Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00871)

My views are:


H. P. Blavatsky and Master says:
"Parabrahm is not "God," because It is not a God. "It is that which is supreme, and not supreme (paravara)," explains Mandukya Upanishad (2.28)."
( THE SECRET DOCTRINE - Vol. 1, Page 6)




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:13 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Failure of Krishnamurti on the path of occultism



  > The word "God" does not belong to the Indian tradition. It is 
  > originated in the Old Testament. Words that refer to the Divine 
  > Ground in the Indian tradition are "Brahman" (Vastness), "Shiva" 
  > (Auspicious, Good), "Parabrahman" (Absolute, Eternal), among others. 

  Word God does not exist in original Hebrew Old Testament. Yahweh was
  the word which was used in Hebrew Old Testament. 
  English translation of Yahweh is God. 
  Similarly English translation of Ishwara, Parabramha, Paramatma is God.

  "In spite of significant differences between religions such as
  Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term
  "God" remains an English translation common to all. "

  > If you are born in a Christian or Hindu or Muslim or Jewish family, 
  > do you have much choice? Normally, a child will be educated and 
  > condiotioned according to the religion of his or her parents. I think 
  > that if you search for statistics of religious affiliation today, you 
  > would be surprised with the number of Buddhists in the world. I am 
  > sure it is nowadays over a billion people. In Australian, Buddhism is 
  > the fastest growing religion, particularly among young people who 
  > have declared themselves frustrated and utterly disappointed with 
  > Christianity and its many dogmatic aspects. 

  Below I am giving the statistics. Now tell me why there are only 6 %
  people in the world are Buddhists, whereas vast majority of mankind
  believe in religions with God as central idea ? 
  Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%,
  Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%,
  Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other
  religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

  > 
  > > I also see one more meaning in the letter. Masters might be saying
  > > that dependence on old religions should lessen and advanced people
  > > should rely on new and better religions like Theosophy, LCC. 
  > However I
  > > don't think Theosophy and LCC can be understood by common people.
  > > These can become religion for more advanced souls. For common 
  > people
  > > Christianity will still be very useful in keeping people on the path
  > > of virtue.
  > 
  > 
  > This may be a very dangerous notion: "religion for more advanced 
  > souls". Who is the judge? Who can judge? What are the criteria? 

  It is not a dangerous idea. It is a fact. When person evolves, he
  automatically gets attracted towards more advanced religion like
  Theosophy. And it can not be judged by others. When a person comes in
  contact with any philosophy, he knows whether his heart responds to it
  or not. I don't tell who should study Theosophy and who should not.
  Every one has to think for himself if his inner nature accepts gladly
  Theosophy or not.

  If a 
  > person finds inspiration and clarity in any teaching that is their 
  > business. When the Portuguese arrived in Brazil in 1500, the jesuit 
  > fathers that came with them gave them permission to kill native 
  > aborigenes because, according to their theology, the aborigenes did 
  > not have a soul! As a result, one of the Portuguese explorers once 
  > came back from a jungle incursion bringing nothing less than 7,000 
  > ears that his men had cut off from the aborigenes they had killed. In 
  > other words, the jesuits' "God" was nothing less than a gigantic 
  > killing machine. 

  You have wrong ideas about jesuits. Bible askes to make disciples of all 
  nations and it does not tell that some people don't have souls. Most
  of the jesuits know it. One jesuit mentioned by you may have wrong
  ideas, but it is his mistake, not the mistake of jesuit organization. 

  Few years back I think you had given reference where HPB rejected
  Buddhist no-God theory and accepts existence of God. May be you can
  bring that reference again.

  Anand Gholap



   

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