Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00024)

Maybe we could redirect. Instead of talking about what others 
shouldn't do (as if it matters what anyone think anyone else 
shouldn't do) why not turn it around, and think about what we (the 
only people we have any control over, after all) should do?

Sorry, I know that will never get a laugh :-)

Adelasie

On 7 Jun 2007 at 10:04, Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:

> 
> 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]
> 
>