Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00023)

Maybe, but no one is going to stop using it.



Chuck the Heretic



http://www.geocities.com/c_cosimano 


-----Original Message-----
From: proto37 <proto37@yahoo.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 6:36 am
Subject: Theos-World Re The god-word






Re: the god-word

Dan's quotes on this are great and also 
Reigle's article "God's Arrival in India" at:

<http://tinyurl.com/2qjqer>

I don't think the power of Words can 
be underestimated, and the "God"-word is 
perhaps the worse in its effects. People 
who don't believe in the strict personal-god 
idea of the big no-bo-daddy sitting on a 
throne and granting favors, and claim a more 
"elevated" understaning of it - still use 
the word, and using the word still reinforces 
all the negative influences associated with it, 
and a real paralysis of the inner nature. 
Its far worse than any curse word used in 
common parlay. Here's a coarse example of 
the effect words have, no matter what 
innocent or "elevated" meaning we might 
claim to associate with them.

The F-word is an old English term 
originally meaning "to plow the earth," 
as in farming. It gradually came to have 
the different primary meaning of referring 
to the sex act. No matter how many times 
one uses the word in the original sense, 
it will still produce the reaction of its 
current meaning. No matter how many times 
I say "I'm going out f---ing today" - 
meaning I'm going out to plow my land for 
farming, it will still raise up all the 
elementals and meanings associated with 
the current meaning. It is the same with 
the god-word. No matter what "elevated" 
meaning one claims to have for it, it 
will still raise up all the negative 
elementals, hatred, soul-benumbing associations, 
that it has primarily been associated with 
it. This is why the g-word is much worse 
than the f-word.

- jake j.

-------------

>5a. Sveinn Freyr's Rejection of K.H.'s Letter about God
Posted by: "danielhcaldwell" danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com 
danielhcaldwell
Date: Tue Jun 5, 2007 10:28 am ((PDT))

>Sveinn Freyr,

>You wrote some time ago on Theos-Talk:

------------------------------------------------
>This controversial letter "No. 88"? Is by my
opinion not a letter written by an adept. It is a note scrap
that should not have been issued and designated
to master K.H. This scrap note has done much harm.
-------------------------------------------------

>I am interested to know your thinking on WHY this letter "has done
much harm".

>Personally I have studied this letter NO. 88 [in the Chronological 
edition of The Mahatma Letters] in great detail and
have compared it to other RELEVANT letters in the Mahatma Letters as
well as to what one can find in HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE and HPB's
other writings.

>You state that it was NOT written by an adept, the Master KH. I see
no good reason for coming to the conclusion you make above.

>What am I not understanding properly or not taking into account??

>But consider the following.

>In ANOTHER letter NO. 93B (4th chrono ed.) Master KH refers to these
VERY NOTES that you reject:

-----------------------------------------------------
>5) It certainly does, and I have touched upon the subject long ago.
In my notes on Mr. Hume's MSS., "On God" -- that he kindly adds to
our Philosophy, something the latter had never contemplated before --
the subject is mentioned abundantly. Has he refused you a look into
it? For you -- I may enlarge my explanations, but not before you
have read what I say of the origin of good and evil on those
margins. Quite enough was said by me for our present purposes.
Strangely enough I found a European author -- the greatest
materialist of his times, Baron d'Holbach -- whose views coincide
entirely with the views of our philosophy. When reading his Essais
sur la Nature, I might have imagined I had our book of Kiu-ti before
me. As a matter of course and of temperament our Universal Pundit
will try to catch at those views and pull every argument to pieces.
So far he only threatens me to alter his Preface and not to publish
the philosophy under his own name. Cuneus cuneum, tradit: I begged
him not to publish his essays at all.
----------------------------------------------------------

>Notice KH's words: "...that he kindly adds to our Philosophy...."

>Compare the subject matter mentioned in this letter with the subject
matter of Letter No. 88.

>So I ask:

>Is this letter 93B ALSO not from the Master KH???

>Moving on. 

>Here is what Master KH wrote in yet ANOTHER letter:

--------------------------------------------------------
>I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?)
cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had
to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not
believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is
preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have
H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our
sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------

>The above extract shows that the Master is referring to the same
subject matter of Letter NO. 88.

>And ALSO consider Letter No. 90 in the Chrono. Ed. 

>Again the subject matter in Letter No. 90 is much the same as in 
Letter NO. 88.

>And once again COMPARE the contents of Letter NO. 88 and the other
letters I've quoted from with THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL elucidation
by KH to 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.....
---------------------------------------------------------

>Notice the words: "...He is right --- since he applies the name to
an extra-cosmic anomaly...."

>I would suggest that Hume was doing the same thing as Mr. Massey.

>And what is Avalokiteswara?

>And in yet ANOTHER letter, Master KH elucidates the term:

-------------------------------------------------------
>...Avalokita Isvar literally interpreted means "the Lord that is
seen." "Iswara" implying moreover, rather the adjective than the
noun, lordly, self-existent lordliness, not Lord. It is, when
correctly interpreted, in one sense "the divine Self perceived or
seen by Self," the Atman or seventh principle ridded of its mayavic
distinction from its Universal Source -- which becomes the object of
perception for, and by the individuality centred in Buddhi, the
sixth principle, -- something that happens only in the highest state
of Samadhi. This is applying it to the microcosm. In the other sense
Avalokitesvara implies the seventh Universal Principle, as the
object perceived by the Universal Buddhi "Mind" or Intelligence
which is the synthetic aggregation of all the Dhyan Chohans, as of
all other intelligences whether great or small, that ever were, are,
or will be....

>...Avalokitesvara is both the unmanifested Father and the manifested
Son, the latter proceeding from, and identical with, the other; --
namely, the Parabrahm and Jivatman, the Universal and the
individualized seventh Principle, -- the Passive and the Active, the
latter the Word, Logos, the Verb....
----------------------------------------------------------

>Notice the reference to Atman....and now compare these extracts
about Avalokitesvara with the following extracts from Letter No. 88.

>I will suggest that part of the key to understanding what the Master
writes in Letter No. 88 is to be found in these choice extracts from
that very letter that you reject:

----------------------------------------------------
>...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; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher
says in his fourteenth proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque
concepi potest substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists....

>. . 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.
----------------------------------------------------------

>Much could be added to the above quotes from H.P.B.'s THE SECRET
DOCTRINE.

>I would suggest that the underlying theme is consistent....from
letter to letter, from extract to extract.... etc.

>Each quote, each extract fits together like jig saw puzzle pieces to
show the whole picture.

>In other words, there is similarity/identity of key ideas and themes.

>See also what Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Linton wrote in the 2nd edition of
THE READERS GUIDE TO THE MAHATMA LETTERS on the subject matter of
letter NO. 88.

>I would also suggest that you read and study the relevant extracts I
provided from the Encylopaedia Brittannica. See my posting for
these extracts at:

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/40539

>These extracts help to give necessary background material that may
help one to see what the Master is writing about....

>Of course, each student and reader will have to determine if Letter
No. 88 is from an adept or not, but it appears that the subject
matter is consistent as one goes from one Mahatma Letter to another
and as one then compares what is said on the same topic for example
in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

>More could be written but I stop here.

>Hope some of this helps.

>Daniel
http://hpb.cc
-----------------------



 

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]