Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00376)

I totally agree. Blavatski herself chose a personal God called "parabrahm", but this type of thinking is always apparent in fundamentalist thinking.

It is that old difference between realism and nominalism, part of the chosen God is a nominal dogma, but the other half is owing to an inner projection. People can project a precious inner content on an outer image, but Blavatski wont let Christians do this upon their God--total fundamental, dogmatic, nominalist thinking on her helf. She never did a days yoga in her life and has a father-complex like so many feminists.

It's a shame there was never a good western teacher who wasn't unconsciously materialist at the same time. 

G. L.





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.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
>