first preposition of the Stanzaz
H. P. BLAVATSKY WHRITES that in the inmost being of man there lives a divinity, and this divinity is the offspring of the Highest, and that man can become a god in the flesh, or he can sink lower even than the common average of humanity.
A man has in himself a faculty transcending the ordinary human intellectual power — something in him by which he can raise himself upwards or, perhaps better, inwards, towards the inmost center of his own being, which in very truth is that Ineffable: from It we came, back to It we are journeying through the aeons of times.
Therein we are taught that there exists in man a link with the Unutterable, a cord, a communication, that extends from It to the inner consciousness; and that link — such is the teaching as it has come down to us — is the very heart of being.
It arises in that supersensory Principle, that unutterable Mystery which H. P. Blavatsky defines in the first fundamental proposition as above human mind. Becoming one with that link, we can transcend tthe powers of ordinary human intellect, and reach (even if it be by striving out, upward, towards) that Unutterable, which is, we know — though it is beyond human power to express it in words, or beyond human thought — the concealed of the concealed, the life of life, truth of truth, the ALL.
The sun sends forth innumerable rays of light; we may assume that the sending forth is eternal and in all directions; and that the rays of light are part of that which sends them forth. Thus did the ancients liken the sun to this All.
The sun itself in their philosophy was but the material manifestation on this plane of a hierarchic series which had its roots again inmeshed in something still higher than itself, and so forth.
How did they describe this Principle, this Unspeakable, in the Vedas? Silence and darkness surrounded the thought and they simply called it Tat; the English translation is "that".
The Unmanifest is in us; it is the Inmost of the Inmost in our souls, in our spirits, in our essential beings. We can reach towards it. We can actually reach it never.
taken from the fundamentals of esoteric philosophy. G.de PURUCKER.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
Thank You Anna. A very interesting topic.
The first fundamental proposition of the Secret Doctrine describes this reality as, "beyond the range and reach of human thought... unthinkable and unspeakable". Her assertions are based on certain interpretation of Mandukya Upanishad and Advaita Vedanta.
Mandukya is a very short upanishad, comprising only of 12 verses. It may not be feasible to take one or two words out of this upanishad and construct a proposition. The entire picture described has to be conceptualized first. One of the most important facts overlooked by HPB in quoting from this upanishad is that it asks the seeker to first establish whether his present state is that of dream, sleep or in between. In the fourth state, the Turiya State, such questions would not arise in the mind. Another important fact overlooked is the concept of Pranava without which this "unthinkable and unspeakble" becomes meaningless. Either HPB was misled or knowingly she did not give the entire picture for reasons of secrecy.
There is an apparent dichotomy in Advaita Vedanta as well where something is first described as unthinkable and unspeakable and then method(s) are described as to how to know it. Any proposition that the Absolute Abstract Space and the Absolute Abstract Motion appeared through the process of Swabhavat from this Absolute would be akin to attributing qualities to this Absolute Principle which otherwise is described as Nirguna.
One may then construe that the underlying proposition appears to be that it is impossible for the Human Mind to know it, followed by the selling proposition that by taking our prescription you may be elevated to above Humans in the hierarchy where these dichotomies may disappear. Not every thought system proposes this, either overtly or covertly. Several, in fact propose that Humasn are superior to Devas. Adi Shankara in his crest jewel Vivek Chudamani (A must read for the members of the ES) informs that the Human form is the most difficult to obtain.
David Reigle is currently discussing "Dhatu" from all available perspectives in the Stanzas of Dzyan thread. Would that be the Absolute Principle of the first fundamental proposition? But it is not Nirguna.
-
Permalink Reply by Christian von Lahr on
-
Gosh, does it really need to be that complicated? This is the "Higher Self." This can be seen, experienced, controlled, and even demonstrated always, forever and by everyone – it is repeatable and its phenomenal existence is reasonably explainable. Thus, a subject of philosophical scientific method.
Yes, it looks like a golden sun, albeit small - however, that ONLY applies to [OUR OWN] Higher Self – specifically, as perceived by ourselves. [We ARE NOT limited to the perception of our own Higher Self.] We will NOT have this appearance to others, as they would not appear this way to us – all subjects that Esoteric Philosophy fails to disclose or discuss. Rather unfortunate, as it leaves esoteric philosophies without the one universal experiential phenomena that is demonstrable to everyone - for which it (philosophies) would find authenticating in an otherwise and naturally incredulous world.
Yes, there is a golden or mystic cord associated.
Yes, it is above the faculties of the mind and [mentality].
Yes it can be communicated [to,] and we can receive communication [from] it, however, this is absolutely NOT like conventional human, psychic or inspirational mediumship communication, nor telepathy either – it is something unique to itself. It's almost laughable, but real - if you've ever seen "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," you will be closer to understanding the communicative method.
After decades in the metaphysical, mediumistic field, I don't really ascribe much credit, detail, understanding or accuracy to either G.de Purucker's, C. W. Leadbeater's or Geoffrey Hodson's illustrative definitions in regards to these matters. Although, each has a degree of repeatable success in their [own particular areas] of expertise, which are still limited as I see them. They, understandably, DID presume their means universal, yet ALL failed to explore, develop and demonstrate universality of means with ANY group. In my opinion, and mine actually counts in this tiny arena, they negate themselves as authorities - however, they do serve to provide some decent indicators.
No doubt this sounds big-headed, but I grow weary sometimes of the tediousness with esoteric philosophies’ presumption that all great means and mysteries were ONLY possible in olden and ancient times, for one … and that successive lineages of humans have not actually worked far beyond the limitations of old. I give so little thought to much the self-intellectualized audience considers sanctimonia privilegium, because I think – particularly in America – that the foretold 6th Root Race is [already here,] as prophesized; and therefore, we of that [large] group are living and demonstrating our destiny, sans the endless foreboding caveat and counsel of the Theosophical gate-keepers.
-
-
Thank You Anna, for posting so many references.
May I request to kindly consider converting these concepts into modern everyday language based on your own understanding of it. Many of our members may not be very well familiar with these sources and the texts and perhaps will be deterred by the complexities.
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
