Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00502)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

The following words are wellmeant and written out of compassion.

1.
Daniel wrote:
"Sufilight, I would suggest that you not
diss scholars all the time.  Sometimes
they know what they are talking about, other
times maybe not."

Why?
So that was where the shoe pinched, Sahib. :-)
Saying "Sometimes" like you do in the above will not make the
fact go away, that this word aught to be "very Seldom".
I think it is here the difference of Knowledge comes in to play.

If you in fact did read my words more carefully,
you will understand, that I value scholars, when they
do important compassionate efforts. But way too many are today
creating problems instead of alleviating them.
Pompous prestige and greed after money plays too important a role to
many scholars. Sure the "Jesuits" have always loved scholars,
when they were useful.
These are just my views.

2.
Friendly advices:
I am not saying that your own activities are fruitless
or just bad. You have in fact done quite well at least in part.
But, Please Never allow the Blavatskyarchives website and its various pages 
to give
the readers the overall impression that you are supporting a negative 
version
of The SPR and that you are the cats paw of the "jesuits", "Coulombs" and 
the like.
It might serve a purpose, to feed the intellect at the expense of the inner
organ of wisdom of the readers of your website - and yet again it might
NOT be so fruitful to do it to such an extend as Blavatskyarchives are doing 
it.
The latter part of the last sentence aught to be considered.
These are just my views.

3.
You are in your email assuming a whole lot about me being non-skeptical.
I think I am very skeptical about all and everything,
and that is one reason why I am a member of Theos-talk and write this email. 
:-)
Being skeptical can be done using scholary methods. It can also be done 
using
esoteric methods. We the Seekers after Truth perfer the esoteric methods.
We read the Akasha library or we seek to read it. We also read auras from 
time to time.
Scholars do nearly always not value these methods, and that is why we often 
disagree with them.
Some scholars are in fact serving the "jesuits" more than they are aware of. 
This also include scholars
being concerned with theosophy. And this should be no surprise, because the 
Vatican are dead against
our teachings, and have even officially stated it. They consider theosophy 
as the primary source
of modern New Age. I am sure that the "Jesuits" are trying to infiltrate the 
theosophical teachings.

The question is, whether, you, Daniel Caldwell are willing to do something 
to stop this infiltration ?


4.
Daniel wrote:
"Did I suggest that you should swallow it whole without
carefully examining the arguments given?"

Point taken. But yet again you did not warn any of the beginner seekers.
And because of that and because of your websites lack of compassion in its
navigation-structure, AND its heavy lack of a clear position against the 
"Jesuits"
I answered accordingly - to provoke a certain reaction within you.

Your website could with advantage add a section named something like
"About us" or "About the website" and at least carefully stating the purpose 
with the website, plus revealing the
position of yourself and those who help you. You are not really revealing 
your position on
the website, but you are doing it here at theos-talk.
This one on the website is very good though:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophicaltraditions.htm
Examples. The below links are confusing the motives with your website when 
reached through results of a Internet searchengine.
One reason being, that your website do not have an ordinary menu like others 
have:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/coulombmm1884.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/coulomb1884b.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hume1884.htm (Interesting "time-appropiate" 
view of master KH)


5.
Daniel wrote:
"Yes be skeptical of the Catholic Church's version of "truth,"
but don't trade one fiction for simply another fiction!"

We the Seekers after Truth are not only skeptical, we are dead somehow 
against
the "Jesuitic" activities, which are happening under the name of the
Catholic Church. I think that is an important difference in our views.
If you would more openly agree to oppose the "Jesuits" you
will help many Seekers after Truth. You could do that on your website.
It is a question about priorities.

Fiction or non-fiction:
Nobody says, that the scholars understand to provoke the theosophical
experience in people. They often provoke the rest of wisdom and spread a 
nightmare
of intellectual narrowmindeness. The poets open up wisdom in the readers.
What is important is the fact, that the book by Dan Brown is putting its
fingers at the fake and ugly truth about the "Jesuits" and the Vatican. 
Using Opus
Dei as a tool is of secondary importance.
The fact that the book contains faults when viewed from a theosophical and
non-scholary point of view has of course to be taken into account.


Yes, There is no Religion Higher Than Truth.
I do hope, that Master Morya will pay his respect and visit you today.

- - -
"This book," said the salesman, "will do half your work." "FINE," said Mulla 
Nasrudin. "I WILL TAKE TWO OF THEM."
- - -


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

<<<<<<< >>>>>>>
We, the theosophists don't plan to form an organization with somebody at the 
top and others
at the bottom collecting money or wearing funny clothes or converting people 
to theosophy.
We view theosophy not as an ideology that molds people to the right way of 
belief or action,
but as an art or science that can exert a beneficial influence on 
individuals or societies, in
accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies.

Instead of saying that Theosophy is a body of thought in which you believe 
certain things
and don't believe other things, we say that the theosophical experience has 
to be provoked
in a person. Once provoked, it becomes his own property, rather as a person 
masters an art.
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 3:55 AM
Subject: Theos-World Sufilight & Carlos Re: Truth and Fiction in The Da 
Vinci Code:


> Sufilight and Carlos:
>
> I love the Da Vinci Code and plan
> to see the movie.
>
> Of course the book itself is fiction.
>
> And I see it is generating alot of
> controversy which is good!
>
> http://www.variety.com/VR1117943021.html
>
> Sufilight, I would suggest that you not
> diss scholars all the time.  Sometimes
> they know what they are talking about, other
> times maybe not.
>
> But be as skeptical of non-scholars as you are of
> scholars!!!
>
> Just because someone may call himself/herself a mystic
> or esotericist, doesn't mean that you shouldn't
> be skeptical of their claims, etc.  Right?
>
> The following book about the Da Vinci Code is an excellent book:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/Ehrmanbibliography.htm#Vinci
>
> Did I suggest that you should swallow it whole without
> carefully examining the arguments given?
>
> Yes be skeptical of the Catholic Church's version of "truth,"
> but don't trade one fiction for simply another fiction!
>
> Remember that motto:
>
> There is no religion, belief, opinion, ism or ology higher than
> truth....
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
> > Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code:
> > A Historian Reveals What We Really Know
> > about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine
> > by Bart D. Ehrman
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/Ehrmanbibliography.htm#Vinci
> >
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links