Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00107)

Dear Zaitzev

My views are:

Zaitzev wrote:
"God isn't male expression. And it is often used rather for Logos than
for Parabrahman."

It is exactly at this point that I recommend that you and other Seekers be very careful.
First of all, by using the word "God" in exchange for ParaBrahman without regard to the huge difference of view depending on the audience reading that word, one will likely make most readers in the western parts of the world think of "God" as a HE and a Male and not as what theosophy states regarding ParaBrahman.
Do you not agree?

The Christians also like to call Jesus by the name of "God". God in the flesh.
So when you say God, you also say Jesus and a male. So the Christians think.
Do you not agree?


More so. The theosophical teachings according to H. P. Blavatsky and Master KH clearly seeks to explain that there is no "God", because such a "God" is theological one. And such one is not. It is a fake illusion created by the jews in their holy writings. There is only the non-dual Parabrahman beyond thoughts within your own selves says the theosophical teachings. And Parabrahman is not a dualistic and extra-cosmic Deity. When one use the owrd "God" one denotes a dualistic Deity seprate from one self. And that is not theosophical teaching.
Do you not agree?


Zaitzev wrote:
"Vatican doesn't play now so important role as before."


If you could show that to be, I would be very happy.
But I am afraid I disagree very much with you.
There is not much of a difference. The doctrine of papal infallibility is still alive and kicking.

I do not think that Blavatsky and KH would agree with Jinarajadasa about his use of the word "God". And why should they, when they have stated the opposite view!!!

Sai-baba is not God. There is no God according to theospophical teachings.


I do not care about what the Vatican and fundamentalist Christian write about theosophy.
What I care about is telling the TRUTH. Do you know the difference between telling the truth and not Zaitzev? 

Please let us not mislead people into thinking that the theosophical teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky agreed with your views on the use of the word "God" when they did not!



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:53 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy, Blavatsky, Leadbeater, et.al.


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
  <global-theosophy@...> wrote:

  > Yet Blavatsky never used the word "God" or "Divine all" in excess

  In excess - yes but she used:

  "As mankind is essentially of one and the same essence, and that
  essence is one-infinite, uncreate, and eternal, whether we call it God
  or Nature-nothing, therefore, can affect one nation or one man without
  affecting all other nations and all other men. This is as certain and
  as obvious as that a stone thrown into a pond will, sooner or later,
  set in motion every single drop of water therein.
  Q. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic
  notion.
  A. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely Christian, although
  not Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical nations prefer to
  ignore it."

  > brutal materialistic male teological expression of "God". Other

  God isn't male expression. And it is often used rather for Logos than
  for Parabrahman.

  > later theosophical writers sought it seems to do the opposite. And
  > they crept closer to the Vatican instead of distancing themselves 

  Vatican doesn't play now so important role as before.
  I don't like word "God" due its associations and use it even less than
  Blavatsky but the facts are such that among the most westerners this
  term has rather positive than negative connotation, especially in
  America. That's why later theosophists used this word. Jinarajadasa
  said "let's call it God". It's not connected with Vatican in any way.
  Sai-baba uses the word God but it doesn't mean that he serves to
  Vatican. He is regarded as one of the serious menaces, along with the
  theosophy, by the Church. And the change of terms didn't change Pope's
  attitude to theosophy. Theosophy is often regarded essentially eastern
  and consequently alien teaching, so the use of the western terms was
  intended to assure westerners that it is not so.

  I would recommend to you to see christian fundamentalist sites and
  read what they write about theosophy. They don't make difference
  between earlier and later writers and consider all this as one great
  conspiracy against Christianity and derive all new-age movement from
  Blavatsky, whose teaching comes nowdays under a new disguise.



   

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