Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00272)

Thank you Frank... I think. <she smiles>

Forive me Frank, but I am not quite sure I understand what you are 
saying. But, let me say this... I do think there comes a point 
(turning point?) in one's life when you have to put away all the 
books and start thinking for yourself.

Most sincerely,
Suzanne


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dhyana@w...> 
wrote:
> May I interject? Thank you.
> To dedice what problems have Theosophists with Bailey or not 
depends first
> from the axiom you have.
> One must have a full knowledge of what where the original aims of 
the TS
> founders.
> 
> Unless you do not know exactly what this aims were and which 
*practical*
> things were in preparation you cannot come to a right conclusion 
and you
> will stick on merely brainminded speculations.
> Many New Agers and self-styled Theosophists ahve fun to believe 
that the
> launching of the Theosophical Movement has had no other aim then to 
build
> groups of people who talk and read and discuss.
> If you are a true believer in that poppycock then you'll wonder why 
Besant,
> Leadbeater, Steiner, Crosbie, Bailey etc. etc. are critiziced: It 
seems they
> do the same as HPB did and it seems they do nothing which would 
conctradict
> HPB's oral and written orders.
> 
> The main problem for the right understanding is that nowadays the 
most
> Theosophists in the broad Theosophical Movement have no idea what 
and where
> HPB was and why she came and why she went where she went. If you 
are able to
> solve this riddle (which is a riddle only for the beast nature) 
you'll see a
> clear picture before your eyes.
> Those Theosophists of around 1900 who really KNEW what to do (and 
what not
> to do) gave countless proofs of their superior knowledge in going 
to certain
> countries and to
> do certain work. That all can be found in the history. But those
> pseudo-Theosophists who join our ranks merely for their own beast 
worship
> and not for the saving of humankind will not be interested in 
studying
> history, either of the world or Theosophy.
> 
> That this is not understood by a critical mass of theosophical 
students is
> one of the
> main reasons why the Theosophical Movement is half dead - from a 
higher
> perspective.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gddsssuze@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Problems of Humanity
> 
> 
> Now Bart, you are grasping at staws my friend.
> Tell me Bart... can you answer the question below?
> As I asked Nick, a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is needed, but 
if
> you evade the question... the truth will be plain to see.
> 
> > Please, forgive me for assuming you are an American, in the same
> > book, AAB also suggests that "the American is intensely critical 
of
> > other people, but often blind to and always resentful of
> criticism.
> > Yet there is as much to criticize in America as there is as there
> is
> > in any other nation." pg 27
> >
> > Do you believe this my friend?
> >
> > Most sincerely,
> > Suzanne
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> > "Suzanne " wrote:
> > > I think it is a very dangerous thing to cut and paste bits and
> pieces
> > > of ones thoughts and pass judgements on the totality of that
> persons
> > > thinking....
> >
> > Please show me where my cuts changed the meaning of anything
> that I
> > quoted. I had pointed out that, given a copy of PROBLEMS OF
> HUMANITY, I
> > could easily show a dozen problems I had with Alice Bailey. I have
> many
> > more; it is just that the chapters "THE JEWISH PROBLEM" and "THE
> NEGRO
> > PROBLEM" are the easiest to find bigoted and factually wrong
> items. I
> > could, for example, go into the use of the planet "Vulcan" in her
> > esoteric astrology, when the explanation of the non-existence of 
the
> > planet Vulcan was one of the first major scientific validations of
> > Theosophical thought (which means that a belief in its existence
> goes
> > AGAINST Theosophical thought, at least as previously taught by
> > supposedly the same Adepts). I could have pointed out her thoughts
> on
> > homosexuality, for example.
> >
> > I was answering the charge that Theosophists cannot provide
> specifics
> > with their problems with Alice Bailey.
> >
> > Bart
> >
> >
> > Bart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/