Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00332)

Yes, we take it serious and try to work on nationalized love.








--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Raquel Rodríguez <raquel_rpj@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Christina
> The most Hospitable and welcoming folk I have met in Europe. Eager 
to know and understand a different point of view not just 
among cultures, but also among social hierarquies. 
> Dutch has a good lesson to give to the world about differences 
living together.
>  
> Best Regards
>  
> Raquel
> 
> --- El dom, 16/11/08, Martin <Mvandertak@...> escribió:
> 
> De: Martin <Mvandertak@...>
> Asunto: Re: Theos-World Re: Comments on some statements in Pseudo-
letter No. 10
> Para: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: domingo, 16 noviembre, 2008 12:12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yow Christina:
> 
> Amsterdam is even smaller and has 230 nationalities and 1500 
bridges, which makes it a more interesting place than Venice, except 
you can't find 'red stones' under the "skinny bridge", however we do 
have a red light district....
> 
> --- On Sun, 11/16/08, christinaleestemake r <christinaleestemake 
r@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: christinaleestemake r <christinaleestemake r@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Comments on some statements in Pseudo-
letter No. 10
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 10:27 AM
> 
> HaHA Anand, The Netherlands is one of the smallest countries wherin 
> 
> lives the most different types, as well as 
> 
> christians,romancat holics,moslims, africans, indians, indonesians 
and 
> 
> mostly they respect each other and let the other free in his 
> 
> selections.That is one of the most important rule from TS.
> 
> A total colourmix in one nation.And we make Europe one big city 
> 
> livable for everyone.We cannot say that from your country, that 
> 
> cannot care for its own people.
> 
> Nobody let forced him or her in the direction powervoluptuouses try 
> 
> to impress.
> 
> Christina
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.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@yahoogro ups.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
> 
> > >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>