Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00234)

Anand,

Concerning the quotes about religion and evil from the Mahatma Letters
which are given in your own posting at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47312
I will make a few comments on some of your statements.

You write:

----------------------------------------------------
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....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 ?...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 ?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well Anand, there are many tenets of Theosophy that are NOT supported 
by most scientists.

Does the scientific community accept the existence of even
telepathy? Last time I checked the scientific community pooh poohs
psychic phenomena. etc. etc.  In other words they would pooh pooh 
Leadbeater's supposed clairvoyance.

So YOUR APPEAL to scientists is a double edged sword.

Or take YOUR APPEAL to chelas:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Accepted chelas like CWL, AB, SR never said such a thing happens.....
According to chelas....If this is so, why [do] accepted chelas of
Masters..... [etc. etc.]
------------------------------------------------------------------

But Anand, are you sure you have chosen the "right" chelas to rely
on? There are many individuals who have claimed to be "chelas" of
HPB's Masters.

Besides the names you give, there are also William Q. Judge,
Katherine Tingley, G. de Purucker, Alice Bailey, Francia A. La Due,
Guy Ballard, Helena Roerich, Mark Prophet, Elizabeth Clare Prophet,
Earlyne Chaney, Nada-Yolanda, Brother Philip, Cyril Scott, David 
Anrias, Flower Newhouse and many others.....

They ALSO claim that they were chelas. And some of them give out
teachings SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL to what is found in the Mahatma
Letters.

Why should we not believe THESE chelas instead of the ones YOU HAVE 
CHOSEN?

You may have selected the WRONG chelas? :)

For example, G. de Purucker claimed to be a chela of the Masters and
he gave out many similar teachings as to be found in the Masters'
letters. So one could say his teachings SUPPORT the truth of the
Mahatma Letters.

Now I am not saying he is right and those you have decided to accept
are wrong. I am simply pointing out that you might be wrong about
who you think are real chelas of the Masters. And therefore YOUR 
RELIANCE of what THESE chelas teach may be questionable.

Have you even read what G. de Purucker has taught?????

Another member of Theos-Talk, Frank Reitemeyer, REJECTS your chelas, 
and instead accepts Judge, Tingley and Purucker. 

You may say Frank doesn't know what he is talking about but IF he can 
be wrong, so can you Anand.

And my impression is that Judge's and Purucker's teachings are more 
consistent with and actually "confirm" the teachings in the Mahatma 
Letters. Therefore we could quote THESE chelas to CONFIRM and SUPPORT 
the Mahatma Letters.

What am I getting at, Anand?

You have made assumptions. And some of these assumptions are piled 
one upon the other. Maybe all of these assumptions of yours are wrong 
or at least some of them may be wrong. Have you even considered that? 

Now I am not saying that I have a pipeline to the "truth" and you 
don't. In fact, maybe neither one of us really know what we are 
talking about.

But when you say certain statements in the Mahatma Letters are
an "unbelievable invention" or they are "absurdities", and we find
that apparently you are making this judgment [at least in part} based
on what some LATER CHELA claimed or taught, we might stop and
consider some of the points and questions I have raised above.

If you are unwilling to do this, then maybe other readers will at 
least consider these possibilities when they are trying to assess the 
validity of your claims and pronouncements.

All I know is that the philosophy and the particular teachings we
have been discussing as found in THE MAHATMA LETTERS as well as in 
THE SECRET DOCTRINE seem coherent and consistent and understandable 
when carefully studied and one can find SUPPORT for these ideas in the
views of some religionists, some philosophers, some scientists and
even some "chelas"! 

Now whether any of this means therefore that the views given in the 
Mahatma Letters are ultimately true or not is up for debate but that 
also goes for your "view" on all of this too.

Anand, I will be more than happy to discuss in greater detail any of 
these points or any of the additional points you made. All I ask is 
that we take one point at a time and deal with it in some detail 
before we hurry on to a 2nd point or a 3rd point or a 4th point, etc.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc