Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00359)

Dear Cass

Indeed, let's HOPE it's "great minds" and not the remainder 
of that quote, "?fools seldom differ." :) lol

N


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Nigel
> Great minds think alike!  I posted my extract before realising you had done so.
> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> >
> >From: nhcareyta <nhcareyta@...>
> >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]
>