Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00204)

There are many sentences in this letter 10 which are highly confusing.
After studying Mahatma Letters for decades you say God exists
according to Masters. But I came across many people who studied
Mahatma Letters for decades and said God does not exist. So, it has
become clear to me that Mahatma Letters don't convey ideas clearly. 
Whether ideas they convey are correct or not can be discussed if we
are sure what Mahatma Letters want to convey. But people are not sure.
Personally I find many statements unclear and contradictory and I will
give credit (debit) of that to Blavatsky's writing and will not blame
Masters for the confusion.
Just take one example "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."
As I understand this statement, Letter rejects the idea of ONE LIFE. 
How can above sentence be correct? As I understand subject of
spirituality, God gives life to everything. It is God's life
everywhere. Annie Besant, an accepted chela said in her most famous
prayer " O Hidden Life, Vibrant in Every Atom" That means ML 10
contradicts with it. 
That means Letter 10 contradicts with Annie Besant's prayer and also
contradicts with most of the spiritual classics who proclaim one life
of God. 
Best
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Anand,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > You brought the passages which were convenient to you, and you deleted
> > sentences which are problematic. Here I am giving those sentences.
> > "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God"
> >  "we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists."
> > "we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal
> > or impersonal."
> 
> Anand,  I was not ignoring these passages by not quoting them.  I was 
> simply offering you KEY statements by the Masters which I believe give 
> a good insight to what they are teaching.
> 
> Do you understand the quotes I gave?  Do you agree or disagree with 
> them?  And if you disagree with them can you tell us why?
> 
> I ask you to grapple with these ideas and try to understand them.  
> Maybe you already understand them but that is certainly not clear to me.
> 
> Again you write:
>  
> > It is not clear why brought Arthur W. Osborn. I was not discussing his
> > philosophy. I was commenting on so called Mahatma Letters. 
> 
> I gave Mr. Osborn's quote because I believe he deals with one of the 
> IDEAS presented in the statements of the Masters.
> 
> We should be concerned with THE IDEAS presented and first try to 
> understand them whether the statement is given by the Master or as in 
> this case by Mr. Osborn.
> 
> I also hope you will comment on what you said about Jnaneshwar at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47296
> 
> To repeat again:  I am not at all certain that I understand what you 
> object to in what the Mahatmas teach about "God".
> 
> Take just one of the quotes I gave previously:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 . . . .
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Do you object to the idea of "pantheism"?
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with the idea that:
> 
> "there is not...any other substance than God."
> 
> If "God" is everywhere, is in fact universal, is all things, then there 
> is nothing "outside" of God.  You and I are soaked thru and thru 
> with "God".  We are not separate from "God", "he" is not separate from 
> you or me...
> 
> There is no "separation"...You and I don't 
> really "exist"....as "separate entities"...all such distinctions are 
> mayavic, illusionary....
> 
> You yourself said:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Anand, notice your words that "God is the ONLY ONE who exists, all 
> forms [INCLUDING YOU AND I!!!!] are maya or illusion."  We are 
> not "separate from God." 
> 
> THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF whether we call it God, the SELF, the Universal 
> Buddha, the Cosmic Christ, the Krishna within, or simply NIRVANA.
> 
> Again KH taught:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 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....
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> He knows that he is .... identical with the UNIVERSAL LIFE AND SOUL.
> 
> He is not [to use your own words] SEPARATE FROM GOD.
> 
> or as KH writes.  There is no God APART [that is, SEPARATE] from 
> himself....
> 
> So tell us Anand if you object to what is taught in these KH quotes 
> which can be found at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47293
> 
> and tell us if you think Jnaneshwar's views agree or disagree with the 
> views of the Masters.  See the quotes I am referring to at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47293
> 
> Hoping you will grapple with these ideas and tell us what you are 
> thinking....
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>