FUNDAMENTAL THEOSOPHICAL POSITION ON THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF GOD VERSUS THE DOCTRINE OF SVABHĀVA
THERE HAVE EXISTED philosophical schools that have a spiritual ideal of nature, without a God. The debates between the domineering forces of theology, proponents of physicalism and atheism give us very little space to debate between them. The Theosophical position on the ultimate nature of reality is described as functionally non-theistic, similarly to Buddhism and Jainism, but admits belief in both the plurality of worlds and gods. It encourages respect for the gods and life, instead of worship. It points to our connection to the elements. stars, and our spiritual essence as spiritually and metaphysically, pure space (non-self).
THE MAHATMA LETTER correspondences implore us to consider other positions than both the monotheists and modern atheist. The idea of Deity as eternal perpetual motion (Breath), or as ever-becoming, many-formed, or protean substance did not begin with Spinoza; though, Spinoza articulated this esoteric doctrine when he contended, that God is Substance. This is, if the etymologies and meanings of God (a compound of Coelus and Terra, or two into a unity, i.e., the One Life) and THEOS (represented by the Circle and Center-point) are understood in their pre, or non-Christian sense.
In this ancient philosophy, all things in nature were born and evolved from Svabhāva or Zìxìng (substance or self-originating nature), in both the manifestation of the universe and physical phenomena. Svabhāva is the protean, eternal Substance, or Nature, Force and Motion, generating cosmic electricity. Its phenomenal nature is cognizable by physicists on the cosmic and terrestrial plane. This phenomenal nature refers to Sound, Light, Heat, Color, &c., argues Blavatsky (The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1., pg. 554) explains. This position stands on the eternal indestructibility of MATTER, rather than the conception of the ultimate reality as an entified godhead, or monarchic super-entity-person constantly playing dice, or chess with the organisms of his creation.
Life, we say, is one energy in a law of continuity, acting Proteus-like under innumerable varied forms. The philosophy that God is substance is not an ordinary position, because the image of an elder father, an entity or an emperor physically peering down on “His” creations dominate our imagination.
This is in itself an idol, and though subtle and mental, has long proven pernicious.
At the same time, the theologian maintains that this God-entity is the Absolute, beyond Time and Space. How does an older, classical position on the nature of reality show our prevailing Western theological concept of God to be stagnant and outdated? Other symbols of God, for example as: (a) vegetation (or having vegetative properties) or (b) the eternal fire exist at the very heart of Judaism and systems throughout the Mediterranean; and aren’t just enigmatic concepts of some deliberately obscured European occultism. Here, we already have various means for a legitimate bridge of contrast between Hindu and Jewish cosmology.
There is a traceable history to how simultaneously held contradictory positions became commonplace belief, going back to divided schools and arguments within Judaism. I explored this on the subject of theosophical monism versus anthropomorphic dualism in the Tragedy of Satan the Double-Headed Dragon about ancient myths of godly Twin-Brothers.
Early parts of the Torah show its people’s acknowledgement and belief in the existence of the plurality of gods, each having a portion, or guardianship over a nation, or people. Over time, the belief became, that the gods of other nations and people do not exist, or they were demoted to demons. Kabbalists and Christians have tried to reconcile El (the highest divinity above the seven heavens) and Yahweh.
El is in-fact the same god as Helios, Baal, or Bel. This god is known as the spiritual Light above the seven heavens, the first principle, or eldest god, and is hence called the Ancient One, or Adon the first Ancestor.
יְהוָה is a puzzle, a substitute, a multi-faceted symbol of various permutations, i.e., a mask of other gods and characters. Blavatsky calls it a “euhemerized Priapus,” one of the generative powers among the elohim (“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil” Genesis 3:12). It is part of a collective host of secondary (creative and subordinate) powers in the phases of creation (or theogony), the totality of which is the Sephiroth.
Monotheism was developed to revise the history and beliefs of the Israelites, and the Kabbalist guarded and veiled these doctrines. However, my view is that this not only serves as a blind, but a source for continuous, unmitigated philosophical confusion and ignorant extremism in its most rigid forms.
CONTINUED
In the context of The Mahatma Letters, K.H. is speaking to two Europeans who rather than listen, come with many pre-conceived notions that obstruct them from understanding their concepts and ways of life. K.H. becomes honest in his replies about the God theory.
K.H. spoke of a Buddhist philosophical school in India, pointing to it as one of the most logical positions on this issue. 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.” This position is that of the Nepalese Svābhāvika School (Brian H. Hodgson’s published article can be read here), and they are said to be philosophers of the oldest school of Buddhism.
“The only sources on this available either then or now, are the essays of Brian H. Hodgson published in Asiatic Researches, etc., starting in 1828, and later collected into a book entitled Essays on the Languages, Literature and Religion of Nepál and Tibet, London, 1874. Hodgson had been British Resident in Kathmandu, living there from 1821 through 1843. Since Nepal was otherwise closed to foreigners, Hodgson’s writings were for nearly a century the only source of information on Nepalese Buddhism. All the early Buddhist scholars, including Eugène Burnouf, Samuel Beal, Joseph Edkins, Hendrik Kern, etc., most of whom were quoted by Blavatsky and K.H., relied on these writings.” (David Reigle, Technical Terms in Stanza II)
It is interesting to note, that K.H., frequently paraphrased outspoken French-German atheist Baron D’Holbach in the letter no. 10, commending his work, even paraphrasing from his writings.
Baron D’Holbach was a French-German during the French Enlightenment, whose philosophy was atheistic and materialist, and similar to the described Svābhāvikas and Samkhya.
K.H., the “frenchified” philosopher shares the flare of d’Holbach—when d’Holbach states:
“All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance, ferocity; and modern religions are only ancient follies rejuvenated.” “Religion has ever filled the mind of man with darkness, and kept him in ignorance of his real duties and true interests. It is only by dispelling the clouds and phantoms of Religion, that we shall discover Truth, Reason, and Morality” (Baron d’Holbach).
The aim of Occult Philosophy in this mission is towards the future esteem of PHILOSOPHY, and the elevation of man through the knowledge of their true nature and origins.
─────────
EXCERPT FROM K.H., THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT, LETTER NO. 10, RECEIVED SIMLA, 1881-? ’82.”
“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 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 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.”
