Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00009)

Hallo Netemara and all of you,

My views are:

Allright then Netemara, let us suppose that you are that wise as your below
email wants the readers to believe.

Then please answer me:
How do you learn how to learn ?

If you can't answer this throughly - you will never learn ¨
me and others anything.

To Netemara:
Do you give out a teaching, which is not adapted towards
time, place and people ?
Or do you give out a teaching, which further - culturally - conditions the
minds of the Seekers after Wisdom and Truth ?
Do your versions of the Wisdom teachings give
the aspirant a world view ?
--- A world view was what Blavatsky recommended nothing less ! ---

As long as the Middle East with its rich symbolical and esoterical teachings
are being trampled on in the name of western prejudice about this culture -
by some pet-Bible books of a nature which is swarmed by Christian
vocabulary, (books written by Alice A. Bailey and a supposed 5th initiate),
how can anyone justify such teachings as being valid theosophy and giving
the Seekers
after Wisdom and Truth a WORLD VIEW ???
Please answer Netemara. What are your view on this ???

To the readers:
Try digesting the book "The People of the Secret" by Ernest Scott.
This is Middle Eastern theosophy - and certainly not the same as what
Netemara is
offering you as far as I am concerned.

To answer a request from another email:
The spiritual function of the TS is according to Bailey - that
further revelation will happen. The secret doctrine is no Bible.
Bailey also said that The Secret Doctrine came from a higher source than the
books she wrote togehter with the one she calls D.K.
At Baileys time of writing she saw her (and D.K.'s books) as the tip
of the iceberg to the new coming generations in the west (and most certainly
not
in the Middle East). She wanted her books mixed with Blavatskys writings to
be
THE teaching of theosophy - and that the teachings of CWL and Annie Beasnt
should be thrown somwhere in the trashcan.
SHE recognized however, that they may crystalllize - and that they then
should be
adtaped or changed.

(The Unfinished Autobiography).

--- And Netemara this were you fail as far as your emailing goes. You
do not regocnize that Bailey's teachings already are crystallizing. ---

Please tell me if you disagree Netemara - and where the disagreement are.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "netemara888" <netemara888@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: What about the VISIT made to the Golden Temple


> --- 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/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>