Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Highlights: Tuesday, Aug. 24

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    There was lots of discussion about the Theosophical writer Alice Baily, here are some snippets; Skye: At the beginning of each book Dwjal Khul states; neither
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      There was lots of discussion about the Theosophical writer Alice Baily,
      here are some snippets;

      Skye:
      At the beginning of each book Dwjal Khul states; neither he
      nor Alice Bailey are interested in having them acclaimed as
      inspired writings and that in time the information will be
      transcended. Suffice to say the work awoke concepts in me
      that were required before I could move beyond the need for
      any concepts at all and awoke a love that I am always ready
      to share with my 6 billion brothers and sisters. We must
      stop mankind taking everything with him if he goes.

      Marcia:
      I discovered Alice Bailey probably fifteen years ago. A
      friend had all her books. So I borrowed one after the
      other which interested me. I admit there were quite a
      few that I didn't read. But never once did I ever see
      anything racist. I was very surprised when Jerry jumped
      on a quote of hers which I posted. Jerry of all people.
      I was really surprised. When I read her works something
      clicks inside. I see a bigger picture. My framework gets
      expanded. I am not saying whether she is right or wrong
      but the result is that I think bigger. And yes it helps me
      see myself other than as the center of the universe.

      Jerry:
      ...Did Bailey know she was playing
      a game, working in a dream? She pretends to have knowledge.
      She convinces people they are seeing the inner workings of
      the world dream, when in reality they're seeing nothing more
      or less than McDonald's arches out in the distance on the
      highway.
      My effort is to show that there's a need to change the
      portion of her work which is most manipulative of those who
      take Bailey literally and even symbolically. She is
      unnecessarily arousing people's emotions. Her work is
      amazing, beautiful and complex enough without introjection
      of real races, religions and nationalities. It's a fictional
      work, a molding of dream material, and it needs to see
      itself in that way and to regularly advise the reader of
      such. She needs to say, "Everything I've told you is a lie,
      now get lost." Instead of freeing her readers, I hear her
      manipulating them to stay and go deeper and deeper into her
      dream.

      Tim:
      Theosophy is organized, institutionalized nondualism. Are you really
      that
      puzzled? It's a miracle they've done as well as they have... J.
      Krishnamurti was either a lucky shot in the dark or a miracle.

      Andrew:
      The story and writings of Alice Baily are valuable as history,
      revising them to remove what is incorrect would be revising history.
      Like the Japanese Zen masters who supported the slaughter of the Chinese
      in the 1930's and 40's she was a person of her time and culture.
      These people stand as a valuable lesson about the arrogant assumption
      of enlightenment and the danger inherent in creating a mystical
      mantle of infallibility, the danger that comes with losing one's
      doubt, the value of skepticism. The New Age needs skeptics!!!
      Doubt is the immune system, the scalpel, the pruning saw, winter,
      the bonfire, the wolf, doubt culls the weak and the sickly.
      To doubt is true kindness, essential to life.

      Jerry:
      There are people here who feel they know the deepest insight
      of Jesus or Ramana and they feel liberated to speak in their
      own unique way. Why isn't it so for Bailey?

      I could make a nice statement about the Self and maybe throw
      in a couple of words I made up, like Standing Free or Umba,
      and people might think I've had an insight or two.

      But if I speak about forces and rays that drive the
      evolution of consciousness, and should I declare that
      Siamese twins are superior beings from another planet, you
      guys would laugh at me. Yet there is really no difference. I
      mean, why is Alice Bailey right? It's bad enough she's
      making herself seem like an authority on the occult; I ain't
      letting her get away with being an authority on the fate of
      a people.

      Let's see Alice Bailey for who she is: a genius perceiver of
      the occult; one person with one perception; a white
      supremacist.
      ....

      The written word has power. However, I feel that her
      writings are better left to stand as they are, and a
      prominent disclaimer could be presented. I'll do a webpage
      which will serve as such a disclaimer. It will consist of
      our conversations and be indexed on the web. So we
      accomplished something here. If anyone feels such a
      disclaimer is unnecessary or has any other comment, we'll
      put that on the web page as well.

      Jan:
      The issue went a little deeper than A.B. The issue is that a
      sophisticated ego will fall into a primitive trap. Promise a
      few ego-tickling gadgets and introduce some "ugliness" through
      the backdoor: It worked for Hitler, it worked for Milosovice,
      it worked for Mao; the list is long. Promise instant
      enlightenment or make it "doable"; through the back door
      introduce a hefty sum and no doubt that works too. It worked
      for... (your guess). So it isn't a surprise that sages like
      Ramana, advocating to cut the ego at its root, are far less
      "popular" than the sellers of OOB, astral travel, channeling,
      work groups, visit the aliens, and other goodies to further
      sophistication of this wonderful ego. How deeply ingrained
      this is, was shown (indirectly) by C.G. Jung, commenting on
      Ramana, in finishing the book "Der Weg zum Selbst", left by
      his suddenly deceased friend Heinrich Zimmer. Jung said, it
      was impossible to see a saint in Ramana, with neglected body,
      untidy hair and nails, being mostly in samadhi. For him, God
      was beauty and a saint had to radiate that. As an archetype,
      nicely represented by Jesus, hanging at the cross,
      well-groomed - of course.


      With all the discussion that's been going on here lately about
      what's-her-name I am reminded of a frequently observed paradox, namely,
      great teachers who have a decidedly "dark" side to them. Not just human
      foibles, but serious aberrations that make some call into question the
      teachers' actual attainment. Greater teachers than what's-her-face have
      tended to possess serious personality contradictions too.

      For instance, Adi Da (Franklin Jones) has often been accused of abusive
      tendencies and misogyny toward his female followers. He was sued by a
      group
      of disaffected members back in the '80s.

      Joseph Smith, in the 1830s, taught that black skin was a curse put upon
      people for disobedience in premortality. (It wasn't until 1978 that the
      Mormon church permitted Negro males to receive priesthood blessings,
      after
      which membership in the church mushroomed in places like Brazil.)

      L. Ron Hubbard was known to be addicted to various stimulants and
      painkillers, as well as being called (by the less extreme critics) a
      raving
      paranoic and wife-beater.

      Any more?

      How do we learn to deal with teachers who, on the one hand, have great
      spiritual lessons to impart, and on the other hand, seem simultaneously
      possessed of the most banal human stupidities?


      Gene:
      > Dear Gene:
      >
      > OK, I'm asking....don't know a thing about Alice Bailey except what I've
      > read here...so I'm counting on your comments not being a "she said, but
      > meant..." sort of thing....tell me about hypotheticals and boundaries....
      >
      > Love, Kristi

      Hi Kristi.

      Here is the answer: One who sees others as hypotheticals, is projecting
      their 'own' 'hypothetical nature' upon those others. One who is puzzled
      as
      to the nature of one's own nature, has no knowing of the _reality_ of
      themself. One who has no knowing of the reality of themself, is
      susceptible
      to 'teachings' which _tell_ the reality of self. This 'reality of self'
      is
      of course, hypothetical. Such a 'student' of teachings 'about self' is
      thus
      susceptible to ideas of racial hierarchies, 'channeled' entities, etc.

      The knowing of self is self-realization; self-realization obviates
      'hypothetical' information, and thus conveys immunity from all
      teachings.
      All teachings are thus seen as noise, regressive, and symptomatic of the
      common ignorance which is the fertile soil of 'growth'. Within that
      ignorance, 'truth' is debated; the most dangerous debates vie for
      ownership
      of the supreme definition of 'what is a valid human Being'. Once that
      definition is owned, the owner of that definition (who assumes that
      there
      is actually such a point to debate) becomes the arbiter of the fate of
      all
      humans.

      "Deciding" is vastly different than realization. "Deciding" or
      concluding,
      is a consequence of observation and thinking, and the product is
      "belief".
      "Believers" are the most dangerous of all humans.

      The value of "Nonduality" is the abolition of all belief; thus, the
      entire
      catagory of 'believer' is shown to be bogus. Consequently, there are NO
      hypotheticals, and no realization; there is instead, only the Living
      Nondual Realizer.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Harsha:
      The play of concepts is endless. Concepts about the body, the mind,
      spirit,
      etc. It is the quicksand which entangles one more and more. It is the
      stuff
      of religion, philosophy, spirituality, great writers, great thinkers,
      great
      teachers, great leaders, etc. The presumption to teach and help others
      to
      improve themselves reveals the unrelenting grip of the ego. The wise
      say,
      that, "I am the doer" notion is bondage. To go to the root of the ego,
      one
      should bring the awareness upon its own essence and thus stare at the
      originating point of thoughts and feelings. It is the essence of
      simplicity.
      Spiritual practitioners seek complex and glamorous practices leading to
      rich
      experiences. That is alright. Ultimately one must come to face with the
      directness of one's own awareness.


      ivan:
      ...and the inahability to do so, the endless flight from the fear of
      being
      nothing, makes one discuss about others thoughts, ideias, clothing,
      underware
      ...etc...Anything will do.....just don�t let me be with this what
      is....Maybe we can
      find a good teacher in Bussunda.....yes...i think there is one good over
      there .
      ...LOL...LOL...i don�t know, but the friend of a friend told me
      so...LOL......LOL...
      he is a cannibal.....but that doesn�t matter...we can always discuss
      it...LOL....
      :^)O)O0o))o0o))O0o)O0o
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Tomas:
      the grace of life, of our interactions with life, is that our beliefs,
      our conclusions, those vessels in which we place meaning are broken- we
      become upset, we become angry, we become fearfull- these challenges show
      where energy was being trapped, where it was hiding from us, where it
      was being tucked away from honesty

      with the breaking of these notions, of these concepts, of these
      dependences- now honesty can be more open, now we catch where the energy
      of Will was previous tucked away and it is now part of a wider and
      deeper gathering together, a wider and deeper surrender, a wider and
      deeper dissolution and merger at the source

      the breaking of these vessels of meaning is the sacrifice,the burning-
      the emptying of meaning/energy back to source is the surrender
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      >From: Guitgo@...
      >
      >it's astonishing.
      >how do we ever survive all this stuff--good bad and inbetween-- that life
      >throws at us here in this one moment!? :)

      Maybe because at our core, we are God... something of an explanation,
      eh? :-)

      >it could be a death or a birth
      >that throws us --
      >40,000 possibly dead in turkey?
      >that many forms of *iam* -- gone.

      No, not gone. Gone on to other lives, or to Source.

      >*suffering is a part of life* sounds/is trite, but
      >it's "true" -- yet hard to see that
      >no event is more or less painful than any other.

      Suffering doesn't have to be a part of life. Pain, yes. Suffering, no.
      Suffering is a choice - a choice where most of us unfortunately decide
      that
      suffering is inevitable.

      >i stand for the dead and the unborn.

      If there were either of the above, they would be good things to stand
      for :-)

      >i stand for nothing but love.

      Stand for truth as well... it's equal to love in its potency.

      >silent blessing to us all

      With Love,

      Tim

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.