Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00693)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "rnewman2003" <robertnewman@e...> wrote:
My 
> own, much less learned angle on the Mahatma Letters and Theosophy 
in 
> general, focuses on the denial of the supreme personality of 
Godhead 
> in this philosophy. Unlike BAG, I am not an expert in religious 
> history, nor am I what would be called a 'practicing' member of my 
> faith tradition. I am a seeker of the truth, plain and simple, and 
I 
> take it where I find it. 

Theosophy does not deny that there are deities. What it denies is 
that the supreme reality is personal. This position is also taken by 
esoteric Christianity in one of its lineages. I refer to the 
Basilidean school which claimed to trace its teachings to the 
esoteric teaching of Matthias and Peter. A sp,ewhat different 
interpretation, also ultimately non-theistic, is seen in the lineage 
which was first disclosed to the public by Valentinus, but which 
claims to represent the esoteric teaching of Paul. Paul, being 
clearly a Kabbalist, taught an esoteric doctrine which resembles the 
modern Kabbalah in many ways, although of course it represented a 
historically earlier strata of evolution.

I am not a Hindu, but my reading of THE VISHNU PURANA is that that 
document also teaches an ultimately impersonal supreme reality. 
Personal deities such as Indra were apparently yogis who transcended 
the human condition by means of their practice, which did not, as 
many people think, consist merely of reading magazine articles about 
Theosophy. Siva, as lord of yogis, seems to have been a yogi at one 
time. Babaji, who is godlike if anyone is, was clearly a yogi some 
1700 years ago. The Adwaita Vedanta does not teach that supreme 
reality is personal.