Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00442)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

A short answer is the following.
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/cults_1.htm
Read it carefully and try to understand, that
what we talk about relates to people of various levels of consciousness and
spiritual development of different natures.

I will if needed expand more on my views later on.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:27 AM
Subject: Theos-World Morten on Views that are "limited", "frozen",
"miserable", "old"


> I believe the following two paragraphs are entirely
> written by Morten:
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> "I have the hope, that you will realise if you not already
> do so, that the Cleather and Crump views are allright as
> far as they goes. But they are limited - and as my answering
> email http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html
> sort of says - that view is frozen in time.
> ---
> Today it is a misrable view, because it is so old, and do
> not deal with all of the Bailey books. More so we live in
> the year 2004, and things have indeed changed."
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am still puzzled by what Morten has written above.
>
> He apparently believes that the Cleather and Crump views
> on Bailey "are limited"....that their views about the
> Bailey book are "frozen in time".
>
> But I fail to understand exactly WHY they are limited. In comparison
> to what?? He fails to explain what he means by "frozen in time"
> and fails in my opinion to convey what he is offering as an
> alternative.
>
> Morten apparently goes on to say that the Cleather/Crump
> views on Bailey are "miserable" because they are so OLD.
>
> Again I fail to understand what is Morten's reasoning behind
> his characterizations of MISERABLE and OLD. Pray tell, what is
> NEW in contrast to what he labels as OLD??
>
> Again Morten writes:
>
> "More so we live in the year 2004, and things have indeed
> changed."
>
> WHAT HAS CHANGED? And WHAT HAS CHANGED that would render
> the Cleather/Crump critique invalid in 2004.
>
> In 2004 one can just as easily compare Bailey's teachings
> with Blavatsky's original presentation as was done decades
> ago by Crump and Cleather.
>
> I fail to understand what would be different today in 2004.
> And Morten does not give us any insight into what he
> is actually contending.
>
> It seems to me that Cleather and Crump were simply comparing
> the teachings of Bailey with those of Blavatsky and noting
> that there were distinct DIFFERENCES. I see those same
> DIFFERENCES in 2004.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>