Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00624)

Jan 27 2003

Dear Leon


Forget BAG as you say it is doctrinaire and goes nowhere. Of course
Lokeshwara and Amitabha and MahaVishnu / Krishna are synonyms. They
are personification of the divine Man or the Rishis and the Manus, of
the Mahatmas and the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. One can spit hairs
about the exact meaning of those titles but the fact is that they all
represent the undemanding (as well as unrecognized) service of mankind
and the universe. [ see S D I 207 -210 ]

I have found the touchstone of theosophy as basic and universal
philosophy, and inherently coherent and logical is adequate. It is
the origin of all philosophies and does not bend to sects and personal
views.

THEOSOPHY as philosophy, is what these lists ought to discuss.
History and opinions lead nowhere ether. The writings of individuals
expose their knowledge or their ignorance. What one person may say
about another is irrelevant to the actual matter being considered. It
is a form of "control authoritarianism."

Quoted sources, or authorities do not lead to better understanding
unless the value is inherent in what is offered -- as compared to
universal and impartial truth, tolerance and brotherhood -- a
community of immortals helping each other to attain to wisdom, and
serve all creatures.

But once that one is aware of the situation one looks to see if other
students are handling it -- if not it is time to step in and let
Theosophy straighten things out.

Best wishes,

Dal

===================================

-----Original Message-----
From: leon maurer
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re PROOF That Amitabha Lokeshvara is Krishna-Vishnu

What difference does it make who is who, when they preached, or what
came
first -- when the only thing necessary to know are the teachings of
the
universal laws of evolution, karma, Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis,
etc.,
and the methods of attaining self realization or enlightenment that
fits in
with our Western education and modes of life?

Does knowing about, worshipping, or "Loving" any particular deity, or
incarnation of the universal consciousness add anything to our
knowledge and
wisdom necessary to achieve self realization? Does it teach us how to
act in
harmony with nature according to the laws of karma and based on the
fundamental principles? Can it give us the necessary knowledge of the
metaphysical science of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis -- so as to
be
better able to help and teach others how they, too, can attain their
individual "salvation" for themselves, as well as carry on the work of
the TM
-- without being trapped in any sort of organized religion and their
particular dogmas, rituals and spiritual or yoga practices that were
designed
around life lived and the levels of knowledge hundreds of centuries
ago?

As far as this acolyte of theosophy and its "mystery teachings" are
concerned, all of BAG's proselytization and historical nomenclature is
entirely meaningless and non productive with respect to achieving or
attaining the aims and goals outlined in the Three Objects of the
Theosophical Movement based on the Three Fundamental Principles of
theosophy
(which, I assume, is basically the same as the esoteric roots of every
ethical and moral religion). I also assume that this is a forum to
"discuss"
those aspects of theosophy and the Theosophical Movement -- not the
history
of ancient religious cults or sects and their worship, dogmas, or
rituals.
(Although it's certainly reasonable to cite references to such
information,
when necessary.)

My advice for all those wishing to acquire the perennial wisdom along
with
spiritual-psychic and material knowledge, attain self-realization, and
become
able to help achieve Universal Brotherhood and promote the welfare of
the
world -- is to stick with theosophy as it was originally presented,
and let
the others who profess their particular religious beliefs, dogmas, and
rituals continue to babble on in their own forums with their
meaningless (to
us) nomenclatures and historical references -- while taking those
fundamental
teachings common to all of them and synthesized in the SD by HPB, as
our sole
guide and mentor.

It's obvious that since BAG has, in the various anti theosophical
diatribes
on this and other Internet forums and web sites, entirely
misinterpreted
theosophy by his "personalizations," lumping all its organizations and
spin-off pseudo teachers and authentic teachers in one basket, and
making
unfounded presumptions about its fundamental teachings and purposes of
theosophy by taking bits and pieces of it out of context, and making
judgments and opinions about what is the correct way to fulfill the
objects
of the Theosophical Movement -- he is entirely off base, and his
comments are
not worth our consideration or our counter arguments.

All we have to be concerned with is; Can the theosophical teachings,
whether
or not we are theists, atheists, agnostics, or what not, achieve the
same
spiritual goals as those professed at the highest esoteric levels of
any of
those religions. If the answer is yes, then we can ignore all this
historical
and nomenclature stuff -- beyond just an academic and scholarly
interest --
as being entirely unproductive to our individual studies, practices
and
modern day concerns.

LHM