Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00012)

It is nice you wrote Annie Beasnt, as you should know it is BESANT. 
Bye Christina







-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> 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@y...>
> 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/
> >
> >