Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00874)

I want to add one more point. In the Theosophical Society it is always
mentioned that one should not blindly believe, every one should use
his own judgement and intuition in order to decide whether to accept
certain idea or reject it. 
Now comes interesting point. We can assume that people use to some
extent intuition and reason while following certain religion or
rejecting it. Now, if most of the humanity's intuition tells them that
God exists and so they follow religions with God as central idea, 
and if very few people's intuition tells them to believe Buddhist
philosophy of no-God, then it can be assumed that Buddhist no-God idea
is wrong. 
Most of the humanity believes in the existence of God despite the
problem that these believers can not see, or touch God. 
Because God can not be seen or sensed by ordinary faculties, Buddhist
doctrine of no-God should have won. But despite this difficulty most
of the humanity believes in God. So Theosophical reliance on intuition
actually defeats Buddhist no-God theory !
Anand Gholap



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > What I meant was that the notion of God, for the western world, is 
> > very much conditioned by the Judeo-Christian notion of God. Consider, 
> > for example, the very first sentence in the Bible: "In the beginning 
> > God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis, 1:1) Since the Bible 
> > has been in 'print' for many, many centuries, and the text translated 
> > to many languages, the notion has spread far and wide. 
> 
> I don't see anything wrong in this idea. According to Theosophy of
> Besant, Leadbeater, the Logos of the solar system creates that system. 
> According to Hindu scriptures God said ecoham, bahusyam which means
> God said "I am alone, let me become many" Because of this will of God,
> number of people in His own image get created.  
> Genesis tells that God created everything, and that is quite true
> according to Besant-Leadbeater Theosophy and also according to Hindu
> scriptures. 
> 
> > > 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.)
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you for the statistics. There may a number of historical 
> > reasons for them. Let me attempt to list some:
> > 
> > 1. Buddhism was never the religion of a colonial empire.
> > 2. There is no practice of forced conversion in Buddhism.
> > 3. Buddhism did not flourish in India because the dominant 
> > Brahmanical caste rejected it and opposed it systematically.
> 
> But Christianity also had opposition, which it overcame because of the
> merit of the religion. 
> 
> > 4. Buddhism is not a belief-based religion, but an insight-based one.
> > 
> > In the words of the Mahachohan, 
> > 
> > "Mystical Christianity, that is to say that Christianity which 
> > teaches self-redemption through our own seventh principle�this 
> > liberated Para-Atma (Augoeides) called by some Christ, by others 
> > Buddha, and equivalent to regeneration or rebirth in spirit�will be 
> > found just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. 
> 
> Here Mahachohan accepts that Christianity contained Truth. He is
> saying that Truth in Christianity and Truth in Buddhism are same. It
> means Mahachohan recognizes that Christianity had Truth. Strangely
> some students of Blavatsky consider Christianity as opposite of
> Theosophy. 
> 
> >All of us have 
> > to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent self, to recognize 
> > our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not be 
> > selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, to 
> > recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddha, the 
> > Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric Buddhism 
> > is the surest path to lead men towards the one esoteric truth."
> 
> Again the same point is explained. And importance of this passages is
> Mahachohan recognizes that mystical Christianity had Truth which is
> the same Truth in Buddhism.
> 
> 
> > Note that he equates 'God' with the transcendental self in us, and 
> > not with an external, blood-thirsty tribal deity that suffers from 
> > destructive mood swings.
> 
> God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe.
> Tribal people have their different ideas about God, and I think many
> of these ideas are wrong. We need not focus on ideas of God of tribes.
> We can think about idea of God as appeared in major religions and
> Theosophy.
> 
> > So you now declare that Theosophy is a religion. 
> 
> Here is dictionary meaning of religion.
> "people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and
> worship of God, a god, or gods, and divine involvement in the universe
> and human life "
> Theosophy does have it's opinions about existence, nature and worship
> of God. So in that sense it is religion. 
> When I called Theosophy as religion, I had another meaning in mind. It
> is this. Religions are given by the Great Ones, for guiding humanity,
> to keep people on the path of virtues, to give people knowledge of the
> ultimate reality. Purpose of giving Theosophy to the world is also the
> same. So in that sense Theosophy is a religion. Some people say
> Buddhism does not ask beliefs. But still Buddhism is considered as
> religion. So belief or no belief don't decide if certain teaching be
> called as religion.
> 
> Did you read CWL's 
> > thoughts on the subject:
> > 
> > "In Theosophy we strongly deprecate the attitude of blind belief, for 
> > we say that it has been the cause of a vast amount of the evil of the 
> > world. On this point the teaching of the Eastern Masters is emphatic, 
> > for they regard superstition as one of the fetters which it is 
> > absolutely necessary that a man should cast off before he can hope to 
> > make any progress on the occult Path. They also regard doubt as a 
> > fetter, but they say that the only way to get rid of doubt is not by 
> > blind faith, but by the acquisition of knowledge. It would be quite 
> > useless for a man to exchange blind faith in orthodox Christianity 
> > for a similar blind faith in those who happened to be writing or 
> > speaking on Theosophy.  To say: "Thus saith Madame Blavatsky or Mrs. 
> > Besant," is after all only a small advance on saying: "Thus saith S. 
> > Paul of S. John."" ("The Attitude of the Enquirer", The Adyar 
> > Bulletin, February 1911)
> 
> It seems quite correct. Leadbeater does not say here that Theosophy
> should not be called as religion. If I am remembering correct,
> according to Blavatsky Theosophy is the Religion.
> 
> 
> > 
> > It was not one jesuit. It was the official theological instruction of 
> > the jesuits that came to Brazil with the Portuguese colonizers. One 
> > of the core elements of the Christian theology at that time was 
> > that "there is no salvation outside the Christian faith". 
> 
> Even now according to Christian philosophy there is no salvation
> outside Christian faith. I am a member of many Christian groups, so I
> know what ideas Christians hold.  The New Testament clearly tells that
> salvation is only through Jesus Christ. Verse from John's Gospel says
> " I (Jesus) am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the
> Father except through me" So according to Bible salvation is only
> through Christ. I think many staunch followers of Christianity believe
> that salvation is only through Christ. 
> I think jesuits and Christian priests made many mistakes till 1800
> C.E. because earlier printing technology was not there, people did not
> have easy access to Bible and other Christian writings. Most people
> were illiterate. There was general lack of knowledge about Bible and
> Christian faith. Because of this ignorance, many mistakes were made.
> Now, as Bible is easily available to every one, such mistakes will be
> less. It is because whatever orders may come from above, priests and
> jesuits can compare it with Bible teaching and they will generally
> avoid doing things against Bible teaching. 
> Just as adolescent struggles in puberty and adjusts, grows with
> struggle, Christian faith also struggled and now it will mature
> slowly. I mean original Christian teaching will be digested by many
> and that should enable priests and the laity to live true Christian
> life. Of course many won't become fundamentalists, but they will know
> that essence of Christianity is love, service, kindness, brotherhood,
> and such virtues and they will try to live it.
> 
> >Many 
> > Christian groups still uphold it today. Therefore the native indians 
> > in Brazil were already "pre-doomed" before 'civilisation' arrived. 
> 
> Many Christiand do belive so. 
> 
> > An incalculable amount of violence and butchery was done throughout 
> > history in the name of an anthropomorphic, Eurocentric, 
> > bloodthirsty, 'God'. If you doubt, have a look at the Holy 
> > Inquisition files which are being made available.
> 
> As I said earlier, this violence was because of lack of understanding
> of Christian faith. They are not because Bible gives wrong teaching.
> VIOLENCE WAS THERE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE AND
> NOT BECAUSE OF THE BIBLE.
> 
> 
> > 
> >  
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > If you refer to my article on the subject it can be seen here:
> > 
> > http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/pedro-god.htm
> 
> I will read this article. 
> Here is another shock. In Mahatma Letters it is said that "in our
> system there is no God, personal or impersonal"
> I say in certain sense God is personal and also impersonal. I will
> explain it why I say so. 
> 
> Anand Gholap
>