theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Was C.W. Leadbeater "humouring" people with a theistic hope???

Mar 27, 2005 06:14 AM
by Bill Meredith


Two points: (1) The master's do not believe in a god that is referred to with a capital 'H' in the pronoun him, but what do they say about the word master with a capital 'M'? There are many on this list who use the capital 'H' as well when referring to masters and even to messengers. (2) It is not so much the single word idiot in the master's quote below as it is the arrogance of attitude and haughty cliquish nature of the discourse in which the writer seeks to separate the Us who know from the ' idiot them' in such a disparaging and insolent manner. And for what purpose?


----- Original Message ----- From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Was C.W. Leadbeater "humouring" people with a theistic hope???



>Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

>In an article in THE THEOSOPHIST, June
1919, C.W. Leadbeater wrote:

<<"...we, among ourselves, do not think
it is necessary that anyone should
intercede for us with God, because we
hold that God is a loving Father, that
He is already doing the best that
can possibly be done under the
circumstances for every one of his
creatures....">>>>>>>

But by declining some sort of
"God-related" (as in
Churchly/orthodoxical...) "intercession"
on one's behalf, wouldn't there be a
chance, (in some cases, maybe ...), that
such a person might tend to equate "God"
with some variant of some kind of
"Higher Self" that even K.H. might,
(maybe ...), find approvable in some
sense/context ... Not that I'm
suggesting that there might not be
interpretations "re Higher Self" that
might not be seen to be all over the
map, by whoever, but seeing as if or
inasmuchasif this world is seen as
somewhat less than perfect to begin
with, "in a sense," and ... (not that
one person's "in a sense" might not be
another's whatever).

Daniel then went on with: <<Compare the
above [from Leadbeater] with the
following from Master K.H.:

"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves
believe in a God, least of all in one
whose pronoun necessitates a capital
H....we deny God both as philosophers
and as Buddhists...."

"You speak of an intelligent and good -- (the attribute is rather unfortunately
chosen) - Father, a moral guide and
governor of the universe and man....how
do you or how can you know that your God
is all wise, omnipotent and love-ful,
when everything in nature, physical
and moral, proves such a being, if he
does exist, to be quite the reverse of
all you say of him? Strange delusion and
one which seems to overpower your very
intellect."

"I dread the appearance in print of our
philosophy as expounded by Mr.
H[ume]....He makes of us Agnostics!!
We do not believe in God because so far
we have no proof, etc. This is
preposterously ridiculous....He says
that people will not accept the whole
truth; that unless we humour them with a
hope that there may be a 'loving
Father and creator of all in heaven' our
philosophy will be rejected a priori.
In such a case the less such idiots hear
of our doctrines the better for both. If
they do not want the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, they are welcome.
But never will they find us -- (at any
rate) -- compromising with, and
pandering to public prejudices."

[Note: One reader on this forum has
previously questioned whether a true
"Master" would use such a word as
"idiots". But one definition of idiots
is simply: ignorant or foolish or
stupid persons.]

When C.W. Leadbeater wrote that "we hold
that God is a loving Father", was he
[C.W.L.] "humouring" people with a
theistic hope??? Was Leadbeater
"compromisng with, and pandering to
public prejudices"? Daniel
http://hpb.cc>>>>

Just based on that short paragraph from
Leadbeater (which, alone, might be
misleading in some sense, to extent,
maybe ...) seems to me as if Leadbeater
might be interpreted as both "humoring
with God" and urging independence from
intercessions at the same time (to some
extent ...), but he seems to be leaving
open (at least doesn't spell out enough
in that paragraph, seems to me ...)
whether or not one might want to
"intercede" (and how ...) "with God"
(however defined ...) all on one's own
... or "mostly on one's own" ... or
"somewhat one one's own" ... though he
seems to be saying or "interceding re
God" inasmuchas that kind of
saying/interceding is interpreted as
"God is a loving Father" (to start with
...); and (to quote Leadbeater again):
<<that He is already doing the best that
can possibly be done under the
circumstances for every one of his
creatures...>> So I also tend to see
Leadbeater as "interceding" in the sense
that he's defining "God" for ... whoever
...

Anyway, I tend to see K.H.'s comments
"more interesting" (in case you were
wondering ...) (quotes per esoterics
...) than Leadbeater's comments.

^:-/ ...
Mauri

























Yahoo! Groups Links









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005




[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application