Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00188)

Hi Nick Weeks and all of you,


I don't have much time at present. So this is the short response.

I will have to say, that I can agree and disagree with both of you (N.
Weeks, P. Lindsay...) depending on my level of thinking.

1.
About the CWL issue:
The agrument, that Bailey copied papers from the Esoteric Section of Adyar
Theosophy, is NOT valid at all,
as long as those papers are not presented to the public.
It is just like saying: I am right, and you are wrong, - well I know that
and I won't really tell you why !
Let us face it CWL was no angel, - maybe rather a Priest creating a Phallic
problems...
Do you (N. Weeks) agree ? >:-)

2.
A core problem with the teachings of Bailey - I have already made a remark
on. Zack Lansdowne havn't answered my posting on that here at Theos-Talk
yet. Maybe P. Lindsay will do that ?
My view on Bailey: Why Baileys books are a problem today if followed -
dead-letter,
as many pro-Baileys unfortunately do !!!
(On racism and Alice A. Bailey: Esoteric Psychology 1, p. 167):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10028

Do you agree ?


3.
And if N. Weeks just would read my article more carefully - he would
discover, that maybe both he and P. Lindsay are right in many of their
assumptions. It all depends on the level of thinking or the mode of
thinking.
What do you think ?

4.
When asked about my view, I have today, i.e. TODAY, to say, that I disagree
so very much with the Alice A. Bailey teachings in being promoted as they
are, - i.e. as they are in total. And - especially - promoting them alone
without any REAL emphasis and regard for the teachings of H. P. Blavatsky is
not good. And this is sadly so very commen today among a lot of pro-Bailey
groups.

The groups often seems to forget, that The Treatise of Cosmic Fire - ONLY -
is an interpretation (and - not - an overwriting) of The Secret Doctrine
written by Blavatsky.
And that Blavatskys own sources for writing that same book The Secret
Doctrine was initiates of a higher degree, at least 6. initiation, than the
alleged Tibetan (and not Fibetan) - with his 5th initiation.
One should know people on their fruits. And Blavatskys fruits are still the
greatest of the two. (Try a close examination of this article)
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/BLAVATSK.HTM

When I have said this, I will also at the same time have to say. That it is
a fact, that to some of the books of Alice A. Bailey - even today - is a
stepstone to spiritual development for newcomers, and that has to be taken
into account. The newcomer might then later be attracted to other more new
books - OR - Blavatskys The Secret Doctrine, or to some Middle Eastern sufis
or writers from India, who knows or knew a key or two more than HPB did of
the 7 keys. And they - the newcomers - will TODAY not read the OLD books of
Blavatskys and other old books. They want something newer or NEW. Strange ?
No just a part of human nature. Old teachings seems to them to be addresssed
to a PAST audience. And new teachings to a PRESENT audience. And that seems
quite logical to them, and strangely enough not logical to some
Theosophists.
I think both the core pro-Blavatsky groups and core pro-Bailey groups ought
to rethink their positions PR. They are in fact more and more using books
which are getting heavily outdated, beacuse of the present planets rapid
changes - in science (DNA, Clones, Spacetravel, informations-sharing,
etc...).

What do you think about this ?

5.
My view on the Jew issue: The Jew issue is also, represented badly by
Blavatsky herself - when viewed year 2003,(The Secret Doctrine. vol. 2, p.
471). And the Mahatma Letters are not great either, on races and racism, due
to their age. So there I will keep my mouth shut, - if not the 7 keys are
used. But let us remember, that the 7 keys and the different modes of
reading - are - in use while reading the teachings of Blavatsky. The same
seems to count when talking about the teachings of Bailey, at least to a
certain degree. But Baileys teachings are not very helpfull at the moment -
i.e. year 2003 - in our present informations society.
Do you agree ?
Do N. Weeks agree ?


6.
I think it is a grave error to think that "Djwhal Khul dictated much
of the Secret Doctrine to HPB" as P. Lindsay seems to think ! Well that is
just my reading of the inner layers. One Should ask one self what Dzyans
Stanzas is, and what the 7 keys are.

What support do you have for such a claim P. Lindsay ?

7.
I agree with N. Weeks answer to P. Lindsay, that this is a problem: "If your
DK is presenting
the next stage in a series of new age teachings, why were they given out
around 1910? That date is only 20 years after HPB's death. Do you really
think the Brothers would have HPB write 25 or so volumes of material only to
have it replaced in 20 years by stuff & nonsense that opposes and distorts
her
BASIC Theosophy? Do you think human evolution zips along at such a frantic
pace?"

What are your answer P. Lindsay ?


8.
A big problem is that Alice A. Bailey groups are closely involved with
politics - even at a very high level, - as high as The United Nations.
In Denmark, where I live, a Bailey-inspired group (the international author
Asger Lorentsen are involved) a at present collecting votes, so to run for
the Danish parliment, and maybe later The European Union. The political
party has the name "Visionspartiet" - translates "The Visions Party".
What is going on in USA ?

Other links of importance:
Bailey-groups at the United Nations Meditation Room ?:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/9730
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/9721

Who is a Tibetan or not:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10050


And let us face it both Blavatsky and Bailey are - not really - new books
and teachings. Not really. Timeless yes. But, the dead-letter form has
importance in our present Informations Society with Internet etc..., and
that can't be rejected just like that.
Something NEW are needed to spiritually satisfy the NEW audience.
A teaching which are properly addapted to the present day audience, with its
DNA and Clones.
With its Global Informations Society. A society with its pathfinder mission
to the moons of Jupiter in search for a new planet to inhabit. The new
archaeological findings of Pyramids in China and new discoeries in Egypt The
underwater "lemurian" city Osaka at Japan .
The links are not all my favorites, but just so you get the picture.
DNA: (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm - and
http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/newsreleases/2002mn043?opendocumen
t )
Clones: (http://www.rael.org)
China pyramids: ( http://hawk.hama-med.ac.jp/dbk/chnpyramid.html)
Eypt discoveries: (http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue8/ar8pyramids.html -
and http://www.cyclejp.com/luxor/MNEWSE.HTML)
Japan underwater discoveries:
(http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan2.html)

Does anyone have core list of recommended Theosophical - links in these
issues ?

Feel free to do comment or do your best...


from
M. Sufilight with peace...





----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Weeks" <nick.weeks@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Theos Talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 5:49 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL


> Lindsay:
>
> > In response to Niklas's letter and that of Jerry Hejka-Ekins, there
> > are a couple of points that come up. Correct me if I am wrong,
> > but 'pseudo-theosophy' is anything that is not the source material
> > of HPB's? If this is the case, I can see how diehard 'theosophists'
> > would regard anyone else as an interloper.
>
> [......]
>
> Your second sentence must be rhetorical, since you continue writing as if
your
> assumption about pseudo-theosophy is correct. It is not.
Pseudo-theosophy is
> whatever teaching professes to be based on, and share the KEY or BASIC
tenets
> of HPB & her Gurus, but does not. Therefore Crosbie, Wadia, Tingley,
Purucker
> for example, do share these keynotes of original Theosophy and to my mind
are
> real Theosophists. Absolute fidelity to each and every teaching that HPB
gave
> is not needed. But one must have a notion of which teachings are basic &
> vital and which are not.
>
> I did slog through your "criticisms" of the "Theosophy's Shadow" article.
> Your main argument seems to be that Weeks is confused, prejudiced,
spiritually
> obtuse and just plain out of step. If you had addressed more of my points
> with reason, rather than just huff about my lack of understanding, I might
> have said more than the 3 brief Theos-talk postings I sent.
>
> As I suggested in the article, regurgitation of the Fibetan's writings in
> place of rational responses may satisfy your urge to defend, but it does
not
> address the main question. If your DK is same as HPB's DK why are his
MAIN
> teachings opposed to the real Brothers teachings? If your DK is
presenting
> the next stage in a series of new age teachings, why were they given out
> around 1910? That date is only 20 years after HPB's death. Do you really
> think the Brothers would have HPB write 25 or so volumes of material only
to
> have it replaced in 20 years by stuff & nonsense that opposes and distorts
her
> BASIC Theosophy? Do you think human evolution zips along at such a frantic
> pace?
>
> My questions in the paragraph above are rhetorical, so please feel free to
> ignore responding to them -- please.
>
> However if there are other devotees of AAB or CWL online, read
"Theosophy's
> Shadow" and compare HPB vs. AAB and carefully, slowly, think it out for
your
> self.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>