Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00294)

Anand,

I thank you for answering my posting.

I will now comment on some of your answers as found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47392

Apparently in answer to my question "are Jnaneshwar & the Masters 
expressing the SAME idea??" you write:

"There are differences in the teaching of St. Jnaneshwar."

I assume you mean differences betweeen Jnaneshwar's teachings and 
what the Masters teach.   Is that what you are saying?

If you are saying there is a difference, then WHAT IS IT??

According to you:

----------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------

And KH writes:

-----------------------------------------------------------
. . . 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 . . . and thus become Pantheists . . . .

 . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the ONE LIFE
is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And
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. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on
it and become agnostics. . . .
------------------------------------------
caps added

Anand, is the BASIC IDEA that you gave in what you said "Jnaneshwar 
writes" DIFFERENT from what KH writes above???

If so, can you contrast the difference?  What is the difference as 
you see it?  Can you explain this so that we can understand what you 
are thinking?  I haven't a clue at this stage!!!

This is an important issue, so please throw some light on it for the 
benefit of all interested readers here at Theos-Talk.

Moving on.

Then you make some very general comments about the Mahatma Letters in 
question:

---------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, writings in Pseudo-letters is highly confusing.
Statements in Pseudo-letters contradict with other statements in
Pseudo-letters. Reader either does not understand the point or
misunderstands. And if one statement is said, other person can bring
contradictory statement from some other Pseudo-letter. That keeps
readers in a perpetual puzzle. No wonder that many people doubted
authenticity of Pseudo-letters. It appears that to make A. P. Sinnett
and others co-operate with Blavatsky, she materialized those
Pseudo-letters. But the confusion created by publication of
Pseudo-letters, and making people feel that they came from Masters, is
of great proportion.
------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Anand, these letters maybe are confusing FOR YOU.  But I don't 
find them confusing.  Why do you?  

You say that some statements in the letters CONTRADICT other 
statements in the letters.  But you give no examples. So we have no 
idea what you are exactly talking about.  Maybe a misinformed reader 
may think there are contradictions.  So?  

You say that "the reader" doesn't understand the point or 
misunderstands.   First of all, your generalization is just vague.  I 
and many other readers understand the ideas expressed.  If some 
readers misunderstand, whose fault is that? 

Take another example.  I can assure you that I have run across 
Theosophical students who have some very confused ideas about certain 
points of Theosophical history.  Who fault is that?  Some of these  
people don't understand the subject, are misinformed, haven't studied 
the subject enough, etc, etc.

Another example.  Do you think ALL readers understand the Bible THE 
SAME WAY???

There are all sorts of INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible.  Does that 
therefore make the BIBLE untrustworthy just because some readers see 
contradictions where possibly others readers don't?????????

Some readers find all sorts of CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible, which 
make them distrust the Bible.  Other readers see the Bible 
differently.

Same applies to any other writings including THE MAHATMA LETTERS.

As far as the teaching on "God" in the Mahatma Letters, I find the 
teaching consistent and understandable.  I'm sure there are other 
readers on Theos-Talk who also understand the letters.  Nigel Carey 
is a student of the Mahatma Letters and is also a member of Theos-
Talk.  Ask him for his opinion.

Of course anyone at the beginning who knows nothing about these 
subjects may not understand.  That is normal.  But if one reads and 
studies the letters the ideas expressed do make sense.

One more point.  

Anand, it is your usal habit to write in general vague terms.  But 
unless you get into the nitty gritty, into the details, the 
specifics, we are just spinning our wheels.  

I want to understand your point of view, but in order to do that you 
need to write in some detail and give specific examples and explain 
things.  Generalizations are not very helpful.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc