Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00191)

You used Bailey as an example of subtle mind control. Go check
Cass



>________________________________
>From: Duane Carpenter <monad_monad_monad@rqvJMuY0egW0hN9cfuCXZNaRb5kSGuEO_MuvHrOAjWLGsPtTAkQHGErJvBIfkv36koWikQ5evByR0ICv_L4RPu_MVSCY.yahoo.invalid>
>To: "theos-talk@yahoogroups.com" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 11:07 PM
>Subject: theos-talk My God is better than your God - Chapter 2
>
>
>Â 
>Sufilight asks:
>Where and in which article have I written anything in the previous mail in this thread which denigrates Alice A. Bailey?
>To answer your question Sufilight let's not forget how you denigrate Christianity directly and by proxy also!
>Sufilight:Â ÂKrishnamurti said:
>" I wonder if you realize that the word 'skepticism', questioning, enquiring, is not advocated in the Christian world. Whereas in Buddhism, and Hinduism, that is one of the essential things, you must question everything, until you discover or come upon that truth, which is not yours, or any others, it is truth."
>DC says: ÂIn Gnostic Christianity which is the esoteric side of the Christian contribution to world religions 'skepticism', questioning, enquiring, is advocated. If you go to any Asian country and look at their exoteric religion practices you will see the same dogmatism and distortions that you find in Exoteric Christianity.
>Your criticism Sufilight to undermine the importance of the Christian contribution Âis misplaced by comparing the non-esoteric teachings of Christianity to the esoteric teachings of other Esoteric groups.
>To support the endless historical arguments that "my teachings are better or more advanced than yours" individuals and groups take the esoteric teachings found in their group and compare it to the superficial, non-esoteric teachings of other groups claiming they are a perversion of the real truth.
>This Sufilight you do consistently with much of what you write about Christianity.
>Who can argue with the great words of HPB and many of the things she has written that you quote.
>You clearly take her statements out of the original context in which they were written and use them to support or buttress your erroneous arguments. As I have said in years past Sufilight you need to resign as Âgeneral manager of what is theosophy and what is not theosophy. You have some obvious prejudices that are not too deeply veiled and clearly surface the more you write and share on these subjects.
>The real truth is that each religion has an esoteric side and an exoteric side. Your agenda Sufilight is more in the nature of discrediting orthodox Christianity because you could see HPB do it and you have never penetrated any deeper into Christianity than its superficial dogmas. ÂThe quote I recently supplied by HPB clearly indicates she adds Christianity as an important contributor to ÂThe Secret Doctrine. 
>
>Sufilight says:
>It is much more precisely a question about 'skepticism', questioning, enquiring, --- something not used much in the Western countries and not among Christians. COMPARATIVE STUDYING was and is after all one of the main aims of the Theosophical Society. An aim which the Alice A. Bailey group seek to throw away by promoting Lucis Trust and their other groups.
>And it is also a question about whether any Theosophical groups or esoteric groups or sects use Subtle Mind Control.
>Studying (without having "shouted" a Great Invocation into your ears everyday), and a sect seemingly promoting you to be non-scientific about life.
>This is an obvious 
>
>M. Sufilight
>The latest development I sense is that more and more Alice A. Bailey followers now - openly - admit that the Alice A. Bailey books was given - in a more down to earth version while ignoring the words by Blavatsky: "nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of men in general." (E.S.T.S. Instruction No. I --- http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbes1extract.htm) And also the admissions that Alice A. Bailey's own books - especially - contain distorted outlet compared to the esoteric teachings. But the books written in collaboration with the one AAB called Master D.K. also contain quite a number of distortions as I see it. So to sidetrack it all like some Alice A. Bailey followers do, by saying that it only was in AAB's own books distortions crept in, is not quite enough as I see it. - However I find these admissions to be an improvement on their part. --- I am looking forward
>to that they also recognize that the science of Psychology and especially the science on Subtle Mind Control should be given their RIGHTFUL PLACES - in the present times we have year 2011 woman morally speaking, not necessarily to support a so-called system - which is viewed in a limited manner." 
>DC: If these previous statements are not a criticism of AAB works ÂI do not know what is.
>Your statement in this previous passage"
>"Alice A. Bailey followers now - openly - admit that the Alice A. Bailey books was given - in a more down to earth" 
>DC: Did I not indicate in my last post that predictably Sufilight that you would seize that quote I conveniently supplied to about DK giving his teachings for the west a Christian influence and that it would not only be misunderstnd by you but it would be taken Âout of the deeper contexts in which it was originally written.
>You have once again Sufilight taken DK teachings via AAB on the Christ Âout of its greater and more esoteric contexts. This is one more assumption made by you and is entirely untrue. AAB teachings speak of the Christ principal having a physical counterpart historically to reach the greatest number of people. This happened with the Buddha in Buddhism Hinduism with Lord Krishna I don't see you criticizing them.
>I regret that you didn't join the Morya University of Esoteric Schools years ago when I suggested they could help you clarify some of these Âquestions you keep outlining.
>DC
>
>From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@6AFUUMOUAxUYYBlAEUZAIh2A2QOxAOMxn3jUf4EKqL4vvR-iffdi2JUMQA3r5gHhCjaVq6QEJJKEapKEekhy_VJR3g.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:40 AM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>
>Â 
>Dear Cass and friends
>
>My views are:
>
>I asked you a question in my previous post or email:
>Do you want my own version more precisely or just some names so to study it some more?
>
>Where and in which article have I written anything in the previous mail in this thread which denigrates Alice A. Bailey?
>If you know about Subtle Mind Control, you might have a different view than I have. What I was opposing was more precisely Lucis Trust with regard to Subtle Mind Control and their lack of relationship with this science and the importance it has. And also Alice A. Bailey's books lack on the same. I was merely pointing it out - so to alleviate suffering - and - not with the attempt of denigrating Alice A. Bailey as a person.
>
>The link to the below post given in my previous post or email in this thread contains more info about Subtle Mind Control.
>
>Here it is again:
>### SUBTLE MIND CONTROL - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ###
>"- Interestingly we do not find much info about this science among esoteric and theosophical groups or any religious groups or New Age group these days. And this might be a surprise to some readers. Yet it is not so to ordinary psychologists and those who have walked a bit further ahead scientifically speaking, as far as I know. These are however just my views, which I offer to the you as readers in these times of ours. - The model given by Steve Hassan can be compared with other well-known Exit Counsellors and authors on the subject. Such well-known Exit-counsellors and psychologists like Magareth Singer, Robert J. Lifton, Edgar Schein, Kurt Lewin and Willam Sargant, and even the sufi Idries Shah. And it will be found that there are many similarities between these authors and models, and their views about what some call subtle Mind Control." 
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/56907
>
>M. Sufilight
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Cass Silva 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:12 AM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>
>With respect, but this article is not concerned about what subtle mind control is, but a vehicle to denigrate Alice Bailey. 
>To say that Alice Bailey's used a method of subtle mind control without indicating how this method was employed is not verification but opinion - yours.
>
>Cass
>
>>________________________________
>>From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@6AFUUMOUAxUYYBlAEUZAIh2A2QOxAOMxn3jUf4EKqL4vvR-iffdi2JUMQA3r5gHhCjaVq6QEJJKEapKEekhy_VJR3g.yahoo.invalid>
>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 12:41 AM
>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>
>>
>> 
>>Dear Cass
>>
>>My views are:
>>
>>Do you want my own version more precisely or just some names so to study it some more?
>>
>>I recently the 25th of October 2011 posted about the issue here at Theos-talk....
>>
>>Here is the link to it:
>>### SUBTLE MIND CONTROL - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ###
>>"- Interestingly we do not find much info about this science among esoteric and theosophical groups or any religious groups or New Age group these days. And this might be a surprise to some readers. Yet it is not so to ordinary psychologists and those who have walked a bit further ahead scientifically speaking, as far as I know. These are however just my views, which I offer to the you as readers in these times of ours. - The model given by Steve Hassan can be compared with other well-known Exit Counsellors and authors on the subject. Such well-known Exit-counsellors and psychologists like Magareth Singer, Robert J. Lifton, Edgar Schein, Kurt Lewin and Willam Sargant, and even the sufi Idries Shah. And it will be found that there are many similarities between these authors and models, and their views about what some call subtle Mind Control." 
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/56907
>>
>>In the above link I also wrote a short version on what Subtle Mind Control is as far as I with my own words understand it and want others to know about it.
>>
>>____________
>>
>>The truth is that before man can know his own inadequacy, or the competence of another man or institution, he must first learn something which will enable him to perceive both. Note well that his perception itself is a product of right study; not of instinct or emotional attraction to the individual, nor yet of desiring to 'go it alone'. This is 'Learning How To Learn.' " 
>>
>>M. Sufilight
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: Cass Silva 
>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>>Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:27 AM
>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>
>>What do you specifically mean by subtle mind control?
>>Cass
>>
>>>________________________________
>>>From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@6AFUUMOUAxUYYBlAEUZAIh2A2QOxAOMxn3jUf4EKqL4vvR-iffdi2JUMQA3r5gHhCjaVq6QEJJKEapKEekhy_VJR3g.yahoo.invalid>
>>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 9:27 PM
>>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>Dear Cass and friends
>>>
>>>My views are:
>>>
>>>There might be no difference at all. And there might be.
>>>The central issue, as I see it, is what are the difference between having a knowledge about the science on Subtle Mind Control and understanding the difference between sectarian and non-sectarian behavior, and conditioning versus non-conditioning, and how subtle sectarian influence might mind control the individual etc. etc. --- versus --- following a sectarian belief, which effectively are conditioning your thought-patterns, inducing cultural bias, even promotes a belief in the masters and a thousand other things compared to totally free comparative non-sectarian studying (without having "shouted" a Great Invocation into your ears everyday), and a sect seemingly promoting you to be non-scientific about life.
>>>
>>>M. Sufilight
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: Cass Silva 
>>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>>>Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:47 AM
>>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>>
>>>What difference does it matter which path one takes as they are only stepping stones to discovering the truth for ourselves.
>>>Cass
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>>From: Jeremy Condick <jpcondick2011@y4_SJiikdezOrC3I_sV5jwiZsPc6tkPlG0dsrlz1jJrxU_uVrwwNnygVDPEIwc6v4A_8Jx1XdhsI3nvuePQ.yahoo.invalid>
>>>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:33 AM
>>>>Subject: RE: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>"If an organisation are having a leader or a group of leaders (often with its own leader as well) - who forwards a doctrine or teachings given by one single author or just a uniform doctrine - ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS - of its organisation - then we are in truth talking about a sectarian organisation." 
>>>>
>>>>JPC: The Lucis Trust offers study of a number of books. Namely, The Alice Bailey books, The Secret Doctrine, Isis Unveiled and other theosophical material, and the books of Helena Roerich' Agni Yoga. There is an extensive lending library of miscellaneous old and hard to find books by numerous authors, and also a continuous study of other authors works more contempary relating to science, philosophy and other subjects. The scope is very extensive indeed and does not adhere to one single author. 
>>>>
>>>>It is non Political insofar as it does not promote one party over another or take part in contempary party politics. It is working for right human relations and the spreading of goodwill and cooperates with those who also work for the same in so far as they are able, no matter what party political persuasion they may or may not personally have. Students are not accepted according to political leanings and personal politics are not entered into. 
>>>>
>>>>The UN is seen as the best chance humanity has of discussing or resolving international problems. Whether it works or has corruption has no bearing on the overall objective of seeking world harmony. This is a ideal to work towards and may as yet be imperfect as so much in life is today or ever has been. Right human relations are worked towards and this is the philosophy of the teachings. 
>>>>
>>>>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>> From: global-theosophy@6AFUUMOUAxUYYBlAEUZAIh2A2QOxAOMxn3jUf4EKqL4vvR-iffdi2JUMQA3r5gHhCjaVq6QEJJKEapKEekhy_VJR3g.yahoo.invalid
>>>>> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:19:22 +0200
>>>>> Subject: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear friends
>>>>> 
>>>>> My views are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry about this lengthy relpy. But It seems from where I stand important to cover the subject as clearly as possible without writing a whole book about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now as a Seeker after Truth and Wisdom and seeking to promote altruism, I often seek comparative studying so to avoid a narrowminded or sectarian out-look upon life.
>>>>> And I am also in the below seeking to show some of the problems and issues so to speak which our present time year 2011 are facing compared with the past with regard to the non-sectarian Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891, and before it changed and became more or less sectarian after the year 1910. My study will focus on whether the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891 was political or sectarian - and - on whether the very widespread esoteric mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A. Bailey followers are sectarian or non-sectarian, as well as political or non-political in their activities.
>>>>> I do this because there seem to be a great deal of confusion with regard to how the word "sectarian" is defined and what it implies or can imply. Other definitions than the one given by me in the below might be useful. But I seek to stick to the present day scientists and their definition of the word "sectarian". And this I think cannot be unimportant. Further it is also well-known that the word "political" have many definitions attached to it. I do hope however that my words in the below are sufficient to cover the aspects involved in the presentation I have forwarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 
>
>

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