Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00160)

Hi Krishtar,

>From the below the logical conclusion is that we must strive to make
our 'image' of 'God' as impersonal as we can manage, as the more
personal we make it, the less spiritual it is.

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krishtar" <krishtar_a@b...> wrote:
> Katinka and all
> Hi
> Perhaps God may takes several names due to different levels of
conscience.
> Inner self?
> God?
> We must have a deep relationship with God in the way we conceive It.
> Some go to a calmful place in order to talk to Him, Some just sit
and meditate.
> Some go to a church.
> Some go into an esotheric section of a certain brotherhood.
> If we take several works about related subjects in the field of 
esothericism weŽll always face different interpretations from the
authors, principally due to their level con enlightenment.
> So IMo we must take their best and form, shape our own concepts.
> 
> K
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: adelasie 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World To Pedro & Anand: Serious Questions with
Profound Implications
> 
> 
> Dear Katinka,
> 
> Yes indeed. There is only one Truth. All little truths come from that 
> one Truth. All manifestation comes from one source. It is all a 
> matter of one's point of view. How can any of us decide what another 
> person needs to believe is true in order to serve as karma demands? 
> If we look at the full moon from earth, we will describe it as a 
> bright globe. If we look at it from outer space, we may describe it 
> as a dark disk. Is one more "right" than another? Theosophy teaches 
> us to make our own certain inalienable principles, laws of nature, 
> and to measure what we encounter against them. But we have to do the 
> work. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> Adelasie
> 
> On 4 Sep 2004 at 6:32, Katinka Hesselink wrote:
> 
> > HI Adelasie,
> > 
> > Are you saying that if Leadbeater says devachan is the opposite of
> > what Blavatsky says it is - that both could be right? Or that if
> > Bailey says to pray to a God and Blavatsky says that no God, except
> > the higher self ought to be prayed to - that both could be right? In
> > short: if there are clear contradictions, how can it be dependent on
> > the observer?
> > 
> > Katinka
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]