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

10351Re: Pseudo-theosophy of AAB & CWL

Expand Messages
  • Nick Weeks
    Jan 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...>

      > 1.
      > About the CWL issue:
      > The agrument, that Bailey copied papers from the Esoteric Section of Adyar
      > Theosophy, is NOT valid at all,
      > as long as those papers are not presented to the public.
      > It is just like saying: I am right, and you are wrong, - well I know that
      > and I won't really tell you why !
      > Let us face it CWL was no angel, - maybe rather a Priest creating a Phallic
      > problems...
      > Do you (N. Weeks) agree ? >:-)

      No Morten. The question was not about presenting ES material to the public;
      but that was what both Leadbeater & Bailey did. Perhaps they had
      "permission" -- I do not know or care. Lindsay had suggested that because the
      Fibetan (I call that creature such, because a fib is a lie) said Leadbeater
      copied Bailey it must be true. With Jerry HE help it is clear that CWL's
      teachings were the basis of AAB's -- not the contrary.

      > 2.
      > A core problem with the teachings of Bailey - I have already made a remark
      > on. Zack Lansdowne havn't answered my posting on that here at Theos-Talk
      > yet. Maybe P. Lindsay will do that ?
      > My view on Bailey: Why Baileys books are a problem today if followed -
      > dead-letter,
      > as many pro-Baileys unfortunately do !!!
      > (On racism and Alice A. Bailey: Esoteric Psychology 1, p. 167):
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10028
      > Do you agree ?

      Probably, but I have not read your post yet.

      > 3.
      > And if N. Weeks just would read my article more carefully - he would
      > discover, that maybe both he and P. Lindsay are right in many of their
      > assumptions. It all depends on the level of thinking or the mode of
      > thinking.
      > What do you think ?

      I will have to re-read your article sometime.

      > 4.
      > When asked about my view, I have today, i.e. TODAY, to say, that I disagree
      > so very much with the Alice A. Bailey teachings in being promoted as they
      > are, - i.e. as they are in total. And - especially - promoting them alone
      > without any REAL emphasis and regard for the teachings of H. P. Blavatsky is
      > not good. And this is sadly so very commen today among a lot of pro-Bailey
      > groups.

      Yes, very important Morten. Not only is their little regard, but little study
      and most importantly any study is done always through the lens of AAB's
      interpretation of HPB's original Theosophy. HPB in the Bowen pamphlet notes
      suggested to never study THE SECRET DOCTRINE through the commentary of
      another, but always approach it with your own consciousness.

      [......]

      > What do you think about this ?

      In my own case I would have probably never used AAB as a "stepping stone" to
      anything rational, because it is not on a real path to anywhere. Thanks to
      personal contacts with those who were in HPB's lineage my mind was very slowly
      jogged out of its stupification, until I finally began to think for my self.

      As for "new" teachings versus "old", I would remind you that the while the
      popularity of Buddhism now is "new", the Dharma is very "old". So I prefer
      and recommend the old paths because they have been proven to lead somewhere
      virtuous and benficial to all beings.

      > 5.
      > My view on the Jew issue: The Jew issue is also, represented badly by
      > Blavatsky herself - when viewed year 2003,(The Secret Doctrine. vol. 2, p.
      > 471). And the Mahatma Letters are not great either, on races and racism, due
      > to their age. So there I will keep my mouth shut, - if not the 7 keys are
      > used. But let us remember, that the 7 keys and the different modes of
      > reading - are - in use while reading the teachings of Blavatsky. The same
      > seems to count when talking about the teachings of Bailey, at least to a
      > certain degree. But Baileys teachings are not very helpfull at the moment -
      > i.e. year 2003 - in our present informations society.
      > Do you agree ?
      > Do N. Weeks agree ?

      I am afraid I just do not indulge much in "group think" - never have. I just
      see individuals in context with their varied influences.

      [.......]

      > 8.
      > A big problem is that Alice A. Bailey groups are closely involved with
      > politics - even at a very high level, - as high as The United Nations.
      > In Denmark, where I live, a Bailey-inspired group (the international author
      > Asger Lorentsen are involved) a at present collecting votes, so to run for
      > the Danish parliment, and maybe later The European Union. The political
      > party has the name "Visionspartiet" - translates "The Visions Party".
      > What is going on in USA ?

      No knowledge on my part.
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic