Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00162)

All we can do is to present info for the reader so that anyone interested
can use it to come to their own conclusion. Any free thinking person, is
bound to keep an open mind and look at the info impartially.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Mark Jaqua <hozro@fOqHD3_0s7QICrHcQef6vqMzjrqRntbNffc0bcePHP2NVU4Dm40Z5p80AUMQ4w3OjDr4x-mLCr2ROfma.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> **
>
>
> That's all right Morten, you don't have to agree with me, and beyond
> disputing something, I don't think it is worthwhile nor wish to try to
> convince any one of anything.
> - jake j.
>
> ----------------
> >1b. Re: Non-Sectarianism??
> Posted by: "M. Sufilight" global-theosophy@tnHkQhd-s__PMoDp7lqIgCtL5IpnMhXjfwF69vsny20zDueraMX1rycu2IRsE4BAXaihexZEt9Krip3h3G_SUqY3.yahoo.invalid kidhr7
> Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:58 am ((PST))
>
> >Dear Mark Jaqua and friends
>
> >My views are:
>
> >You wrote:
> "Well, Morten, Just more of your multi-page BS, and the "same ol', same
> ol'" fog screen and dissimuilation (which is a psychological term also, I
> see, as well as referring to arguement-style), and avoiding main points."
>
> >M. Sufilight says:
> Lets keep a civil tone of voice.
> I am open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something
> - provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your
> view solid. And not only assertions.
>
> >You wrote:
> "I forgot to add, among the other ignored points, that your ersatz
> "non-sectarian" stance is anti-Discrimination - Discrimination being
> perhaps the greatest developed attribute for the spiritual path - and
> productive of the same type of paralysis of the reason, discrimination,
> that I've seen in the Alice Bailey writing style and books."
>
> >M. Sufilight says:
> I am not sure I understand what you are actually saying here. I am
> open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something -
> provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your
> view solid. And not only assertions.
>
> >You wrote:
> "I identify with Blavatsky Theosophy, and consider you an enemy of this
> view, or rather Know it."
>
> >M. Sufilight says:
> I am open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something
> - provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your
> view solid. And not only assertions.
>
> >You wrote:
> Oh.... I am not your "friend."
>
> >M. Sufilight says:
> And you seek to promote altruism?
>
> >I hold it to be true, that an open-minded, well-intentioned and
> well-meaning person with regard to Blavatsky's theosophy - hardly - can be
> called a direct enemy of Blavatsky theosophy. Try to ask other members of
> Theos-talk forum who has been here for 10 years or more whether I am in
> opposition to Blavatsky or whether I seek to promulgate her teachings. I
> think they will agree that I in fact seek to promote Blavatsky's teachings
> - above and before - many other teachings; - to the best of my ability of
> course. - As I see it: One thing is my personal views - another is my
> organisational views.
>
> >Here is my private website - with my own personal views (not the
> organisational views):
> (I have, for instance, on it the first full translation of the Key to
> Theosophy, 2. ed. 1890, - in the Danish Language - frrely available.)
> http://www.global-theosophy.net/
> >Here is the forum I have created - based on the Original Programe for the
> Theosophical Society given in 1875-1891.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk-heart/
>
> >Maybe we just will have to agree on disagreeing, well perhaps even it
> only is - apparently.
> >M. Sufilight
> ----------------
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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