The virgin birth – Theosophy’s view

Okay. But I've got some questions in question, so to say :)

NtP>"Would you say Light more correctly refers to Purusha than Mahat?"

As I understand (and it can be wrong, of cause), this words are taken from the different systems of thought. And the Vedic (or correctly, Vedantic) word "Purusha" 's more deep than the Brahmanic "Mahat". Purusha is larger than Mahat (excuse me for my English).
In Vedantic viewpoint, there is Purusha and Prakriti - the matter and the spirit. Dualistic division. But among Brahmans and in The Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky the Universe's divided into three instead of the Vedantic two. There, there is the First Logos - the unmanifested and non-differentiated Absolute, then after the Manifestation process we get Mahat where as Plato says, all the archetypes are created, and only after all these we can see the Physical world.
So, I think it's correct to call "manifested" everything that is not unmanifested. As you call manifested only the lower level, right?

Ntp>"I see Light not standing for spirit, but rather for Prakriti/Son/the universe."

If the Universe is Light, what's then the Matter, Nick?
 
Dharmaatmaa,

One of the biggest problems in comparative religion is that the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., religions are all talking about the same thing, but they are using different terminologies. The trick to get two different people to use the same set of terminologies, In Theosophy, the main players are called:

1) The Absolute
2) First Logos
3) Second Logos
4) Third Logos

Your belief system uses the corresponding terms

1) Parabrahma (the same as Parabrahman)
2) Purusha (the same as Brahma and Brahman)
3) Mulaprakriti
4) Mahat

There is also the word Brahmā which is NOT the same as Brahma. Brahmā = Mahat.

You said,

“Purusha is larger than Mahat…”

--> I would say that Purusha precedes Mahat, and that Mahat emerges from Purusha.

“In Vedantic viewpoint, there is Purusha and Prakriti - the matter and the spirit. Dualistic division. But among Brahmans and in The Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky the Universe's divided into three instead of the Vedantic two.”

--> Yes. There is Purusha and Prakriti, which is the basic duality of the universe. (Prakriti is merely a form of Mulaprakriti.) Both Purusha and Prakriti then interact to produce Mahat. These three divisions exist within Vedanta, and are the same as the three divisions among Brahmans and Theosophy.

“There, there is the First Logos - the unmanifested and non-differentiated Absolute…”

--> I see the First Logos (Brahman) and the Absolute (Parabrahman) as being different. Do you see Brahman and Parabrahman as being the same?

“…after the Manifestation process we get Mahat where as Plato says, all the archetypes are created, and only after all these we can see the Physical world.”

--> I agree, (And Purusha appears before manifestation begins.)

“…you call manifested only the lower level, right?”

--> It is said that Purusha is unmanifested, while Mulprakriti is both unmanifested and manifested (the manifested form is called Prakriti) and Mahat is fully manifested.

“If the Universe is Light, what's then the Matter, Nick?”

--> ‘Matter’ (Mulaprakriti) is the pre-cosmic substance from which ‘Light’ is created. This pre-cosmic substance is sometimes referred as Sound, while Mahat is sometimes referred to as Light. On a side note, Buddhists use the word Avalokiteshvara to refer to Mulaprakriti. “Avalokiteshvara” translates as “the looked-upon sound.”
 
Hi Nick —

Nick the Pilot said:
The trick to get two different people to use the same set of terminologies, In Theosophy, the main players are called:
1) The Absolute
2) First Logos
3) Second Logos
4) Third Logos
Click to expand...
Here, I'm not sure how you understand 'logos', but it's not how it is understood in Christianity, nor the Western Philosophical tradition generally. The Logos is one and is not itself diversified?

There is the one Logos and the many logoi in both Christianity and Platonism, but that does not correspond to sub-divisions within the Logos.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Aren't these - as Christians would express it - the Three Persons of the Trinity?
 
Hi Andrew —

No, I don't think it accurately represents the Trinity. Without going into the theological dimension, I think we can clarify matters from a metaphysical perspective.

Of the four in the list, I'm assuming the latter three, under the one denomination 'Logos', are derivations or determinations of the Absolute?

In which case we would have to clarify what sub-division occurs within the Logos to objectify three logoi, as Logos as such is one operation?

A correlation can be made between Logos and Arche, or Principle, in Greek philosophy. What emerges in Anaximander and others is Arche/Logos as the principle by which things come into existence, emerging from what was originally conceived as 'chaos', but later refined as 'apeiron' — 'the Boundless'.

The Boundless is equivalent to the Absolute.

The Logos/Arche is the principle of all things, manifest or unmanifest, formal or formless, that rise from the Apeiron. The Logos/Arche remains undifferentiated in Itself by whatever is does, or does not, give rise to.

As Logos/Arche stands apart from the many logoi that rise which it gives rise to, or put another way, anything that is, is according to its logoi, which rests eternally in the Logos. The Logos stands under its own principle, which is the Apeiron, but as such, it too is boundless, it too is absolute ... arche and apeiron are one, differentiated only by operation.

Hope that helps clarify our thinking.

God bless,

Thomas.
 
Hi SG,

I'm not sure I see the relationship between the two ideas. Can you explain a little more about the connection?
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Hi SG,

I'm not sure I see the relationship between the two ideas. Can you explain a little more about the connection?
Click to expand...

from your opeing post:

It from these ideas that the idea of virginity has been transferred to the Christian idea of the virgin birth. According to Theosophy, Mary symbolizes Mulaprakriti and the Baby Jesus symbolizes our present universe. (Mary’s name even begins with the same letter, M, as the word Mulaprakriti. M is actually from a hieroglyphic, a wavy hieroglyphic symbolizing water. Water has always been a symbol for Mulaprakriti. The word "water" in Genesis 1:1 actually refers to Mulaprakriti, not physical water, and refers to the first differentiation of Mulaprakriti into "super-physical" atoms.)
Click to expand...
 
SG,

In your other thread, you mentioned something called a 'earth-diver mythos.' Are you relating this earth-diver mythos to the concept called Mulaprakriti?
 
Seems like a beautiful and poetic way of describing what Theosophy discusses in much detail.

Children will not be interested in, or able to follow an involved discussion of svabhavat and tanmatras. They will, however, enjoy learning about a giant turtle ... from whom, Terry Pratchett style, all of the existing Cosmos has come into being. ;)
 
I'm picturing this Mulaprakriti more like the the recipe for space, where the various waveforms (wave hieroglyph) that comprise the various components of matter can be defined, (indicating consciousness, {even if subconscious or dreamlike consciousness????}) then manifested. The earth diver might then serve as in the role of the observer that causes the particle to manifest. {lucid dreaming??} (like in the Double-slit experiment.)

I'm not sure how well this meshes with the Theosophical view, which seems to concentrate more on the particle feature of matter than the wave feature.
 
SG,

Mulaprakriti is an inert, unmoving substance, from which all other matter is formed. Waves do not occur in Mulaprakriti. Take a look at this chart. (Therefore, waves cannot happen within Mulaprakriti.)

fp-202.jpg



In the above chart, Mulaprakriti is the basic inert substance from which universes are 'created.' Mulaprakriti is not a series of particles, but is one homogenous ‘piece’ of contiguous ‘matter.’

Let’s look at a second chart:

fp-203.jpg


In the second chart, we can see how ‘holes’ are dug into Mulaprakriti. These are the first ‘atoms,’ although they are much smaller than any ‘manifested atoms’ of our universe. It is these ‘pre-manifested atoms’ that engage in wave motion, etc.

You speak of consciousness as if it is different from Mulaprakriti. Mulaprakriti is a form of consciousness, because everything in our universe is consciousness. But Mulaprakriti is not spirit. There is a difference between spirit and consciousness.

You speak of an earth diver which serves in the role of an observer that causes particles to manifest. The entire cosmos and pre-cosmos is an interaction of spirit and matter. This earth diver sounds to me more like spirit (Purusha) than matter (Mulaprakriti).
 
SG,

One more thing. You mentioned dream-like consciousness. Each 'hole' dug into Mulaprakriti is a 'piece' of consciousness, but it is at a very low level of consciousness. (Each 'hole' will spend an entire universe to achieve higher and higher levels of consciouness, which is why universes appear in the first place.)

This is related to the idea that plants are a form of consciousness and animals are a form of consciousness, but animals are at a level of consciousness that is one level higher than plants. (But such a discussion takes this thread off-topic.)
 
On this subject I would recommend a reading of C.W. Leadbeater's APPENDIX from Occult Chemistry entitled `THE ÆTHER OF SPACE,' available online [with accompanying images] at The Project Gutenberg eBook of Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater.

Mulaprakriti is discussed, ultimate atoms of the various planes are mentioned, and SPACE is explained to be ... pretty much the opposite of what we think it is.

“It is wise to remember that “space is an entity” - as H.P.B. expressed it. When he so defined space, he gave humanity one of the most important hints it has ever received. The realisation of the existence of this entity leads to a practical recognition of the aphorism that “in Him we live and move and have our being.” It explains the necessity for the esoteric teaching anent planetary centres and the planes as states of consciousness.” [Discipleship in the New Age, Vol. II, p.396]

Waves within the various ethers - whether physical, astral, mental, Buddhic, Atmic or subtler - make perfect sense in this discussion. However, I think I'd need to read that piece of Leadbeater in order to refresh my memory!

One might also check out this site, which I was able to Google up ... but haven't yet sifted through. I see Babbitt's atom presented, which corresponds with clairvoyant investigations of the Theosophists ~ and goes into additional detail of its own [from "The Principles of Light and Color," 1878].


 
Several years ago, a Theosophist from India suggested I meditate on "absolute space." {Which is like a koan in itself} My first couple of tries left me shivering and so cold that a hot shower wouldn't even warm me up. The theosophist was surprised at my results.

On later tries, I remembered "not one, not two," and didn't have that reaction.

For what that is worth? :confused:
 
The literal and popular idea of a 'virgin' birth would sound utterly ludicrous to us, in almost any other context.

Think about it.

Let us say that a girl from your home town was seeing your brother.

She had not yet had sex with your brother.

One day she feels a bit sick, takes a pregnancy test, and finds out she is two months gone. Remember, she has not only not slept with your brother, she claims that she has not slept with any other man.

When you tell your brother to wake up, see sense, he tells you that it's all okay, because an angel came to visit him, and assured him that it was meant to be, because the baby was the hybrid son of the girl, and a spirit.:rolleyes:

Now, being honest, what would you think..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top