Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00015)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hallo Netemara and all of you,
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Allright then Netemara, let us suppose that you are that wise as 
your below
> email wants the readers to believe.
> 
> Then please answer me:
> How do you learn how to learn ?

Learning comes in many forms. There is learning which is exoteric 
and extrinsically motivated and there is learning which is esoteric 
(internal) and intrisically motivated and is the highest order. 
Cicero and the wise Romans wrote that the highest form of life on 
earth was that of study. THe most satisfying life one could live was 
to read books, inbibe what one could from them and thus was part 
of "The Good Life" which Cicero first coined. I am a Stoic (as in 
the religion Stoicism) by nature. It is the basis of all outer 
Western religions. And the basis of this religion belongs to the 
learned and those who aspire to be learned.

Thanks for asking.
> 
> If you can't answer this throughly - you will never learn ¨
> me and others anything.
> 
> To Netemara:
> Do you give out a teaching, which is not adapted towards
> time, place and people ?

I give out univeral teachings.

> Or do you give out a teaching, which further - culturally - 
conditions the
> minds of the Seekers after Wisdom and Truth ?

I hope to draw seekers into seeking wisdom and truth.

> Do your versions of the Wisdom teachings give
> the aspirant a world view ?

I am the world view.

> --- A world view was what Blavatsky recommended nothing less ! ---
> 
> As long as the Middle East with its rich symbolical and esoterical 
teachings
> are being trampled on in the name of western prejudice about this 
culture -
> by some pet-Bible books of a nature which is swarmed by Christian
> vocabulary, (books written by Alice A. Bailey and a supposed 5th 
initiate),
> how can anyone justify such teachings as being valid theosophy and 
giving
> the Seekers
> after Wisdom and Truth a WORLD VIEW ???
> Please answer Netemara. What are your view on this ???

Are you blaming AAB and the books for this trampling? As Jeremy 
pointed out, all relgions will bite the dust eventually. Look what 
is happening to Catholicism (my born religion) it is struggling to 
survive. Most religions are cults anyway, or did you not know that?

They serve their evolutionary purpose and are dissovled just like 
the universe and sun will be some day. Why are religions so sacred 
in your opinion? They are spiritual clothes which must be worn and 
discarded when torn.

Netemara

> 
> To the readers:
> Try digesting the book "The People of the Secret" by Ernest Scott.
> This is Middle Eastern theosophy - and certainly not the same as 
what
> Netemara is
> offering you as far as I am concerned.
> 
> To answer a request from another email:
> The spiritual function of the TS is according to Bailey - that
> further revelation will happen. The secret doctrine is no Bible.
> Bailey also said that The Secret Doctrine came from a higher 
source than the
> books she wrote togehter with the one she calls D.K.
> At Baileys time of writing she saw her (and D.K.'s books) as the 
tip
> of the iceberg to the new coming generations in the west (and most 
certainly
> not
> in the Middle East). She wanted her books mixed with Blavatskys 
writings to
> be
> THE teaching of theosophy - and that the teachings of CWL and 
Annie Beasnt
> should be thrown somwhere in the trashcan.
> SHE recognized however, that they may crystalllize - and that they 
then
> should be
> adtaped or changed.
> 
> (The Unfinished Autobiography).
> 
> --- And Netemara this were you fail as far as your emailing goes. 
You
> do not regocnize that Bailey's teachings already are 
crystallizing. ---
> 
> Please tell me if you disagree Netemara - and where the 
disagreement are.
> 

My dear, I am the one who is crystallizing them as I write the 
revelations which will supercede the books of Bailey, up to a point. 
DK also says that the Bailey books are the blueprint for even the 
Masters. DK and HPB wrote the damn books for themselves!!! just as 
much for other disciples. THis is what people don't know. And when 
they externalize their teachings once again, and return as the 
masters of the sound current and meditation then the books will have 
fulfilled their purpose. This is WHY AAB dedicated COSMIC FIRE to 
HPB> IT is about HER and DK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And their course of 
action.  

I am on fire today, sorry if I have come on too strong.

Namaste

Netemara
 
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "netemara888" <netemara888@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:17 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: What about the VISIT made to the Golden 
Temple
> 
> 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" 
<global-
> > theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > > Hallo Netemara and all of you,
> > >
> >
> > Hi Morten,
> >
> > You can challenge me or my views all you want. But my views and
> > research are really a cover for what I have uncovered through
> > spiritual and meditation revelations. These will be and have been
> > given out in bits and pieces on my website. Now, the truth about
> > this is buried in there somewhere. It is hidden in part because I
> > hid it. But I have the okay to begin giving out this in detail 
and
> > in no uncertain terms.
> >
> > My work is cyclical and contains the truth based on lifetimes and
> > thousands of years of destiny and not just the so-called now. We
> > will never agree until and unless you come up to where I am and I
> > will show you on the inside what the truth is about much of this-
-or
> > as much of it as you can stand. The bottom line is the connection
> > that we all have is more than we can bear.
> >
> > Namaste
> >
> > Netemara
> >
> >
> > >
> > > My views are just views:
> > >
> > > You have a different view than I have on the subject we email
> > about.
> > > To disagree is what happens. We are learning.
> > > I know that you mean well and I think you know that I do so 
too.
> > > I have read the Alice A. Bailey books more than one time and 
have
> > been a
> > > former member of a very pro-Bailey organisation.
> > >
> > > Because of that - I offer the following method, which were 
used in
> > the olden
> > > days - although not via email.
> > > Let us then exchange some emails (10-20 if needed) on the 
issue -
> > and see if
> > > any of us can convince the other
> > > about what is the truth of the matter. I could be very 
fruitfull
> > to all at
> > > this place.
> > > Agreed ? Do you accept the offer ?
> > >
> > > I think the subject is important and deserves attention.
> > Especially because
> > > of the degree of involvement Lucis Trust
> > > and other so-called branched Bailey groups has with the United
> > Nations.
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me now answer your email.
> > >
> > > Netemara wrote:
> > > "It is the Bailey trust which holds a great deal of influence 
over
> > > the U.N. whether you realize this or not I don't know."
> > >
> > > My answer:
> > > Well, let us just suppose that this is true.
> > > Then it is no wonder why they (U.N.) are so silent as they are
> > about the
> > > killing of a lot of muslims
> > > these days. Without anyone saying anything or making any real
> > protest I find
> > > it all very problematic.
> > >
> > > As an answer to the quoted Bailey view on the stated fact that
> > Mohammedanism
> > > was a hybrid offshoot
> > > and no real religion when compared with Christianity -
> > > Netemara wrote :
> > > - "Yes, that's true based on my research about its foundation."
> > >
> > > My answer:
> > > I disagree. it is based on YOUR own research.
> > > But others certainly have a quite different opintion than you 
and
> > with good
> > > reason.
> > > If they have, have you then ever wondered why ?
> > > Do you truely and honestly expect a muslim audience to fall for
> > that opinion
> > > of yours ?
> > > Do you at all have a clue to why such a view is or could be 
false
> > and why
> > > Bailey wrote the words she did ?
> > >
> > > Just because Blavatsky did'nt touch much upon that religion and
> > culture for
> > > obvious reasons - Bailey
> > > saw it fitting to transform it into a "hybrid offshoot". I find
> > this
> > > distastefull.
> > > And Baileys writings are one of the reasons why Blavatsky-
related
> > Theosophy
> > > is where it is today.
> > > Bailey has had success in damaging the TRUE theosophical cause
> > (the wisdom
> > > tradition) by for instance remarks like the one
> > > we talk about here. But true, NO spiritual evolution happens
> > without
> > > resistence and opposition on this level of the seven scheme-a-
s.
> > > As it is written in the below Blavatsky didn't write much on 
the
> > Middle
> > > Eastern teachings because not many
> > > scriptures were transleated at her time of writing. Even Mrs.
> > Kingsford's
> > > attempt on "Asclepios" has faults,
> > > which Blavatsky also points out.
> > >
> > > It is a wellknown and accepted fact, that even Blavatsky's 
version
> > of The
> > > Secret Doctrine was written with an western audience in mind.
> > > (I am not alone in that view. Many later theosophists are 
agreeing
> > to that.)
> > > And still - you Netemara appearntly holds the view, that the 
Alice
> > A. Bailey
> > > writings are suited to a Middle Eastern audience !
> > > Is that really honestly your view ?
> > > I find such a view totally wrong.
> > >
> > > I only stated my views in my previous email. What I know about 
the
> > future is
> > > a view - not a claim.
> > > But if you think that about one billion Muslims will follow the
> > teachings of
> > > the "hybrid offshoot" - then I think you are way too far out.
> > > Of course if you killed them, and then invaded the countries 
you
> > might reach
> > > success, but that is a very bad idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you - really - want to learn, and are not too filled with
> > emotion, then
> > > read the below.
> > >
> > > We have from the Secret Doctrine the following - which tells 
their
> > tales on
> > > the use of the English language and esoteric teachings:
> > >
> > > 1. The following has to do with Hermes - Pymander - Taken from
> > Vol. 1, Page
> > > 288 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> > >
> > > "This is quite consistent with the Vedantic teaching. The 
leading
> > thought is
> > > Occult; and many are the passages in the Hermetic Fragments 
that
> > belong
> > > bodily to the Secret Doctrine.
> > > The latter teaches that the whole universe is ruled by 
intelligent
> > and
> > > semi-intelligent Forces and Powers, as stated from the very
> > beginning.
> > > Christian Theology admits and even enforces belief in such, but
> > makes an
> > > arbitrary division and refers to them as "Angels" and "Devils."
> > Science
> > > denies the existence of such, and ridicules the very idea.
> > Spiritualists
> > > believe in the Spirits of the Dead, and, outside these, deny
> > entirely any
> > > other kind or class of invisible beings. The Occultists and
> > Kabalists are
> > > thus the only rational expounders of the ancient traditions, 
which
> > have now
> > > culminated in dogmatic faith on the one hand, and dogmatic 
denials
> > on the
> > > other. For, both belief and unbelief embrace but one small 
corner
> > each of
> > > the infinite horizons of spiritual and physical manifestations;
> > and thus
> > > both are right from
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ---------
> > > ----
> > >
> > > [[Vol. 1, Page]] 288 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> > > their respective standpoints, and both are wrong in believing 
that
> > they can
> > > circumscribe the whole within their own special and narrow
> > barriers; for -- 
> > > they can never do so. In this respect Science, Theology, and 
even
> > > Spiritualism show little more wisdom than the ostrich does, 
when
> > it hides
> > > its head in the sand at its feet, feeling sure that there can 
be
> > thus
> > > nothing beyond its own point of observation and the limited 
area
> > occupied by
> > > its foolish head.
> > >
> > > As the only works now extant upon the subject under 
consideration
> > within
> > > reach of the profane of the Western "civilized" races are the
> > > above-mentioned Hermetic Books, or rather Hermetic Fragments, 
we
> > may
> > > contrast them in the present case with the teachings of 
Esoteric
> > philosophy.
> > > To quote for this purpose from any other would be useless, 
since
> > the public
> > > knows nothing of the Chaldean works which are translated into
> > Arabic and
> > > preserved by some Sufi initiates. Therefore the "Definitions of
> > Asclepios,"
> > > as lately compiled and glossed by Mrs. A. Kingsford, F.T.S., 
some
> > of which
> > > sayings are in remarkable agreement with the Esoteric Eastern
> > doctrine, have
> > > to be resorted to for comparison. Though not a few passages 
show a
> > strong
> > > impression of some later Christian hand, yet on the whole the
> > > characteristics of the genii* and gods are those of eastern
> > teachings, while
> > > concerning other things there are passages which differ widely 
in
> > our
> > > doctrines." ( http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-
13.htm )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. - Taken from Vol. 1, Page 269 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> > > "SUMMING UP.
> > > "The History of Creation and of this world from its 
beginning up
> > to the
> > > present time is composed of seven chapters. The seventh 
chapter is
> > not yet
> > > written."
> > > (T. Subba Row, Theosophist, 1881.)
> > > THE first of these Seven chapters has been attempted and is now
> > finished.
> > > However incomplete and feeble as an exposition, it is, at any
> > rate, an
> > > approximation -- using the word in a mathematical sense -- to 
that
> > which is
> > > the oldest basis for all the subsequent Cosmogonies. The 
attempt
> > to render
> > > in a European tongue the grand panorama of the ever 
periodically
> > recurring
> > > Law -- impressed upon the plastic minds of the first races 
endowed
> > with
> > > Consciousness by those who reflected the same from the 
Universal
> > Mind -- is
> > > daring, for no human language, save the Sanskrit -- which is 
that
> > of the
> > > Gods -- can do so with any degree of adequacy. But the 
failures in
> > this work
> > > must be forgiven for the sake of the motive." ( [[Vol. 1, 
Page]]
> > 269 THE
> > > FIRST CHAPTER OF CREATION.)
> > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-13.htm (The ULT
> > version is
> > > similar on this issue.)
> > >
> > > 3. - Taken from Vol. 1, Page 299 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.:
> > > "So much from the astronomical and cosmic standpoints viewed 
and
> > expressed
> > > in symbolical language -- which became in our last races
> > theological and
> > > dogmatic."
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > All that said, I think I agree with you, that the Alice A. 
Bailey
> > books
> > > today and through the last few decades have had a great pull 
on the
> > > Newcomers minds -
> > > the newcomers, which have begun their quest for knowledge and
> > wisdom. Today
> > > many can read intellectual books and do so. At Blavatskys time 
of
> > writing it
> > > was different. The intellectuals then was of a different
> > background and was
> > > not as many as today. The - "pull" is what is important. 
Because
> > TS has not
> > > experienced the same "pull". But the more wise among the 
Bailey's
> > sometimes
> > > later become members at one of the TS groups.
> > >
> > > Even so the Brainwashing methodology wasn't related to then and
> > neither at
> > > Baileys time, when she was writing her books. The theories of
> > brainwashing
> > > and New Age - really first saw the light from 1950'ies and
> > 1960'ies with
> > > Flower Power (-- "peace and love" --- smile...) and the 
acceptance
> > of the
> > > science of psychology.
> > >
> > > The difference of "believing" what you read and 
really "knowing by
> > wisdom"
> > > what you read are - huge. And many newcomers falls prey to this
> > obstacle.
> > > Because they are used to believeing and not knowing. Because of
> > that the
> > > Alice A. Bailey writings has had many followers of the -
> > superficial kind.
> > > Followers, which are not really interested in wisdom "Atma-
Vidya",
> > but who
> > > are interested in - New Age, astral energies, social 
tribalism, or
> > social
> > > tea, talk and gossip.
> > > They truely act like the Fox Mulder poster says "I want to
> > believe". It is
> > > so fitting a sentence, and can very well be related to the many
> > newcomers at
> > > the Bailey organisations.
> > >
> > > They get attracted to various organisations and groups. One 
day it
> > is the
> > > local Bailey group. another day it is the local Hare Krishna,
> > Gurdjieff or
> > > Scientology etc.
> > > They don't really know - how to learn, and at what group they
> > really are
> > > able to learn if at any of the mentioned.
> > > The massmedias influence - today - on the newcomers minds are
> > imense and
> > > shouldn't be underestimated by any - theosophist or Bailey-ist.
> > > The massmedias influence has to be related to when promoting - 
the
> > wisdom
> > > teachings - no matter what book one prefers to throw at the
> > newcomer as a
> > > sort of new pet-Bible.
> > >
> > > That is why I find, that the Bailey books are not suited to the
> > present
> > > activities, which are going on in The Middle East.
> > > Others says - great ! Bailey is cool - and that it is just the
> > Shamballa
> > > force which are doing its job destroying the Middle Eastern
> > culture - i.e.
> > > the Hybrid offshoot !
> > > It is just justice - karma and what ever - which are happening,
> > and that a
> > > any muslim is a terrorist. And if not, he or she will 
problably be
> > so
> > > tomorrow - or else the children will. This is what is really 
going
> > on in
> > > some Bailey circles. Some readers might disagree. But facts are
> > facts !
> > >
> > > Because of these facts - I have a strong tendency to be 
carefull
> > about
> > > promoting the Bailey books as a pet-Bible to anyone.
> > >
> > > I know, that Netemara has a quite different view than I am
> > painting in the
> > > above.
> > > And I respect that as far as non-violence are followed. But 
there
> > are limits
> > > to what I want to promote - year 2003.
> > >
> > > The "astral body" scheme appearnly invented by Blavatsky - has 
its
> > origins
> > > from the Perisa-India area of the Khwajagan Sufis (also called 
the
> > Master
> > > Sufis. Kwhajagan = Master). The sufis Naqshbandi Order are 
their
> > ancestors.
> > > These sufis are the followers of the Avatar doctrine of the 
master
> > Khidr or
> > > Kizr - also known as The Green Guide. (This figure are 
mentioned
> > in the
> > > Quran) !!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you the reader think about all of this ???
> > > I have done my best.
> > >
> > > from
> > > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >