Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00501)

Hi James Davis and all of you,

Thanks for your wellmeant email.
Mine is also wellmeant.

Just to let you know:
I have to say, that you didn't answer - d) - in the below.
Was this a coincidence ? (Maybe - and maybe not. Maybe the uncounscious part
of you got allergic. >:-))

My views and questions on the below a) to f):

a) :
What has this question of mine to do with Blavatsky ?
I belong to the wisdom tradition, I do not recognize any books as
authorities.
When I quote different authors, it is just to make a point of view.
(Theosophy is the ancient wisdom tradition of all ages.)

My question is,
- is it not so, that the Bailey books are not a balanced multicultural
presentation on Theosophy ?
True ?

b) and c) :

To me: Your below answer reveals a morally cultural bias towards the Middle
East. But I could of course be wrong. How can one at present call one self,
at true theosophist, while one is engaged in supporting - the build up of
tensions between the Middle East and the West - january 2003 ? This happens
either directly knowingly or indirectly.
You can claim all that you want, that some of the pro-Bailey groups at the
United Nations has either a neutral stance in the matter or that they want
peace as well.
My view: The truth is, the books of Bailey and ESPECIALLY the PR and
teachings of the mentioned pro-Bailey groups are creating support for more
build up of tensions. This because of the use of vocabulary ("Christ here,
Christ there, and God...etc.", whereas they have never heard of "Kidhr or
Allah". ) Do you understand me ?
But this is just my humble view. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Alice A. Bailey: Esoteric Psychology vol1. p. 167: The Muslim faith is here
declared as being a hybrid offshot of Christianity. (
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/psychology1/psyc1050.html )
Bailey is no good, when we talk about this quote. That is the truth.
What is your view ?

Maybe you and other pro-Baileys like crass materialism comming true at The
United Nations.
But certainly 1.000.000.000 muslims will think quite differently - about
your own and some pro-Baileys version of and emphasis on "Christ" and also
the use of very same word - in the present information society.
What is your view ?

I hold it to be true, that the PR of yours and the pro-Bailey groups at
United Nations are bad 'music' so to speak,
when they also support, the "hybrid offshot version".
What is your view ?

Yes if "he" wasn't so phallic in "his" tone of voice, then it would be
helpfull to us all.
What is your view ?

d) :
The books were NOT intended for a Middle Eastern audience. Today
communication is rapid - due to the Internet. The audience is different
today. Some people living in The Middle East and have ties with The United
Nations are also connected to the Internet.
True ? If not Why ?

e) :
Yes yes. But isn't it true that the very same leading figures at the
pro-Bailey groups working at The United Nations are given support and a
certain kind of (well maybe unwanted and maybe not unwanted) authority by
the very same beginners among their - sort of herd ?
Do they not have more influence, than the ordinary members. Are they not
those who edit the websites on the Internet, and decides, what the newcomers
should read or not ?

It is quite fake to say, that there are no leading figures and a PR-agenda
attached to these pro-Bailey groups at The United Nations.
True ?

Even so your version of the Christ dares to call the muslims faith something
like a "hybrid offshot of the Chrisitian faith".
That Christ-version I will not follow and support.
Kidhr must be better. >:-)

f):
James Davis wrote:
"The
> presence of authoritative statements, emanating from the teacher of
> the group, or any demand upon his part for recognition, or for the
> unquestioning obedience and loyalty of his followers marks him out as
> a beginner and as simply an aspirant - well-meaning and with good
> intention. It indicates that he is not a disciple, charged with the
> work of the Hierarchy." Alice Bailey - Autobiography

My view:
Agreed. (Though - "he" and "his". But what about the girls ? >:-) A smile to
the girls.)
Else that is exactly, what some of the figures and heads at the United
Nations pro-Bailey groups forgets !
And because of that, we have at present a building up of tensions between
the West and The Middle East being - either directly or more commen
indirectly supported by these pro-Bailey groups.
So Bailey is not always that bad, you see?


Else allright. Maybe my use of words not always has been the best.
You should just know. I do care. And am at least not without a heart.
It is sort of sad, when people communicate past each other, no ?

After you James Davis and/or any pro-Bailey inspired at Theos-Talk have
answered these above questions.
I will let this debate to rest for a while.

Feel free to comment or do your best....


from
M. Sufilight with peace on earth...







----- Original Message -----
From: "James Davis" <james@bookreader.org>
To: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re[4]: Theos-World: Essential Unity


>
> MNO> Hi James and all of you,
> MNO> Thanks for your email.
>
> MNO> My first remark is, why didn't you answer my questions in the
earliere email
> MNO> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10564
>
> In my case, part of it was in this earlier post of mine:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10593
>
>
> MNO> a) The Bailey books are not a balanced multicultural presentation on
> MNO> Theosophy.
>
> How is HPB's Theosophy balanced in a manner that contrasts with
> ageless wisdom as expressed in the AAB books?
>
> MNO> b) The Bailey books leans heavily towards a Chrisitan outlook
> MNO> unto the world. The consequences of this will show up in the
> MNO> present information society.
>
> MNO> c) The Middle East is hardly mentioned in the books, but the
Christian
> MNO> religion gets a whole lot of coverage.
>
> Its true the writings are not addressed to exoteric religions of the
> East, and they are also not addressed to "Christians" or other
> religions of the West.
>
> Of course, the Bailey works are contrary to orthodox Christianity, and
> just as in HPB's case, they were and are subject to heavy attacks by
> churcheanity. They are strongly supportive of the essence of Christ
> (love and brotherhood). Though much is addressed to a Western
> audience and its problems, in essence, the writings are
> inter-dominational and, like Theosophy, recognizes the essential unity
> of all religions. Yes a key preeminence is given to "Christ," not the
> Christ of chruchmen, but an avatar in the esoteric sense, and the
> current central figure in the Hierarchy of Light.
>
> "He has been for two thousand years the supreme Head of the Church
> Invisible, the spiritual Hierarchy, composed of disciples of all
> faiths. He recognizes and loves those who are not Christian but who
> retain their allegiance to their Founders - the Buddha, Mohammed, and
> others. He cares not what the faith is, if the objective is love of
> God and of humanity. If men look for the Christ Who left His disciples
> centuries ago they will fail to recognize the Christ Who is in
> process of returning. The Christ has no religious barriers in His
> consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith a man may call
> himself." Externalization of Hierarchy
>
>
> MNO> e) Bailey groups are connected with work at The United Nations,
> MNO> Headquarters.
>
> MNO> f) Because of that they are politically involved, and that on an
> MNO> international level.
>
> Bailey/D.K. makes many references to the importance of the United
> Nations. There is no specific or explicit agenda or command as to
> what readers should do with the information. What readers do (badly,
> well, or in between) with great writings is their personal
> responsibility. This may provide some perspective and clarification:
>
> "An esoteric school is not founded upon authority or on the demand of
> some teacher for recognition and obedience. It is not based on the
> claims of some usually mediocre person to be an initiate and, because
> of his status, authorized to speak with dogmatic emphasis. The only
> authority recognized is that of truth itself, intuitively perceived
> and then subjected to the mental analysis and interpretation of the
> disciple. The disciple who (working under some one of, the Masters)
> starts an esoteric school has absolutely no authority, except that of
> a life lived as close to the truth as possible, plus the measure of
> truth which he can present to his group. The obedience developed in
> his group of students is that of recognizing joint responsibility,
> united loyalty to group intention and purpose, as indicated by the
> group leader (suggested by him and not presented as a command). The
> presence of authoritative statements, emanating from the teacher of
> the group, or any demand upon his part for recognition, or for the
> unquestioning obedience and loyalty of his followers marks him out as
> a beginner and as simply an aspirant - well-meaning and with good
> intention. It indicates that he is not a disciple, charged with the
> work of the Hierarchy." Alice Bailey - Autobiography
>
> MNO> And James: Why is there no answer coming to these questions? Is
> MNO> the truth a problem?
>
> I answer what I have time for, which is why I suggested simplicity and
> a thoughtful focus on one thing at a time.
>
> MNO> Now I have one more time put my views pure and simple. I am not
> MNO> talking about attack - but about a debate on, where are the
> MNO> planet today, where are theosophy as such today on this plnaet,
> MNO> and what is going on at The United Nations where theosophical or
> MNO> pro-Bailey groups are involved! (I believe James answer was
> MNO> something like: "I don't like the Catholic Church".
>
> If you reduce my modest contribution to this thread to one
> out-of-context paraphrase on the Catholic Church, I rather think we
> have a communication problem that is unlikely to be surmounted in the
> foreseeable future. But, since there are many ears here, thank you
> for providing the opportunity to express myself on theme of essential
> unity.
>
>
> Best Light,
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>