Peter

  • The following passage from HPB might supplement the above post (#6932) on the four types of causes and repeats what is found in various places in Vedanta. Keep in mind that the term ‘Rootless Root’ refers to Parabrahm:

    ‘Let us put aside such human conceptions as a personal God, and hold to the purely divine, to that which underlies all and…[Read more]

  • Here are some quotes on the theme of Parabrahm, Cause(s), the Great Breath, Ideation & so on. I hope members find them useful to reflect upon. I do.

    The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental propositions [the first being]:
    (a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible . . .…[Read more]

  • I say in the above previous post: ‘Looking at that third quote above, we might conceive of ‘the unconscious purposiveness of Parabrahm’ as the Law of Karma..’ Just to clarify: I wasn’t suggesting that the quote itself was talking about the Law of Karma, I only meant to say we might conceive of ‘the unconscious purposiveness of Parabrahm’…[Read more]

  • For those who may not be familiar with this idea; causes can be understood in different ways. For example, Aristotle discusses four types of cause: the material, the formal, the efficient and the final. Aristotle saw these four causes as answering the basic questions as to why something is the way that it is. This lead some philosophers to refer…[Read more]

  • Jon, you say: “My perspective is: the “rootless root” is not a root of any kind, but is a symbol for an infinitude of roots; the causeless cause it not a cause of any kind, but is a symbol for an infinitude of causes.”

    I’m not sure this view does anything to resolve the metaphysical problem of the origin of causes and/or roots? How and from…[Read more]

  • I can sort-of see your line of thinking, Jon. Interesting thoughts.

    For myself I am simply aiming to stay with the terminology and language that HPB is using. This message is going to be a bit repetitive in places, but I can’t think of a clearer way to clarify what I’ve said. My weakness, so my apologies. The following terms are some of the d…[Read more]

  • “Whatever conclusion can be derived from anything HPB (and Judge as well) has written down, most of the answers end up requiring new questions again.”

    Those are wise words, Pierre, and I’ve often found your contributions to the study have raised good new questions for me to reflect upon.

    With regards the Second Object, I don’t think it require…[Read more]

  • Hi Jon,

    Just some thoughts on those helpful passages you’ve shared.

    It must be right to use the term ‘beyond’ in a general sense in relation to the Absolute as (to us) it transcends all realms of manifestation and relativity. That said, do we need to keep in mind that ‘the rootless root’ is still some kind of root, and ‘the causeless cause…[Read more]

  • Hi Pierre,

    I’m rather slow at responding at the moment – my apologies. When I said that it’s problematic to treat the term Parabrahm as meaning ‘beyond Brahman’ as a way of showing that Brahma is the First Logos, I meant that it is ‘problematic’ from the point of view of our theosophical texts. I’ve already provided a number of passages from…[Read more]

  • Hi Pierre,

    Yes, I think that’s exactly how the Hindu would look at Krishna – the Supreme Brahman (Parabrahm). Even the Vishistadvaitin regards his/her Personal God as Parabrahm. I think the question with regards to this particular verse is whether or not the phrase ‘first cause’ or ‘primal cause’ refers to brahmā (brahma) rather than Krish…[Read more]

  • That’s interesting, David. I didn’t know that. So, for the Hindu, if Parabrahm means the Supreme Brahman and if Krishna is being portrayed as that very Brahman in verse 11; 37, then the term ‘brahmano’ in the text would necessarily refer to the male brahma (brahmā)) otherwise the text would simply be saying that Krishna, as the primal cause of…[Read more]

  • I should have put the complete verse from the Bhagavad Gita in the above post, for the reader unfamiliar with the text. It is Arjuna’s homage to Sri Krishna:

    11.37. Or why should they not bow down to You, O exalted One, who are greater even than Brahmā and are the first Creator! O infinite One, the Lord of the Gods, Abode of the Universe, You…[Read more]

  • Thanks for you kind comments, Jon and Pierre.

    Jon – yes, that’s probably a good way to look at it – swaying too far in one direction. That said, it can be valuable and thought provoking to put a strong case for one side of an argument. I wonder, though, if you and Pierre had made the aim of your article to explore whether or not Brahman is t…[Read more]

  • Correction:

    RELATING TO BRAHMA AND PARABRAHM HAVING NO RELATIONS TO THE UNIVERSE:

    in Vedanta, we find Brahma the Absolute God, unconscious of the Universe, and remaining ever independent of all direct relation to it. (CW 13 pp30-311)

    This should be CW 13, 310 (CW = Collected Writings of HPB)

  • continues from post #6837:

    PASSAGES WHERE BRAHMA AND PARABRAHM REFERRED TO AS THE SAME:

    In the ” Book of Numbers” it is explained that EN (or Ain, Aiôr) is the only self-existent, whereas its” Depth” (Bythos or Buthon of the Gnostics, called Propator) is only periodical. The latter is Brahmâ as differentiated from Brahma or Parabrahm. (SD I 2…[Read more]

  • Nice post, Pierre (your #6821). Very interesting, as always. Speaking for myself, I don’t see this as essentially a distinction between esoteric and exoteric viewpoints. These are simply students’ differing views as to the meanings of terms and how those terms are used. It’s not difficult to find definitions of Brahman in Hindu liter…[Read more]

  • Spelling correction needed in my post above:

    ‘…Advaita Vedanta says it is not possible to explain Brahman in words. It transcends all concepts and ideas and is therefore nirvana – beyond conceptualisations.’ (A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy)

    should say..

    ‘…Advaita Vedanta says it is not possible to explain Brahman in words. It tra…[Read more]

  • Is it a mistake to say that Theosophy means ‘Wisdom of God’ rather than Wisdom of the Gods? Yes. The fact that HPB raises the issue of translation and definition of theosophia on page one of the Key to Theosophy suggests it does matter to her that the student properly appreciates the distinction.

    Here are some extracts from pages 274-6, volume 1,…[Read more]

  • I don’t see anything controversial in what David has stated. I agree with what he says about the meaning of parabrahm for ‘the oriental’. It means the supreme brahman. The prefix para is used in the same way as in parameswara or paramatman or paramaguru, meaning supreme lord, supreme spirit, supreme guru respectively. Below is an extract from…[Read more]

  • Peter changed their profile picture 2 years, 1 month ago

  • Load More

© 2017 Universal Theosophy

Skip to toolbar