Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00300)

"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. "
Let us see meaning of this statement in PL 10 (Pseudo-Letter 10) 
Dictionary meaning of 'keep to" is "to adhere without deviation'
and meaning of misnomer is 'calling something by wrong name'.
If we paraphrase above statement, it becomes 
"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
adhere to one more wrong name. "
It means according to PL 10 "accepting idea of One Life as God" is 
wrong. Therefore, according to this PL 10, one should not call God as
One Life. 
This contradicts with many spiritual classics which tell God as Life
or source of Life.

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
>