Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00004)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hallo Netemara and all of you,
> 

Hi Morten,

You can challenge me or my views all you want. But my views and 
research are really a cover for what I have uncovered through 
spiritual and meditation revelations. These will be and have been 
given out in bits and pieces on my website. Now, the truth about 
this is buried in there somewhere. It is hidden in part because I 
hid it. But I have the okay to begin giving out this in detail and 
in no uncertain terms.

My work is cyclical and contains the truth based on lifetimes and 
thousands of years of destiny and not just the so-called now. We 
will never agree until and unless you come up to where I am and I 
will show you on the inside what the truth is about much of this--or 
as much of it as you can stand. The bottom line is the connection 
that we all have is more than we can bear.

Namaste

Netemara


> 
> My views are just views:
> 
> You have a different view than I have on the subject we email 
about.
> To disagree is what happens. We are learning.
> I know that you mean well and I think you know that I do so too.
> I have read the Alice A. Bailey books more than one time and have 
been a
> former member of a very pro-Bailey organisation.
> 
> Because of that - I offer the following method, which were used in 
the olden
> days - although not via email.
> Let us then exchange some emails (10-20 if needed) on the issue - 
and see if
> any of us can convince the other
> about what is the truth of the matter. I could be very fruitfull 
to all at
> this place.
> Agreed ? Do you accept the offer ?
> 
> I think the subject is important and deserves attention. 
Especially because
> of the degree of involvement Lucis Trust
> and other so-called branched Bailey groups has with the United 
Nations.
> 
> 
> Let me now answer your email.
> 
> Netemara wrote:
> "It is the Bailey trust which holds a great deal of influence over
> the U.N. whether you realize this or not I don't know."
> 
> My answer:
> Well, let us just suppose that this is true.
> Then it is no wonder why they (U.N.) are so silent as they are 
about the
> killing of a lot of muslims
> these days. Without anyone saying anything or making any real 
protest I find
> it all very problematic.
> 
> As an answer to the quoted Bailey view on the stated fact that 
Mohammedanism
> was a hybrid offshoot
> and no real religion when compared with Christianity -
> Netemara wrote :
> - "Yes, that's true based on my research about its foundation."
> 
> My answer:
> I disagree. it is based on YOUR own research.
> But others certainly have a quite different opintion than you and 
with good
> reason.
> If they have, have you then ever wondered why ?
> Do you truely and honestly expect a muslim audience to fall for 
that opinion
> of yours ?
> Do you at all have a clue to why such a view is or could be false 
and why
> Bailey wrote the words she did ?
> 
> Just because Blavatsky did'nt touch much upon that religion and 
culture for
> obvious reasons - Bailey
> saw it fitting to transform it into a "hybrid offshoot". I find 
this
> distastefull.
> And Baileys writings are one of the reasons why Blavatsky-related 
Theosophy
> is where it is today.
> Bailey has had success in damaging the TRUE theosophical cause 
(the wisdom
> tradition) by for instance remarks like the one
> we talk about here. But true, NO spiritual evolution happens 
without
> resistence and opposition on this level of the seven scheme-a-s.
> As it is written in the below Blavatsky didn't write much on the 
Middle
> Eastern teachings because not many
> scriptures were transleated at her time of writing. Even Mrs. 
Kingsford's
> attempt on "Asclepios" has faults,
> which Blavatsky also points out.
> 
> It is a wellknown and accepted fact, that even Blavatsky's version 
of The
> Secret Doctrine was written with an western audience in mind.
> (I am not alone in that view. Many later theosophists are agreeing 
to that.)
> And still - you Netemara appearntly holds the view, that the Alice 
A. Bailey
> writings are suited to a Middle Eastern audience !
> Is that really honestly your view ?
> I find such a view totally wrong.
> 
> I only stated my views in my previous email. What I know about the 
future is
> a view - not a claim.
> But if you think that about one billion Muslims will follow the 
teachings of
> the "hybrid offshoot" - then I think you are way too far out.
> Of course if you killed them, and then invaded the countries you 
might reach
> success, but that is a very bad idea.
> 
> 
> If you - really - want to learn, and are not too filled with 
emotion, then
> read the below.
> 
> We have from the Secret Doctrine the following - which tells their 
tales on
> the use of the English language and esoteric teachings:
> 
> 1. The following has to do with Hermes - Pymander - Taken from 
Vol. 1, Page
> 288 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> 
> "This is quite consistent with the Vedantic teaching. The leading 
thought is
> Occult; and many are the passages in the Hermetic Fragments that 
belong
> bodily to the Secret Doctrine.
> The latter teaches that the whole universe is ruled by intelligent 
and
> semi-intelligent Forces and Powers, as stated from the very 
beginning.
> Christian Theology admits and even enforces belief in such, but 
makes an
> arbitrary division and refers to them as "Angels" and "Devils." 
Science
> denies the existence of such, and ridicules the very idea. 
Spiritualists
> believe in the Spirits of the Dead, and, outside these, deny 
entirely any
> other kind or class of invisible beings. The Occultists and 
Kabalists are
> thus the only rational expounders of the ancient traditions, which 
have now
> culminated in dogmatic faith on the one hand, and dogmatic denials 
on the
> other. For, both belief and unbelief embrace but one small corner 
each of
> the infinite horizons of spiritual and physical manifestations; 
and thus
> both are right from
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> ----
> 
> [[Vol. 1, Page]] 288 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> their respective standpoints, and both are wrong in believing that 
they can
> circumscribe the whole within their own special and narrow 
barriers; for -- 
> they can never do so. In this respect Science, Theology, and even
> Spiritualism show little more wisdom than the ostrich does, when 
it hides
> its head in the sand at its feet, feeling sure that there can be 
thus
> nothing beyond its own point of observation and the limited area 
occupied by
> its foolish head.
> 
> As the only works now extant upon the subject under consideration 
within
> reach of the profane of the Western "civilized" races are the
> above-mentioned Hermetic Books, or rather Hermetic Fragments, we 
may
> contrast them in the present case with the teachings of Esoteric 
philosophy.
> To quote for this purpose from any other would be useless, since 
the public
> knows nothing of the Chaldean works which are translated into 
Arabic and
> preserved by some Sufi initiates. Therefore the "Definitions of 
Asclepios,"
> as lately compiled and glossed by Mrs. A. Kingsford, F.T.S., some 
of which
> sayings are in remarkable agreement with the Esoteric Eastern 
doctrine, have
> to be resorted to for comparison. Though not a few passages show a 
strong
> impression of some later Christian hand, yet on the whole the
> characteristics of the genii* and gods are those of eastern 
teachings, while
> concerning other things there are passages which differ widely in 
our
> doctrines." ( http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-13.htm )
> 
> 
> 
> 2. - Taken from Vol. 1, Page 269 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> "SUMMING UP.
> "The History of Creation and of this world from its beginning up 
to the
> present time is composed of seven chapters. The seventh chapter is 
not yet
> written."
> (T. Subba Row, Theosophist, 1881.)
> THE first of these Seven chapters has been attempted and is now 
finished.
> However incomplete and feeble as an exposition, it is, at any 
rate, an
> approximation -- using the word in a mathematical sense -- to that 
which is
> the oldest basis for all the subsequent Cosmogonies. The attempt 
to render
> in a European tongue the grand panorama of the ever periodically 
recurring
> Law -- impressed upon the plastic minds of the first races endowed 
with
> Consciousness by those who reflected the same from the Universal 
Mind -- is
> daring, for no human language, save the Sanskrit -- which is that 
of the
> Gods -- can do so with any degree of adequacy. But the failures in 
this work
> must be forgiven for the sake of the motive." ( [[Vol. 1, Page]] 
269 THE
> FIRST CHAPTER OF CREATION.)
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-13.htm (The ULT 
version is
> similar on this issue.)
> 
> 3. - Taken from Vol. 1, Page 299 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> "So much from the astronomical and cosmic standpoints viewed and 
expressed
> in symbolical language -- which became in our last races 
theological and
> dogmatic."
> 
> ---
> 
> All that said, I think I agree with you, that the Alice A. Bailey 
books
> today and through the last few decades have had a great pull on the
> Newcomers minds -
> the newcomers, which have begun their quest for knowledge and 
wisdom. Today
> many can read intellectual books and do so. At Blavatskys time of 
writing it
> was different. The intellectuals then was of a different 
background and was
> not as many as today. The - "pull" is what is important. Because 
TS has not
> experienced the same "pull". But the more wise among the Bailey's 
sometimes
> later become members at one of the TS groups.
> 
> Even so the Brainwashing methodology wasn't related to then and 
neither at
> Baileys time, when she was writing her books. The theories of 
brainwashing
> and New Age - really first saw the light from 1950'ies and 
1960'ies with
> Flower Power (-- "peace and love" --- smile...) and the acceptance 
of the
> science of psychology.
> 
> The difference of "believing" what you read and really "knowing by 
wisdom"
> what you read are - huge. And many newcomers falls prey to this 
obstacle.
> Because they are used to believeing and not knowing. Because of 
that the
> Alice A. Bailey writings has had many followers of the - 
superficial kind.
> Followers, which are not really interested in wisdom "Atma-Vidya", 
but who
> are interested in - New Age, astral energies, social tribalism, or 
social
> tea, talk and gossip.
> They truely act like the Fox Mulder poster says "I want to 
believe". It is
> so fitting a sentence, and can very well be related to the many 
newcomers at
> the Bailey organisations.
> 
> They get attracted to various organisations and groups. One day it 
is the
> local Bailey group. another day it is the local Hare Krishna, 
Gurdjieff or
> Scientology etc.
> They don't really know - how to learn, and at what group they 
really are
> able to learn if at any of the mentioned.
> The massmedias influence - today - on the newcomers minds are 
imense and
> shouldn't be underestimated by any - theosophist or Bailey-ist.
> The massmedias influence has to be related to when promoting - the 
wisdom
> teachings - no matter what book one prefers to throw at the 
newcomer as a
> sort of new pet-Bible.
> 
> That is why I find, that the Bailey books are not suited to the 
present
> activities, which are going on in The Middle East.
> Others says - great ! Bailey is cool - and that it is just the 
Shamballa
> force which are doing its job destroying the Middle Eastern 
culture - i.e.
> the Hybrid offshoot !
> It is just justice - karma and what ever - which are happening, 
and that a
> any muslim is a terrorist. And if not, he or she will problably be 
so
> tomorrow - or else the children will. This is what is really going 
on in
> some Bailey circles. Some readers might disagree. But facts are 
facts !
> 
> Because of these facts - I have a strong tendency to be carefull 
about
> promoting the Bailey books as a pet-Bible to anyone.
> 
> I know, that Netemara has a quite different view than I am 
painting in the
> above.
> And I respect that as far as non-violence are followed. But there 
are limits
> to what I want to promote - year 2003.
> 
> The "astral body" scheme appearnly invented by Blavatsky - has its 
origins
> from the Perisa-India area of the Khwajagan Sufis (also called the 
Master
> Sufis. Kwhajagan = Master). The sufis Naqshbandi Order are their 
ancestors.
> These sufis are the followers of the Avatar doctrine of the master 
Khidr or
> Kizr - also known as The Green Guide. (This figure are mentioned 
in the
> Quran) !!!
> 
> 
> 
> What do you the reader think about all of this ???
> I have done my best.
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/