Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00263)

Hi Bill and all of you,

Thanks Bill.
I enjoyed your email.

But, What do you really think about Gordon Davidson ?
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bristol.goodwill/intwork.htm (Gordon Davidson
misson Externalization of the Hierarchy).
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bristol.goodwill/frontpge.htm (Gordon Davidson
frontpage)
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bristol.goodwill/econom.htm (Sorcerism on United
Nations ? Or ?)

Or others forinstance Robert Muller, former high-level politically involved
at United Nations:

http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/lucistrust.html (A must
read..!)>:-)
An excerpt follows:
"Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister
of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the
Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in
Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN,
Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.

The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for
the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient
occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a
book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice
Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along
the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen
in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United
Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment,
three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans".
[Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II,
p.35.]

Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult
factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is
the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective
group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies
the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth
ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative
focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all
hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.] "

More links needed?

It is no lie.
They really think that The Middle East is a dead potato. (Alice A.
Bailey:Esoteric Psychology, vol.1,p.166-7...)

Tell me, what are your views.
Should we give up...hmm...eehm..the spirit so to speak?

from
M. Sufilight



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Meredith" <bill_meredith@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World re re contrasts, Bill, BAG, "broader perspectives"?
and ...


> Thanks again Mauri. Clearly, I feel some degree of comfort in our
> discussions. Probably because our definitions of "reasonably
well-behaved"
> may be similar. In my last post comparing/confusing theosophical masters
> and the christian god, I was, I think, probing for that boundary between
the
> "essence" of theosophy and those other places that our mind takes us which
> might be labeled "non-essence" or non-essential(?).
>
> As I see it developing here, a group of "believes-in-masters" people, led
by
> Daniel and some others, (although they will most likely claim they are
being
> led by HPB and the Masters) (and maybe they are) is excited by the
prospect
> of proving yet another group of "believes-in-personal-god" people wrong.
> The first volley of Words has already been launched. I wonder if Words
> from the Theosophical Masters go as far in proving the existence of such
> Masters as Words from God go in proving the existence of God?
>
> I should like to meet a master I think. (or a personal god, for that
> matter) I would try to be reasonably well-behaved, maybe. I wonder if I
> would be allowed to ask questions, or speculate, or wonder?
>
>
> thanks Mauri,
> Bill
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:58 PM
> Subject: Theos-World re re contrasts, Bill, BAG, "broader perspectives"?
and
> ...
>
>
> > Bill wrote: <<I began to think that perhaps I might be
> > perceived on this list as advocating for the existence of a
> > personal god as described by exoteric christianity.
> > Nothing could be further from my mind. Such a being is
> > said to favor one group over another even dismissing some
> > to the outer darkness forever. Such a being is said to
> > participate in dialogue with some individuals about the
> > worthiness and lack thereof of others. Such a being
> > is said to use miracles as demonstrations of both existence
> > and power. Such a being is said to act from a human-like
> > mindset with human-like emotions including love and
> > anger. Such a being is said to reward loyalty and
> > obedience and play favorites and do good things for those
> > individuals in whom favor is found, while the others may
> > generally be referred to as "idiots"......no....er.....uh....I've
> > confused the personal christian god with the theosophical
> > masters. Yikes!!! I guess I'll be going now. :)>>
> >
> > Seems like a relevant comparison, (in a way?), by which
> > one might bring up a relevant issue? The following
> > might've occurred to you (?): Seems as if such as
> > "Theosophic masters" might be kind of limited to ways
> > and means of communicating that us non-masters (or
> > "average people") might find
> > "understandable/sensible/relevant-enough"? True, those
> > attempts to communicate on the part of those Theosophic
> > masters (and even on the part of Theosophic speculators,
> > like me, I'm guessing?) could often be misinterpreted in a
> > variety of ways, but ... And, similarly, it would seem to me
> > that students and leaders of various religions, sophies, and
> > whatever might often be misinterpreted in a variety of
> > ways. So when we're sort of "faced with each others' and
> > our own karma," maybe we can at least try to be
> > reasonably well bahaved toward each other and ourselves,
> > while telling each other about our opinions, beliefs,
> > feelings ... Then again, of course my idea of "reasonably
> > well behaved" might not be your idea of "reasonably well
> > behaved," so ... hmm ...
> >
> > Speculatively,
> > Mauri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>