Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00124)

KH writes to Mr. Sinnett:

"And thus according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion we have 
no God?  He is right -- since he applies the name to an extra-cosmic 
anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find -- each 
man his God -- within himself in his own personal, and at the same 
time, -- impersonal Avalokiteswara...."

Quoted from:
http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-82.htm

And in another letter KH writes:

"Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are
willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and
unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more
gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that
there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than
God . . . and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a Theologian
nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can imagine a
self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the
manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a negative
which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a being
independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which is
outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself --
not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that
manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the
theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And
yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not
himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it
penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that
therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its
properties likewise, etc. -- hence is material, is matter itself...."

". . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life
is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And
no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an
agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every
respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the
microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no
creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on
it and become agnostics."

". . . We deny the existence of a thinking conscious God, on the
grounds that such a God must either be conditioned, limited and
subject to change, therefore not infinite, or (2) if he is
represented to us as an eternal unchangeable and independent being,
with not a particle of matter in him, then we answer that it is no
being but an immutable blind principle, a law...."
Quoted from:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm

So are these some of the views that Hugh Shearman thought 
were "unbalanced"?

If so, why are they "unbalanced"?

I fail to understand Dr. Shearman's "reasoning" on this point.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc