Affirmations

I was fascinated to read this on

http://tssydney.org/adyar-library-books-learning/books-and-articles-online/affirmations/

and I publish it unchanged

1. Strength. I will be strong, brave, persevering in His service.

2 Wisdom. I will attain that  intuitional wisdom which can be developed only through perfect love.

3.  Adaptability or Tact. I will try to gain the  power of saying and doing just the right thing at the right moment — of meeting each man on his own ground, in order to help him more efficiently.

4.  Beauty and Harmony. So far as I can, I will  bring beauty and harmony into my life and surroundings, that they may be more worthy of Him; I will learn to see beauty in all Nature, that so I may serve Him better.

5.  Science (detailed knowledge). I will gain knowledge and  accuracy, that I may devote them to His work.

6.  Devotion. I will unfold within myself  the mighty power of devotion, that through it I may bring others to Him.”

7.  Ordered Service. I will so order and  arrange my service of God along the lines which He has prescribed, that I may  be able fully to take advantage of the loving help which His holy Angels are always waiting to render.”

From Leadbeater, C W “The Masters And The Path” Chapt XII The  Chohans And The Rays, P270.

Now compare these words with Koot Hoomi’s letter to A O Hume

… “The idea of God is not innatebut an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies — we reveal the infinite. But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and known(to us at least) cause, the theists assign them spiritual, super-naturaland unintelligible and un-known causes.”

 

Letter number ten to A O Hume

Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett’s handwriting. — ED

NOTES BY K.H. ON A “PRELIMINARY CHAPTER” HEADED “GOD” BY HUME, INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED).

Received at Simla, 1881

>Note: This text extract has been edited in terms of splitting into additional paragraphs and underlining for clarity only H.B.G.

Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is pre-eminently the science of effects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and have no right to admit even its possibility.

Your whole explanation is based upon one solitary admission made simply for argument’s sake in October last. You were told that our knowledge was limited to this our solar system: ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy of the name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of what you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being of some sort beyondthe limits of that solar system.

But if such an existence is not absolutely impossible, yet unless the uniformity of nature’s law breaks at those limits we maintain that it is highly improbable. Nevertheless we deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in this direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth.

Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion.

The word “God” was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim – i.e. the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them.

The idea of God is not innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies — we reveal the infinite. But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and known(to us at least) cause, the theists assign them spiritual, super-naturaland unintelligible and un-known causes.

The God of the Theologians is simply and imaginary power,unloup garou as d’Holbach expressed it — a power which has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery.

Pantheistic we may be called — agnostic never. If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE Life immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth proposition, “practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest substantia” — and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the manifested boundless universe. …”