Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00016)

Dear readers

My views are:

Let me ask a few questions to the ardent promoters of dead-letter confusion...

Now the questions are whether Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater was using the word "God" in a  healthy manner so that they did'nt keep the beginner Seekers down in narrowminded Christian thought-patterns, while making them believe that "God" was something else than a personal God or a carnalized saviour?

And the question is whether Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater was using the word "God" in such a manner so that various readers of their books was mislead to think that their use of the word "God" was disignating the theologian "God" of the Christians and not the "immutable law" or a Deity beyond thoughts mentioned by the Mahatma K. H. and H. P. Blavatsky?

As long as TS Adyar and other followers of Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater not are able to answer the above questions positively I will have to consider their activities as dubious.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: danielhcaldwell 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 11:16 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: 4 Questions between Anand and Daniel


  Anand,

  You write:

  ------------------------------------------------
  At least you answer one question definitely. You said according to
  Blavatsky God exists. Let us not focus on gender issue.
  Pl. answer the second question and describe nature of God in your
  words, as you understand what Blavatsky meant.
  ------------------------------------------------

  Anton, I tried to explain that if we want to use the word "God"
  to mean the Absolute of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, then HPB would probably 
  approve of that equation. 

  But I really hesitate to use the word "God" because it conjures up so 
  many different images and definitions and emotions.

  In one sense, "God" could refer to the "inner God" --- the Atma-
  Buddhi-Manas or the Atma-Buddhi Monad or just the Atman which might 
  be defined in turn as the Universal Spirit or Universal Self or 
  Trancendental Self or one could say that the word "God" could also 
  refer to one of the Planetary Spirits. See THE SECRET DOCTRINE index 
  under "Planetary Spirit", Dhyan Chohan, etc.

  But I think one could use the word "God" when referring to the 
  following 3 definitions:

  DEFINITION ONE BY H.P. BLAVATSKY
  --------------------------------------------------
  ... [an] Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on
  which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of
  human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or
  similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the
  words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."

  To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out
  with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which antecedes
  all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause --
  dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current
  European philosophy -- is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or
  ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is
  essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It
  is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all
  thought or speculation.
  -------------------------------------------------

  DEFINITION TWO BY MASTER KH
  -------------------------------------------------
  "..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; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his
  fourteenth proposition, "praeter Deum nulla dari neque concepi potest
  substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists...."
  -------------------------------------------------

  DEFINITION THREE BY MASTER KH
  -------------------------------------------------
  ". . 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...."
  -------------------------------------------------

  I don't think I need to rewrite into my own words what is given in 
  these 3 definitions. In fact, I would feel I would have to write a 
  mini-article and I don't have the hours right now to work on 
  composing something of that size.

  Read for yourself some of the entries in HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE and 
  THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and try to understand it for yourself.

  BUT if you have questions about parts of HPB's or KH's definitions 
  GIVEN ABOVE, I will try to give you my 2 cents about the part you 
  don't understand or would like more clarification on.

  I've tried to give you various material in my several previous 
  postings on the subject.

  Now I'm hoping you will try to answer at least 3 of the 4 questions 
  that I posted at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45464

  I tried to answer them in that posting.

  Daniel
  http://hpb.cc



   

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