Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00087)

Dear Zeitzev

In that article, HPB clearly states that it all depends on the definition you use.
And she never use the words "Divine all" in that article.

Yet Blavatsky never used the word "God" in excess in her writings like W. C. Leadbeater and Annie Besant and other later writers did, without explaining the true definition of ParaBrahman as being beyond thoughts and conditioning. Blavatsky ever sought to avoid coining ParaBrahman with the brutal materialistic male teological expression of "God". Other later theosophical writers sought it seems to do the opposite. And they crept closer to the Vatican instead of distancing themselves from it in their writings.


M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:20 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy, Blavatsky, Leadbeater, et.al.


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, brainspeaks <escottdye@...> wrote:

  > I am hopeful that in this list, we not only discuss the foibles of the 
  > theosophist's discussed, but the basic ideas of theosophy which
  teaches us
  > that everything is living and everything grows spiritually upward. 

  Agreed. I would refer all readers to Blavatsky's article "What is
  theosophy" (1879) from which follows that she regarded theosophists
  all those who accept idea of one basic reality (Divine All) and form
  their view not on a basis of revelation or authority but on their own
  inspiration.



   

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