Theosophy - Personal and Impersonal God by C.Jinarajadasa
PERSONAL AND IMPERSONAL GOD
by C.Jinarajadasa
An address in London on April
2nd, 1944
Now the first point to note is that
there is a clash between Theosophy and every religion, not always of the same
kind, but there is a clash. SEVERAL times I have been asked why there is such
a clash between Theosophy and Christianity, because the enquirer at our lectures,
and particularly when reading some of our literature, notes that there is an
attitude of what might be termed a veiled hostility towards the Christian religion.
Now the first point to note is that
there is a clash between Theosophy and every religion, not always of the same
kind, but there is a clash. Take, for instance, the clash between Theosophy
and Buddhism, for in Buddhism as it exists in Burma, Ceylon and Siam(?), there
is a denial of any soul in man, but in Theosophy one of the first axioms is
that the permanent ego persists from incarnation to incarnation. Then there
is a clash between Theosophy and Hinduism, not so much on the philosophical
side, but because Theosophy denounces the whole caste idea as it exists with
the barring of the door to the lower castes from certain higher possibilities.
There is a definite clash between Theosophy and Islam, because Theosophy proclaims
there are other prophets than the prophet Mohammed. Though a Mohammedan will
admit that other prophets of God have appeared before, and reverence is given
especially to Jesus Christ, he asserts that the Prophet Mohammed is the last
of the prophets, and it is therefore our duty to follow the last whom God has
sent. There is also a further clash between Theosophy and Islam on account of
the doctrine of Reincarnation, and similarly so with Christianity and Zoroastrianism.
So you see that Theosophy does clash with all kinds of accepted revelations.
But there is also another reason
for a clash and it is because Theosophy is against every kind of priestly domination,
whether in Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion; for where there is
priestly domination (which does not mean any denial of "apostolic succession"
and so on), it builds a doctrinal structure which is proclaimed sacrosanct.
In Christianity, as anyone who reads history will know, there exists a record
of oppression of all who differed from the ecclesiastical ideas of the day,
and the martyrdom of such as Hypatia and Bruno is a matter of history. Throughout
most of the centuries of Christianity, the persecution of one Christian section
by another has been quite frequent. There is similarly a record of oppression
in Islam. Mohammedans have not tolerated those who did not accept the Prophet
Mohammed as the messenger of God, and have subjected them to penalties. So far
has this oppression been carried out that even today there is on the part of
the Mohammedans of Arabia hostility against the Mohammedans of Persia, due to
dynastic quarrels which have nothing to do with Mohammed as the Prophet of God,
for Persian Mohammedans accept the Prophet.
Then there was the suppression of
the Mysteries in Christianity. One of the very great defects which arose in
Christianity was that all the splendid traditions of the Mysteries and truths
of the great philosophies of Greece were excluded, and the early church inculcated
a more or less general belief that any kind of knowledge simply stood in the
way of one's road to God.
....but where there is not that
cruelty, we as students must not condemn teachings which others hold as necessary
to their salvation. Now , our attitude, and I refer particularly to those who
pledged themselves to make Theosophy a living power in their lives, may be said
to be of a dual nature. Each one has to be firm in his faith, whatever it is.
Faith is the very structure of our being, and we have to be firm in it. But
at the same time we must not denounce the beliefs of others, except in the single
instance where such beliefs involve an element of cruelty. Then we must take
a stand; but where there is not that cruelty, we as students must not condemn
teachings which others hold as necessary to their salvation.
However, there is a tradition in
Theosophical circles in the West that Theosophy is anti-God. We have to accept
that attitude as part and parcel of the baggage which we have brought from the
past of the Society. There is nothing of it in India. The reason for this attitude
of H.P.B. is the persecution by Christians of those who stood for truth, who
were the messengers of the Masters.
There is one other aspect of this,
that Theosophists are said to be particularly against the "Personal God"
conception. They are definitely "anti-personal" in their idea of God,
and some go to the extent of proclaiming that the Masters are against such a
conception. For instance, they will quote you of the letters of the Master K.H.
to Mr. Sinnett which begins: "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe
in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital G."
That seems fairly blunt and straight. It is perfectly true that as you read
the Letters you find an antipathy to the idea of a Personal God. Here, however,
people forget a statement in another letter of the Master K.H., which comes
incidentally in a few lines but is nevertheless most important. This is the
statement:
"Believe me, good friend, learn
what you can under the circumstances, to viz.- the philosophy of the phenomena
and our doctrines on Cosmogony, inner man, etc. This T.Subba Row will help you
to learn, though his terms- he being an initiated Brahmin and holding to the
Brahmanical esoteric teaching- will be different from those of the Arhat
Buddhist' terminology. But essentially both are the same- identical in fact.
(The Mahatma Letters, Letter LXXVI).
Those who know the philosophy of
any philosophical Hindu like T.Subba Row know that there is an angle to this
problem different from that of Buddhism. We must remember that the Master K.H.
is a Buddhist abbot in Tibet, and therefore He and His pupils must necessarily
present the Buddhist aspect of philosophy. Every Hindu believes in both a Personal
and an Impersonal God, as T.Subba Row did. He was a deist. He offered his prayers
to the Personal God, but at the same time he knew the conception of the Impersonal
Brahman. But as an Advaita Brahmin, he had more an impersonal conception of
God than a personal one. Another pupil, Mohini Chatterji, was also a deist,
but he was a Visishtadvaita Brahmin, and so relied more on the personal aspect
of God than on the impersonal. Both these concepts exist in Hinduism and the
complexity of the problem is vast.
In all great philosophies we have
a proclamation that an "Absolute" is the basis of everything. I have
never been able to make clear to my mind why there must be an Absolute at all.
However.... Now in Theosophy we have a certain philosophy given us by our Adept
Teachers, especially the Masters M. and K.H.. Few seem aware of the teachings
which the Master Serapis gave to Colonel Olcott in 1875 in New York. Here I
will say something which may seem irreverent but is essential. We must not erect
the teachings of our two Masters into dogmas, which necessarily must cancel
out the teachings of every other Master. Each Master has His own standpoint.
But as Theosophists, while we have the utmost reverence for our two Masters,
equal reverence must be given to the teachings of other Masters like Shri Krishna,
Jesus Christ, Zoroaster, Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and others. I mean Their
real teachings, not what is ascribed to Them. We must not enter into any narrow
bigotry, erecting the Masters whom we know as saying the final word.
In all great philosophies we have a proclamation that an "Absolute"
is the basis of everything. I have never been able to make clear to my mind
why there must be an Absolute at all. However, all philosophies postulate the
necessity of having this vast enveloping sphere which they call the Absolute.
Even Herbert Spencer, the materialist, posited the Absolute; so too all the
German Philosophies. All they say about it is IT IS. The Hindu philosophies
go somewhat further. When they postulate Brahman as the Absolute they posit
certain attributes in the Absolute; one is Chit or energizing Consciousness,
not a mere abstract intelligence but a dynamic energizing Consciousness; Another
thing we must remember is that the Masters cannot in reality contradict one
another, for They are one with Truth. They may seem to contradict, because They
have to state in terms of words the nature of that which is "fathomless".a
second characteristic is Ananda, Bliss. The third quality is Sat or Being or
Be-Ness. But what is meant by "being"? Though the word "being"
connotes a kind of negative quiescent Reality, I think it may be described as
having some kind of a directing personality in it. What do I mean by that? Is
not that a sort of Personal God in the Absolute? I am of course merely theorizing.
Now, from the Absolute, there issues
Ishvara, the Personal Deity. I cannot imagine that from an Absolute, which is
the negation of anything that we can postulate as personality, there can issue
a personality. That is why I say that there must be some kind of a root of personality
in the Absolute, in the same kind of a way that in the tiny seed of a great
banyan tree the tree is latent inside one cell. One must postulate that the
root of Ishvara is in the Absolute; and since Ishvara is, as Creator-Preserver-Destroyer,
a directing personality, therefore the root of that directing personality must
exist in the Absolute. So when one says the Absolute is Sat-Chit-Ananda, one
implies that Sat or Being is a directing personality in IT in principle. There
is also in the Absolute an Intelligence, Chit, which must be an energizing Consciousness
in principle, for unless we postulate that, whence this cosmic, evolutionary
planned and detailed action which manifests as the Intelligence of Ishvara?
Without this idea of a root of personality in Brahman, we come to a mechanical
conception of the nature of manifestation of the universe. This is the Buddhist
idea. When the Absolute manifests as Ishvara and becomes the upper and the lower
halves of a circle, to use the well known symbol, and the two halves interact
(as flint striking iron makes a spark), then the latent Personality of God becomes
active. This is the Personal God.
While Ishvara is the Personal Lord,
there is behind Him a vast sphere of the Impersonal Godhead, and there will
come a time at the end of this manifestation. When Ishvara reverts into His
root nature as a principle of personality, and is no longer a Person.
So if we want to understand this
problem we must understand both the nature of the Personal God whom we worship,
and also of that vaster sphere in which He and we exist. How are we to define
that higher sphere? One thing to remember is, that that Vastness IS, and that
it is everything conceivable. In Hinduism the statement is that it is Sat-Chit-Ananda;
Buddhism would simply say IT IS, without any quality that can be predicated
of IT.
Now, any definition which we try
to make must be "beside the mark." This is clearly recognized in Hindu
teachings. There are innumerable philosophical works on the subject, but there
is one place in one of the Upanishads where the truth is summed up in the statement
that whatever another says concerning THAT, your answer must always be "Neti,
Neti"- "It is never so, it is never so.". Nothing that is manifested
can ever describe what is un-manifested. So we are instructed that as we rise
from experience to experience, and even see the glory of the highest of all
the planes with all its manifestations, when we are almost on the verge of knowing
what is "God," we still must say "Neti, Neti." Whatever
you discover on any manifested plane is still not THAT.
All this is very beautifully described
in The Light of Asia, in the first sermon which the Lord Buddha gave. The first
verse is:
OM, AMITAYA! Measure not with words
Th' Immeasurable; nor sink the string of thought
Into the Fathomless. Who asks doth err,
Who answers, errs. Say nought!
That is the true standpoint of Buddhism.
The problem whether there is God or not is beyond the range of mere human intellect
to solve.
I have said that along our line of
speculation the Absolute manifests as Ishvara, the Cosmic Logos. That is the
first emanation, and therefore all the millions of Solar Logoi are within the
Cosmic Logos, who enfolds in Himself the whole universe and energizes all Logoi
and everything within them. The problem now is, How far will you go in your
philosophical explorations? Will you, for instance, go from the Logos of our
Solar System, God to us, to the Universal Logos, who of course is a Personality?
If you say, "Thus far for me," then you will follow certain lines
of teaching as to self-growth and salvation, But you take the other attitude
and say, "No, I must proceed to the Absolute Being. I do not deny the existence
of the Cosmic Logos and Solar Logoi, but my goal is to pierce into that far
Greater Be-Ness, to know the nature of the Absolute, even though all philosophers
say I cannot do it"; if you take this second attitude, that your aim is
to come to know, however little, what is the nature of the Absolute, there is
for you no God to worship. Not that you deny the existence of a hierarchy of
Logoi; but you are concerned not with them but to go beyond into the nature
of the Absolute. But if your temperament is towards the Personal Logos, as a
Unity or Trinity with the Hierarchies emanating from them then there does exist
a God for you to worship.
Now in all this where do you and
I come in? What is our relation to the Solar Logos? There is one fact to go
upon. I have my "being" within the circumscribing sphere of the Solar
Logos.
The Solar Logos enfolds us; He feeds
us; He is the matrix like the mother's womb which nourishes the embryo till
it can live a separate existence. So we "live and move and have our being"
in Him.
But we are created by Him? There
I would myself say, No, for we are Monads and are rooted in the Cosmic Logos.
But we are only potential Monads within the Cosmic Logos. It is the Solar Logos
who brings these potential Monads into Himself and there fosters them, as the
mother's womb does the embryo. He feeds us and draws us out night and day. It
is His function to bring out the monadic powers of each Monad into activity.
You can worship the Solar Logos,
as Father, Mother or Son, for He is our Mediator. Yet at the same time, if you
are searching for the root of being you must go beyond even the Cosmic Logos.
It is interesting to note what was
the attitude of the Lord Buddha to this problem. All sorts of questions were
asked of Him on this question, Is there God? His answer always was to this effect:
"The question is beside the mark. It is not rightly put. I am not here
to answer that question, I am here to tell you of the cause of suffering and
the way out of suffering." He never denied the existence of God nor asserted
it. His attitude was once given in a parable. If you find a man wounded by an
arrow, is it to the point to ask: "From what tree's wood is this arrow
made? From the feathers of what bird is this arrow tipped?" What the wounded
man asks of you is to have the arrow plucked out; he is not interested in your
speculations. His need is healing, not philosophy.
Another thing we must remember is
that the Masters cannot in reality contradict one another, for They are one
with Truth. They may seem to contradict, because They have to state in terms
of words the nature of that which is "fathomless". For instance, the
Master K.H. says, "There is no god worthy of a capital letter," and
yet when teaching Krishnaji (J.Krishnamurti) He uses the word God. The Master
Serapis ends a letter to Colonel Olcott: "God's blessing upon thee, Brother
mine." He concludes three other letters invoking God's blessing. And in
one letter this:" God lead thee, Brother mine, and may He crown thy noble
efforts with success." There are contradictions, but contradictions are
of the very nature of manifested life. Think of a disc, set it in motion going
in a certain direction. Observe the direction, but also note that by the very
nature of the disc it has two sides. What is important is not the fact that
disc always faces two contradictory directions but the direction in which it
is going. You cannot describe a disc exactly except in terms of a contradiction.
Out of these experiences is born
the truth which is sought. Each will come to a part of the solution by himself,
in the silence. Therefore though we may by philosophical discussion realize
the truth to some extent, we shall never grasp the entire truth. We have something
of that today in physics. They say you cannot describe completely the nature
of the ultimate particle of matter, the electron. You can make an accurate statement
as to its velocity; but you cannot at the same time give an accurate statement
of its position at the instant you define its velocity. If you give a correct
statement about its position, then the statement about its velocity is only
approximate. By the very nature of the root of the physical universe, the two
important factors, velocity and position, cannot be equated, except approximately.
There is formula which gives this approximation. This is the "Principle
of Indeterminacy." Also, once you have stated what the electron is, the
next instant that statement does not apply. The moment you have observed an
electron you have changed it by your observation, your first statement about
it is not valid for your second observation. We cannot understand this Principle
of Indeterminacy except in terms of higher mathematics. Mere argument does not
give the solution.
On this we have an example in Hinduism,
in the name Muni for a sage and saint. Muni means the Silent one. A Sannyasi
often makes a vow of silence for a certain period, and behind that is the fact
that it is "in the silence" that he begins to enter into a realization
of the mystery. But each needs, however, before he goes into the silence, to
possess the experiences which all his past incarnations have given him.. Therefore
we must never try to impose our partial realization upon another .Out of these
experiences is born the truth which is sought. Each will come to a part of the
solution by himself, in the silence. Therefore though we may by philosophical
discussion realize the truth to some extent, we shall never grasp the entire
truth
There is one supreme fact which is
clear on this line of inquiry. It is that you can never understand THAT till
you begin to understand THIS, which is manifestation. You cannot know THAT merely
out of abstract principles of philosophy. The universe, even with its Maya,
has a value for us in our journey to THAT. Similarly you cannot completely understand
the nature of God till you begin to understand at least partially the nature
of man, for man is God here below. Therefore then we need to go outwards into
manifestation, and note the interrelations of manifestation among men, note
the relations between workers, friends, enemies and so on. All our human problems
are a part of the transcendent spiritual problem.
Further, the problem is different
with each of us. Some discover something of God first, and then afterwards they
begin to understand man. On the other hand, others discover much of man first,
and then they come to something of the realization of God. But once again, the
practical advice is, "Say naught." Argument and discussion lead nowhere.
If I were to say this in India, the typical Hindu will say, "All the same,
what an exciting and exhilarating adventure we can have "getting nowhere."
That is India all over, through the ages-- the would-be philosopher philosophizing,
while on all sides is human misery, which scarcely arrest his attention.
My advice to you is to do what the
"Virgin Mary"
did:" And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told
them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in
her heart."
There is one absolutely essential
factor, in this problem of understanding the Reality. After you have so pondered
in your heart, you must create. What? Deeds of love and sacrifice, new gifts
to God or man, hopes, dreams, philosophies, arts and religions, it little matters
what. You must first be utterly certain what is your "mark" and then
go straight to it, as the arrow goes straight to its mark, ignoring everything
else. When you have created, you must "stand by" that creation, unwavering
and loyal to it, however much all men may deny its value. I shall here always
remember how Dr. Annie Besant, used to recite with fervour these verses from
Myers' poem St Paul:
Lo if some strange intelligible
thunder
Sang to the earth, the secret of a star,
How should ye catch, for terror and for wonder,
Shreds of the story that was pealed so far?
Scarcely I catch the words of his
revealing,
Hardly I hear him, dimly understand,
Only the Power that is within me pealing
Lives on my lips and beckons to my hand.
Whoso has felt the Spirit of the
Highest
Cannot confound nor doubt him nor deny:
Ye with one voice, O world, tho' thou deniest,
Stand thou on that side, for on this am I.
Rather the earth shall doubt when
her retrieving
Pours in the rain and rushes from the sod,
Rather than he for whom the great conceiving
Stirs in his soul to quicken into God
Ay, tho' Thou then shouldst strike
him from his glory,
Blind and tormented, maddened and alone,
Even on the cross would he maintain his glory,
Yes, and in hell would whisper, I have known.
"I have known." That is
what she said as Hypatia and Bruno, when the bestial Christians scraped her
flesh to the bone with oyster shells and the emissaries of the Pope bound him
to the stake and lit round him the devouring fire.
In conclusion I have this to add.
The problem on which I have addressed you fascinates me, but only intellectually.
It does not grip me heart and soul. Yet I have my own form of worship of the
Personal God as the Greek Goddess of Wisdom, Pallas Athena. An exquisite marble
statue of Pallas as a girl is in the vestibule to the Shrine Room here in this
Centre. As I lie in bed, it stands a few feet from my head on the other side
of a door, and this Pallas suffices me better than any image of God created
by sculptor or painter since the days of Greece.
The eternal problem for me which I am discovering is not that of an Impersonal
or Personal God, but of God as man. I do not mean by God as man God on earth
as an Avatar, as the Incarnation of God as Jesus, or Shri Krishna. I mean God
in man as the human man, woman, and child. To know these "fragments of
the Divine,"The eternal problem for me which I am discovering is not that
of an Impersonal or Personal God, but of God as man. I do not mean by God as
man God on earth as an Avatar, as the Incarnation of God as Jesus, or Shri Krishna.
I mean God in man as the human man, woman, and child. To know these "fragments
of the Divine," who are struggling even as I am struggling through darkness
to Light, as the very Solar Logos and Cosmic Logos (and both are one), to know
each as a God of Gods, is this that I have discovered, and am discovering more
and more each hour. From that Discovery has come whatever I have so far created;
from it will come the greater creations still in lives to come as a "Brother
of the Glorious Mystery." |