Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00221)

Parabrahm is NOT a god, but absolute immutable law and Iswar is the 
effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon 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 ptove what we claim 
the knowledge of tat cause and causes.
We are in a position to maintain there is no god or gods behind them.

The idea of god is not an innate but an ac quired notion.
The God of the theologians is simply an imaginary power un loup garou,
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.


ML10p 52/3






--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> Below statements says One Life has properties of matter. That sounds
> plainly wrong.
> ---------------
> "When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay 
is the
> 
> essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has
> 
> correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, 
etc. --
> 
> hence is material, is matter itself. "
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> 
> It is not clear why Life is condemned in this letter and matter is
> praised. Read below statement.
> ------------------------
> "(2) Matter we know to be eternal, i.e., having had no beginning (a)
> 
> because matter is Nature herself (b) because that which cannot
> 
> annihilate itself and is indestructible exists necessarily -- and
> therefore it
> 
> could not begin to be, nor can it cease to be (c) because the 
accumulated
> 
> experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us 
matter
> 
> (or nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom 
is
> 
> ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always
> 
> existed, i.e., its materials ever changing form, combinations and
> 
> properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely
> indestructible."
> -------------------------
> 
> Again here it is not clear why matter is made supreme. Read 
statement
> below.
> ------------------------
> "In other words we believe in MATTER alone, in matter as visible 
nature
> 
> and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent 
omnipotent
> 
> Proteus with its unceasing motion which is its life"
> --------------------------------
> 
> Again statement below is opposite of what spiritual classics teach.
> Idea of pure Existence is called absurdity.
> -------------------
> "The existence of matter then is a fact; the existence of motion is
> another
> 
> fact, their self existence and eternity or indestructibility is a
> third fact.
> 
> And the idea of pure spirit as a Being or an Existence -- give it
> whatever
> 
> name you will -- is a chimera, a gigantic absurdity."
> --------------------------
> Read below statment and you will find that it is neither supported 
by
> scientists nor spiritualist. It is unbelievable invention. Accepted
> chelas like CWL, AB, SR never said such a thing happens.
> -----------------
> "The butterfly devoured by a bird becomes that bird, and the little 
bird
> 
> killed by an animal goes into a higher form."
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Another unbelievable statement "Evil is the exaggeration of good"
> 
> One more false statement in so called Mahatma Letter "neither a 
savage
> nor a wild (free) animal die of disease"
> 
> Another unbelievable statement from ML 10 is below. According to
> chelas, theist philosophies and religions were given by Great Ones
> from White Brotherhood. Did they mislead humanity by creating idea 
of
> God. And what about millions of people who fear to do sin because 
they
> fear God? What about millions of people who do good works in order 
to
> please their God ?
> ----------------------
> "It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the
> 
> slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false 
pretence
> 
> of saving them."
> ---------------------------------------------
> Read below. If this is so, why accepted chelas of Masters built
> Christian church, a Hindu temple in Adyar campus ? And why does TS
> tell that people should live religions and should not leave 
religions
> ? And why then Theosophy called source of all religions, most of 
them
> are theist ?
> -------------------
> "Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that
> 
> day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of 
Truth,
> 
> morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods."
> ------------------------------------
> 
> It appears that many statements in this so called Mahatma Letter 10
> are simply false and unbelievable. They can not be supported by any
> other spiritual writing and not even by writings of accepted chelas 
of
> the same Masters. I have to assume that this letter contains
> Blavatsky's own thoughts and not the thoughts of the Masters.
> In just one letter I found so many absurdities, many more such
> absurdities can be found if I examine other so called Mahatma 
Letters.
> 
> Best
> Anand Gholap
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> >
> > There are many sentences in this letter 10 which are highly 
confusing.
> > After studying Mahatma Letters for decades you say God exists
> > according to Masters. But I came across many people who studied
> > Mahatma Letters for decades and said God does not exist. So, it 
has
> > become clear to me that Mahatma Letters don't convey ideas 
clearly. 
> > Whether ideas they convey are correct or not can be discussed if 
we
> > are sure what Mahatma Letters want to convey. But people are not 
sure.
> > Personally I find many statements unclear and contradictory and I 
will
> > give credit (debit) of that to Blavatsky's writing and will not 
blame
> > Masters for the confusion.
> > Just take one example "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."
> > As I understand this statement, Letter rejects the idea of ONE 
LIFE. 
> > How can above sentence be correct? As I understand subject of
> > spirituality, God gives life to everything. It is God's life
> > everywhere. Annie Besant, an accepted chela said in her most 
famous
> > prayer " O Hidden Life, Vibrant in Every Atom" That means ML 10
> > contradicts with it. 
> > That means Letter 10 contradicts with Annie Besant's prayer and 
also
> > contradicts with most of the spiritual classics who proclaim one 
life
> > of God. 
> > Best
> > Anand Gholap
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anand,
> > > 
> > > You wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You brought the passages which were convenient to you, and you
> deleted
> > > > sentences which are problematic. Here I am giving those 
sentences.
> > > > "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God"
> > > >  "we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists."
> > > > "we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either
> personal
> > > > or impersonal."
> > > 
> > > Anand,  I was not ignoring these passages by not quoting them.  
I was 
> > > simply offering you KEY statements by the Masters which I 
believe
> give 
> > > a good insight to what they are teaching.
> > > 
> > > Do you understand the quotes I gave?  Do you agree or disagree 
with 
> > > them?  And if you disagree with them can you tell us why?
> > > 
> > > I ask you to grapple with these ideas and try to understand 
them.  
> > > Maybe you already understand them but that is certainly not 
clear
> to me.
> > > 
> > > Again you write:
> > >  
> > > > It is not clear why brought Arthur W. Osborn. I was not
> discussing his
> > > > philosophy. I was commenting on so called Mahatma Letters. 
> > > 
> > > I gave Mr. Osborn's quote because I believe he deals with one 
of the 
> > > IDEAS presented in the statements of the Masters.
> > > 
> > > We should be concerned with THE IDEAS presented and first try 
to 
> > > understand them whether the statement is given by the Master or 
as in 
> > > this case by Mr. Osborn.
> > > 
> > > I also hope you will comment on what you said about Jnaneshwar 
at:
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47296
> > > 
> > > To repeat again:  I am not at all certain that I understand 
what you 
> > > object to in what the Mahatmas teach about "God".
> > > 
> > > Take just one of the quotes I gave previously:
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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, "praeter Deum nulla dari neque concepi potest
> > > substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists . . . .
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Do you object to the idea of "pantheism"?
> > > 
> > > Do you agree or disagree with the idea that:
> > > 
> > > "there is not...any other substance than God."
> > > 
> > > If "God" is everywhere, is in fact universal, is all things, 
then
> there 
> > > is nothing "outside" of God.  You and I are soaked thru and 
thru 
> > > with "God".  We are not separate from "God", "he" is not 
separate
> from 
> > > you or me...
> > > 
> > > There is no "separation"...You and I don't 
> > > really "exist"....as "separate entities"...all such 
distinctions are 
> > > mayavic, illusionary....
> > > 
> > > You yourself said:
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > St. Jnaneshwar writes in it that it is sin to consider ourselves
> > > separate from God. He wrote that God is the only one who 
exists, all
> > > forms which we see with senses are maya or illusion.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Anand, notice your words that "God is the ONLY ONE who exists, 
all 
> > > forms [INCLUDING YOU AND I!!!!] are maya or illusion."  We are 
> > > not "separate from God." 
> > > 
> > > THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF whether we call it God, the SELF, the
> Universal 
> > > Buddha, the Cosmic Christ, the Krishna within, or simply 
NIRVANA.
> > > 
> > > Again KH taught:
> > > 
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > no true philosophically trained Adwaitee will ever call himself 
an
> > > agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in 
every
> > > respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the
> > > microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, 
no
> > > creator as no being....
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > He knows that he is .... identical with the UNIVERSAL LIFE AND 
SOUL.
> > > 
> > > He is not [to use your own words] SEPARATE FROM GOD.
> > > 
> > > or as KH writes.  There is no God APART [that is, SEPARATE] 
from 
> > > himself....
> > > 
> > > So tell us Anand if you object to what is taught in these KH 
quotes 
> > > which can be found at:
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47293
> > > 
> > > and tell us if you think Jnaneshwar's views agree or disagree 
with
> the 
> > > views of the Masters.  See the quotes I am referring to at:
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47293
> > > 
> > > Hoping you will grapple with these ideas and tell us what you 
are 
> > > thinking....
> > > 
> > > Daniel
> > > http://hpb.cc
> > >
> >
>