Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00095)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:

> Yet Blavatsky never used the word "God" or "Divine all" in excess

In excess ? yes but she used:

"As mankind is essentially of one and the same essence, and that
essence is one-infinite, uncreate, and eternal, whether we call it God
or Nature-nothing, therefore, can affect one nation or one man without
affecting all other nations and all other men. This is as certain and
as obvious as that a stone thrown into a pond will, sooner or later,
set in motion every single drop of water therein.
Q. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic
notion.
A. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely Christian, although
not Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical nations prefer to
ignore it."

> brutal materialistic male teological expression of "God". Other

God isn't male expression. And it is often used rather for Logos than
for Parabrahman.

> later theosophical writers sought it seems to do the opposite. And
> they crept closer to the Vatican instead of distancing themselves 

Vatican doesn't play now so important role as before.
I don't like word "God" due its associations and use it even less than
Blavatsky but the facts are such that among the most westerners this
term has rather positive than negative connotation, especially in
America. That's why later theosophists used this word. Jinarajadasa
said "let's call it God". It's not connected with Vatican in any way.
Sai-baba uses the word God but it doesn't mean that he serves to
Vatican. He is regarded as one of the serious menaces, along with the
theosophy, by the Church. And the change of terms didn't change Pope's
attitude to theosophy. Theosophy is often regarded essentially eastern
and consequently alien teaching, so the use of the western terms was
intended to assure westerners that it is not so.

I would recommend to you to see christian fundamentalist sites and
read what they write about theosophy. They don't make difference
between earlier and later writers and consider all this as one great
conspiracy against Christianity and derive all new-age movement from
Blavatsky, whose teaching comes nowdays under a new disguise.