Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00147)

Krishtar wrote: << First of all, i think 
everybody understands what kind of respect i 
quoted in my last message.>>

Yes, I tend to agree that there are those 
"everybody's" who "understand" along the 
lines of whatever "generally understood" 
trends, beliefs, tendencies, etc, there may 
be, but, seeing as this is, after all, a 
"Theosophical" discussion list (ie, a list 
that, for some, may seem as one addressing 
somewhat transcendental issues, among other 
things), it seemed to me that, just possibly, 
there may be those who may have some thoughts 
about forms of defining (from whatever 
interpretive angle) that might be seen, by 
some, as possibly somewhat transcending the 
"more obvious" (in a sense!) definitions to 
be found in dictionaries and Theosophical 
glossaries.

<<< It is the respect and consideration 
regards to differences in opinions.>>

Of course, basically, so ...

<<Secondly, I meant avatar as a Teacher, a 
Bhagavan, a "God incarnated" not potencially, 
which is very implicit in Theosophy.>>

One might question, however, as to who is 
defining what, how, etc, in practice (in 
contrast to whatever theories, examples and 
beliefs there may be that are merely 
exoteric, or "dead letter") ... In other 
words, even pelings, westerners are not all 
lemings, exactly, in some ways, I suspect, at 
all times, so ...

<<I gess all these dictionary meanings and 
senses are not necessary here, and we cannot 
always depend on dictionary and glossary 
consulting because I think we must learn to 
think theosophically>>

"Learning to think Theosophically" is, in a 
sense, as I tend to see it, in keeping with 
my speculative/questioning approach toward 
values and definitions in general.

<<although my question is the avatarhood such 
as Lord Krishna or Jesus Christ´s.>>

Maybe if they were to "more directly" 
participate in this discussion, then we might 
all get to ask a few questions about whatever 
we think is important enough to ask about ... 
Other than that, as I see it, we tend to be 
left with whatever "exoteric" interpretations 
there are about various teachings.

<<I am so sorry for the situation on 
contemporary India, so many " Babas" and " 
Babajis" here and there...some living in 
palaces and mandirs, proclaiming 
supersticious beliefs, far away from the 
Upanishads and puranas true meanings, while 
the poor devotees are sometimes exploited in 
their goodwiling beliefs. If we take a look 
at the spiritual situation of whe World we 
all can see that technology also brought, 
next to facilities of communication, a sort 
of sluggishness, an indolence, to reach the 
real meaning of the need the spirituality. I 
see churches preaching a God that doen´t 
exist, an antropomorphism according to men´s 
needs and inclinations , just as i was done 
centuries ago. A God outside the Nature. How 
can theosophy´s purposed Brotherhood be 
applied in a world where one person still 
offends and also kills the other for 
differences in their beliefs? My strongest 
opinion is that if Church had introduced the 
belief of reincarnation and the law of Karma 
in the entire world such as It did with the 
belief that of Christ´s Blood can save 
everybody no matter what he has done before - 
which tries to nullify the continuation of 
life and Karma - the world would be a better 
place to live.
IIf everybody in the world could preceive the 
truth on the belief that everything is alive, 
that animals and and plants are our fellows 
in the path to evolution, what a wonderful 
world it would be. Utopia? Krishtar>>>

Yes, so much karma, so many definitions. Of 
course one may be inclined to interpret 
"respect" in "Theosophical terms," however 
one might be inclined to interpret 
"Theosophical terms" ... And of course there 
doesn't seem to be a shortage of commentaries 
around here in reference to "Theosophy," at 
any rate, so ... And since, (apparently?), 
we're all "trying," whatever, at least ... 
so ...

Speculatively,
Mauri