Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00351)

Hey Nigel
Great minds think alike! I posted my extract before realising you had done so.

Cass


>
>From: nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, 21 July, 2009 11:45:40 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
>
>Â 
>"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, 
>least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. 
>Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is 
>preeminently the science of effects by their causes and 
>of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science 
>of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon defines it, 
>before we admit any such principle we must know it, and 
>have no right to admit even its possibility. "
>
>ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy of the 
>name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of 
>what you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being 
>of some sort beyond the limits of that solar system. But if 
>such an existence is not absolutely impossible, yet unless 
>the uniformity of nature's law breaks at those limits we 
>maintain that it is highly improbable. Nevertheless we 
>deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in this 
>direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine 
>knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it 
>never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. 
>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 â i.e. the 
>knowledge of that cause and causes â 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 uncommon with theologies â 
>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) causes, the theists assign them 
>spiritual, super-natural and unintelligible and un-known 
>causes. The God of the Theologians is simply an imaginary 
>power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it â 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."
>(Underline added)
>Mahatma Letters to A P Sinnett No 88
>Chronology of George Linton and Virginia Hanson
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
>>
>> It was very unique in that Lord Buddha, when a devotee addressed him as God,
>> he raised him up and told him - I am your brother.
>> .
>> When I read about it, I was indeed touched. Whenever I meet my friends and
>> need to remind them that we all should be on the level, I repeat this story.
>> I think, such an attitude will help all of us in our day to day dealing with
>> others.
>> .
>> Messenger aka MKR
>> .
>> visit www.theosophy. net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Anand <AnandGholap@ ...> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > Blavatsky's criticism of personal God of Christians is wrong. It is born
>> > out of ignorance of spiritual realities. When Krishna took birth in physical
>> > body, he called himself God. All his devotees had personal relationship with
>> > this God, whom they called Krishna. When Jesus spoke, he referred God as
>> > Father. Again his devotees had personal relationship with God. If we study
>> > different devotional traditions around the world, we find that in most of
>> > these traditions, God had personal relationship with devotees. Making God
>> > personal is very nature of devotion. This is how the path of devotion works.
>> > So Blavatsky's attacks on personal God of Christians is wrong.
>> > Best
>> > Anand Gholap
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail

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