Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00358)

Stupid question.
Of course HPB materialized Mahatma letters.
Why should she not?

Do you really believe that a Mahatma has no other business to do as to write a letter for himself?

Does a boss in a company write a letters for himself?
Or don't you think his secretary could materialize a boss letter?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anand 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong


  If Blavatsky materialized cup and saucer. Don't you think she could materialize so called Mahatma Letters?

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Not only Blavatsky's ideas but the ideas of the Masters, "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 efects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and 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."
> 
> I think it is time Anand for you to cross to the other team if you cannot accept the above claim.  You want to remain a 'brother' while ignorantly attacking the founder.   
> 
> 
> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> >
> >From: Anand <AnandGholap@...>
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, 22 July, 2009 3:35:12 AM
> >Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
> >
> >  
> >If we believe in Blavatsky's idea that personal God does not exist, then we will have to reject two important and largest religions, namely Christianity and Hinduism. In addition to that we will also have to reject Judaism and many religions based on devotion. Obviously this is against the idea that all major religions were given by Great Teachers from the White Lodge. 
> >So Blavatsky's opposition to personal God has created much confusion and damage to religions. 
> >If Blavatsky is to be believed then people will have to blame Krishna from claiming to be God and they will have to reject Jesus as well as many religions. Obviously Blavatsky has made blunder in rejecting personal God. For most people on the path of devotion, God is personal. The path of devotion works that way. If Blavatsky is believed then it would be rejecting the path of devotion, which draws billions of people closer to God. 
> >Obviously Blavatsky's rejection of God and personal God are philosophical blunders.
> >Best
> >Anand Gholap
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 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]
>





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