Vol 10 Page 90

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

[Lucifer, Vol. II, No. 12, August, 1888, pp. 472, 497]

[. . the light of Creative Thought from THAT, reservoir of all thought] In Indian philosophy this absolute Deity is always referred to as “THAT” (TAD) and “IT.” It is “the reservoir of all thought” because it is absolute thought; which having no relation to the finite and the conditioned, cannot be premised as something individual or separate from the universal mind, and minds. It is the causeless cause of every manifesting intellection, the eternal Source of ALL.

Page 91

[The Logos thinks] Because the Logos is manifested; but the ever-concealed Deity does not, since It is ABSOLUTE THOUGHT and cannot be spoken of as we would of an individual personal Thinker. But then the Logos in the East is the synthesis, the collective aggregate of all the Gods or Powers in the manifested Universe.
[this thought, in its grosser form called Ether] And in its highest it is AKASHA.

––––––––––

[Rev. T. G. Headley writes on the doctrine of Atonement, the false conception underlying the Mass, and the corruption of priests. He feels the name of Jesus should be rehabilitated. H.P.B. appends the following Editorial Note:]

Amen! It is quite true that there are not a few such illogical persons who seek to dethrone Romanism and Protestantism by destroying the innocent cause of these—Jesus. But no theosophist is among that class. Theosophists, even those who are no longer, as those who never were, Christians, regard, nevertheless, Jesus, or Jehoshua as an Initiate. It is not, therefore, against the “bearer” of that name—in whom they see one of the Masters of Wisdom—that they protest, but against that name as travestied by pseudo-Christian fancy and clad in the pagan robes borrowed from heathen gods, that they have set their hearts. It is those “priests” whom our reverend correspondent denounces as “murderers” and “devils” —at the risk of finding himself confounded with them in the ungodly crowd he himself belongs to—that every true theosophist ought to be ever ready to rise against. Few of them refuse to see in Jesus a Son of God, as well as Chrêstos having reached by suffering the Christos condition. All they reject is, the modern travesty of the very, very old dogma of the Son becoming one with the Father; or that this “father” had ever anything to do with the Hebrew androgyne called Jehovah. It is not Jesus’ “father,” who “will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” in whose nostrils the blood of even a slain animal used as a burnt offering could have ever smelt sweet. How then

Page 92

could the human sacrifice offered by the allegorical Christ, and described in the Epistle to the Ephesians [v, 2] as one that had “a sweet smelling savour,” be regarded otherwise than with horror? Theosophists can discriminate—to say the least, as much as the reverend gentleman who signs himself T.G. Headley.

––––––––––