      [The Dhyani-Chohan] “... are the collective hosts of spiritual beings — the Angelic Hosts of Christianity, the Elohim and ‘Messengers’ of the Jews — who are the vehicle for the manifestation of the divine or universal thought and will. They are the Intelligent Forces that give to and enact in Nature her ‘laws,’ while themselves acting according to laws imposed upon them in a similar manner by still higher Powers....“ (H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, vol. I p. 38 online or hardcopy)
These are also the seven spirits of God in the Book of Revelations.
      “From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God....” (Revelations 4:5)
Click here for more on the Dhyani-Chohan.


-- One Personal God vs. a Hierarchy (Archangels, etc.) --


      God is seen as a personal God, interacting with us on a very personal, one-on-one level. The Absolute is not seen as doing this. Rather, the entire Universe is said to be organized into a Hierarchy. Higher Beings can interact with us humans, but they are part of a system of multiple-leveled "officers" — at the universal, galactic, solar system, planetary, and humanity levels, etc. When we have difficulties in life and need divine intervention, such intervention is possible, but Theosophy teaches that it will come from one of these intermediary Beings rather than from God.

      (As a side note, some religions emphasize the appealing to a God for help with difficulties in life, some religions emphasize the appealing to intermediary Beings for help with difficulties in life, while other religions emphasize the finding of inner strength within ourselves to deal with difficulties in life. Theosphy embraces all three philosophies.)

      The Bible teaches of Archangels, Angels, Seraphim, Cherubim, etc. Theosophy teaches that these are the same intermediary Beings in the Heirarchy mentioned above. Buddhism teaches of various levels of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which are merely different names for the same intermediary Beings in the Heirarchy.


-- The Theosophical Concept of Logos --


      Any discussion about God and the Absolute would be incomplete without discussing the Theosophical concept of Logos.


-- The Universal Mind --


      For further study of the place of the Diety in Theosophy, see The Universal Mind.


-- Final Thoughts --


H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
      “... Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a personal and extra-cosmic deity....   [A believer]...would do better far to remember that every man has a god within, a direct ray from the Absolute, the celestial ray from the One; that he has his ‘god’ within, not outside, of himself.” (H.P. Blavatsky, Transactions of the Blavatsy Lodge vol. I, page 51 online or pp. 43-44 hardcopy)

“Esoteric philosophy ... denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable. (H.P. Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine, p. xx)








Next: Lesson 5, Nirvana



   

 
copyright © Nick Mojzesz,
2005, 2006, & 2007
all rights reserved.