Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00426)

the great minds have no need for the remainder of the quote! lol

Cass


>
>From: nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 July, 2009 6:37:23 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
>
>Â 
>Dear Cass
>
>Indeed, let's HOPE it's "great minds" and not the remainder 
>of that quote, "âfools seldom differ." :) lol
>
>N
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@ ...> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Nigel
>> Great minds think alike!ÃÂ I posted my extract before realising you had done so.
>> 
>> Cass
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >From: nhcareyta <nhcareyta@. ..>
>> >To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 21 July, 2009 11:45:40 PM
>> >Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
>> >
>> >ÃÂ 
>> >"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 
>> >preeminently 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. "
>> >
>> >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 beyond the 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 Ãâ" i.e. the 
>> >knowledge of that cause and causes Ãâ" 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 acquired notion, 
>> >and we have but one thing uncommon with theologies Ãâ" 
>> >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) causes, the theists assign them 
>> >spiritual, super-natural and unintelligible and un-known 
>> >causes. The God of the Theologians is simply an imaginary 
>> >power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it Ãâ" 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."
>> >(Underline added)
>> >Mahatma Letters to A P Sinnett No 88
>> >Chronology of George Linton and Virginia Hanson
>> >
>> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It was very unique in that Lord Buddha, when a devotee addressed him as God,
>> >> he raised him up and told him - I am your brother.
>> >> .
>> >> When I read about it, I was indeed touched. Whenever I meet my friends and
>> >> need to remind them that we all should be on the level, I repeat this story.
>> >> I think, such an attitude will help all of us in our day to day dealing with
>> >> others.
>> >> .
>> >> Messenger aka MKR
>> >> .
>> >> visit www.theosophy. net
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Anand <AnandGholap@ ...> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Blavatsky's criticism of personal God of Christians is wrong. It is born
>> >> > out of ignorance of spiritual realities. When Krishna took birth in physical
>> >> > body, he called himself God. All his devotees had personal relationship with
>> >> > this God, whom they called Krishna. When Jesus spoke, he referred God as
>> >> > Father. Again his devotees had personal relationship with God. If we study
>> >> > different devotional traditions around the world, we find that in most of
>> >> > these traditions, God had personal relationship with devotees. Making God
>> >> > personal is very nature of devotion. This is how the path of devotion works.
>> >> > So Blavatsky's attacks on personal God of Christians is wrong.
>> >> > Best
>> >> > Anand Gholap
>> >> >
>> >> > 
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
>> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
>> Show me how: http://au.mobile. yahoo.com/ mail
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]