Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00035)

Hi Cass,
It is a slippery slope once we start trying to assign the category 
of "false religion" this category was a favourite of the JW's who 
defined it as any teachings other than their own.
Using the "Satanists" as an example is an interesting one are you 
suggesting that "Satanism" should be banned and if so on what 
grounds? What constitutes a "Satanist" or a "false religion"? Some 
would argue all religions and spiritual beliefs are false!

The Dalai Lama was suggesting the need to examine other faiths more 
deeply (generally) by this he was referring to the other main stream 
religions. (Islam, Judaism,Christinaity,Hinduism, Buddhism.....)
These are the religions that have the most influence on the world 
and so the need (very wisely given imo) for tolerance and more 
understanding.

The two examples the Dalai Lama gave of non-theistic religions was 
the Jains and the Buddhists, materistic athiesim is perhaps another 
category but still a valid philosophical perspective. 

Cheers

Perry  

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Perry
>    
>   But surely this doesn't mean tolerance and embracing diversity 
of false religions?  Are we to be tolerant of satanists (if they 
truly exist) are we to be tolerant of cults that offer death as a 
reward?
>    
>   I would have expected more from the Dalai Lama than this.  Also 
religions into two types, one those that believe in a creator and 
those that don't - presumably he is talking about athiests?
>    
>   Cass
> 
> plcoles1 <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>           Hi All,
> Last night I went to see the Dalai Lama when he spoke here in 
Perth 
> on "Ethics for the new millennium" as part of that speech he 
> mentioned that religions can be divided into two types, those that 
> are theistic and those that have no concept of a God or Creator.
> 
> He emphasised the importance of having tolerance and embracing 
> diversity by developing a deeper understanding of each tradition 
and 
> respecting its differences.
> Even if traditions have very different understandings and beliefs 
we 
> need to practice loving kindness and tolerance.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Perry
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Master K.H. 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
> > 
> > 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 trained 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
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
> 
> 
> 
>          
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
> Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at 
Yahoo! Games.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>