Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00299)

Well, thanks Anand for NOT answering the specific topics that I tried 
to address in reply to your previous comments.

I see that you prefer to deal in vague generalizations.  I guess it 
is safer to do that since you don't have to grapple with pesty little 
things called facts, etc....

As far as your comments on Christianity, if you think truth is 
determined by the number of adherents, then I suggest that you give 
up the anti-Christian writings of Besant and Leadbeater, wash your 
hands of the Theosophical Society and become a real Christian.

I say this because probably 99.9999% of Christians have never even 
heard of Theosophy and the small number of those who have heard about 
Theosophy no doubt consider it as some "cult" espousing anti-
Christian teachings.

See Walter Martin's THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS for that particular view.

Most Christians I know have never heard of it and the few that have 
don't have a very high opinion of it!!

Daniel






--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> One can see that starting a spiritual movement is not an easy task.
> Masters tried to do that through Theosophical Society, and what is 
the
> result ? Today we have many different teachings contradicting with
> teach other. These are Blavatsky's writings, Leadbeater's writing,
> writings in Pseudo-letters, Krishnamurti's teaching. One movement
> started and we have many different teachings contradicting with each
> other. Among these, there are distinct fanatic cults like one formed
> around Krishnamurti's teaching, another cult around
> Blavatsky-Pseudo-letters teachings. And these cults set themselves 
in
> opposition to other major religions in the world like Christianity.
> These Theosophical cults perhaps don't have more than few thousand
> members and yet they oppose confidently Christianity with it's two
> billion followers. It is like ants challenging elephant. 
> How is TS going to decide it's direction and maintain it is 
important
> question. I can already see that many National Sections (like 
Holland)
> have lost the direction. It will be interesting to see what 
direction
> TS takes in next three hundred years.
> Best
> Anand Gholap
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>