Theosophy's Origin of the Universe

O Lanoo looks like something everyone who's interested in the Ageless Wisdom should investigate. Seeing the posts here at C-R on this forum, I've checked out the extracts that are at the web site. The section on The History of the Fourth Race (Atlanteans) impresses me in particular.

After that, the Epilogue summarizes the Wisdom Teachings, and will seem familar to the Buddhists among us, to the Hindus, to the Christians, and, I think, to the Muslims, in its final verses.

O Lanoo is a wonderfully rendered poetic version of The Secret Doctrine, and it manages to accomplish something - in its simplicity - that many generations of writers have not, even in many volumes.

Please share your thoughts, anyone who has also visited the website ... and especially anyone who has ordered and read the complete version. :)

cheers,

Andrew
 
Thank you for these kind words, Andrew. Whatever your personal belief system, I think it helps to know our history (the cosmos, the solar system, planet Earth, and humankind). The Secret Doctrine tells that history, and also gives clues as to our destiny. The essence of theosophy is unity: we are all part of the same whole. If everyone could accept that principle the world would be a much better place.

The problem is that The Secret Doctrine is not an easy book to read, and so most people will miss out. I wrote O Lanoo! in an attempt to take the concept of unity to a wider audience. O Lanoo! is a re-telling of the verses of the Book of Dzyan, which run through the SD. Of course, Nick’s study notes take it much further, and if you really want to understand every line then that’s what you should be reading. I wanted to give non-theosophists an easy read (a couple of hours?) and to capture some of the poetical beauty of the original.

Glad you like it.

Love & Light,
Lanoo Harvey
 
Hi everybody,

I just to emphasize that Harvey wrote the book O Lanoo!, and has made an important contribution to Theosophical literature.
 
Any philosophy that claims to know the origin of the universe is hard for me to swallow, since I've thusfar found no reason whatsoever to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and that time isn't cyclic (which makes far more sense to me).
 
Out of the Box said:
Any philosophy that claims to know the origin of the universe is hard for me to swallow, since I've thusfar found no reason whatsoever to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and that time isn't cyclic (which makes far more sense to me).
Click to expand...

Most religions have creation stories or explanations for how things got started. And even hard science is constantly reworking their theories about origins. Anyone who is looking for absolute "knowing" is going to be disappointed no matter if they are looking to religion or science.
 
bgruagach said:
Most religions have creation stories or explanations for how things got started. And even hard science is constantly reworking their theories about origins. Anyone who is looking for absolute "knowing" is going to be disappointed no matter if they are looking to religion or science.
Click to expand...

I disagree. For example, Hindu philosophy supports my common sense viewpoint that the universe is eternal (and therefore knows neither beginning nor end). While science provides not proof for this claim, it also doesn't contradict it.

The problem with a finite universe is that it requires an origin and they always remains the question what came before that origin and what lead to that origin. Considering one can go on like this eternally, an eternal universe (eternal in both time and space) makes more sense. This, especially when you allow the universe to be multi-dimensional and curbed as mentioned in modern physics.
 
what does modern physics actually know- for sure? some thing like the origin of the universe may be very un common. its ALL speculation but supremely interesting!
 
nativeastral said:
what does modern physics actually know- for sure? some thing like the origin of the universe may be very un common. its ALL speculation but supremely interesting!
Click to expand...

Science leaves many questions for which it provides no answer, but we can definitely find clues for answering those questions by looking at what science has to offer.

Further, there's also logic. When we consider the fact that everything in nature is cyclic and that a creator also needs to be created, it makes more sense that the universe has always existed and will always exist.
 
Out of the Box,

You said,

"Any philosophy that claims to know the origin of the universe is hard for me to swallow, since I've thusfar found no reason whatsoever to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and that time isn't cyclic (which makes far more sense to me)."

--> That is a fascinating way of looking at it. Theosophy merely presents a different way of looking at it.

"...Hindu philosophy supports my common sense viewpoint that the universe is eternal...."

--> I disagree. I would say the Hindu idea of Parabrahman is above and beyond any universe. I would also say that Parabrahman is equal to the Void mention in Genesis. The way I see it, the Hindu idea of Brahmá is equal to the Christian idea of the Son, which are two different names for our universe. If I may, allow me to offer an idea. Mulaprakirit (The Virgin Mary, Pradhana) has had many universes (Sons, Brahmás).

"The problem with a finite universe is that it requires an origin and they always remains the question what came before that origin and what lead to that origin."

--> I see the universe as being finite, but coming from a seemingly endless line of universe. One Theososphical author has said that the line of universes is without conceivable beginning, nor imaginable end. This idea makes sense to me. I see no reason to confuse a finite universe with an infinite Christian Void or an infinite Hindu Parabrahman.

By the way, here is a small chart of comparisons between different religions. (Our universe equates to the Christian Son or Hindu Brahmá.)

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

"Considering one can go on like this eternally, an eternal universe (eternal in both time and space) makes more sense."

--> Perhaps. But there is also the idea that everything is cyclical.

"...the fact that everything in nature is cyclic...."

--> I think that even universes are cyclical. I see no reason to think that everything except universes are cyclical. Why should universes be noncyclical, when everything else is cyclical?
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"Any philosophy that claims to know the origin of the universe is hard for me to swallow, since I've thusfar found no reason whatsoever to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and that time isn't cyclic (which makes far more sense to me)."

--> That is a fascinating way of looking at it. Theosophy merely presents a different way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

Why should it provide ANY view of it at all? Why not allow the enlightened individual to develop his own view rather than enforce a specific view?

Nick the Pilot said:
--> I disagree. I would say the Hindu idea of Parabrahman is above and beyond any universe. I would also say that Parabrahman is equal to the Void mention in Genesis. The way I see it, the Hindu idea of Brahmá is equal to the Christian idea of the Son, which are two different names for our universe. If I may, allow me to offer an idea. Mulaprakirit (The Virgin Mary, Pradhana) has had many universes (Sons, Brahmás).
Click to expand...

Many universes or the same universe being destroyed and rebuilt, that's pretty much the same thing ;)

"The problem with a finite universe is that it requires an origin and they always remains the question what came before that origin and what lead to that origin."

Nick the Pilot said:
--> I see the universe as being finite, but coming from a seemingly endless line of universe. One Theososphical author has said that the line of universes is without conceivable beginning, nor imaginable end. This idea makes sense to me. I see no reason to confuse a finite universe with an infinite Christian Void or an infinite Hindu Parabrahman.
Click to expand...

Your view of an infinite cycle of finite universes is pretty much the same as mine. I think the confusion may be attributed to different semantics.
 
Out of the Box,

You asked,

"Why not allow the enlightened individual to develop his own view rather than enforce a specific view?"

--> I have two responses.

1. My belief system does not enforce a specifc view, it merely offers one. (The difference is a matter of allowing dogmatic thinking vs. not allowing dogmatic thinking.) We only ask people to take a look at some new ideas, and see it they fit into their belief systems. My belief system is unique in that it has lots of ideas, yet it forbids these ideas to be considered in a dogmatic way. We feel that no one has the right to tell someone else what to believe.

2. There is a theory that these questions have an answer, and that there are ways to find the correct answers to these questions. If we work under this assumption, we should consider the idea that a specifically correct view exists. If so, it will take much longer for each person to work out these answers by him or herself. Studying and doing critical thinking together as a group saves a lot of time. (The main thing is to find a group which allows, even encourages, critical thinking. I feel most religions do not do this.)

"Many universes or the same universe being destroyed and rebuilt, that's pretty much the same thing."

--> I disagree. But it is a fascinating concept to consider.

"Your view of an infinite cycle of finite universes is pretty much the same as mine. I think the confusion may be attributed to different semantics."

--> I thought you felt that the universe has always existed. Perhaps it is a question of semantics?

In your original post you said,

"...I've thusfar found no reason whatsoever to believe that the universe hasn't always existed...."

--> This seems to disagree with the idea of multiple universes existing in succession. Eternity is an awful long time. I prefer to go with the idea that nothing exists for an eternity. That makes more sense to me.
 
Hi Nick,

I have no time, therefore don't think I'm rude, please - I just speak shortly.

But post to post you keep on making taugh phrases that aren't meantioned to be rejected or denied. As a Russian student of Occultism, I must say - I feel like going far from theosophical (= technical) viewpoints on the most of questions.
We cannot afford to "know everything" because we're theosophists. Nature is much more easy - only intellect does it complicated. And I remember an old Russian song where a songster sings: "... I thought in life there are too many things, but it turned it was only One". Do you understand me?
I believe it's the way to sectarianism for Theosophy to "know everything". Contemporary theosophical movement lost its three objects, they exist only on paper now. Mrs Bailey Autobiography shows that.
I just don't see how people can "know" or "get know" anything sitting in his English convinient armchair and eating tasty food?! If someone wants to know (not only think he "knows") really, he must (not should, but namely must, has to) forget of his money, houses, machines, tasty food - he must leave it all and look only for truth. Nowadays theosophists want only write ethics articles, theosophy from an occult order had become just a school for old virgines! We may have lost all the movement...
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"Why not allow the enlightened individual to develop his own view rather than enforce a specific view?"

--> I have two responses.

1. My belief system does not enforce a specifc view, it merely offers one.
Click to expand...

Those who understand anything of the power of religion, will realise that merely offering a specific view is enough for most people to stop looking.

Nick the Pilot said:
Studying and doing critical thinking together as a group saves a lot of time. (The main thing is to find a group which allows, even encourages, critical thinking. I feel most religions do not do this.)
Click to expand...

I don't need religion with that. I just discuss with my friends ;)

I agree that doing critical thinking together can be very useful, but just two people can be enough and you can meet a decent partner pretty much everywhere. Also, your view will remain limited if your partners are only people with views very similar to yours. It may help deepen your understanding, but never widen it.

Nick the Pilot said:
"Many universes or the same universe being destroyed and rebuilt, that's pretty much the same thing."

--> I disagree. But it is a fascinating concept to consider.

......................
......................
Click to expand...

I see the universe not as all the matter and spirit that exists, but rather as the container of this matter and spirit. IMO, this container is stable and never-changing but the matter within is continuously changing in cyclic patterns.

Nick the Pilot said:
I prefer to go with the idea that nothing exists for an eternity. That makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...

What if time is circular? ;)
 
Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"...you keep on making taugh phrases that aren't meantioned to be rejected or denied."

--> Feel free to point out examples.

"We cannot afford to "know everything" because we're theosophists."

--> I believe it is our goal to eventually know everything, but this will come only long after we have advanced far beyond the human level of existence. Our goal is to move towards eventually knowing everything. All we can do as humans is make progress on such a Path, but that is the purpose of human life -- to make progress on such a Path.

"Contemporary theosophical movement lost its three objects, they exist only on paper now."

--> I disagree. I find Theosophy to be more relevant than it has ever been.
 
By the way, Nick I have no time but I wanted to point out: partially thanks to you I wrote a letter to the Adyar TS. They answered me and sent an Application. And namely you have given an impulse to me.
 
Although I'm in doubt... Theosophy became too dogmatic.
How it is possible, for example, that here or there schools of theosophy are founded. How we can make a theosophist by studying???
It's horrible. The TS must look for the theosophists, but not grow them up. It's not only my opinion.
 
l wonder whether those educated under the Waldorf schools instigated by the German Christian Theosophist Rudolph Steiner which incorporated his anthroposophical teachings continued their theosophical beliefs into mainstream modernity?
 
nativeastral,

In my humble opinon, I think Rudolph Steiner tried to take theosophical teachings and incorporate the idea of Jesus Christ into them. (I think this is what Alice Bailey tried to do, too.) Whether or not Steiner or Bailey succeeded, your guess is as good as mine. (I certainly have not incorporated a belief in Jesus Christ into my belief system.)

That is the beauty of Theosophy. It welcomes both Christians and non-Christians to be members. Theosophy is one of the few philosophies that does this. As a matter of fact, I have just been part of a rather frank discussion of who Jesus was (from a Theosophical standpoint) at a Theosophical Forum.

Jesus (and early Christianity) - The Theosophical Community

I assure you, Theosophists disagree just as much about Jesus as members of any other group. The good thing about this is, Theosophy tells us we must respect each other as we argue such things.
 
hi nick
thanks for the link, if only for the images of kwan yin/mary; interesting of the water pouring forth- temperance in the tarot and the sign Aquarius the age now.
 
nativeastral,

I see Jesus and Christ as two entirely different things. The water that Kwan Yin is pouring refers to our physical universe, which is the real meaning of Christ (also symbolized by the baby Jesus in modern times). The sign Aquarius refers to Jesus (not Christ), who was the 'advance man' for the age of Aquarius. This is why Jesus was the fisherman (Aquarius). The previous age was the Ram (Aries), symbolized in ancient Egypt by the Ram. (Egyptian culture existed during the peak of the age of Aries, while Jesus heralded the beginning of the age of Aquarius.)

I love it when Christians say things like Zodiac signs are signs of the devil. They are unknowingly mocking their own beloved Jesus.

Water has always symbolized our physical universe. Both the M for Mary and the W from water come from the Egyptian hieroglyphic for water. Water also happens to symbolize Jesus' age of Aquarius, but I feel there is no need to confuse the two.

I had never thought of Temperance in the Tarot as being Kwan-Yin-like or Virgin-Mary-like. That is a fascinating idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top