[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Anand writes; "Just take one example...."

Nov 11, 2008 10:17 AM
by danielhcaldwell


I do appreciate your reply.

Let us now take your example and think about it....

You write:

Just take one example "If people are willing to accept and to regard
as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may
do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer."
As I understand this statement, Letter rejects the idea of ONE LIFE.
How can above sentence be correct? As I understand subject of
spirituality, God gives life to everything. It is God's life
everywhere. Annie Besant, an accepted chela said in her most famous
prayer " O Hidden Life, Vibrant in Every Atom" That means ML 10
contradicts with it.
That means Letter 10 contradicts with Annie Besant's prayer and also
contradicts with most of the spiritual classics who proclaim one life
of God.

Anand, I would suggest that you actually MISUNDERSTAND this statement 
by KH.

NOTICE that KH writes:  "our ONE LIFE". life

No, KH is NOT rejecting in this statement the idea of ONE LIFE.  

He says there is ONE LIFE.  And notice the next sentence after the 
one you quote.  I give both sentences together:

If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE 
immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus 
keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say 
with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other 
substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher 
says in his fourteenth proposition, "praeter Deum nulla dari neque 
concepi potest substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists 

In other words....the ONE LIFE is the universal "substance" is 
everywhere, in fact, it is everything.  The ONE LIFE is everything in 
the physical world, everything in the astral world, everything in the 
mental world, everything in the causal world, EVERYTHING IN THE 
SPIRITUAL WORLDS, the ONE LIFE is the whole manifested universe and 
even the unmanifested....if you or I can conceive of that.....

And in that same letter of KH just a few lines below what you have 
quoted, he further writes:

When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is 
the essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only 
has correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, 
etc. -- hence is material, is matter itself.

Notice Anand, KH again says:  "When we speak of our One Life"....OUR 
One Life....

The ONE LIFE is all matter, whether physical or superphysical, if 
your "causal body" is matter, then the ONE LIFE vibrates in that 
body, and in fact is YOUR causal body.  

Our bodies, our thoughts, our consciousness, ETC ETC. are 
manifestations of the ONE LIFE, are in fact the ONE LIFE...for 
nothing is outside the ONE LIFE....

And if you actually read and study the letters, you will see KH 
brings up this idea over and over.  

I have no idea what Mrs. Besant was trying to convey when she uses 
the phrase "O Hidden Life" but I can read into her quote the idea of 

The Hidden Life, the ONE LIFE is vibrant in every atom, is in fact 
every atom....what is separate from or outside the ONE LIFE?

But is this "God"????

You say:

As I understand subject of spirituality, God gives life to 
everything. It is God's life everywhere.

But Anand how do you define "God"???  What is God?

Most Christians I know think of God as a "person".  They think of him 
as a HE.  But when I ask them what they mean by that pronoun, they 
usually can't really tell you. They don't like it when I suggest that 
maybe "God" is actually a SHE.  

Did "God" make the universe or is "he" the universe???

Most people I've discussed this with use the word "God" but really 
have no clear idea of what "God" is.

So what Anand do you mean by the word "God"?

Again I give a quote from Mr. Osborn in THE COSMIC WOMB:

". . . when we ask such a question as, 'Does God exist?' we are 
virtually implying SOMEONE or SOMETHING OBJECTIVE in the same sense
that we as individuals are OBJECTIVE...."

"If God exists, therefore, He must represent some Reality having
objectivity RELATIVE to man and, indeed, to the universe."

"But this poses the problem of reconciling the postulated quality of
UNIVERSALITY with the objective implication of being in existence.
As we have noted, universality leads logically to pantheism, whereas
existence, with its aspect of objectivity, implies LIMITATION." 

Anand, as I understand it, the ONE LIFE is everywhere, is everything, 
the ONE LIFE is universal, the universe is the ONE LIFE and if there 
is the unmanifested, that also is the ONE and I and all 
beings, all things and all atoms, everything is part and parcel of 

Even Chuck is part of the ONE LIFE.....

KH teaches the ONE LIFE.  

But you will find in the Bible that God can be angry, even regretted 
that "he" had made men.  Now some Christians consider this to be 
metaphoric or symbolic, other Christians believe that, no, "God" 
really got angry...just like a human being...that he actually did 
regret having made human beings....just like a human being would 

Well, all I can say is:  the ONE LIFE is not a "person"....the ONE 
LIFE does not have anger.....I suppose Mr. Leadbeater would 
say "anger" is an emotion residing in the astral body of a person, 
that you can even "see" anger and its color.  So yes "anger" is part 
of the ONE LIFE, the astral body is part of the ONE LIFE, but the ONE 
LIFE is not anything in particular although it is all particulars 
because it is everything.  

You also write:

After studying Mahatma Letters for decades you say God exists
according to Masters. But I came across many people who studied
Mahatma Letters for decades and said God does not exist. So, it has
become clear to me that Mahatma Letters don't convey ideas clearly.

You say different people understand the Mahatma Letters in different 
ways.  So?  Well different people understand the Bible in different 
ways too.   So?   

I have even run into students of Leadbeater who understand some of 
his teachings differently.   So?

Show me a teacher or a teaching that doesn't have followers...some of 
who understand the teacher or teaching a certain way while other 
followers and students see the teaching differently.....

And you say:

After studying Mahatma Letters for decades you say God exists
according to Masters.

Well, did I say it that way without any qualifications????

I said it depends on what you mean by the word "God".

First define "God".....

If "God" is the ONE LIFE then the Mahatmas teach "God".

If you define "God" as the ABSOLUTE....then they teach "God".

Tell me Anand, what is "God"???

When I use the word "apple" or "dog" or "cat", I can point to a fruit 
or an animal and say here is the apple or the dog or the cat.

But when I use the word "god", what can I point to?  What in fact am 
I referring to?

Or when I use the word "astral body" or "causal body" what am I 
referring to?  If I could manifest my "astral body" to you Anand in 
India, I could then say:  here is my astral body but when I use the 
word "God", how do I describe what this word refers to, points to?

What is "God"?   Is "God" a HE or a SHE?  Can I point to "God"?  

I find people throw around this word "God" but exactly what is 
this "thing" called "God"????

Maybe it is better to throw away the word "God" and use another word 
which is not so loaded with emotions and all sorts of ideas.....

I hope I am communicating with you!!!!


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application