theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

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

Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong

Jul 21, 2009 06:45 AM
by nhcareyta


"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 ? i.e. the 
knowledge of that cause and causes ? 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 ? 
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 ? 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@yahoogroups.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]
>





[Back to Top]


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