Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00179)

I agree Nick! 

It's a good thing we don't expect people in theosophy or 
elsewhere to believe in these things, otherwise I fear we'd be 
shrinking faster than we are already... something like the 
"incredible shrinking woman" or such.

I raised the point about naustika because of the confusion which 
is a natural one with soem of our Hindu friends who hear the 
term Gnostic and due to the phonetic similarity assume the word 
is identical. Gnostic would be closer to Jnani perhaps.

We needn't be so hard on ourselves Nick! 

"Belief based on the ignoring of evidence seems to be your 
preference. I prefer the opposite; confidence based on 
testimony of witnesses -- such testimony being a large part of 
my confidence in the Brothers physical existence."

If that's good enough for you then so be it. Let's agree to 
disagree. I've been willing to consider anything you have to 
present on the subject and I think there's still more evidence 
needed to substantiate your belief.

Let me say that I do believe in superior spiritual beings in the 
universe as well as incarnate, living masters and have had the 
great fortune to meet some of them! 

We need to acknowledge and support living, incarnate masters 
who are active in the work of spiritual science in the planet today.

- Art


--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Nick Weeks" <nick.weeks@a...> 
wrote:
> Art:
> >never in any lecture I heard or study that I
> > attended in those years, mostly from the late fifies or early 
sixties
> > was there a statement of belief or required faith of belief of 
the
> > physical existence of these mahatmas... now I certainly read
> > about them, but no one ever asked me to subscribe to this
> > belief, but from what at least three of us are saying it would
> > appear to be an article of faith or belief.
> 
> Nor has anyone here and now asked for, or expected, your 
belief in the
> Adepts. Belief based on the ignoring of evidence seems to be 
your
> preference. I prefer the opposite; confidence based on 
testimony of
> witnesses -- such testimony being a large part of my 
confidence in the
> Brothers physical existence.
> 
> > By the way, my understanding of nastika that was referred to
> > earliar is today spelled in most circles as "naustika" and 
refers
> > to one who does not subscribe to the Vedas. It is not 
necessarily
> > referring to one who is an atheist, but is used by Hindus to 
refer
> > to Buddhists and Jains.
> 
> My understanding is similar, but the Sanskrit word is still 
transliterated
> naastika (the "aa" standing for a macron over the "a"). Perhaps 
you are
> transliterating from Hindi or Prakrit or ??? I think the word 
literally
> means "denier", the opposite of aastika which means 
"believer". The denial &
> belief in this case revolving around the Vedas & the Vedic 
traditional
> teachings, according to Manu (2, 11). It can also mean denial 
of Indian
> spiritual realms, or the Hindu gods. This latter meaning would 
apply to the
> dominant Western religion, Xtianity and materialistic atheists 
around the
> planet. It is in the latter sense that the Mahatma of the Circle 
was
> referring.
> 
> Nicholas