Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00444)

Morten,

As far as I can tell, your web page does not shed 
any light on what I have asked you.

I hope you will expand on it as you say:

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

Daniel


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