Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00393)

What are you on about Anand, what you call the king of mystic works, is a principle!
Cass
These vestures are Nirmânakâya, Sambhoga-Kâya, and Dharmakâya, robe Sublime (21).
The Shangna robe(22), 'tis true, can purchase light eternal. The Shangna robe alone gives the Nirvâna of destruction; it stops rebirth, but O Lanoo, it also kills-compassion. No longer can the perfect Buddhas, who don the Dharmakâya glory, help man's salvation. Alas! shall SELVES be sacrificed to Self: mankind, unto the weal of Units?
http://www.theosophical.ca/VoiceSilence.htm



----- Original Message ----
From: Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 27 July, 2008 3:52:07 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Blavatsky's mistake about God


Daniel,
Blavatsky calls Jnaneshari king of mystic works. Have you read
Jnaneshari (also spelled as Dyaneshawri) ? 
St. Jnaneshwar writes in it that it is sin to consider ourselves
separate from God. He wrote that God is the only one who exists, all
forms which we see with senses are maya or illusion.
If Blavatsky rejected existence of God, was she under mayavic
influences when she called Jnaneshwari king of mystic works ?
Before discussing subject of God, I will recommend all to study
carefully this king of mystic works Jnaneshwari. 
As J. Krishnamurti completely spoilt concept Guru, it appears to me
that study of Jnaneshari will set things right.
Best
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@ ...> wrote:
>
> Anand writes in part:
> 
> "As I have considerable contact with Christians, I asked some of the
> Christian teachers and pastors about what idea of God is according to
> Christianity. They said God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient
> creator of the universe. They did not consider God 
> anthropomorphic. ...God as understood by these Christians is close to
> Theosophical understanding of God....Blavatsky conveyed the idea that 
> God does not exist, which is another huge mistake. As many of the
> followers of Blavatsky ARE GETTING MISLED into believing that God 
> does not exist, it will be better that Blavatsky's teaching should 
> not be promoted." CAPS added
> 
> Now I would like to look at some of the assertions Anand has made in 
> the above statement, especially in light of what he says about many 
> of the followers of Blavasky being misled. Misled by whom? I assume 
> his answer would be by Blavatsky herself.
> 
> Now this seems to me to be a quite serious charge. 
> 
> And the underlining implication is that Anand knows the truth of the 
> matter. Indeed, he knows the truth and therefore is in a position to 
> say that Blavatsky has made a mistake and has misled many of her 
> followers.
> 
> What is this claim and assertion based upon?
> 
> Now it is one thing to hold an opinion about "God" and to say that 
> this is my opinion. But in fact Anand goes further and states as a 
> matter of fact that followers of Blavatsky are being misled. 
> Therefore some inquirers as well as longtime students of Theosophy 
> who read this board may be somewhat puzzled and even confused after 
> reading such a statement by Anand.
> 
> Notice that Anand tells us:
> 
> "God as understood by these Christians is close to
> Theosophical understanding of God...."
> 
> But then states that Blavatsky's view of God is a mistake.
> 
> Therefore Anand seems to be stating that Blavatsky's view is NOT the 
> Theosophical understanding of God.
> 
> So does that make Blavatsky's view anti-Theosophical or even pseudo-
> Theosophical? This is a serious question that needs to be answered.
> 
> But some readers and some inquirers may ask: Well if what Anand says 
> is the truth of the matter then what do the Masters say about "God"? 
> What is their Theosophical understanding of "God"?
> 
> Since it has been claimed in Theosophical literature that Blavatsky 
> was sent out by these Masters to let the world know something about 
> their Theosophical and esoteric knowledge and since many Theosophists 
> and students of Theosophy believe that, for example, Blavatsky's 
> SECRET DOCTRINE gives out the teachings of these Masters especically 
> as given by Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi, is Anand promoting the idea 
> that in the pages of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Blavatsky got it all wrong 
> about "God" and in effect has misled the public about the views of 
> the Masters on "God"?
> 
> But what puzzles me (and I would love to hear Anand's detailed 
> explanation of this) is how does Anand know that Blavatsky got it 
> wrong, that is about "God"? How does he know this? I mean there is 
> the possibility that Anand is simply mistaken himself. Is not that a 
> possibility? How does he, for example, really KNOW what the Masters' 
> views are on "God"? And what about the letters from the Masters? 
> What about the letters from the Master Koot Hoomi and Morya in which 
> they write many pages on "God"? Is Blavatsky's view of God contrary 
> to the views about God as given in these letters of the Masters.
> 
> And was it not through these letters from the Master K.H. transmitted 
> apparently through Blavatsky that even Mr. Leadbeater was accepted as 
> a probationary chela of this Master? I will go more into this aspect 
> in a later posting if the opportunity arises.
> 
> So what does the Master KH say about "God"? And does 
> KH's "theosophical understanding" MATCH Blavatsky's understanding 
> of "God" or does it match, well, Ananda's "understanding" or at least 
> his Theos-Talk assertions as quoted earlier in this email?
> 
> Now Anand can believe anything he wants to about "God". But when he 
> starts claiming that Blavatsky made a mistake about God and that he 
> [Anand] has apparently the true "Theosophical understanding" about 
> God that HPB didn't have, and furthermore asserts that many of 
> Blavatsky's followers have been misled by Blavatsky's supposed 
> mistake about God, I would suggest that he [Anand} needs to back up 
> his vague general assertions with some facts, evidence and 
> reasoning. 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well, maybe some of these "misled" Blavatsky students might like to 
> know more about these statements by Anand. Are they true? What is 
> Anand basing all of this on. Because if a Blavatsky student is 
> willing to entertain the possibility that he/she has indeed been 
> misled by Blavatsky, then would it not be a good thing for Anand to 
> show [for example on this public discussion group which can be 
> accessed from most if not all continents on the globe] HOW he arrived 
> at his conclusions. What evidence, what facts, what sound and clear 
> reasoning does he have to support the bald statements he had made?
> 
> And I'm hoping that he will try to explain why the "Theosophical 
> understanding" of "God" as given in the letters of the Masters (for 
> example, THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT) appears to confirm 
> Blavatsky's exposition of "God" as found for example in THE KEY TO 
> THEOSOPHY and THE SECRET DOCTRINE?
> 
> Does Anand believe that the Master Koot Hoomi ALSO made a mistake and 
> is also guilty of misleading??
> 
> No doubt readers of many continents around the globe will be 
> interested in this subject and any elucidation that Anand makes.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>

 


      Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search

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