Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00260)

> > Paul Gillingwater: "Does God exist? According to ML, most
> > assuredly not."
>
> Jerry S: I think that the answer to this one depends on how we
> define God.  HPB was not an atheist, and neither am I.  Mary
> Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, taught that God is
> Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Principle, and Spirit.  While I am
> no longer a Christian Scientist, I still agree with her
> definition of God.

A nice definition, or pointer, indeed.  And yes, it all depends
on what definition or concept we have.

In the so-called 1900 letter which is usually regarded as one of
the letters from the Mahatmas, there's a relevant sentence:

     Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone
     of which one is a part.

There was quite a bit of discussion of this letter on THEOS-L
last October.  The letter itself is quoted in the archive file
TL9410.LOG part 1, and the discussion followed on for a while
after that.

The Mahatmas found it extraordinarily difficult, even with their
talents, to find English words and phrases that could accurately
convey their occult science, so I think we need to keep this in
mind and use intuition to the maximum.  That is why people like
David Reigle are working on original Sanskrit and Tibetan texts,
where the language is vastly richer for this sort of topic.

My feeling about some of the early letters in the ML is that the
Mahatmas were trying to point out how their philosophy differed
from that which an educated Englishman of the day might hold.
Almost to shock and challenge an entrenched mind-set, as a koan
might do.  I can imagine them rummaging around the mass of
thought-forms and associations surrounding various words and
thinking "No, that won't do, that won't do.", one after the
other.

The word "God" in those days would have been laden with
connotations which would be incompatible with the views of the
Mahatmas.  More so than now, probably.

On the other hand, the word God can quite appropriately be used
to refer to a Solar Logos or, more comprehensively, the cosmic
Ishvara - That which has emerged from the Unmanifest as the
primary and all-inclusive creative energy/being/etc, call it what
you will.

By the way, since there are galaxies, and great groups of
galaxies, we can suppose there is a super-Logos of a galaxy, and
a mega-super-Logos of a galactic group.  The huge black hole
thought to be at the centre of each galaxy could be the physical
focus of such a being.  Real speculative stuff, but it's just
applying "As above, so below."

Murray Stentiford
murray@sss.co.nz