|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Mar 02, 2006 06:29 AM
by Konstantin Zaitzev
--- In email@example.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@...> wrote: > I wonder: Just what is a "Personal GOD ?" > In what way is it different from an "Impersonal GOD?" Didn't A. Ali explain it? When we cling to our personal self we have to deal with a personal god which is like a counterpart. We have substracted our limited self from a divine whole, and what is left is a personal god. It is a kind of illusion, but no more illusion than our personal self. See also "Personal & impersonal God" by Subba Row. Another thing which is an approximation to personal God is logos. Our personal self couldn't exist whithout archetupal pattern for it. All personalities have much in common, and it points to some archetype, for as above, so below. > I our little world we have : Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, R > Catholicism, Protestantism, and dozens of other sects and creeds > embodying aspects and views -- but who does the actual study and > analysis of the reasonableness of these ? The Theosophical Society was founded for comparative study of religions, so its Founders thought that there is something worthy in them. Hidden powers of man is another line of work, and the brotherhood is the main. Unfortunately these three objects are often substituted by the study of the works of the Founders which were just a specimen of work under three objects, and not more (though a very good specimen). > How do people get together to agree on "fundamentals?" The theosophists sometimes agree even less than representatives of abovesaid religions.