Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00431)

What I wanted to show ,is not on HPB or whatever, but related to the 
Mahatma Letters.You copied a part of letter 10.So my reaction was on 
that.
And I think I can give myself the answer, that they made a mistake in 
press by Adi Buddhi needed to be Atma-Buddhi in its periodical way in 
the way of Parabrahm+Maya which gives Iswar, that power they called 
commonly god.
And as far as I know that could only be atmabuddhi and not Adi buddhi.
Christina



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends
> 
> My views are:
> 
> I wrote about ParaBrahm as it was defined in TS before W. C. 
Leadbeater started to tell people about the importance of what he 
quite misleading called "God".
> 
> 
> From The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky:
> "An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on 
which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of 
human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or 
similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the 
words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable." 
> (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 14)
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky and Master says:
> "Parabraham is not this or that, it is not even consciousness, as
> it cannot be related to matter or anything conditioned. It is not 
Ego nor is
> it Non-ego, not even Atma, but verily the one source of all 
manifestations
> and modes of existence."
> (written in The secret Doctrine, Vol 1., page 130 by Blavatsky )
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
> 
> 
> Se for instance also my posting july 2008 at Theos-talk
> http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/200807/tt00404.html
> 
> 
> But some persons do not understand, so they continue to find the 
word "God" to be so very important even when we clearly have shown 
that it is not so.M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: christinaleestemaker 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:07 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World Re: Meister Eckhart on "God"
> 
> 
>   Morten I copied the same, but not any respond.
>   By the way it is the vision of the East.
>   Can we explain what is parabrahm?
>   For example ML 15 page 88-9:
>   The initiated Brahmin calls it Yin Sin and Fohat,Brahman and 
Sakti 
>   when manifesting as that force.We will perhaps be near correct to 
>   call it infinite life and the source of all life visible and 
>   invisible, an essence of inexhaustible, ever present, in short 
>   Swabhavat.(S in its universal application and Fohat when 
manifesting 
>   throughout our phenomenal world, or rather the visible 
universe,hence 
>   in its limitations.It is pavritti when active, nirvritti when 
passive.
>   Call it the Sakti of parabrahm if you like and say with the 
Adwaities
>   (Subba Row is one) that Parabrahm + Maya becomes Ishwar, the 
ceative 
>   principle- a power commonly called God which disappears and dies 
with 
>   the rest when pralaya comes.
>   Or you may hold with the northern Buddhists philosophers and call 
it 
>   AdiBuddhi, the all- pervading supreme and absolute intelligence 
with 
>   iis periodically manifesting Divinity-"Avalokiteshvara"a 
manvantaric 
>   intelligent nature crowned with humanity. 
> 
>   see more on parabrahm on pages: 86.52,53-4,74,89,195,338-9 and 
340.
> 
>   We can search for all page in which has been used parabrahm for 
>   having a total vision.
> 
>   As I understand well Parabrahm is infinite( an attribute of Yin 
Sin, 
>   or the one form of existence) AdiBuddhi or Dharmakaya, the 
mystic, 
>   universally diffused essence,which stays forever)when manifesting 
in 
>   the fenominal world of senses, namely, only your old acquaintance 
>   Fohat. But with maya is disappears and dies when pralaya comes.So 
>   what we call god(Iswar) is temporary.
>   I cannot understand why they also called that AdiBuddhi, for that 
>   never disappears and also never dies.
> 
>   Christina 
> 
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
>   theosophy@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Dear all readers
>   > 
>   > My views are:
>   > 
>   > There is no God.
>   > There is ParaBrahm.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Mahatma Letter 10:
>   > "Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. 
We 
>   know there 
>   > are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is 
in 
>   our system 
>   > no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm 
is 
>   not a God, 
>   > but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya 
and 
>   Maya, 
>   > ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was 
>   invented to 
>   > designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has 
either 
>   admired or 
>   > dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that 
we 
>   are able 
>   > to prove what we claim -- i.e. the knowledge of that cause and 
>   causes we are 
>   > in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them.
>   > The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we 
>   have but one 
>   > thing in common with theologies -- we reveal the infinite. But 
>   while we 
>   > assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and 
>   limitless 
>   > space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and 
known 
>   (to us at 
>   > least) cause, the theists assign them spiritual, super-natural 
and 
>   > unintelligible an un-known causes. The God of the Theologians 
is 
>   simply and 
>   > imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it -- a 
power 
>   which 
>   > has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver 
>   humanity of 
>   > this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to 
walk 
>   in life 
>   > relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, 
that 
>   for 
>   > countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery."
>   > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > M. Sufilight
>   > 
>   > ----- Original Message ----- 
>   > From: "MKR" <mkr777@>
>   > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>   > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 3:10 AM
>   > Subject: Re: Theos-World Meister Eckhart on "God"
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Here is a real story.
>   > 
>   > Here one early morning, a man, his wife, and two kids were 
walking 
>   on the
>   > side walk of a major street, all of them in birthday suits. A 
>   policeman
>   > stopped them and politely inquired of them why are they in this 
>   condition;
>   > may be they are homeless or someone stole all their clothes etc.
>   > 
>   > The man responded responded that God commanded them to take 
throw 
>   away all
>   > their clothes and directed them to start walking on the 
sidewalk. 
>   The
>   > policeman politely told them he would give a ride and took them 
to 
>   the
>   > police station in his patrol car.
>   > 
>   > At least they are not doing any harm to anyone. Sometimes God 
acts 
>   in
>   > strange ways!!! I like such a God not the ones which is on a 
>   destructive
>   > path.
>   > 
>   > mkr
>   > 
>   > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, <Drpsionic@> wrote:
>   > 
>   > > I rather like my comment on God when my wife had her stroke 
and 
>   was in a
>   > >
>   > > coma for two weeks, thus causing one of her sisters to 
comment 
>   that "God
>   > > has a
>   > > reason for this." My response was, "If your idiot God knew 
what 
>   he was
>   > > doing
>   > > in the first place she would not be here!"
>   > >
>   > > Chuck the Heretic
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > In a message dated 11/16/2008 11:49:06 A.M. Central Standard 
Time,
>   > > danielhcaldwell@ <danielhcaldwell%40yahoo.com> writes:
>   > >
>   > > Here are some of my favorite quotes from
>   > > Meister Eckhart (c.1260-c.1328, German mystic):
>   > >
>   > > "God is exempt from all things and he is
>   > > all things."
>   > >
>   > > "He who thinks that he sees God, if he
>   > > see aught sees naught of God."
>   > >
>   > > "I do not find God outside myself nor
>   > > conceive him excepting as my own and in me."
>   > >
>   > > "If I were not, God would not be God."
>   > >
>   > > "All creatures are pure nothingness. I
>   > > do not say they are small or
>   > > petty: they are pure nothingness.p
>   > >
>   > > "The being [of things] is God."
>   > >
>   > > "The being and the nature of God are
>   > > mine. . . . the spark in the soul is beyond
>   > > time and space; the soul's
>   > > light is uncreated and cannot be created, it
>   > > takes possession of God with no mediation; the
>   > > core of the soul and the core of God are one."
>   > >
>   > > "Why I pray God to rid me of God is because
>   > > conditionless being is above God and above
>   > > distinction.d
>   > >
>   > > "God works, the Godhead does no work."
>   > > -------------------------------------------------
>   > >
>   > > [Short biographical sketch of Eckhart at:
>   > > _http://www.bartlebyhttp://www.http://www.b_
>   > > (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ec/Eckhart.html) ]
>   > >
>   > > Do the IDEAS given in these quotes by Eckhart
>   > > relate to what is written about "God" in THE
>   > > SECRET DOCTRINE and THE MAHATMA LETTERS?
>   > >
>   > > If so,how?
>   > >
>   > > Daniel
>   > > _http://hpb.cc_ (http://hpb.cc/)
>   > >
>   > > **************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]
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > 
>   > 
>   > ------------------------------------
>   > 
>   > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>