Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00100)

Dear Jeremy and friends

Yes. And what is your point...?

Morya Feration and Lucis Trust are still a sectarian organisations is it not, despite the latter of them claims to be the opposite?

Alice A. Bailey wrote in her book "Problems of Humanity":
"The United Nations, through its Assembly and Committees, must be supported; there is as yet no other organization to which man can hopefully look. Therefore, he must support the United Nations but, at the same time, let this group of world leaders know what is needed."  
(Problems of Humanity. - AAB/DK. page 177.)
http://www.ngsm.org/aabdk/bk/problems/prob1070.html

And what edition of the book Problems of Humanity are we talking about here?
Is it the 1953 edition, the 1964 edition, or a later edition?
(http://www.ngsm.org/aabdk/bk/problems/prob1001.html)



M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremy Condick 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:45 PM
  Subject: RE: theos-talk RE; politics and various Quests of the ION


    

  "This is no mystical or impractical program; it does not work through the processes of exposing, undermining or attack; it emphasizes the 'new politics', i.e., 'politics which are based upon the principle of bringing about right human relations'. Between the exploited and the exploiting, the warmongers and the pacifists, the masses and the rulers, this group of men of goodwill will stand in their organized millions, taking no side, demonstrating no partisan spirit, fomenting no political or religious disturbance and feeding no hatreds. They will not be a negative body but a positive group, interpreting the meaning of right human relations, standing for the oneness of humanity and for practical, but not theoretical, brotherhood." Problems of Humanity. AAB/DK. 179. 

  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  > From: global-theosophy@1sjqCBZhpumeMvRwbgMRU9T12ZCP6YlSCxlga4VBYjIcOi9NkvF541yk_jnUoBmei5OCmYZYOyl82uOeLn2G0isQqkj-3VE.yahoo.invalid
  > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:21:06 +0200
  > Subject: Re: theos-talk RE; politics and various Quests of the ION
  > 
  > Dear Tom and friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > I wil ask the following questions:
  > What is it that you do not understand in the below definition?
  > 
  > Altruism is defined in many dictionaries using a similar definition as the following.
  > My ordinary definition runs like this: Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. 
  > And Selfishness is the opposite of Altruism.
  > 
  > The selfless aspect lies in the intent and motive behind what you are doing. Also with regard to what you eat or not eat, and when you do it. And with regard to anything you are doing or not doing.
  > 
  > Each person can only do his or her best in promoting altruism. 
  > 
  > Or are you there where you are saying to your self: 
  > I do not actually understand basic words in the English language?
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Tom Robertson 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:12 AM
  > Subject: Re: theos-talk RE; politics and various Quests of the ION
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight wrote:
  > 
  > >Dear Tom and friends
  > >
  > >My views are:
  > >
  > >Here is a short answer.
  > >
  > >Altruism is defined in many dictionaries.
  > >My ordinary definition runs like this: Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. 
  > >
  > >Altruism 
  > >(The opposite of Selfishness.)
  > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
  > >
  > >And Selfishness is also defined in the Wikipedia. You do know what selfishness is do you not? (smile.)
  > 
  > Not necessarily. It has many aspects to it, some of which I regard as
  > good. Isn't eating selfish? Cheating is also selfish, but one I'd
  > regard as generally good and the other as generally bad.
  > 
  > >What is altruism to one person is not altruism to another. The whole idea is to find out about what the above definition actual results in - when taken seriously. And how you understand the word and the definition. Se my previous post here at the forum.
  > 
  > I was reading it, but it was a little long for one sitting. I'll get
  > back to it later.
  > 
  > I was hoping you would give maybe 5 common examples of situations in
  > which an altruist and an egotist would behave significantly
  > differently in a way that would make the altruist look obviously
  > superior, spiritually, to the egotist.
  > 
  > >- - -
  > >I do not hope you begin to ask me about what the planet Earth is. Smile.
  > 
  > If, by that, you mean that the difference between altruism and
  > selfishness is necessarily clear, with one clearly always being good
  > and the other clearly always being bad, I might have to ask you what
  > Earth is!
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------------
  > 
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  > 
  > 
  > 


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]