Years ago, I read something in either the Secret Doctrine or the Collected Writings about the Jews conflating the deva attached to their people with the basic unity underlying the Universe.

Unfortunately, those are probably not the terms Blavatsky used, as I can't find them anymore.

Anybody know what I'm talking about?

Views: 2171

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear friends

My views are:

Allow me to give you my view using a few words Martin.

I have earlier on suggested, that people added a heart to the TS logo used in various theosophical groups or claimed theosophical groups. Here is an example:

An answer to the above words about race and the Swastika within the Blavatsky theosophical teachings could be the following, although this is just my view. But I would like to know what the readers think?

I doubt that.
I would first like to see this view documented by a quote or two.
The above quotes given from H. P. Blavatsky's volumes of "Isis Unveiled" is as far as I am concerned not clearly saying the same.

Another issue is that H. P. Blavatsky never claimed to be infallible and later she even called Isis Unveiled "trash".

Some examples:

a) "MY BOOKS " by H. P. Blavatsky, April 1891.
"Don’t read it, it is all trash." .......
"When ready the work went to press.
From that moment the real difficulty began. I had no idea of correcting galley-proofs; Colonel Olcott had little leisure to do so; and the result was that I made a mess of it from the beginning. Before we were through with the first three chapters, there was a bill of six hundred dollars for corrections and alterations, and I had to give up the proofreading. Pressed by the publisher, Colonel Olcott doing all that he possibly could do, but having no time except in the evenings, and Dr. Wilder far away at Jersey City, the result was that the proofs and pages of Isis passed through a number of willing but not very careful hands, and were finally left to the tender mercies of the publisher’s proof-reader. Can one wonder after this if “Vaivaswata” (Manu) became transformed in the published volumes into “Viswamitra,” that thirty-six pages of the Index were irretrievably lost, and quotation-marks placed where none were needed (as in some of my own sentences!), and left out entirely in many a passage cited from various authors? If asked why these fatal mistakes have not been corrected in a subsequent edition, my answer is simple: the plates were stereotyped; and notwithstanding all my desire to do so, I could not put it into practice, as the plates were the property of the publisher; I had no money to pay for the expenses, and finally the firm was quite satisfied to let things be as they are, since, notwithstanding all its glaring defects, the work—which has now reached its seventh or eighth edition, is still in demand. "

So therefore her book was to a certain extend self-contradicting.

b) Yet HPB also wrote:
However cautious one ought to be in accepting anything about Jesus from Jewish sources, it must be confessed that in some things they seem to be more correct in their statements (whenever their direct interests in stating facts is not concerned) than our good but too jealous [Church] Fathers. (Isis Unveiled, 2:202. )

c) A comment or two from M. Sufilight:
Many misunderstandings have crept forward in peoples minds because of the later events in history. The greatest obstacle in understanding HPB's views about races and the symbol named the Swastika can primarily be said to be due to the rise of the evil racist organization known as NSDAP and Nazism, governed by Hitler and his close friends.

As the theosophical teachings given by HPB clearly visibly was and is based on altruism and wisdom teachings, as well as the law of Karma and also Reincarnation, we cannot find us in agreement with the teachings given by this evil movement and its racist theories, which we reject and which we as theosophist never have promoted, if we are followers of HPB's and her predecessors teachings, the Masters through the ages.

One of the three main objects of the Theosophical Society founded by H. P. Blavatsky and others in 1875 was in fact: "(1) To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, colour, or creed." (The Key to Theosophy, 1889, p.39)

HPB said:
"To begin with I am not a Countess so far as I know. Without overlooking the fact that it would be more than ridiculous—it would be unconstitutional—in a citizen or citizeness of the Republic of the United States—who abjures all titles of nobility upon being naturalized—to claim one, above all one which never belonged to him or her—I am too democratic, and I love and respect the people sufficiently, having devoted all my sympathy to them, and this without distinction of race or color, to trick myself out in any kind of title! I have always publicly protested against this ridiculous inclination in a Republic like ours of giving every foreigner a more or less high-sounding title." (BCW, vol. 1, p.401, 1878)

- So no elite boastings of having an Honorable title or a PhD (or MBA in disguise) from that Lady! And of course we agree with her, do we not?

We have so far not been witnessing anything real substantial from leading historians or religious persons about that this view on race and the swastika, shouldn't be true when dealing with H. P. Blavatsky's views.

Let us remember, that our Solar System was created with a round or oval Sun, Moon, Earth and other solar system planets. And that the DNA of humans are the symbol of the Swastika no matter what race or color. And there are spiral-galaxies in our universe, fractals, various crystals formed like the swastika in nature, a tropical cyclone resembling a swastika, which also are natural symbols of creation. So since the symbol is ingrained into creation we can hardly call it evil, just because some evil persons decided to use it as their symbol in a bad and evil religion, which rejected the Law of Karma and compassion. Historians agree that the symbol in the past was known as a symbol of luck and good fortune etc. etc.

Saying that the Swastika is evil to use would be the same to say that because Hitler wore a mustache, those who wear it today are evil. Or because the Eagle was very much used by the Nazis as a symbol, we should think ill of USA because it uses the eagle as a national emblem. Or that Nato is evil because it also uses the Swastika in part in its logo etc etc.

So I see no problems with using the Swastika today. The only problem is that prejudice occurs, when people do not understand the fundamental doctrine: The Law of Karma. You shall REAP what you sow. A tree is known on its fruits.

What do you think?

M. Sufilight
I do remember that as well. I'd try searching for various spellings of Yahweh in the Blavatsky CD-rom (you know the one with all Blavatsky's work on there as well as the Mahatma letters).
Thanks; I have the CD, and will try. I'll post the results here, if positive. Just occured to me that "Yahweh" sounds a lot like the pronunciation of the abbreviation that the rabbis made up in Nederlands than in English (for those who don't know, YHVH was not intended to be pronounced; saying that the Jews worshiped a deity named "Yahweh" is much like saying that, in the 20th century, everybody who was sick had to listen to the Doors, because the healers were all titled "Door". Of course, it was spelled "Dr."
The best answer is that Blavatsky's ideas and the Kabbalah have common sources. On the other hand, there's a Kabbalistic belief based on Genesis 25, where Abraham gave all he had to Isaac, but gave gifts to his other sons, sending them eastward.

The question logically comes up that if he gave everything to Isaac, then what could he give as gifts? The answer is that the one thing that you can give away and still have is wisdom. From this comes a belief that Abraham gave esoteric knowledge to his sons, who spread around the world, particularly the east, passing it on to others.

Take it as you will.
Ooops, I have seen this only with Tasca's comments.
Well, HPB have not based the teaching on jewish kabalah, on the contrary, she is very critical toward kabalah and rabis. But, her writing is conversant with kabalah and specially with Levi's books because that was the european occultism in that time. And she was friend of maney cabalists, and had disciples among some of them.
If Bart Lidofsky still need the quotes, here there are some:
p. 349-359, Vol. I

In the Zohar, En-Soph is also the ONE, and the infinite Unity. This was known to the very few learned Fathers of the Church, who were aware that Jehovah was but a third rate potency and no “highest” God. But while complaining bitterly of the Gnostics and saying . . . “our Heretics hold . . . that PROPATOR is known but to the Only begotten Son* (who is Brahmâ among the rest) that is to the mind” (nous), Irenæus never mentioned that the Jews did the same in their real secret books. Valentinus, “the profoundest doctor of the Gnosis,” held that “there was a perfect AION who existed before Bythos, or Buthon (the first father of unfathomable nature, which is the second Logos) called Propator.” It is thus AION, who springs as a Ray from Ain-Soph (who does not create), and AION, who creates, or through whom, rather, everything is created, or evolves.
For, as the Basilidians taught, “there was a supreme god, Abraxax, by whom was created mind” (Mahat, in Sanskrit, Nous in Greek). “From Mind proceeded the word, Logos, from the word, Providence (Divine Light, rather), then from it Virtue and Wisdom in Principalities, Powers, Angels, etc., etc.” By these (Angels) the 365 Æons were created. “Amongst the lowest, indeed, and those who made this world, he (Basilides) sets last of all the God of the Jews, whom he denies to be God (and very rightly), affirming he is one of the angels” (Ibid.). Here, then, we find the same system as in the Purânas, wherein the Incomprehensible drops a seed, which becomes the golden egg, from which Brahmâ is produced. Brahmâ produces Mahat, etc., etc. True Esoteric philosophy, however, speaks neither of “creation” nor of “evolution” in the sense the exoteric religions do. All these personified Powers are not evolutions from one another, but so many aspects of the one and sole manifestation of the ABSOLUTE all. The same system as the gnostic prevails in the Sephirothal aspects of Ain-Soph, yet, as these aspects are in Space and Time, a certain order is maintained in their successive appearances. Therefore, it becomes impossible not to take notice of the great changes that the Zohar has undergone under the handling of generations of Christian Mystics. For, even in the metaphysics of the Talmud, the “lower Face” (or “Lesser Countenance”), the microprosopus, in fact, could never be placed on the plane of the same abstract ideal as the Higher, or “Greater Countenance,” macroprosopus. The latter is, in the Chaldean Kabala, a pure abstraction; the Word or LOGOS, or DABAR (in Hebrew), which Word, though it becomes in fact a plural number, or “Words”—D(a)B(a)RIM, when it reflects itself, or falls into the aspect of a Host (of angels, or Sephiroth, “numbers”) is still collectively ONE, and on the ideal plane a nought — 0, a “No-thing.” IT is without form or being, “with no likeness with anything else.” (Franck, “Die Kabbala,” p. 126.) And even Philo calls the Creator, the Logos who stands next God, “the SECOND GOD,” and “the second God who is his (Highest God’s) WISDOM” (Philo. Quæst. et Solut). Deity is not God. It is NOTHING, and DARKNESS. It is nameless, and therefore called Ain-Soph—“the word Ayin meaning nothing.” See Franck “Die Kabbala,” p. 153. See also Section XII., “Theogony of the Creative Gods.” The “Highest God” (the unmanifested LOGOS) is its Son.

p. 374, Vol. I

The Creative Force is Eternal as Noumenon; as a phenomenal manifestation in its aspects, it has a beginning and must, therefore, have an end. During that interval it has its periods of activity and its periods of rest. And these are the “Days and the nights of Brahmâ.” But Brahma, the Noumenon, never rests, as IT never changes and ever IS, though IT cannot be said to be anywhere. . . . .
The Jewish Kabalists felt this necessity of immutability in an eternal, infinite Deity, and therefore applied the same thought to the anthropomorphic god. The idea is poetical and very appropriate in its application. In the Zohar we read as follows:—
“As Moses was keeping a vigil on Mount Sinai, in company with the deity, who was concealed from his sight by a cloud, he felt a great fear overcome him, and suddenly asked: ‘Lord, where art thou . . . . I sleepest thou, O Lord? . . .’ And the Spirit answered him: “I never sleep: were I to fall asleep for a moment BEFORE MY TIME, all the creation would crumble into dissolution in one instant.’ “
“Before my time” is very suggestive. It shows the God of Moses to be only a temporary substitute, like Brahmâ the male, a substitute and an aspect of THAT which is immutable, and which therefore can take no part in the “days,” or in the “nights,” nor have any concern whatever with reaction or dissolution.
While the Eastern Occultists have seven modes of interpretation, the Jews have only four—namely, the real-mystical; the allegorical; the moral; and the literal or Pashut. The latter is the key of the exoteric Churches and not worth discussion.

And in section IX, vol. I there is some material too. In general, all that is referred that measures, moon, elohim and sephirot, and, of course, philosophical kabalah with the concept og Ein Soph, occult meaning and alternative vocalization of IHVH, etc.


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service