Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00634)

In a message dated 03/27/05 10:15:09 AM, meredith_bill@earthlink.net writes:

<<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.>>

So what has that got to do with the meaning of what KH was talking about?

<< (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?>>

Why not just for the purpose of telling it the way it really is?



----- 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

>

>