Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00027)

OK, that got a smile! ;)

On 7 Jun 2007 at 12:03, Scribe wrote:

> But, Adelasie, you are positive, appreciated, and right!
> :)
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: adelasie 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:43 AM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World Re The god-word
> 
> 
>   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]
>   > 
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>