Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00309)

"Morten Nymann Olesen" wrote:

> > > I am open for any idea.
> > > Feel free to comment or do your best...

Forgive me, my kind friend.
I just do not have the time to go back and search out prior emails as 
much as I would like to. I was, tho, following your request 
(instruction? <g>) at the bottom of your last email... and, I did the 
best I could in the few minutes I had.

Most sincerely,
Suzanne

> Hi Suzanne and all of you,
> 
> These are my views:
> A suggestion to you: Well, Suzanne you might get an answer to your 
own
> question if you started by answering my questions first. One easily 
could
> get the view, that you instead did chose the easy and for you more 
plesant
> path, not to think about and what morality really is. And that you 
didn't
> really pondered on the content of my email before you answered it.
> 
> Did you not read my previous posting to Bill either ?
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10413
> 
> Try to check out all the links referred to in that email.
> Or just try this one. It is more easy:
> http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/lucistrust.html 
(Lucis
> Trust and Sorcery at United Nations ? Or ?...)
> 
> 
> Feeel free to do comment or do your best...
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight with a smile and some rugrats jumping up and down...>:-
)
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gddsssuze@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:13 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Standard of Truth?
> 
> 
> > Morten,
> > Seems to me there are universal aspects (a golden thread) common 
to
> > all teachings... only the outer symbols change. High moral and
> > ethical qualities and standards are the same (universal) in every
> > culture. High quality love, honesty, truthfulness etc are
> > universally the same throughout humanity. Are not these qualities
> > the means to the end result we all seek?
> >
> > Most sincerely,
> > Suzanne
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> > theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > > Hi Zack and all of you,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your email.
> > > I agree a lot with your below views as they seems to be 
presented.
> > >
> > > But, but. Maybe this below quote and comment could change the 
views
> > > somewhat:
> > >
> > > In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky 
she
> > also in -
> > > Section 2 - of that book
> > > mentiones the very important issue of thought systems:
> > >
> > > "ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case,
> > besides
> > > Buddhistic ethics?
> > >
> > > THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
> > philosophy in
> > > particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, 
it
> > must be
> > > stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is 
divided
> > into
> > > Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.
> > >
> > > ENQUIRER. What is the difference?
> > >
> > > THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large 
are
> > free to
> > > profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if 
they
> > so
> > > prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry 
out
> > one or
> > > more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a
> > philanthropic
> > > and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of 
brotherhood
> > on
> > > practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be
> > Christians or
> > > Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, 
Spiritualists or
> > > Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be 
either a
> > > philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other 
old
> > > literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if 
he
> > can, in
> > > the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the 
programme.
> > Otherwise
> > > he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority 
of
> > the
> > > exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" 
members.
> > [An
> > > "attached member" means one who has joined some particular 
branch
> > of the T.
> > > S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, 
has his
> > > diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected
> > with no
> > > branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become Theosophists de
> > facto.
> > > Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; 
but
> > the
> > > latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the
> > divine
> > > fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his 
own --
> > if the
> > > expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome
> > is, as
> > > handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to 
run:
> > > "Theosophist is, who Theosophy does." ..."
> > >
> > >
> > > My view:
> > > Some belongs in the Esoteric Section. And some not.
> > > So maybe some of us needs to rethink these statements coming 
from
> > > Blavatsky - and - rethink their values in the light of the 
present
> > situation
> > > on this Planet.
> > > Time also changes the manner in which wisdom teachings are
> > presented. Only
> > > dogmatic thinkers cling to "dead-letter" presentation. Or what 
we
> > tend to
> > > call "Business as usual".
> > >
> > > Martin Luther King Jr. made the following statement.
> > > ("I have a dream"; Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln 
Memorial in
> > > Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963):
> > >
> > > "It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the
> > moment and
> > > to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering
> > summer of
> > > the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is 
an
> > > invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-
three
> > is not an
> > > end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to 
blow
> > off steam
> > > and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation
> > returns to
> > > business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in
> > America
> > > until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The 
whirlwinds
> > of revolt
> > > will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the
> > bright day of
> > > justice emerges." http://web66.coled.umn.edu/new/MLK/MLK.html
> > > (Please do not read the above - using the dead-letter. Try to
> > relate it to
> > > the present situation on the globe and maybe also its future.)
> > >
> > > (So maybe, just maybe some western countries - and also some so
> > very much
> > > westernized "spiritualists" - should rethink their positions in
> > light if
> > > the present - cultural clashes between The Middle East and The
> > West.)
> > >
> > > So why overlook the urgency of the moment ?
> > > But I do agree. Books are not everything. And a number of the -
> > newer -
> > > theosophist wheather they be pro-Baileys or not have a tendency 
to
> > replace
> > > their own present Bible (Christian, Hindu, Islamic etc.) with a 
NEW
> > one.
> > > Sometimes it is "The Secret Doctrine" by Blavatsky - and 
sometimes
> > it is the
> > > books or the book-collection delivered by Alice A. Bailey, and
> > sometimes
> > > another choice...
> > >
> > > My view is, that vital questions to ask are the following:
> > > The question is, which teaching will lift the humanity through 
the
> > NEXT
> > > century ?
> > > Which teaching will give the aspirant the NEEDED global
> > perspective. A
> > > global perspective, which both Blavatsky and I supports 
developed
> > in the
> > > aspirants "kosas" (or minds).
> > > Does the present situation allow the teaching to be presented 
in a
> > > culturally biased manner?
> > > Is it a need ? Or is not ?
> > > How does one avoid cultural bias on this Planet?
> > > Can an Information Society as the present one with fast
> > transportation and
> > > communication around the globe afford, a wisdom teaching ( a 
true
> > > theosophical teaching) which creates cultural bias, and which 
won't
> > address
> > > it with wisdom?
> > > How do you really want to present your teaching, and how do you
> > present it ?
> > > Is it not so that the teachings of Alice A. Bailey by many pro-
> > Bailey
> > > teachers - TODAY - are presented in a culturally biased manner ?
> > Are the
> > > books delivered by Alice A. Bailey culturally biased as well ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I am open for any idea.
> > > Feel free to comment or do your best...
> > >
> > >
> > > from
> > > M. Sufilight with peace on earth...and som rugrats looking like
> > angels...
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Zack Lansdowne" <zackl@s...>
> > > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:47 PM
> > > Subject: Theos-World Standard of Truth?
> > >
> > >
> > > > There has been much debate in recent days about whose 
doctrine is
> > true:
> > > HPB
> > > > versus AAB; ancient Hindu scriptures versus HPB; HPB versus
> > Besant and
> > > > Leadbeater. Members on this list have pointed out that there 
are
> > clear
> > > > differences between the writings or doctrines of these various
> > > authorities.
> > > >
> > > > Here, I would like to emphasize an area of AGREEMENT among
> > different
> > > > writers.
> > > >
> > > > In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky 
saw
> > two
> > > > possible futures for the TS. On the one hand, she described 
its
> > possible
> > > > failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has
> > hitherto
> > > ended
> > > > in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into 
a
> > sect, set
> > > up
> > > > hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible
> > degrees that
> > > > vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must 
remember
> > that all
> > > > our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion,
> > that all
> > > are
> > > > more or less of their generation both physically and 
mentally, and
> > > > consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be 
warped
> > and
> > > > unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If,
> > then, they
> > > > cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to
> > recognise
> > > it
> > > > instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can 
only
> > be that
> > > the
> > > > Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or 
another,
> > and
> > > there
> > > > remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
> > > >
> > > > That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and
> > die." But
> > > > what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this 
case,
> > HPB
> > > > predicted: "Then the Society will live on into and through 
the
> > twentieth
> > > > century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great 
mass of
> > thinking
> > > > and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas 
of
> > Religion,
> > > > Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst 
asunder
> > the iron
> > > > fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; 
it
> > will
> > > break
> > > > down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will 
open
> > the way
> > > to
> > > > the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men."
> > > >
> > > > So, Blavatsky, in 1889, made two quite different predictions 
for
> > the
> > > > Theosophical Society in the 20th Century: she says that it 
might
> > set up
> > > > "hard-and-fast dogmas of its own" and then become "a stranded
> > carcass to
> > > > moulder and die"; or it might "burst asunder iron fetters of
> > creeds and
> > > > dogmas" leading to "the practical realisation of the 
Brotherhood
> > of all
> > > > men." Which outcome has occurred?
> > > >
> > > > Next, let us turn to Alice A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on White
> > Magic",
> > > first
> > > > published in 1934, AAB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "All that is possible for me is to grope for those feeble 
words
> > which will
> > > > somewhat clothe the thought. As they clothe it they limit it 
and
> > I am
> > > guilty
> > > > of creating new prisoners who must ultimately be released. 
All
> > books are
> > > > prison houses of ideas."
> > > >
> > > > Here AAB is pointing out that even her own books are "prison
> > houses of
> > > > ideas." The purpose of her books was to free her readers from
> > past dogmas
> > > > that had become barriers to their spiritual progress. But if 
her
> > readers
> > > > turn her own books into hard-and-fast dogmas, as many of her
> > readers have
> > > > done, then they have become prisoners of those books who must 
be
> > freed by
> > > > future writers.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most popular contemporary teachings on 
spirituality is
> > A Course
> > > > in Miracles (ACIM). As many of you might know, ACIM was
> > channelled
> > > > allegedly from the Master Jesus, was first published in 1975, 
and
> > has sold
> > > > several million copies. Today, more students are probably
> > studying ACIM
> > > > than the books of HPB and AAB combined. I, myself, led a ACIM
> > study group
> > > > for many years at the Theosophical Society in Boston. Here, 
is
> > what ACIM
> > > > says: "Words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus 
twice
> > removed
> > > from
> > > > reality." And yet several ACIM organizations are now fighting
> > each other
> > > > over the proper interpretation of the ACIM words, with bitter
> > lawsuits and
> > > > legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations
> > from even
> > > > being published.
> > > >
> > > > I think that HPB, AAB, and ACIM are telling us the same thing:
> > namely, it
> > > > is a mistake to turn any written doctrine into a hard-and-fast
> > dogma, or
> > > > standard of truth. This message was especially emphasized by
> > Krishnamurti
> > > > who wrote in "Krishnamurti's Journal":
> > > > "One has to be a light to oneself ... To be a light to 
oneself is
> > not to
> > > > follow the light of another, however reasonable, logical,
> > historical, and
> > > > however convincing."
> > > >
> > > > Zack Lansdowne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> >
> >
> >