Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00190)

Morton, you are labouring with first key work while the second key was turned by AAB/DK as HPB prophesised. The whole field of the Secret Doctrine has shifted higher and deeper. You lambast HPB' predicted second and psychological key as being mind control and refuse to open your eyes hence your complete ignorance on HPB' prediction. 
 
Today the whole field of psychology is opening up and this due to the hugely expanded work on the seven rays and the three fires and all else. The GI is a mantram from the head of Hierarchy the Maitreya Christ, and you condemn it in blind ignorance and stupidity. Pull yourself up and take on board that HPB by her own account was superseded by a more informed and far better fitted disciple, thus the first instalment of the SD is expanded and overwritten psychologically speaking. 
 
It is the work of hierarchy and the GI is sacred and given to humanity to invoke spiritual energies into the world and to assist the reappearance of the Christ or by whatever name is wished to be spiritually used. The UN was Initiated by the Chohan Serepis and that is why the Masters work with and through it including the Christ. The Lucis Trust uphold it and work with it for world education and welfare and human betterment and relief. There is no juvenile conspiracy or mind control other than psychological recognition and cooperation with it. That's today legitimate as the second psychological key was turned on behalf of humanity by AAB and DK. The League of Nations failed and the UN is its latter attempt at world communication of countries to try to settle differences and resolve disputes. Perfection does not rule yet so we have what we have. JPC.   

 

> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> From: global-theosophy@ixx9AJP0vDkPbz15biUoUtfqlIQjvTvTYhw9IDpuQjKjxBZgpczoo61lofy7OSJAiKpT89OtuBdJfZG4bCeHBLJ0JZIO4Iw.yahoo.invalid
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:08:53 +0100
> Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] RE: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
> 
> Dear Jeremy and friends
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Jeremy wrote:
> "Just as the Lucis Trust stands for the same principles, also of brotherhood 
> and compassion and supports the United Nations work towards this end. "
> 
> M. Sufilight says:
> And there we have the very crucial difference. No, not the same principles 
> (!)
> I have several times sought to tell you about it in my latest post in 
> various threads to you and others.
> The Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891 would never as a Society have 
> supported such a political institution. Individual members would have been 
> allowed to do so provided they did not injure the Society or involve 
> themselves in political disputes. You see a non-sectarian Society like the 
> TS in 1875-1891 did not condition people to support a political 
> Inter-Governmental body which create legislations on behalf of people on the 
> planet. Such a Society's primary concern is promulgation of altruism through 
> psychological change on the planet and the recognition of the need for 
> psychological change in the individual - even among political fools, who 
> think that they can legislate altruism and psychological change in the 
> individual (by a written formula on paper) - while they instead effectively 
> condition the individual. - You do not seem to understand the words given by 
> J. Krishnamurti in the speech I provided the link to a few days ago. I will 
> provide the link again and link to the video-clips.
> 
> Here it is again - please do read the whole text carefully or watch the 
> video-clip:
> 
> ### J. Krishnamurti's talk to The United Nations ###
> "QUESTION: At the end you said that we need to break the pattern of conflict 
> between man. My question to you is, do you see that as something of an 
> evolutionary process that inevitably will happen? Or do you see it as 
> something that we all have to work very hard to achieve? And there is an 
> expression that goes something like this: in times of darkness the eye 
> begins to see. And why I am throwing this at you because in a sense it is 
> either going to happen, or it is not going to happen, but how do you see it 
> happening?
> 
> Krishnamurti: I don't quite understand your question, sir.
> 
> Q: All right. You talk about breaking the pattern, man has a pattern, the 
> brain has a pattern, and that pattern has to be broken in order for there to 
> be peace in the world.
> 
> Krishnamurti: Of course.
> 
> Q: Now do you see the breaking of that pattern being an active movement, or 
> a natural progression in the evolution of man?
> 
> Krishnamurti: Sir, have we evolved at all?
> 
> Q: I think we are continuously evolving.
> 
> Krishnamurti: So you accept evolution - psychological evolution, we are not 
> talking about biological or technical evolution - psychological evolution. 
> After a million years, of fifty thousand years, have we changed deeply? 
> Aren't we very primitive, barbarous? So I am asking if you will consider 
> whether there is psychological evolution at all? I question it. Personally, 
> to the speaker, there is no psychological evolution: there is only the 
> ending of sorrow, of pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all that. Man 
> has lived with it for a million years. And if we rely on time, which is 
> thought - time and thought go together - if we rely on evolution then 
> another thousand years or more, and we will still be barbarous."
> ........
> "So the question really is: whether human beings, you and us, sitting on the 
> platform - I am sorry to be sitting up here - are human beings? And as long 
> as we with each other, or with man and woman, are in perpetual conflict 
> there will be no peace on this earth. One may talk about it endlessly. The 
> Roman Catholic hierarchy talks about 'pacem in terris', and they have been 
> also responsible for appalling wars in the past. A hundred years of war, 
> torture, all kinds of horrible things they have done to man. These are all 
> facts, actualities, not the speaker's wish. And religions, are all facts, 
> actualities, not the speaker's wish. And religions, including Islam, Hindus, 
> Buddhists, and so on, they have had their own kind of war. And the future 
> beyond the 40th anniversary is what is going on now.
> 
> One wonders if one realizes that. The present is not only the past, but also 
> contains the future; the past modifying itself constantly through the 
> present and projecting the future. If we don't stop quarrels, struggles, 
> antagonism, hate, now, it will be like that tomorrow. And you can stretch 
> out that tomorrow for a thousand years, it will be still tomorrow.
> 
> So it behoves us to ask ourselves whether we, as human beings, single or a 
> community, or in a family, whether we can live peacefully with each other? 
> Organizations have not solved this problem. You can reorganize but war still 
> goes on. So organizations, whether it is a WORLD ORGANIZATION or a 
> particular kind of organization to bring about peace, such organizations 
> will never succeed because human beings individually, collectively, 
> nationally, are in conflict. Strong nations, like America or Russia, are at 
> war with each other - economically, ideologically, and actually - not 
> bloodshed yet. So peace cannot possibly exist on this earth if there are 
> nationalities, which, as we said, is glorified tribalism. Nationalities give 
> certain security, man needs security and he invests in nationalism, or in a 
> particular ideology or belief. Beliefs, ideologies and so on, have separated 
> man. And organizations cannot possibly bring about peace between man and man 
> because he believes in something, he believes in certain ideologies, he 
> believes in god and others don't.
> 
> I wonder if one has ever considered, religions based on a book - like the 
> Koran or the Bible - become very bigoted, narrow and fundamentalist. And 
> religions like the Hindu and the Buddhist, they have many, many books, all 
> considered sacred, real, straight from god's mouth! They are not so bigoted, 
> they are tolerant, they absorb. So there is this conflict going on: those 
> who rely, put their faith in books, and those who do not put their faith in 
> any book. So conflict between the book and those who accept multiple books. 
> I wonder if one is aware of all this."
> .......
> "It is a vast cynical world and cynicism can never tolerate affection, care, 
> love. I think we have lost that quality - quality of compassion. Not analyse 
> what is compassion - it can be analysed very easily. You cannot analyse 
> love, love is not within the limits of the brain, because the brain is the 
> instrument of sensation, it is the centre of all reaction and action, and we 
> try to find peace, love, within this limited area. Which means, thought is 
> not love because thought is based on experience, which is limited, and on 
> knowledge, which is always limited, whether now or in the future. So 
> knowledge is always limited. And having knowledge, which is contained in the 
> brain as memory, from that memory springs thought. This can be observed very 
> simply and easily if one examines oneself, if one looks at one's own 
> activity of thought, experience, knowledge. You don't have to read any book, 
> or become a specialist to understand."
> http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/articles/world_peace.htm (Caps added !)
> 
> KRISHNAMURTI at United Nations. part 1 + 2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fzV8QH1JeE
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUhqPSi2n_k&feature=related
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote as I said in the previous post:
> THEOSOPHIST. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule 
> in this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual judgment."
> 
> M. Sufilight says:
> Conditioning the individual into acceptance of the United Nations as a body 
> which MUST be supported - as if it was based on altruism and its 
> promulgation is clearly out of the question on behalf of a Society working 
> for alleviation of suffering. You simply do not seek to psychologically 
> condition people into such a support of a political organisation of that 
> kind (!)
> I will reject such an organisation on the spot as a primary tool for 
> alleviating suffering. - You cannot organize altruism by promoting that it 
> is in accordance with altruism to have countries and nationalities on the 
> planet - and - promote altruism by supporting all kinds of UN legislation 
> created by party-line politicians and dictators etc. (ie. walking lies) 
> while you thereby psychologically condition the human mind. The UN has 
> existed for more than 60 years - it has not succeeded in establishing peace, 
> let alone promote altruism and real psychological change. Legislation by the 
> UN condition the minds of people - it does not in reality create 
> psychological change within people. It is the huge failure of understanding 
> this, which is the primary problem, as I see it. Do you not agree that 
> Psychological change in each human being is of primary importance - and - 
> not the support of an organisation which day after day fail to recognize the 
> very same thing?
> When the UN changes and recognizes the need for Psychological change and 
> begin to emphasise this much more than legislation which merely condition 
> people, then I might support it, and, not a second before.
> 
> If you are saying that people MUST support the UN as written in the Alice A. 
> Bailey book "Problems of Humanity", p. 177 --- are you then really aware of 
> what you are saying - and - how this is perceived?
> 
> Do you disagree with J. Krishnamurti in his words, and why if I in all 
> friendliness may ask?
> Did you hear the AAB fellow Robert Mullers words in the last videoclip no. 
> 8? He agreed with Krishnamurti. That was his words.
> 
> Now the United Nations gave J. Krishnamurti the UN Peace Medal - as if it 
> agreed with him.
> That was more than 25 years ago. Did the UN listen to his words? I would 
> say, no.
> 
> All the above are of course just my views. I do not claim myself infallible 
> as a "pope" or similar
> I do hope that at least some of it will be useful for something altruistic 
> and good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jeremy Condick" <jpcondick2011@lttTa5_LXycJqarIJBseDxQwS94xa3GikQ0dCUu77i5qj_qwc4GAJ4kxO7ZdywkJUUUUq2MA4TR3mqn29eZ2zQ.yahoo.invalid>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:32 AM
> Subject: [?? Probable Spam] RE: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the 
> New World Order
> 
> 
> 
> JPC: Morton, I agree there is no disagreement from my view either. Members 
> of the TS or AS or MF are free individually to work in politics or social 
> reform as they see necessary. The Theosophical society should stand for 
> equal human rights, world peace, sharing and the rejection of all political 
> and economic greed today on a world level. Just as the Lucis Trust stands 
> for the same principles, also of brotherhood and compassion and supports the 
> United Nations work towards this end.
> 
> JC Wrote: HPB makes clear that only "as a society it takes absolutely no 
> part in any national or party politics"
> 
> > I think that the society could add great benefit to humanity when it 
> > stands for equal human rights, world peace, sharing and the rejection of 
> > all political and economic greed today on a world level... I think this is 
> > a critical point to bear in mind regarding the many social questions of 
> > today. Each member is free to work as individuals in political fields as 
> > they see necessary. There is a great difference between the Theosophical 
> > society entering party politics national or local on one side or the other 
> > side, or of standing for the principles which it holds dear in altruism, 
> > social reform or against world economic corruption. The latter stands for 
> > the good of the whole. One sees a clear distinction here and it are worthy 
> > of being thought out. In so doing, we do not stand aloof. JPC.
> 
> "ENQUIRER. But surely the T. S. does not stand altogether aloof from the 
> social questions which are now so fast coming to the front?
> THEOSOPHIST. The very principles of the T. S. are a proof that it does 
> not -- or, rather, that most of its members do not -- so stand aloof."
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule 
> in this respect.
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do his utmost to help 
> on, by all the means in his power, every wise and well-considered social 
> effort which has for its object the amelioration of the condition of the 
> poor. Such efforts should be made with a view to their ultimate social 
> emancipation, or the development of the sense of duty in those who now so 
> often neglect it in nearly every relation of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > From: global-theosophy@ixx9AJP0vDkPbz15biUoUtfqlIQjvTvTYhw9IDpuQjKjxBZgpczoo61lofy7OSJAiKpT89OtuBdJfZG4bCeHBLJ0JZIO4Iw.yahoo.invalid
> > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:41:13 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
> >
> > Dear Jeremy and friends
> >
> > MY views are:
> >
> > I see no diasgreement. H. P. Blavatsky's words in the quote by Micahel was 
> > on behalf of the Society, not on behalf of the members.
> >
> >
> > If you read more in the Key to Theosophy you will reach a better 
> > understanding of it all:
> > "ENQUIRER. But what do you mean by "true efforts"? Each social reformer 
> > has his own panacea, and each believes his to be the one and only thing 
> > which can improve and save humanity?
> >
> > THEOSOPHIST. Perfectly true, and this is the real reason why so little 
> > satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most of these panaceas there 
> > is no really guiding principle, and there is certainly no one principle 
> > which connects them all. Valuable time and energy are thus wasted; for 
> > men, instead of co-operating, strive one against the other, often, it is 
> > to be feared, for the sake of fame and reward rather than for the great 
> > cause which they profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in 
> > their lives.
> >
> > ENQUIRER. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that 
> > social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social 
> > amelioration be carried on?
> >
> > THEOSOPHIST. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are - 
> > universal Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma; 
> > Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which should 
> > bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood.
> >
> > ENQUIRER. How?
> >
> > THEOSOPHIST. In the present state of society, especially in so-called 
> > civilized countries, we are continually brought face to face with the fact 
> > that large numbers of people are suffering from misery, poverty and 
> > disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and their mental and 
> > spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On the other hand, many 
> > persons at the opposite end of the social scale are leading lives of 
> > careless indifference, material luxury, and selfish indulgence. Neither of 
> > these forms of existence is mere chance. Both are the effects of the 
> > conditions which surround those who are subject to them, and the neglect 
> > of social duty on the one side is most closely connected with the stunted 
> > and arrested development on the other. In sociology, as in all branches of 
> > true science, the law of universal causation holds good. But this 
> > causation necessarily implies, as its logical outcome, that human 
> > solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly insists. If the action of one 
> > reacts on the lives of all, and this is the true scientific idea, then it 
> > is only by all men becoming brothers and all women sisters, and by all 
> > practising in their daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that 
> > the real human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the 
> > race, can ever be attained. It is this action and interaction, this true 
> > brotherhood and sisterhood, in which each shall live for all and all for 
> > each, which is one of the fundamental Theosophical principles that every 
> > Theosophist should be bound, not only to teach, but to carry out in his or 
> > her individual life.
> >
> > ENQUIRER. All this is very well as a general principle, but how would you 
> > apply it in a concrete way?
> >
> > THEOSOPHIST. Look for a moment at what you would call the concrete facts 
> > of human society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of the people, 
> > but of many of those who are called the middle and upper classes, with 
> > what they might be under healthier and nobler conditions, where justice, 
> > kindness, and love were paramount, instead of the selfishness, 
> > indifference, and brutality which now too often seem to reign supreme. All 
> > good and evil things in humanity have their roots in human character, and 
> > this character is, and has been, conditioned by the endless chain of cause 
> > and effect. But this conditioning applies to the future as well as to the 
> > present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and brutality can never 
> > be the normal state of the race¯to believe so would be to despair of 
> > humanity¯and that no Theosophist can do. Progress can be attained, and 
> > only attained, by the development of the nobler qualities. Now, true 
> > evolution teaches us that by altering the surroundings of the organism we 
> > can alter and improve the organism; and in the strictest sense this is 
> > true with regard to man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do his 
> > utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise and 
> > well-considered social effort which has for its object the amelioration of 
> > the condition of the poor. Such efforts should be made with a view to 
> > their ultimate social emancipation, or the development of the sense of 
> > duty in those who now so often neglect it in nearly every relation of 
> > life.
> >
> > ENQUIRER. Agreed. But who is to decide whether social efforts are wise or 
> > unwise?
> >
> > THEOSOPHIST. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast 
> > rule in this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual 
> > judgment."
> > http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
> >
> >
> > And that is where the real problem is resting.
> > That is as the last sentence says: "No one person and no society can lay 
> > down a hard-and-fast rule in this respect. Much must necessarily be left 
> > to the individual judgment:"
> >
> > Is it not?
> >
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Jeremy Condick
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:37 PM
> > Subject: RE: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > From: libertyson11@DPzpkvV_2Z1mcqYvUBisHJ-OtIICPtOkou0i9-iB5VRsLieB1zbGdtPZSdpNxMIkwaN7ZuleCAAVc1RU93Ijm1g.yahoo.invalid
> > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:55:54 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
> > >
> > > H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Theosophical Society:
> > > "ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?
> > >
> > > THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons
> > > given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have
> > > effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old
> > > bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is
> > > their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every
> > > iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or
> > > political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener
> > > who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them
> > > off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the
> > > roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same
> > > selfish men at the head of affairs as of old. "
> > > ("The Key to Theosophy", 2ed., 1890 - p. 231)
> > > http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/aKEY. htm
> > >
> > > So let us not be foolish. Do you not agree?
> >
> > > *** I do not agree in the slightest. This is absurd. To wait until all 
> > > men are perfect before we stand for our rights and a just society is a 
> > > pathetic philosophy and utterly impractical on the face of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > The utterly corrupt people at head of banking and many mega-corporations 
> > > will most likely never change.
> > >
> > >
> > > To sit still while they rape the earth and the minds of the young and 
> > > enslave the world in perpetual fraudulent debt is amoral in the extreme.
> >
> > I completely agree with your thoughts here stated. Let us remind ourselves 
> > of this... "as individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his 
> > or her particular line of political thought and action, so long as this 
> > does not conflict with Theosophical principles or hurt the Theosophical 
> > Society." The Key to Theosophy. HPB.
> >
> > Individuals, as individuals are free, always, to work or lobby for 
> > political and social reform. Your thoughts are valid and potent today and 
> > certainly resonate with the times. HPB makes clear that only "as a society 
> > it takes absolutely no part in any national or party politics" and we must 
> > emphasis the meaning here that the society took no part in national or 
> > party politics, as a society. I think that the society could add great 
> > benefit to humanity when it stands for equal human rights, world peace, 
> > sharing and the rejection of all political and economic greed today on a 
> > world level.
> >
> > I think this is a critical point to bear in mind regarding the many social 
> > questions of today. Each member is free to work as individuals in 
> > political fields as they see necessary. There is a great difference 
> > between the Theosophical society entering party politics national or local 
> > on one side or the other side, or of standing for the principles which it 
> > holds dear in altruism, social reform or against world economic 
> > corruption. The latter stands for the good of the whole. One sees a clear 
> > distinction here and it are worthy of being thought out. In so doing, we 
> > do not stand aloof. JPC.
> >
> > "ENQUIRER. But surely the T. S. does not stand altogether aloof from the 
> > social questions which are now so fast coming to the front?
> > THEOSOPHIST. The very principles of the T. S. are a proof that it does 
> > not -- or, rather, that most of its members do not -- so stand aloof."
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  

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