Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00350)

And for years I thought that I was the only Theosophist that had ever read  
Walter Martin.  Of course he referred to us as "The politically powerful  
Theosophical Society" and I have no idea where he got that notion from.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
 
In a message dated 11/16/2008 9:34:45 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
My now departed catholic mother thought I was joining a cult  !
Cass

________________________________
From:  danielhcaldwell <_danielhcaldwell@danielhca_ 
(mailto:danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com) >
To:  _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) 
Sent:  Sunday, 16 November, 2008 3:23:59 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Comments on  some statements in Pseudo-letter No. 10

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@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._ (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_ (http://hpb.cc/) 
> >
>

Make the  switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! 
_http://au.yahoo.http://au._ (http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail) 

[Non-text  portions of this message have been removed]


 

**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & 
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]