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

Re: Re[2]: Theos-World: Trust 1

Jan 18, 2003 07:13 PM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Hi James and all of you,

Thanks for your email.

Part 1:

My views:
My first remark is, why didn't you answer my questions in the earliere email

You say that I am attacking Bailey. That is to me a lie.
I am not up to any negative agenda. I just want peace on this Planet ! Is
that wrong ?
My agenda is to help humanity - including the Middle East - to get peace.
Rethink your statement please, I urge you to do that.
The truth is, I believe, that you - feel - attacked your self. And why ?
I don't really know, so I ask, so you, I and others might learn.
Honestly: I am just debating and putting forward my views (i.e. they are
only views - being emailed) on theosophy as such and Bailey, and stating
where I think the books are wrong -
AND especially where I think - the pro-Bailey groups are wrong.
There is no attack. There is a debate !
If debating and exchanging of views are viewed as an attack, well when is
debating then possible - at Theos-Talk ?

But isn't it so, that CERTAIN pro-Bailey groups, which are politically
involved at The United Nations
- in the manner they are -
do - somewhat - plagiarize the ancient wisdom teachings of all ages and also
the work done by Blavatsky ?
Havn't I shown that in recent emails ?
It is some pro-Bailey groups use of PR whereby they create - a flat
rejection of The Middle Eastern culture without any reason whatsoever, which
is a problem, morally speaking.

The times are changing. The world is now a small world - with fast
transporation and communication.
The Middle East is not so far away anymore.

Why not answer my questions put forward in my last email to you ?

I wrote to P. Lindsay: "My point on this is mentioned in my latest email to
James Davis.

a) The Bailey books are not a balanced multicultural presentation on
b) The Bailey books leans heavily towards a Chrisitan outlook unto the
world. The consequences of this will show up in the present information
c) The Middle East is hardly mentioned in the books, but the Christian
religion gets a whole lot of coverage.
d) The books were NOT intended for a Middle Eastern audience. Today
communication is rapid - due to the Internet. The audience is different
e) Bailey groups are connected with work at The United Nations,
f) Because of that they are politically involved, and that on an
international level.
h) This is today one of the problems the books of Bailey creates in TODAYS
international information society, where there are clearly visible political
tensions between the Western politicians and The Middle Eastern ones.

Agreed ?
If not, why ?"

And James: Why is there no answer coming to these questions ? Is the truth a
problem ?

Remember both Bailey and Blavatsky agrees, that - one must be ready "to
accept demonstrated truth."

The above is taken from "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" 1925; Alice A. Bailey, p

Now I have one more time put my views pure and simple.
I am not talking about attack - but about a debate on, where are the planet
today, where are theosophy as such today on this plnaet, and what is going
on at The United Nations where theosophical or pro-Bailey groups are
involved ! (I believe James answer was something like: "I don't like the
Catholic Church". Allright, but that is to miss the point I am making.
Because I sometimes ask questions it doesn't simply imply, that I am
ignorant. I do hope you will understand that.)
And that is that.

Feel free to comment...or do your best....or...refrain from debating...
It is the readers one is attacking anyone or forcing anyone...
If so let me know.

M. Sufilight with peace on earth...and...peace to the overlooked people at
The Middle East...

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Davis" <>
To: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:21 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Theos-World: Trust

> MNO> So where is Lucis Trust going?
> In a world where communication is mediated it seems best to be
> especially cautious about criticizing the works of fellow humans. But
> even supposing that there is some basis for such criticism, it misses
> the point. The horrific transgressions of the Catholic church are
> not relevant material for evaluating the message of Christ, anymore
> than some sad chapters in Theosophical history are the touchstone of
> the words of HPB. Just so, an attack on Lucis Trust, even if it had
> some merit, is not a good use of time--not if one wants to understand
> either the letter or spirit of AAB in comparison with Blavatsky.
> Best Light,
> James
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

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