Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00219)

Below statements says One Life has properties of matter. That sounds
plainly wrong.
---------------
"When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is the

essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has

correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, etc. --

hence is material, is matter itself. "

--------------------------------


It is not clear why Life is condemned in this letter and matter is
praised. Read below statement.
------------------------
"(2) Matter we know to be eternal, i.e., having had no beginning (a)

because matter is Nature herself (b) because that which cannot

annihilate itself and is indestructible exists necessarily -- and
therefore it

could not begin to be, nor can it cease to be (c) because the accumulated

experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us matter

(or nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom is

ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always

existed, i.e., its materials ever changing form, combinations and

properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely
indestructible."
-------------------------

Again here it is not clear why matter is made supreme. Read statement
below.
------------------------
"In other words we believe in MATTER alone, in matter as visible nature

and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent

Proteus with its unceasing motion which is its life"
--------------------------------

Again statement below is opposite of what spiritual classics teach.
Idea of pure Existence is called absurdity.
-------------------
"The existence of matter then is a fact; the existence of motion is
another

fact, their self existence and eternity or indestructibility is a
third fact.

And the idea of pure spirit as a Being or an Existence -- give it
whatever

name you will -- is a chimera, a gigantic absurdity."
--------------------------
Read below statment and you will find that it is neither supported by
scientists nor spiritualist. It is unbelievable invention. Accepted
chelas like CWL, AB, SR never said such a thing happens.
-----------------
"The butterfly devoured by a bird becomes that bird, and the little bird

killed by an animal goes into a higher form."
----------------------------------------------

Another unbelievable statement "Evil is the exaggeration of good"

One more false statement in so called Mahatma Letter "neither a savage
nor a wild (free) animal die of disease"

Another unbelievable statement from ML 10 is below. According to
chelas, theist philosophies and religions were given by Great Ones
from White Brotherhood. Did they mislead humanity by creating idea of
God. And what about millions of people who fear to do sin because they
fear God? What about millions of people who do good works in order to
please their God ?
----------------------
"It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the

slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence

of saving them."
---------------------------------------------
Read below. If this is so, why accepted chelas of Masters built
Christian church, a Hindu temple in Adyar campus ? And why does TS
tell that people should live religions and should not leave religions
? And why then Theosophy called source of all religions, most of them
are theist ?
-------------------
"Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that

day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth,

morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods."
------------------------------------

It appears that many statements in this so called Mahatma Letter 10
are simply false and unbelievable. They can not be supported by any
other spiritual writing and not even by writings of accepted chelas of
the same Masters. I have to assume that this letter contains
Blavatsky's own thoughts and not the thoughts of the Masters.
In just one letter I found so many absurdities, many more such
absurdities can be found if I examine other so called Mahatma Letters.

Best
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>