Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00252)

My two sentences should be " My life is happy because I don't read 
much what was written before 1890." and another sentence "Writing 
done after 1890 is quite consistent" Year I want to mention is 1890.
Regards.
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:
> 
> Pedro,
> ML 88 says there is no God personal or impersonal and Key say 
people 
> are "soaked" in God, inside out.
> Even if one takes absolutistic stance, according to Vedas and 
> Upanishats parabramha is omnipresent reality. Perhaps there is 
> fundamental difference between idea of God in Hinduism and Buddhism.
> How would you explain the statement "there is no God personal or 
> impersonal" My life is happy because I don't read much what was 
> written before 1880. That always presents big contradictions. 
Dallas 
> studied and discussed for decades that writing but could not reach 
> conclusion. Writing done after 1880 is quite consistent.
> Regards.
> Anand Gholap
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Can you give me some examples of absolutistic statements in the 
> SD 
> > and 
> > > the Mahatma Letters?
> > 
> > Thanks, Jerry. Here they are:
> > 
> > "Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, 
> for 
> > it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. 
> Therefore, 
> > we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there 
> are 
> > planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our 
> > system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. 
> Parabrahm 
> > is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect 
> of 
> > Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion." (ML 
88, 
> > chronological)
> > 
> > HPB seemed to take a less absolutistic stance in The Key:
> > 
> > "ENQUIRER. Then you make of man a God? 
> > THEOSOPHIST. Please say "God" and not a God. In our sense, the 
> inner 
> > man is the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this 
be 
> > otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally 
> diffused, 
> > infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from being 
soaked 
> > through by, and in, the Deity? We call our "Father in heaven" 
that 
> > deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in our heart 
> and 
> > spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to do with the 
> > anthropomorphic conception we may form of it in our physical 
brain 
> or 
> > its fancy: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that 
the 
> > spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?" Yet, let no man 
> > anthropomorphise that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if he 
> would 
> > hold to divine, not human truth, say that this "God in secret" 
> > listens to, or is distinct from, either finite man or the 
infinite 
> > essence -- for all are one."
> > 
> > 
> > In the SD, for example, we read:
> > 
> > "The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental propositions:—
> > (a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE 
on 
> > which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the 
power 
> of 
> > human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human 
expression 
> or 
> > similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought—in the 
> words 
> > of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable.""
> > 
> > Although I have no qualms with the universal truth expressed in 
it, 
> > the statement above seems to suggest that the One Reality is 
beyond 
> > the field of human experience. This seems to contradict, for 
> example, 
> > one of the Mahavakyas ("Great Utterances") of the Upanishads 
which 
> > says that Atman is Brahman. This utterance suggests that when one 
> > reaches the knowledge of one's true Self (Atman), one realises 
> one's 
> > identity with the Supreme Reality, for the two are really one.
> > 
> > My above comments are tentative, very tentative.
> > 
> > Warm regards,
> > 
> > 
> > Pedro