Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00195)

Now, put that in your own words Steve...just kidding.

But what about the 6 or 7 schools of yoga. Did they not cover all the 
bases? I mean the two distinct lines: Bhakti/devotion and then the 
brand which RS teaches Surap Shabd Yoga, wherein one is connected to 
the sound current within (by a master who has the power to do so). 
However, they tell you that this sound resides in us all. So on one 
hand you have science and impersonal form of pure energy (physics) 
and on one hand some brand of devotion to a GIHF (god in human form) 
or an external diety or power source. You might have the best of both 
worlds so to speak but there are not only many unanswered questions, 
but many unaddressed problems inherent in a system such as this. As 
for the evocation of meditational experiences I have a thousand pages 
of same which you can read that I have been documenting for over 30 
years!

Bhakti devotion is given to the pious masses to help assure humility. 
So that they will not all rise up and declare "I am God." Now if this 
were to happen, then you would have chaos or Utopia would you not? 
Well, it can be argued either way. You will have chaos or divine 
order, but certainly you would not have popes and masters who declare 
that THEY are GIHF and YOU, my peon, are NOT.

Netemara
***************

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> > Mahatma Letter No. 10
> > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm
> > 
> > [Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett's handwriting. -- Ed] 
> > 
> > NOTES BY K.H. ON A "PRELIMINARY CHAPTER" HEADED "GOD" BY HUME, 
> > INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY 
(ABRIDGED). 
> 
> People who look at all this as mere theory miss the fact that from 
> the point of view of a yogi, whether there is or is not a God is 
only 
> of interest inasmuch as the notion is useful in practice.
> 
> Thus Kapila's original formulation of the Samkhya philosophy does 
not 
> include any sort of God, but the system of Raja Yoga as laid down 
in 
> the Yoga Sutras includes a special Purusha called Isvara (Lord) 
even 
> though it is derived from Kapila's system. This is because Raja 
Yoga 
> is in part a devotional system and it does not make sense to be 
> devoted to something the existence of which one denies. Most 
> commentators on Raja Yoga say the devotional element is there 
because 
> ancient yogis found this practice produced mystically interesting 
> results.
> 
> Buddhism, on the other hand, does not include a belief in God 
because 
> the Buddha wished to force his students to take personal 
> responsibility for their own salvation. The way it has been 
> explained to me, Buddhism does not deny the existence of a God, but 
> does discourage dependence on any external entity. This is the 
> opposite of Christianity, in which the believer is told the 
> responsibility for him lies squarely on the shoulders of a fellow 
who 
> died two thousand years ago. By pulling God completely out from 
> under the student, Buddhism radically throws him or her back on his 
> or her own resources. Here again the question is: what position 
> produces mystically interesting results?
> 
> It is never admitted to my knowledge, but I think this same 
rationale 
> applies to the doctrine of anatman (anatta in Pali). Whether there 
> is or there is not a soul is a philosophical question (and in any 
> other system but Buddhism a religious one.) Buddhism denies the 
> existence of a soul because this denial is central to the practice 
of 
> Mindfulness and the various techniques for experiencing 
> enlightenment. Except from a practical point of view, it does not 
> really make any difference whether there is a soul or not.
> 
> And then there is the soi distant system called "chaos magick." 
One 
> website I have seen says the "chaote" strives to "believe" in the 
> Virgin Mary as stridently as any catholic for the purpose of 
getting 
> goodies from her. Then as soon as he gets whatever he wants, he 
> discards her. A sort of mystical one night stand. There is 
> something to me a little distasteful about this whole system, but 
> here we have a frank admission that "belief" to a practical minded 
> person is utilitarian and not philosophical.
> 
> The mahatma is obviously coming from a Buddhist perspective, as is 
> admitted in the mahatma letters. But his system is also theurgic, 
> meaning something such as a planetary spirit can be believed in if 
it 
> can be evoked or invoked successfully. This suggests that he is a 
> siddha or Tantric Buddhist of some sort. Here again there is a 
> utilitarianism. If the Christian God cannot be evoked, then he is 
of 
> no practical interest as far as the mahatma's system is concerned.
> 
> The system of seven principles which he espouses is also a 
practical 
> mystical system and not a mere theory. If you once grasp the true 
> meaning of the system (and I have seen no evidence that anyone has) 
> much (but not all) of the practice that it implies suddenly becomes 
> plain. At this level of understanding it is impossible to believe 
> the whole thing is a mere fraud as some have said, but there are 
> still many questions which were left unanswered.