Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00164)

Hi all,

Just writing to let you all know that a lot of the Hugh Shearman 
material can be found on my website at:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/c/c_hshear.html

The basic point in his article on God, is IMO, whether or not one can 
take each of these letters of the Mahatmas equally seriously - and 
specifically - is letter 10 really a mahatmic letter - i.e. were the 
words really produced by a mahatmic mind? Shearman's main point is 
that since the letter is in Blavatsky's handwriting, we can't be sure 
of the content being Mahatmic. And as far as the content goes: 

For instance: there being no compromise in theosophy - I don't know, 
isn't there? Isn't the truth usually in between various extremes? And 
isn't most religious dogma based on some esoteric reality? Would not 
that also be true for the Christian/Muslim idea of a personal God? 
For instance: mystics usually experience a relationship with a 
personal God. When that relationship deepens, the personality of the 
mystic is disolved into God - and God as a person is no longer a 
relevant explanation (though sufis seem to often stick to an acting 
God, anyhow). Still, in the first, less advanced experience, it is 
relevant to talk about God as a person. Because that is the 
experience. 

Just some thoughts on the questions Daniel rases here.
Katinka