Questions about Creme -part1a-
Watch Kooks
despite what that idiot Dotty gets up to with his missionary spam
binges.
I consider you an Ok type of guy even though we obviously disagree :-D
From the first set:
Peyote:
>> ==========
>> Questions about Lucifer
>>
>> Q1. Have you ever heard of the Lucifer Trust? If so -and its correct-
>> what is the current name used and why was there a change
>> in name?
Casey:
>Yeah, I am well away Lucus Trust used to be called Lucifer Trust.
>You will have to ask them for yourselves why they changed the name,
>as you have pointed out before, they don't support Mr. Creme's
>claims and Mr Creme is not affiliated with them.
Peyote:
Despite differences in how the word Lucifer is interpreted Bailey knew
very well what Christians would think about it. Do you think that
Christianity would ever accept works from a group which was once
called the luficer trust?
Creme may well be rejected by the Lucis trust but that still does not
totally seperate the assocaition nor some of the sources from which
Creme draws on. Likewise goes for the Theosophical society, one leads
into the other.
Blavatsky made it quite clear that it was the serpent which
enlightened humanity and in fact regarded the OT God YHWH as an evil
God.
Peyote:
>> Q2. Did Lucifer evolve to a '7th degree initiation' and is he the only
>> being to have done this?
Casey:
>OK, the basic answer to all these questions is that we are
>basically talking about different concepts. You are probably
>equating "Lucifer" with the idea of the "Devil" and maybe
>even having to do with the anti-Christ. In this sense neither
>Mr. Creme or Alice Bailey make any claims about such a person.
>In fact, neither of them even think such a being exists.
>The Lucifer they talk about is a completely different
>concept. The actual meaning of "Lucifer" is "bringer
>of light" and really has nothing to do with what you
>are trying to insinuate.
Peyote:
There are a few problems with this.
Firstly Lucifer was mentioned a long time before Blavatsky and Bailey
came along so there was already a firm theological foundatation that
existed amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims regarding who and what it
is.
Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
their own point of view -supposedl under the guidance of an ascended
master-.
Thirdly I have done a little bit of private research since our last
discussion and found that other people also claimed to be in contack
with DK or some ascended master and their teachings conflict on some
major points, even some who believe they communicate with Maitreya and
two who believe they are actually Maitreya himself.
Peyote:
>> Q2a. Is it true that Buddha only reached the 6th degree and Jesus the
>> 4th degree?
Casey:
>No. 2000 years ago Jesus was a 4th degree intiate but he
>is now an ascended master working closly with Maitreya.
>2500 years ago Prince Gutama was not a 6th degree intiate
>but the Buddha who worked through Gutama was a ascended
>master.
Peyote:
I present this bit of information sent to me could you verify it in
context:
-Lucifer, Creme preaches, is the only being to have evolved to a '7th
degree initiation', as opposed to Buddha (6th) or Jesus (4th)
All this was from a lecture by Creme in Detroit at the Detroit Unity
Temple, sometime in early 1980s (Nov 1981?), attended by about 800
people - as reported by Detroit lawyer Constance Cumbey in _Hidden
Dangers of the Rainbow_, p.96-7. The initiation level of Jesus
temporarily being 5th is confirmed in Bailey's _Initiation, Human and
Solar_, p.56.
Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
Buddha? How many people do you think amongs jews, Christians and
Muslims would accept that?
Peyote:
>> Q2b. Is it true that for awhile Jesus did reach the 5th degree but
>> went back down to the 4th degree? If so why and what
>> happened?
Casey:
>Absolutely not.
So do categorily deny that Jesus was demoted from the 5th level down
to the fourth level? This has never been stated in Baileys work,
Cremes or Blavatskys?
-The initiation level of Jesus temporarily being 5th is confirmed in
Bailey's _Initiation, Human and Solar_, p.56.-
If Jesus was demoted why was he demoted a level? What did he do wrong?
======continued======
Peyote:
>>Q3. Is Lucifer said to be in charge of the 'planetary evolution'?
Casey:
>Again, talking about a completely different being and idea then
>the popular use of that term, I wouldn't say the being discussed on
>the Bailey teachings is "in charge of planetay evolution". What
>it really is is the Oversoul of which every individualized hunan
>soul is atually a part of.
-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
----------------------------------
Peyote:
>>Q3a. Is Maitreya said to have 'nourished' all the genius which
>>humankind has produced, including Freud, Jung, Picasso,
>>Mahatma Gandhi, Karl Marx and Einstein -all these reaching a '2nd
>>level' initiation-?
Casey:
>In his role as "the Christ" Maitreya actually nourishes everyone
>to some extent. Maitreya does have a particular role at the
>1st and 2nd initiations. The basic answer to your question is
>yes.
Peyote:
Yes I verified this from someone who got it from amd old Share Int'l
website, Q&A page - more accurately, Questions to "Maitreya", not
Creme.
--------------
Peyote:
>>Q4. What is Maitreya's relationship to Lucifer?
Casey:
>>I don't know the precise answer to this question, but again,
>>I am not talking about the being that is called Lucifer
>>that most people relate to. If we are talking about Lucifer,
>>as in Satan or the Devil as in the forces of Materiality
>>or "Evil" then Maitreya and the Masters are constantly fighting
>>against them from overstepping their bounds and creating
>>what we call evil in the world.
Peyote:
>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to inhabit
>>him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
But it would not be impossible would it?
Peyote:
>>Q4b. Can it be said that another name which Maitreya uses/has used
>>is 'Lucifer' in Creme's system?
Casey:
>Absolutely not.
What do you makeof this then:
'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
"Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
Lucifer; ....
Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
*_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
"Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
p.681.
New Question realted to the above:
Peyote:
Q4ba Is Lucifer the head then or the heirachy or does he work
together equally with Maitrye? Are they intercgangeable in roles
and modes of operation?
----------------------------------
Peyote.
eo
quotes. He can't disassociate Creme from Bailey's works because of the
ascended masters hierarchy quote from the 80's you cited. Maybe I'll have to
read some Bailey material myself, instead of reading only intros and
excerpts.
.........................................................
Watch Kooks wrote in message ...
caseyk
>Great new material, Peyote. I wonder how Casey will wiggle out of the direct
>quotes. He can't disassociate Creme from Bailey's works because of the
>ascended masters hierarchy quote from the 80's you cited. Maybe I'll have to
>read some Bailey material myself, instead of reading only intros and
>excerpts.
Hi Eo,
This is not meant as a put down in any way I just wanted to point something
out to you. I am more then happy to discuss the topics Peytote has asked
me about. I think what we both want is just a straight forward
conversation to clear up some facts.
However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
posts can be atagonizing.
Anyway its up to you, I will answer Peyotes post to the best of
my ability and knowledge and we can go from there.
Casey
Allen Crider
"Watch Kooks" <rea...@check.dore.com> wrote in message
news:hjfoes80rapma5jmo...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> What do you makeof this then:
>
> 'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
> can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
> "Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
> Lucifer; ....
>
> Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
> mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
>
> *_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
> diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
> of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
> attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
> listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
> two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
> Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
> "Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
> p.681.
I think you got this off of that Christian site, Peyote. I've got a Cosmic
Fire book right here (I read a lot of Bailey) and there is no such chart on
page 950. There is a chart on 1238-39 called "Solar and Planetary
Hierarchies", but it doesn't show any Lucifer. You can see this online if
you don't have Cosmic Fire at http://www.netnews.org/bk/fire/fire1459.html
There is a chart that mentions Lucifer as the ruler of humanity in
Externalization of the Hierarchy, which you can see on netnews at
http://www.netnews.org/bk/externalisation/exte1043.html
I do read a lot of Bailey and don't find myself worshipping Lucifer, nor
does her stuff suggest that we do so. A search of the netnews.org Bailey
pages peoduces 7 results for Lucifer.
Creme draws almost exclusively from Bailey's stuff and has a unique, stupid,
interpretation of her stuff. His statement which you quoted him as saying
that Lucifer is a 7th degree initiate is low-grade anthropomorphizing of a
type of energy (mind). I think that Creme studies Bailey all by himself...
never asks other Bailey folks for interpretations.
I don't subscribe to the Protestant Christian dogma that Lucifer=Satan.
Lucifer is mind, light, intelligence. Tha biblical story about Lucifer's
fall illustrates the fact that mind suffers from the illusion that mind
(itself) is the greatest and is an equal of spirit, or even believes that
spirit doesn't exist. God (spirit) cast Lucifer out for expressing this
illusion.
In the Adam and Eve myth, humanity gained intelligence (knowledge of good
and evil) and thus could no longer exist in the paradise of ignorance. The
illusion that mind is greatest hits home for me because I was raised as a
child under the dogma of Religious Science (Science of Mind). It isn't
really so bad, but it is a very incomplete universal view
A really great piece about the historical Lucifer is in Manly P. Hall's
Secret Teachings of All Ages. This book is a great encyclopedia of old
Western spiritual thought that supplements standard Christian biblical fare.
Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it. Ben Creme's take on Bailey's stuff
is weird, and I don't like it. It is obvious to me that Ben Creme has
limited spiritual experience. He is very attached to the voices in his head.
He has a limited concept of the basics, such as Be Here Now, Everything is
Energy, etc. I really think he is insincere. I didn't used to think so, but
he has been yanking on his followers chain for too, too long to be anything
but a gold digger.
Take care, can't wait to see Caseys answer to your stuff!
Allen
caseyk
>Okay Casey I give in I will continue our discussion if you want to
>despite what that idiot Dotty gets up to with his missionary spam
>binges.
>I consider you an Ok type of guy even though we obviously disagree :-D
Flattery will get you nowhere:)
>From the first set:
>Peyote:
>>> ==========
>>> Questions about Lucifer
>>>
>>> Q1. Have you ever heard of the Lucifer Trust? If so -and its correct-
>>> what is the current name used and why was there a change
>>> in name?
>Casey:
>>Yeah, I am well away Lucus Trust used to be called Lucifer Trust.
>>You will have to ask them for yourselves why they changed the name,
>>as you have pointed out before, they don't support Mr. Creme's
>>claims and Mr Creme is not affiliated with them.
>Peyote:
>Despite differences in how the word Lucifer is interpreted Bailey knew
>very well what Christians would think about it. Do you think that
>Christianity would ever accept works from a group which was once
>called the luficer trust?
I absolutely realize that the word Lucifer had a very distinct meaning
to many people (even non-Christians) and how its interpreted by
Bailey and Mr. Creme is different then the common use. So now
we come to the question, why on earth would they use that name, why not
pick another for the same concept?
The answer is that if this story is true we are dealing with realities
that go back 100,000's of years and not just made up late in the
1800's. Those guys don't change names eveytime we get a concept wrong:)
It surprised me to find the term Lucifer was never used in the new
testiment at all and only once in the old testiment in Isaiah.
Reading through the chapter in Isaiah it is far from clear what is
being said and it could easily be interpreted as humanities "fall"
into incarnation when looking at it from that context. The fact is
the "LORD" in the old testiment threatens far worse on his own people
as punishment then is attributed to Lucifer in that ONE reference.
As far as what most people would tell you if you asked them is
that Lucifer and Satan are the same thing. Two names for the same
person. However, there is absolutely no biblical reference that
I know of that makes this connection. Satan in the New Testiment
has to do with the anti-Christ and Lucifer in his one mention
in the old testiment is definitely up for interpretation, IMHO.
As far as acceptance based on this. Obvioulsy Lucus Trust agreed
with you because they changed their name. However, this has
nothing to do with Alice Bailey or Mr. Creme. They just try
to keep the facts simple and straight forward and try to explain
mis-understandings instead of shy away from them.
>Creme may well be rejected by the Lucis trust but that still does not
>totally seperate the assocaition nor some of the sources from which
>Creme draws on. Likewise goes for the Theosophical society, one leads
>into the other.
I never said it did.
>Blavatsky made it quite clear that it was the serpent which
>enlightened humanity and in fact regarded the OT God YHWH as an evil
>God.
I'm not to strong on Blavatsky but I don't even think the line you
just wrote is "quite clear" on what she was talking about. IMHO she
was more cryptic then Bailey and especially Creme. Not necessarily
wrong but cryptic:)
>Peyote:
>>> Q2. Did Lucifer evolve to a '7th degree initiation' and is he the only
>>> being to have done this?
>Casey:
>>OK, the basic answer to all these questions is that we are
>>basically talking about different concepts. You are probably
>>equating "Lucifer" with the idea of the "Devil" and maybe
>>even having to do with the anti-Christ. In this sense neither
>>Mr. Creme or Alice Bailey make any claims about such a person.
>>In fact, neither of them even think such a being exists.
>>The Lucifer they talk about is a completely different
>>concept. The actual meaning of "Lucifer" is "bringer
>>of light" and really has nothing to do with what you
>>are trying to insinuate.
>Peyote:
>There are a few problems with this.
>Firstly Lucifer was mentioned a long time before Blavatsky and Bailey
>came along so there was already a firm theological foundatation that
>existed amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims regarding who and what it
>is.
I think I addressed this above.
>Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
>their own point of view -supposedl under the guidance of an ascended
>master-.
HB yes, however, some of Bailey's books are attibuted directly
to the Master DK.
>Thirdly I have done a little bit of private research since our last
>discussion and found that other people also claimed to be in contack
>with DK or some ascended master and their teachings conflict on some
>major points, even some who believe they communicate with Maitreya and
>two who believe they are actually Maitreya himself.
Absolutely:) They come and tell Mr. Creme this all the time. He usually
says "Thats nice. Have a nice day:)" Seriouly, I am well aware that
many make this claim, I just don't happen to agree with them:)
>Peyote:
>>> Q2a. Is it true that Buddha only reached the 6th degree and Jesus the
>>> 4th degree?
>Casey:
>>No. 2000 years ago Jesus was a 4th degree intiate but he
>>is now an ascended master working closly with Maitreya.
>>2500 years ago Prince Gutama was not a 6th degree intiate
>>but the Buddha who worked through Gutama was a ascended
>>master.
>Peyote:
>I present this bit of information sent to me could you verify it in
>context:
>-Lucifer, Creme preaches, is the only being to have evolved to a '7th
>degree initiation', as opposed to Buddha (6th) or Jesus (4th)
If you look back at my original comment on this (which I did:)
I said its was probably true. But in the context of what
I am saying Lucifer is.
>All this was from a lecture by Creme in Detroit at the Detroit Unity
>Temple, sometime in early 1980s (Nov 1981?), attended by about 800
>people - as reported by Detroit lawyer Constance Cumbey in _Hidden
>Dangers of the Rainbow_, p.96-7. The initiation level of Jesus
>temporarily being 5th is confirmed in Bailey's _Initiation, Human and
>Solar_, p.56.
OK, I looked and looked but could not find the reference you are
refering to. All I found in that book was that Jesus took the 5th
initiation in his next life (after Jesus) and never looked back:)
The confusion might be that the whole bible story about Jesus was about
all 5 initiations and symbolically the resurection is the
5th initiation. But I don't see where it is stated (on page 56 or
anywhere else in the book) that Jesus took the 5th initiation then went
back. If you want you can provide the direct quote and we can talk
about it.
>Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
>Buddha? How many people do you think amongs jews, Christians and
>Muslims would accept that?
How? Through the evolutionary process. I would say VERY few
people wuld accpet that to be true in any religion or not.
However, I feel that most people also would think that
Satan and Lucifer are synonomous which there are absolutely
no references in the bible that point to that.
>Peyote:
>>> Q2b. Is it true that for awhile Jesus did reach the 5th degree but
>>> went back down to the 4th degree? If so why and what
>>> happened?
>Casey:
>>Absolutely not.
>So do categorily deny that Jesus was demoted from the 5th level down
>to the fourth level? This has never been stated in Baileys work,
>Cremes or Blavatskys?
>-The initiation level of Jesus temporarily being 5th is confirmed in
>Bailey's _Initiation, Human and Solar_, p.56.-
Again, I looked in the book and don't see the reference you are
talking about.
>If Jesus was demoted why was he demoted a level? What did he do wrong?
I still say he wasn't:)
>======continued======
>Peyote:
>>>Q3. Is Lucifer said to be in charge of the 'planetary evolution'?
>Casey:
>>Again, talking about a completely different being and idea then
>>the popular use of that term, I wouldn't say the being discussed on
>>the Bailey teachings is "in charge of planetay evolution". What
>>it really is is the Oversoul of which every individualized hunan
>>soul is atually a part of.
>-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
>our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
The way I would say it is we are him.
>----------------------------------
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>--------------
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
It might be, I don't know.
>Peyote:
>>>Q4b. Can it be said that another name which Maitreya uses/has used
>>>is 'Lucifer' in Creme's system?
>Casey:
>>Absolutely not.
>What do you makeof this then:
>'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
>can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
>"Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
>Lucifer; ....
This come from another thread and I don't know what she's basing
her opinions on. Maitreya is at the head of the planetary
hierarachy that watches over our evolution and not Lucifer.
They are not the same being.
>Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
>mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
>*_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
>diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
>of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
>attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
>listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
>two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
>Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
>"Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
>p.681.
Hierarchy watches over our evolution. This chart shows the
Christ (Maitreya) at the head of this hierachy. The third
planetry center is Humanity which I have already discussed
Lucifer's relation to humanity and being the "Oversoul" of
which we are all a part of. I don't see how this chart
contradicts what I have said. The "short" story of
Lucifer in the old testiment is about humanities fall
into incarnation (as far as this story goes).
>New Question realted to the above:
>Peyote:
>Q4ba Is Lucifer the head then or the heirachy or does he work
>together equally with Maitrye? Are they intercgangeable in roles
>and modes of operation?
Absolutely not.
Casey
>----------------------------------
>Peyote.
caseyk
Well Allen described this better then I could have. I pretty much
agree with what he has said in this post (except for the comments
about Mr. Creme of course:)
Casey
>"Watch Kooks" <rea...@check.dore.com> wrote in message
>news:hjfoes80rapma5jmo...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
>> What do you makeof this then:
>>
>> 'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
>> can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
>> "Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
>> Lucifer; ....
>>
>> Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
>> mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
>>
>> *_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
>> diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
>> of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
>> attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
>> listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
>> two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
>> Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
>> "Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
>> p.681.
>I think you got this off of that Christian site, Peyote. I've got a Cosmic
Watch Kooks
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
>"Watch Kooks" <rea...@check.dore.com> wrote in message
>news:hjfoes80rapma5jmo...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> What do you makeof this then:
>>
>> 'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
>> can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
>> "Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
>> Lucifer; ....
This was the question I put to Hannah:
>> Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
>> mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
Ans:
>> *_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
>> diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
>> of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
>> attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
>> listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
>> two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
>> Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
>> "Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
>> p.681.
>
>I think you got this off of that Christian site, Peyote. I've got a Cosmic
>Fire book right here (I read a lot of Bailey) and there is no such chart on
>page 950. There is a chart on 1238-39 called "Solar and Planetary
>Hierarchies", but it doesn't show any Lucifer. You can see this online if
>you don't have Cosmic Fire at http://www.netnews.org/bk/fire/fire1459.html
>
>There is a chart that mentions Lucifer as the ruler of humanity in
>Externalization of the Hierarchy, which you can see on netnews at
>http://www.netnews.org/bk/externalisation/exte1043.html
Okay thanks for the correction on the quote Allen, I pasted the above
which actually came from what Hannah sent me via email -she is not
Christian- we have been in correspondence for awhile now and before I
posted this I sent her an email to check some of the sources for me
-from her original article-.
>I do read a lot of Bailey and don't find myself worshipping Lucifer, nor
>does her stuff suggest that we do so. A search of the netnews.org Bailey
>pages peoduces 7 results for Lucifer.
Yes I did the same thing myself LOL. Hence why the above puzzled me. I
thought that either the books had been changed, or someone was telling
a fib somewhere.
>Creme draws almost exclusively from Bailey's stuff and has a unique, stupid,
>interpretation of her stuff. His statement which you quoted him as saying
>that Lucifer is a 7th degree initiate is low-grade anthropomorphizing of a
>type of energy (mind). I think that Creme studies Bailey all by himself...
>never asks other Bailey folks for interpretations.
Okay.
>I don't subscribe to the Protestant Christian dogma that Lucifer=Satan.
>Lucifer is mind, light, intelligence. Tha biblical story about Lucifer's
>fall illustrates the fact that mind suffers from the illusion that mind
>(itself) is the greatest and is an equal of spirit, or even believes that
>spirit doesn't exist. God (spirit) cast Lucifer out for expressing this
>illusion.
>
>In the Adam and Eve myth, humanity gained intelligence (knowledge of good
>and evil) and thus could no longer exist in the paradise of ignorance. The
>illusion that mind is greatest hits home for me because I was raised as a
>child under the dogma of Religious Science (Science of Mind). It isn't
>really so bad, but it is a very incomplete universal view
>
>A really great piece about the historical Lucifer is in Manly P. Hall's
>Secret Teachings of All Ages. This book is a great encyclopedia of old
>Western spiritual thought that supplements standard Christian biblical fare.
>
>Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it. Ben Creme's take on Bailey's stuff
>is weird, and I don't like it. It is obvious to me that Ben Creme has
>limited spiritual experience. He is very attached to the voices in his head.
>He has a limited concept of the basics, such as Be Here Now, Everything is
>Energy, etc. I really think he is insincere. I didn't used to think so, but
>he has been yanking on his followers chain for too, too long to be anything
>but a gold digger.
Okay and thanks again Allen for the correction I really appreciate it,
one thing I hate is half baked truths or outright BS.
I owe you one mate.
>Take care, can't wait to see Caseys answer to your stuff!
>Allen
>>
eo
caseyk wrote in message <8cifpe$19ce$1...@earth.superlink.net>...
>"eo" <8...@eo.eo> writes:
>
>>Great new material, Peyote. I wonder how Casey will wiggle out of the
direct
>>quotes. He can't disassociate Creme from Bailey's works because of the
>>ascended masters hierarchy quote from the 80's you cited. Maybe I'll have
to
>>read some Bailey material myself, instead of reading only intros and
>>excerpts.
>
>
>This is not meant as a put down in any way I just wanted to point something
>out to you. I am more then happy to discuss the topics Peytote has asked
>me about. I think what we both want is just a straight forward
>conversation to clear up some facts.
>
>However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
>how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
>reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
>to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
>are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
>posts can be atagonizing.
If you've seen my postings somewhat, you know I can get much more abusive
when the situation calls for it. "Wiggle out" shows my bias, but that should
be no surprise because you know where I stand on the issue of where Creme
and Bailey got their ascended master hierarchy from. If I wanted to attack
you personally, I would resort to the tactics of that freak Kayla who named
her hit list with drug and sexual comments.
.................................
_Peyote_
wrote:
>Hi Eo,
>
>However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
>how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
>reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
>to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
>are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
>posts can be atagonizing.
Aww come one Casey be fair have you seen the threads between Eo and my
self LOL we provoked the shit out of each other, I remember even
giving him a nice bark as a reply in one post :-D
He is who he is, I am who I am, and your who you are.
I am sure this will still work out fine I mean even Allen pulled me up
on a quote which was kewl because I hate BS and the sooner we all get
the BS out of the way the easier it will be to get down to the real
facts.
>Anyway its up to you, I will answer Peyotes post to the best of
>my ability and knowledge and we can go from there.
No probs mate.
Looking forward to it.
>Casey
Peyote.
_Peyote_
wrote:
Peyote:
>Flattery will get you nowhere:)
Well I tried :-)
>>From the first set:
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>>> ==========
>>>> Questions about Lucifer
>>>>
>>>> Q1. Have you ever heard of the Lucifer Trust? If so -and its correct-
>>>> what is the current name used and why was there a change
>>>> in name?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>Yeah, I am well away Lucus Trust used to be called Lucifer Trust.
>>>You will have to ask them for yourselves why they changed the name,
>>>as you have pointed out before, they don't support Mr. Creme's
>>>claims and Mr Creme is not affiliated with them.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>Despite differences in how the word Lucifer is interpreted Bailey knew
>>very well what Christians would think about it. Do you think that
>>Christianity would ever accept works from a group which was once
>>called the luficer trust?
>
>I absolutely realize that the word Lucifer had a very distinct meaning
>to many people (even non-Christians) and how its interpreted by
>Bailey and Mr. Creme is different then the common use. So now
>we come to the question, why on earth would they use that name, why not
>pick another for the same concept?
My reading leads me to believe that they built on Blavatsky's work and
then took of in a new direction. Blavatsky was very adamant by what
she meant in her writings.
>The answer is that if this story is true we are dealing with realities
>that go back 100,000's of years and not just made up late in the
>1800's.
Do you have ancient texts to support this? What are your oldest
surviving texts which can be viewed by the public that exist today?
>Those guys don't change names eveytime we get a concept wrong:)
>It surprised me to find the term Lucifer was never used in the new
>testiment at all and only once in the old testiment in Isaiah.
>Reading through the chapter in Isaiah it is far from clear what is
>being said and it could easily be interpreted as humanities "fall"
>into incarnation when looking at it from that context. The fact is
>the "LORD" in the old testiment threatens far worse on his own people
>as punishment then is attributed to Lucifer in that ONE reference.
Yes and no in the context Lucifer which became satan in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam was permitted free reign and even had access
for awhile to be before god YHWH.
Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
If you look into this you will then find the exact opposite to what
you have said above. That was one of Blavatsky's main contentions with
god being the evil one and the serpent being the true liberator of
humanity.
What she forgot to include was the long term effect of that
disobedience if one believes in that genesis myth.
The Lucifer in the OT did fall of that there is no doubt, where a
question remains is as to what did he really fall over and why was he
cast down -with others like him as other parts of the bible says-.
Well the bible says devil obviously fell due to pride:
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the devil.
-1 Timothy 3:6-
Interestingly enough if we look at other middle eastern texts we find
a similar theme here are a few from the Qur'an:
And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed
down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who
reject Faith.
-Surah 2:34-
It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels
prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be
of those who prostrate.
-Surah 7:11-
Etc etc.
>As far as what most people would tell you if you asked them is
>that Lucifer and Satan are the same thing. Two names for the same
>person. However, there is absolutely no biblical reference that
>I know of that makes this connection. Satan in the New Testiment
>has to do with the anti-Christ and Lucifer in his one mention
>in the old testiment is definitely up for interpretation, IMHO.
No that is not correct. Lucifer after the fall became satan -he was
still Lucifer though- in Judaism & Islam names take on a meaning being
related languages basically Lucifer was now called the adversary. This
incidently also has happened with people like Abraham/Ibrhaim who was
earlier known as Abram.
Eo probably has more material on this than I do but if you look
closely at the Hebrew people were also called satan however when the
definite article 'ha' is used then it is talking about the devil as
we commonly know it. In Greek it is similar sa-ta-nas' applies to
satan the devil in nearly all its occurrences and is usually
accompanied by the definite article 'ho'.
As for your comment about the NT satan is clearly the tempter or
'false accuser' the connection to him/it being the anti-christ is a
theological one
>As far as acceptance based on this. Obvioulsy Lucus Trust agreed
>with you because they changed their name. However, this has
>nothing to do with Alice Bailey or Mr. Creme. They just try
>to keep the facts simple and straight forward and try to explain
>mis-understandings instead of shy away from them.
Perhaps or they moved further away from Blavatsky's writings on
Lucifer/Satan and serpent revealer concept.
>>Creme may well be rejected by the Lucis trust but that still does not
>>totally seperate the assocaition nor some of the sources from which
>>Creme draws on. Likewise goes for the Theosophical society, one leads
>>into the other.
>
>I never said it did.
Then if your all coming from the same source why are all three of you
so different? Shouldn't the same ascended masters be guiding you and
giving you the same information?
It looks to me more like a normal progression of sorting and sifting
information.
>>Blavatsky made it quite clear that it was the serpent which
>>enlightened humanity and in fact regarded the OT God YHWH as an evil
>>God.
>
>I'm not to strong on Blavatsky but I don't even think the line you
>just wrote is "quite clear" on what she was talking about. IMHO she
>was more cryptic then Bailey and especially Creme. Not necessarily
>wrong but cryptic:)
Oh she could be cryptic when she wanted but she could also be quite
clear also. She repeated this quite a few times.
>>Peyote:
>
>>>> Q2. Did Lucifer evolve to a '7th degree initiation' and is he the only
>>>> being to have done this?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>OK, the basic answer to all these questions is that we are
>>>basically talking about different concepts. You are probably
>>>equating "Lucifer" with the idea of the "Devil" and maybe
>>>even having to do with the anti-Christ. In this sense neither
>>>Mr. Creme or Alice Bailey make any claims about such a person.
>>>In fact, neither of them even think such a being exists.
>
>>>The Lucifer they talk about is a completely different
>>>concept. The actual meaning of "Lucifer" is "bringer
>>>of light" and really has nothing to do with what you
>>>are trying to insinuate.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>There are a few problems with this.
>
>>Firstly Lucifer was mentioned a long time before Blavatsky and Bailey
>>came along so there was already a firm theological foundatation that
>>existed amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims regarding who and what it
>>is.
>
>I think I addressed this above.
I would like evidence of your earliest surviving manuscripts which can
be viewed by the public. Otherwise all it is to me is another
interpretation on already established works. In other words I need
proof as to how old or far back this really goes. Surely you must have
some ancient tibetan manuscripts?
>>Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
>>their own point of view -supposedly under the guidance of an ascended
>>master-.
>
>HB yes, however, some of Bailey's books are attibuted directly
>to the Master DK.
Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
>>Thirdly I have done a little bit of private research since our last
>>discussion and found that other people also claimed to be in contack
>>with DK or some ascended master and their teachings conflict on some
>>major points, even some who believe they communicate with Maitreya and
>>two who believe they are actually Maitreya himself.
>
>Absolutely:) They come and tell Mr. Creme this all the time. He usually
>says "Thats nice. Have a nice day:)" Seriouly, I am well aware that
>many make this claim, I just don't happen to agree with them:)
And yet they have their own experiences channeling -or overshadowing
if you will- doesn't that tell you something Casey? The people around
them believe it, have obviously had experiences like you etc etc. So
what makes you think your experience or Creme's own voices -whatever-
are correct?
These ascended masters apparently can't even agree on who is who and
with time change their views and guidance.
Okay.
>>Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
>>Buddha? How many people do you think amongs jews, Christians and
>>Muslims would accept that?
>
>How? Through the evolutionary process. I would say VERY few
>people wuld accpet that to be true in any religion or not.
>However, I feel that most people also would think that
>Satan and Lucifer are synonomous which there are absolutely
>no references in the bible that point to that.
That is your interpretation of it Lucifer as I pointed out was cast
down -with others- and in the Hebrew and Arabic context it was due to
pride hence the name change. He still is Lucifer though amongst Jews,
Christians he is also known as Ha Satan, Iblis, satan. The oral
tradition of Judaism might also help you to understand this as some
apocryphal books would -Enoch- might be a good place to start.
>>>> Q2b. Is it true that for awhile Jesus did reach the 5th degree but
>>>> went back down to the 4th degree? If so why and what
>>>> happened?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>Absolutely not.
>
>>So do categorily deny that Jesus was demoted from the 5th level down
>>to the fourth level? This has never been stated in Baileys work,
>>Cremes or Blavatskys?
>
>>-The initiation level of Jesus temporarily being 5th is confirmed in
>>Bailey's _Initiation, Human and Solar_, p.56.-
>
>Again, I looked in the book and don't see the reference you are
>talking about.
>
>>If Jesus was demoted why was he demoted a level? What did he do wrong?
>
>I still say he wasn't:)
Okay back to the books again.
>>======continued======
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>Q3. Is Lucifer said to be in charge of the 'planetary evolution'?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>Again, talking about a completely different being and idea then
>>>the popular use of that term, I wouldn't say the being discussed on
>>>the Bailey teachings is "in charge of planetay evolution". What
>>>it really is is the Oversoul of which every individualized hunan
>>>soul is atually a part of.
>
>>-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
>>our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
>
>The way I would say it is we are him.
Or is it/him a part of us? One thing I am curious about when did
Lucifer reach the 7th degree?
-snip-
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>Q4. What is Maitreya's relationship to Lucifer?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>>I don't know the precise answer to this question, but again,
>>>>I am not talking about the being that is called Lucifer
>>>>that most people relate to. If we are talking about Lucifer,
>>>>as in Satan or the Devil as in the forces of Materiality
>>>>or "Evil" then Maitreya and the Masters are constantly fighting
>>>>against them from overstepping their bounds and creating
>>>>what we call evil in the world.
If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash satan &
co.
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to inhabit
>>>>him sometime in the future?
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
>
>>But it would not be impossible would it?
>
>It might be, I don't know.
Okay.
>>Q4ba Is Lucifer the head then or the hierarchy or does he work
>>together equally with Maitreya? Are they interchangeable in roles
>>and modes of operation?
>
>Absolutely not.
Okay, thanks that should keep me busy for awhile LOL.
>Casey
Peyote.
~Tempest~
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
>"Watch Kooks" <rea...@check.dore.com> wrote in message
>news:hjfoes80rapma5jmo...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> What do you makeof this then:
>>
>> 'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
>> can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
>> "Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
>> Lucifer; ....
>>
>> Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
>> mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
>>
>> *_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
>> diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
>> of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
>> attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
>> listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
>> two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
>> Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
>> "Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
>> p.681.
>
>I think you got this off of that Christian site, Peyote. I've got a Cosmic
>Fire book right here (I read a lot of Bailey) and there is no such chart on
>page 950. There is a chart on 1238-39 called "Solar and Planetary
>Hierarchies", but it doesn't show any Lucifer. You can see this online if
>you don't have Cosmic Fire at http://www.netnews.org/bk/fire/fire1459.html
>
>There is a chart that mentions Lucifer as the ruler of humanity in
>Externalization of the Hierarchy, which you can see on netnews at
>http://www.netnews.org/bk/externalisation/exte1043.html
>
>I do read a lot of Bailey and don't find myself worshipping Lucifer, nor
>does her stuff suggest that we do so. A search of the netnews.org Bailey
>pages peoduces 7 results for Lucifer.
>
>Creme draws almost exclusively from Bailey's stuff and has a unique, stupid,
>interpretation of her stuff. His statement which you quoted him as saying
>that Lucifer is a 7th degree initiate is low-grade anthropomorphizing of a
>type of energy (mind). I think that Creme studies Bailey all by himself...
>never asks other Bailey folks for interpretations.
>
>I don't subscribe to the Protestant Christian dogma that Lucifer=Satan.
>Lucifer is mind, light, intelligence. Tha biblical story about Lucifer's
>fall illustrates the fact that mind suffers from the illusion that mind
>(itself) is the greatest and is an equal of spirit, or even believes that
>spirit doesn't exist. God (spirit) cast Lucifer out for expressing this
>illusion.
>
>In the Adam and Eve myth, humanity gained intelligence (knowledge of good
>and evil) and thus could no longer exist in the paradise of ignorance. The
>illusion that mind is greatest hits home for me because I was raised as a
>child under the dogma of Religious Science (Science of Mind). It isn't
>really so bad, but it is a very incomplete universal view
>
>A really great piece about the historical Lucifer is in Manly P. Hall's
>Secret Teachings of All Ages. This book is a great encyclopedia of old
>Western spiritual thought that supplements standard Christian biblical fare.
>
>Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it.
What is your opinion about the charge that Bailey put down the Jews?
Is Andy right or wrong with his quotes?
~Tempest~
>Ben Creme's take on Bailey's stuff
>is weird, and I don't like it. It is obvious to me that Ben Creme has
>limited spiritual experience. He is very attached to the voices in his head.
>He has a limited concept of the basics, such as Be Here Now, Everything is
>Energy, etc. I really think he is insincere. I didn't used to think so, but
>he has been yanking on his followers chain for too, too long to be anything
>but a gold digger.
>
>Take care, can't wait to see Caseys answer to your stuff!
>Allen
>>
~Tempest~
wrote:
>"eo" <8...@eo.eo> writes:
>
>>Great new material, Peyote. I wonder how Casey will wiggle out of the direct
>>quotes. He can't disassociate Creme from Bailey's works because of the
>>ascended masters hierarchy quote from the 80's you cited. Maybe I'll have to
>>read some Bailey material myself, instead of reading only intros and
>>excerpts.
>
>Hi Eo,
>
>This is not meant as a put down in any way I just wanted to point something
>out to you. I am more then happy to discuss the topics Peytote has asked
>me about. I think what we both want is just a straight forward
>conversation to clear up some facts.
>
>However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
>how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
>reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
>to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
>are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
>posts can be atagonizing.
I think if Eo wanted to be rude he would be :> Do not take things so
personal. He is an okay dude if he can put up with Peyote he has to be
okay. If Peyote thinks he is ok then in my books he is ok.
As Lurky says 'smoke a joint and mellow out' My addition to that is go
for it but do not post while stoned ROTFL.
Hey Lurky where are you we miss you :> <He is hanging his head in
shame for posting while stoned>
~Tempest~
>Anyway its up to you, I will answer Peyotes post to the best of
>my ability and knowledge and we can go from there.
>
>Casey
~Tempest~
wrote:
My bit of wisdom: Benjamin Creme is a fraud, Share International and
the Tara Center is a scam and I think your all bonkers for following a
guy who hears voices in his head and keeps failing to get that voice
out of his head onto the television when it comes to interview time.
~Tempest~
ck...@mars.superlink.net
_Peyote_ <pey...@argh.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:34:17 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
> wrote:
>
> Peyote:
>
> >Flattery will get you nowhere:)
>
> Well I tried :-)
>
Noted:)
I don't really feel that there is really a new direction taken
by the three, especially Bailey to Creme. Any apparant distinction
from Blavatsky could probably be addressed better by people
who are more intimately familiar with her work. I base my
current opinion on my limited direct knowledge of her
works.
I will say this however. Many of Bailey's books are attributed
directly to the Master DK. I doubt Mr. Creme tries to
over rule the information in those books. In my dealings with
this information and questions asked of Mr. Creme this is the
case. However, Mr. Creme, if his information is correct,
actually can get interpretations of the Baliey works
by the Master DK himself:) I think most of the Bailey
information is actually quite clear though on its own.
When dealing with Blavatsky's works more of her personal
interpretation of the information she received is
evident. Most of her works were written in her own
words and the introduction of this information to the public
took on a slightly different form then the works of Bailey
or Creme.
The bottom line is I don't really think there are major
gulfs between the three. I know you bring up the
Blavastky writtings on Satan but I would have to do
more research to answer your questions about that
in more detail. Perhaps someone more familiar with
Blavastky and also familiar with Bailey could help out.
> >The answer is that if this story is true we are dealing with
realities
> >that go back 100,000's of years and not just made up late in the
> >1800's.
>
> Do you have ancient texts to support this? What are your oldest
> surviving texts which can be viewed by the public that exist today?
You know my stance on this. I believe most of the ancient
texts we talk about have originated from information
from this group.
>
> >Those guys don't change names eveytime we get a concept wrong:)
> >It surprised me to find the term Lucifer was never used in the new
> >testiment at all and only once in the old testiment in Isaiah.
> >Reading through the chapter in Isaiah it is far from clear what is
> >being said and it could easily be interpreted as humanities "fall"
> >into incarnation when looking at it from that context. The fact is
> >the "LORD" in the old testiment threatens far worse on his own people
> >as punishment then is attributed to Lucifer in that ONE reference.
>
> Yes and no in the context Lucifer which became satan in Judaism,
> Christianity and Islam was permitted free reign and even had access
> for awhile to be before god YHWH.
My statements above were made by doing a search in the old and
new testiments and only finding the term "Lucifer" once in Isaiah.
While reading that section it gives no indication to what you
have said here. I'm not saying you are wrong (I'm really not
too strong on the Old Testiment) but can you point me to specific
verses that indicate this connection and re-naming?
>
> Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
> out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
> when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
>
> If you look into this you will then find the exact opposite to what
> you have said above. That was one of Blavatsky's main contentions with
> god being the evil one and the serpent being the true liberator of
> humanity.
Well, I wasn't talking about refernces to Satan. Now if you
make me start wading through the Old Testiment in any detail
I might never forgive you:)
>
> What she forgot to include was the long term effect of that
> disobedience if one believes in that genesis myth.
>
> The Lucifer in the OT did fall of that there is no doubt, where a
> question remains is as to what did he really fall over and why was he
> cast down -with others like him as other parts of the bible says-.
>
> Well the bible says devil obviously fell due to pride:
>
> Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
> condemnation of the devil.
>
> -1 Timothy 3:6-
>
> Interestingly enough if we look at other middle eastern texts we find
> a similar theme here are a few from the Qur'an:
>
> And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed
> down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who
> reject Faith.
>
> -Surah 2:34-
>
> It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels
> prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be
> of those who prostrate.
>
> -Surah 7:11-
>
> Etc etc.
The Old testiment to me is a series of stories in poetic verse
that really need some context. They were basically lessons
that were more appropriate to that time then they are today.
>
> >As far as what most people would tell you if you asked them is
> >that Lucifer and Satan are the same thing. Two names for the same
> >person. However, there is absolutely no biblical reference that
> >I know of that makes this connection. Satan in the New Testiment
> >has to do with the anti-Christ and Lucifer in his one mention
> >in the old testiment is definitely up for interpretation, IMHO.
>
> No that is not correct. Lucifer after the fall became satan -he was
> still Lucifer though- in Judaism & Islam names take on a meaning being
> related languages basically Lucifer was now called the adversary. This
> incidently also has happened with people like Abraham/Ibrhaim who was
> earlier known as Abram.
>
> Eo probably has more material on this than I do but if you look
> closely at the Hebrew people were also called satan however when the
> definite article 'ha' is used then it is talking about the devil as
> we commonly know it. In Greek it is similar sa-ta-nas' applies to
> satan the devil in nearly all its occurrences and is usually
> accompanied by the definite article 'ho'.
This could all very well be true. But we are already dealing with
enough translation and oral traditions that you have to admit
this is all probably fair game for many interpretations.
> As for your comment about the NT satan is clearly the tempter or
> 'false accuser' the connection to him/it being the anti-christ is a
> theological one
>
> >As far as acceptance based on this. Obvioulsy Lucus Trust agreed
> >with you because they changed their name. However, this has
> >nothing to do with Alice Bailey or Mr. Creme. They just try
> >to keep the facts simple and straight forward and try to explain
> >mis-understandings instead of shy away from them.
>
> Perhaps or they moved further away from Blavatsky's writings on
> Lucifer/Satan and serpent revealer concept.
Well, I would say there are probably similiar concepts in both
Bailey and Creme's teachings but with different and clearer
context.
>
> >>Creme may well be rejected by the Lucis trust but that still does
not
> >>totally seperate the assocaition nor some of the sources from which
> >>Creme draws on. Likewise goes for the Theosophical society, one
leads
> >>into the other.
> >
> >I never said it did.
>
> Then if your all coming from the same source why are all three of you
> so different? Shouldn't the same ascended masters be guiding you and
> giving you the same information?
Well not me:) But Mr Creme and Alice Bailey yes. Its not
a matter of guidance but direct information given to Bailey
and Creme. With Blavatsky, her information was from the
same source but I would have to look into the precise
method and how that came out in her writings.
>
> It looks to me more like a normal progression of sorting and sifting
> information.
I just believe Bailey and Creme more clearly state certain
aspects in everyday language where Blavatsky was keeping some
things back and still slightly symbolic.
>
> >>Blavatsky made it quite clear that it was the serpent which
> >>enlightened humanity and in fact regarded the OT God YHWH as an evil
> >>God.
> >
> >I'm not to strong on Blavatsky but I don't even think the line you
> >just wrote is "quite clear" on what she was talking about. IMHO she
> >was more cryptic then Bailey and especially Creme. Not necessarily
> >wrong but cryptic:)
>
> Oh she could be cryptic when she wanted but she could also be quite
> clear also. She repeated this quite a few times.
Well, I don't think she meant an actual serpent enlightened
humanity:) She was still speaking symbolically on many
things.
Surely:) No, its just interpretations, but my contention is that
they are interpretations from the ones that inspired the
original established works. I realize that this fact alone is
at the center of this whole controversy but thats just the way
it is:) Actually, some ancient manuscripts will come to light
in the near future which are more clear in this conection.
>
> >>Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
> >>their own point of view -supposedly under the guidance of an
ascended
> >>master-.
> >
> >HB yes, however, some of Bailey's books are attibuted directly
> >to the Master DK.
>
> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
earlier.
>
> >>Thirdly I have done a little bit of private research since our last
> >>discussion and found that other people also claimed to be in
contack
> >>with DK or some ascended master and their teachings conflict on some
> >>major points, even some who believe they communicate with Maitreya
and
> >>two who believe they are actually Maitreya himself.
> >
> >Absolutely:) They come and tell Mr. Creme this all the time. He
usually
> >says "Thats nice. Have a nice day:)" Seriouly, I am well aware that
> >many make this claim, I just don't happen to agree with them:)
>
> And yet they have their own experiences channeling -or overshadowing
> if you will- doesn't that tell you something Casey? The people around
> them believe it, have obviously had experiences like you etc etc. So
> what makes you think your experience or Creme's own voices -whatever-
> are correct?
Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
>
> These ascended masters apparently can't even agree on who is who and
> with time change their views and guidance.
I don't agree with this. Its more of a move from symbolic
meanings to a more clear interpretation of the same thing.
Same thing.
>One thing I am curious about when did
> Lucifer reach the 7th degree?
Don't know.
>
> -snip-
>
> >>Peyote:
> >
> >>>>Q4. What is Maitreya's relationship to Lucifer?
> >
> >>Casey:
> >
> >>>>I don't know the precise answer to this question, but again,
> >>>>I am not talking about the being that is called Lucifer
> >>>>that most people relate to. If we are talking about Lucifer,
> >>>>as in Satan or the Devil as in the forces of Materiality
> >>>>or "Evil" then Maitreya and the Masters are constantly fighting
> >>>>against them from overstepping their bounds and creating
> >>>>what we call evil in the world.
>
> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash satan &
> co.
As described in another thread, everthing does have their
proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
Its all very dynamic.
Casey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bruce Morgen
>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:34:17 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>
>Peyote:
>
>>Flattery will get you nowhere:)
>
>Well I tried :-)
>
>>>From the first set:
>>
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> Questions about Lucifer
[snip]
>
>Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
>out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
>when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
>
[snip]
Just as a point of fact
here: The Book Of Job, while
obviously centuries older
than the Christian Gospels,
is the most recently written
part of the Old Testament,
so it's certainly *not* "one
of the oldest books in the
bible." This view reflects a
broad consensus among Bible
scholars. Btw, "the oldest
books in the bible" comprise
the Pentateuch, the five
books of Moses.
__________________________________________________
http://come.to/realization
http://www.atman.net/realization
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
caseyk
>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:59:26 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>>Hi Eo,
>>
>>However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
>>how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
>>reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
>>to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
>>are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
>>posts can be atagonizing.
>Aww come one Casey be fair have you seen the threads between Eo and my
>self LOL we provoked the shit out of each other, I remember even
>giving him a nice bark as a reply in one post :-D
I know, I know:) It just caught me offgaurd a little that even before
we got started it was going in that direction:) It is really no
problem for me. I tried to indicate that in my post that I really
wasn't complaining or putting EO down I just wondered why.
Casey
>He is who he is, I am who I am, and your who you are.
>I am sure this will still work out fine I mean even Allen pulled me up
>on a quote which was kewl because I hate BS and the sooner we all get
>the BS out of the way the easier it will be to get down to the real
>facts.
>>Anyway its up to you, I will answer Peyotes post to the best of
>>my ability and knowledge and we can go from there.
>No probs mate.
caseyk
>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:59:26 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>>"eo" <8...@eo.eo> writes:
>>
>>>Great new material, Peyote. I wonder how Casey will wiggle out of the direct
>>>quotes. He can't disassociate Creme from Bailey's works because of the
>>>ascended masters hierarchy quote from the 80's you cited. Maybe I'll have to
>>>read some Bailey material myself, instead of reading only intros and
>>>excerpts.
>>
>>Hi Eo,
>>
>>This is not meant as a put down in any way I just wanted to point something
>>out to you. I am more then happy to discuss the topics Peytote has asked
>>me about. I think what we both want is just a straight forward
>>conversation to clear up some facts.
>>
>>However, even before the discussion starts you post stuff like, "I wonder
>>how Casey will wiggle out of....". I just really don't understand the
>>reason for doing this. It really doesn't even matter to me (I'm sorta used
>>to it by now:). The only reason I bring it up is because I think you
>>are a decent guy who may not realize that these types of
>>posts can be atagonizing.
>I think if Eo wanted to be rude he would be :> Do not take things so
>personal. He is an okay dude if he can put up with Peyote he has to be
>okay. If Peyote thinks he is ok then in my books he is ok.
Ok, I give:) I don't think my real point came across too well in the first place
but I formally retract the whole post to avoid any confusion:)
Eo is free to characterize me however he wants. (Only him though:)
Casey
>As Lurky says 'smoke a joint and mellow out' My addition to that is go
>for it but do not post while stoned ROTFL.
>Hey Lurky where are you we miss you :> <He is hanging his head in
>shame for posting while stoned>
>~Tempest~
>>Anyway its up to you, I will answer Peyotes post to the best of
>>my ability and knowledge and we can go from there.
>>
>>Casey
Allen Crider
"~Tempest~" <tempwbk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:ccgrescpsl884g27s...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:48:06 -0700, "Allen Crider"
> <allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Watch Kooks" <rea...@check.dore.com> wrote in message
> >news:hjfoes80rapma5jmo...@4ax.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> 'The Great Invocation', .... The wording is so vague that any religion
> >> can live with it, but its author Alice Bailey was quite clear: the
> >> "Plan of Love and Light" is the 'ascended masters' Plan headed by
> >> Lucifer; ....
> >>
> >> Q. Is there a reference where Bailey actually mentioned that these
> >> mythical 'ascended masters' were headed by lucifer?
> >>
> >> *_A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ has Bailey's reproduction of Blavatsky's
> >> diagram of the Planetary Hierarchy, p. 950. There she's got 3 rulers
> >> of the "great planetary centers". The ruler of Humanity, with the
> >> attributes of "Active Intelligence, Creativity, Self-consciousness" is
> >> listed as "Lucifer, Son of the Morning, The Prodigal Son". The other
> >> two, btw, are "Sanat Kamura" and "Maitreya the Christ", and
> >> Bailey calls the 3 of them variously "Solar Gods" and also
> >> "Agnishvattas", a Hindu term she translates as "Fallen Angels" [sic!]
> >> p.681.
> >
Cosmic
> >Fire book right here (I read a lot of Bailey) and there is no such chart
on
> >page 950. There is a chart on 1238-39 called "Solar and Planetary
> >Hierarchies", but it doesn't show any Lucifer. You can see this online if
> >you don't have Cosmic Fire at
http://www.netnews.org/bk/fire/fire1459.html
> >
> >There is a chart that mentions Lucifer as the ruler of humanity in
> >Externalization of the Hierarchy, which you can see on netnews at
> >http://www.netnews.org/bk/externalisation/exte1043.html
> >
> >I do read a lot of Bailey and don't find myself worshipping Lucifer, nor
> >does her stuff suggest that we do so. A search of the netnews.org Bailey
> >pages peoduces 7 results for Lucifer.
> >
> >Creme draws almost exclusively from Bailey's stuff and has a unique,
stupid,
> >interpretation of her stuff. His statement which you quoted him as saying
a
> >type of energy (mind). I think that Creme studies Bailey all by
himself...
> >never asks other Bailey folks for interpretations.
> >
> >I don't subscribe to the Protestant Christian dogma that Lucifer=Satan.
> >Lucifer is mind, light, intelligence. Tha biblical story about Lucifer's
> >fall illustrates the fact that mind suffers from the illusion that mind
> >(itself) is the greatest and is an equal of spirit, or even believes that
> >spirit doesn't exist. God (spirit) cast Lucifer out for expressing this
> >illusion.
> >
> >In the Adam and Eve myth, humanity gained intelligence (knowledge of good
> >and evil) and thus could no longer exist in the paradise of ignorance.
The
> >illusion that mind is greatest hits home for me because I was raised as a
> >child under the dogma of Religious Science (Science of Mind). It isn't
> >really so bad, but it is a very incomplete universal view
> >
> >A really great piece about the historical Lucifer is in Manly P. Hall's
> >Secret Teachings of All Ages. This book is a great encyclopedia of old
> >Western spiritual thought that supplements standard Christian biblical
fare.
> >
> >Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it.
>
> What is your opinion about the charge that Bailey put down the Jews?
Bailey was pretty well unconscious about the plight of the Jews in Europe
prior to the Hitler era. She called them 'separative', but the Jews had been
unable to own property or participate in the political arena of their
countries (except Britain and Holland). They survived by being merchants,
mostly. The picture of the greedy selfish Jew was a consensus reality that
she definitely didn't rise above.
There was also the picture of the 'wandering' Jew, suffering divine
punishment because he didn't believe in the new religion (Christianity)
which she also perpetuated. I was following the Pope Goes to Israel story a
few weeks ago and learned that the Catholics official position on Jews were
that they collectively suffered because 'they killed Jesus'. This position
was held until the 1960s!
So, her stuff about Jews is definitely not acceptable, but I suspect her
ideas about Jews weren't all that unique in that time period. Whether some
of her stuff should be edited out I'm not sure. Some of her books, such as
The Destiny of Nations and Return of the Christ are already obsolete. The
publishing house is under a trust and I haven't seen any edited editions of
her stuff. Could be part of the trust legalities.
But on the other hand, she also railed against the mistreatment of Jews. She
was blacklisted by the Nazis in the 30s because of her views.
>
> Is Andy right or wrong with his quotes?
He's very incomplete, but he is correct to point out her words. There is
still too much anti-semitism in this world. Some people accept spiritual
writings as 100% truth... Andy's article is needed for those who think they
should follow Bailey word-for-word.
Andy defended his practice as an Orthodox Jew and that's OK with me. Bailey
didn't like any big, stuck western religions --including Catholicism,
Protestantism, Islam and Judiasm. I'm of that ilk, too. I think the Big
Churches suck, and suck big. They are the cause of much of the political
suffering in this world. Big church dogma is constantly used as an excuse to
crush the free will of minorities all over the world. When religion moves
from personal and into the social realms is when I get queezy.
That reminds me, did you know Benjamin Creme was Jewish? I wonder what he
thinks when he reads Bailey's Jewish comments?
>
> ~Tempest~
>
> >Ben Creme's take on Bailey's stuff
> >is weird, and I don't like it. It is obvious to me that Ben Creme has
> >limited spiritual experience. He is very attached to the voices in his
head.
> >He has a limited concept of the basics, such as Be Here Now, Everything
is
> >Energy, etc. I really think he is insincere. I didn't used to think so,
but
> >he has been yanking on his followers chain for too, too long to be
anything
> >but a gold digger.
> >
> >Take care, can't wait to see Caseys answer to your stuff!
> >Allen
> >>
Allen Crider
_Peyote_ wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:52:46 -0700, "Allen Crider"
> <allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it.
>
> Tempest:
>
> >> What is your opinion about the charge that Bailey put down the Jews?
>
> Allen:
>
> >Bailey was pretty well unconscious about the plight of the Jews in Europe
> >prior to the Hitler era. She called them 'separative', but the Jews had been
> >unable to own property or participate in the political arena of their
> >countries (except Britain and Holland). They survived by being merchants,
> >mostly. The picture of the greedy selfish Jew was a consensus reality that
> >she definitely didn't rise above.
> >
> >There was also the picture of the 'wandering' Jew, suffering divine
> >punishment because he didn't believe in the new religion (Christianity)
> >which she also perpetuated. I was following the Pope Goes to Israel story a
> >few weeks ago and learned that the Catholics official position on Jews were
> >that they collectively suffered because 'they killed Jesus'. This position
> >was held until the 1960s!
> >
> >So, her stuff about Jews is definitely not acceptable, but I suspect her
> >ideas about Jews weren't all that unique in that time period. Whether some
> >of her stuff should be edited out I'm not sure. Some of her books, such as
> >The Destiny of Nations and Return of the Christ are already obsolete. The
> >publishing house is under a trust and I haven't seen any edited editions of
> >her stuff. Could be part of the trust legalities.
> >
> >But on the other hand, she also railed against the mistreatment of Jews. She
> >was blacklisted by the Nazis in the 30s because of her views.
>
> Peyote:
>
> Just one question here, Andy and I found that Bailey also put the
> blame on the Jews for what was happening to them is that true or not?
It took me a while to find the passage, but it is in Esoteric Healing in
the chapter Karmic Liabilities. It was published in 1953. It is kinda long....
__________________________________
The outstanding evidence of the Law of Cause and Effect is the Jewish
race. All nations prove this Law, but I choose to refer to the Hebrew
peoples because their history is so well known and their future and
their destiny are subjects of worldwide, universal concern.
The Jews have always had a symbolic significance; they sum up in
themselves—as a nation, down the ages—the depths of human evil and the
heights of human divinity. Their aggressive history as narrated in the
Old Testament is on a par with present-day German accomplishment; yet
Christ was a Jew and it was the Hebrew race which produced Him. Let
this never be forgotten.
The Jews were great aggressors; they despoiled the Egyptians and they
took the Promised Land at the point of the sword, sparing neither man,
woman nor child. Their religious history has been built around a
materialistic Jehovah, possessive, greedy and endorsing and encouraging
aggression. Their history is symbolic of the history of all aggressors,
rationalising themselves into the belief that they are carrying out
divine purpose, wresting away from people their property in a spirit of
self-defense and finding some reason, adequate to them, to excuse the
iniquity of their action.
Palestine was taken by the Jews because it was "a land flowing with milk
and honey," and the claim was made that the act was undertaken in
obedience to divine command. Later, the symbolism gets most
interesting. They divided into two halves: the Israelites with
headquarters at Samaria, and the Jews (meaning two or three special
tribes out of the twelve) locating around Jerusalem. Dualism ran
through their religious beliefs; they were schooled by the Sadducees or
the Pharisees, and these two groups were in constant conflict. Christ
came as a member of the Jewish race and they renounced Him.
Today the law is working, and the Jews are paying the price, factually
and symbolically, for all they have done in the past. They are
demonstrating the far-reaching effects of the Law.
Factually and symbolically, they stand for culture and civilisation;
factually and symbolically, they are humanity; factually and
symbolically, they stand as they have ever chosen to stand, for
separation. They regard themselves as the chosen people and have an
innate consciousness of that high destiny, forgetting their symbolic
role and that it is Humanity which is the chosen people and not one
small and unimportant fraction of the race.
Factually and symbolically, they long for unity and cooperation, yet
know not how to cooperate; factually and symbolically, they are the
"Eternal Pilgrim"; they are mankind, wandering through the mazes of the
three worlds of human evolution, and gazing with longing eyes towards a
promised land; factually and symbolically, they resemble the mass of
men, refusing to comprehend the underlying spiritual purpose of all
material phenomena, rejecting the Christ within (as they did centuries
ago the Christ within their borders), grasping for material good and
steadily rejecting the things of the spirit.
They demand the so-called restitution of Palestine, wresting it away
from those who have inhabited it for many centuries; and by their
continued emphasis upon material possession they lose sight of the true
solution, which is that, symbolically and factually again, they must be
assimilated into all the nations, and fused with all the races, thus
demonstrating recognition of the One Humanity.
It is interesting to note that the Jews who inhabited southern
Palestine, and whose chief city was Jerusalem, have succeeded in doing
this and have fused with and been assimilated by the British, the Dutch
and the French in a way that the Israelites, ruled from Samaria, have
never done. I commend this to you for your consideration.
If the Jewish race would recall, therefore, their high symbolic destiny,
and if the rest of humanity would see themselves in the Jewish people,
and if both groups would emphasise the fact of human stock and cease
thinking of themselves in terms of national and racial units, the karma
of humanity would radically change from the retributive karma of the
present to the recompensing good karma of the future.
Regarding this question from the long range vision (looking backward
historically as well as forward hopefully), the problem is one to which
the Jews themselves must make the larger contribution. They have never
yet faced candidly and honestly (as a race) the problem of why the many
nations, from the time of the Egyptians, have neither liked nor wanted
them. It has always been the same down the centuries.
Yet there must be some reason, inherent in the people themselves, when
the reaction is so general and universal. Their approach to their
direful problem has been one of supplication, or of distressed
complaint, or of unhappy despair. Their demand has been for the Gentile
nations to put the matter right, and many Gentiles have attempted to do
so.
Until, however, the Jews themselves face up to the situation and admit
that there may be for them the working out of the retributive aspect of
the Law of Cause and Effect, and until they endeavour to ascertain what
it is in them, as a race, which has initiated their ancient and dire
fate, this basic world issue will remain as it has been since the very
night of time.
That within the race there are and have been great, good, just and
spiritual men is unalterably true. A generalisation is never a complete
expression of the truth. But, viewing the problem of the Jews in time
and space, in history and today, the points which I have made will bear
careful consideration by the Jews.
What I have said in no way mitigates the guilt of those who have so
sorely abused the Jews. You have a proverb, have you not? that "two
blacks do not make a white." The behaviour of the nations towards the
Jews, culminating in the atrocities of the second quarter of the
twentieth century, have no excuse. The law must inevitably work.
Though much that has happened to the Jews originated in their past
history and in their pronounced attitude of separativeness and
nonassimilability, and in their emphasis upon material good, yet the
agents who have brought the evil karma upon them equally incur the
retributive aspect of the same law; the situation has now assumed the
form of a vicious circle of error and wrong doing, of retribution and
revenge, and in view of this the time must come when together the
nations will confer upon this problem, and together they will cooperate
to bring to an end the wrong attitudes on both sides.
All karma of evil nature is solved by the presentation of an accepting
will, a cooperative love, a frank acknowledgment of responsibility and a
skillful adjustment of united joint activity to bring about the good of
humanity as a whole, and not just the good of an individual nation or
people or race. The Jewish problem will not be solved by taking
possession of Palestine, by plaint and demand and by financial
manipulations. That would be but the prolongation of ancient wrong and
material possessiveness.
The problem will be solved by the willingness of the Jew to conform to
the civilisation, the cultural background and the standards of living of
the nation to which—by the fact of birth and education—he is related and
with which he should assimilate.
It will come by the relinquishment of pride of race and of the concept
of selectivity; it will come by renouncing dogmas and customs which are
intrinsically obsolete and which create points of constant irritation to
the matrix within which the Jew finds himself; it will come when
selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative
tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and
honest forms of activity.
The Jew, owing to his rays and point of development, is outstandingly
creative and artistic. This he must recognise and not seek as he now
does to dominate in all fields, to grasp all opportunities away from
other people, and so better himself and his own people at the expense of
others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew
forgets that he is a Jew and becomes in his inmost consciousness an
Italian, an American, a Britisher, a German or a Pole. This is not so
at this time. The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage; that
of the Negro will not. This will mean concession and compromise on the
part of the orthodox Jews—not the concession of expediency but the
concession of conviction.
Let me point out also that just as the Kabbalah and the Talmud are
secondary lines of esoteric approach to truth, and materialistic in
their technique (embodying much of the magical work of relating one
grade of matter to the substance of another grade), so the Old Testament
is emphatically a secondary Scripture, and spiritually does not rank
with the Bhagavad-Gita, the ancient Scriptures of the East and the New
Testament.
Its emphasis is material and its effect is to impress a purely
materialistic Jehovah upon world consciousness. The general theme of
the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the
divine wisdom in the first solar system; that system embodied the
creative work of the third aspect of divinity—that of active
intelligence, expressing itself through matter. In this solar system,
the created world is intended to be the expression of the second aspect,
of the love of God.
This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old
Testament is the separative, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct
unit within the fourth or human kingdom. St. Paul summed up the
attitude which humanity should assume in the words: "There is neither
Jew nor Gentile." The evil karma of the Jew today is intended to end
his isolation, to bring him to the point of relinquishing material
goals, of renouncing a nationality that has a tendency to be somewhat
parasitic within the boundaries of other nations, and to express
inclusive love, instead of separative unhappiness.
And what of the Gentile attitude? It is absolutely necessary that the
nations meet the Jew more than half way when he arrives at
altering—slowly and gradually—his nationalistic orthodoxy. It is
essential that they cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and
from placing barriers to cooperation.
The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the
sight of God and man. I refer not here to the abominable cruelties of
the obsessed German people. Behind that lies a history of Atlantean
relationships into which it is needless for me to enter because I could
not prove to you the truth of my statements. I refer to the history of
the past two thousand years and to the everyday behaviour of Gentile
people everywhere.
There must be a definite effort upon the part of the nationals of every
country to assimilate the Jews, to inter-marry with them, and to refuse
to recognise as barriers old habits of thought and ancient bad
relations. Men everywhere must regard it as a blot upon their national
integrity if there is the appearance within their borders of the old
duality—Jew and Gentile.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile; there is only Humanity. This war
(1914-1945) should be regarded as having brought to a conclusion the
ancient enmity between Jew and Gentile, and the two groups have now the
opportunity to originate a newer and happier measure of living and a
truly cooperative relation on either side.
The process of assimilation will be slow, for the situation is of so
ancient a date that habits of thought, customary attitudes and
separative customs are well established and hard to overcome. But the
needed changes can be made if goodwill directs the spoken word, the
written presentation and the mode of living together.
The Hierarchy sees no distinction. The Head of the Hierarchy, though
not in a Jewish body at this time, achieved the highest spiritual goal
for humanity whilst in a Jewish vehicle. The Hierarchy is also sending
into Jewish bodies certain disciples who will work with full intent at
the changing of the situation.
There are Jews today, a few in number, who do not think in terms of
being Jews; who are not preoccupied with the Jewish problem to the
exclusion of all else, and who are endeavouring to fuse all people into
one humanity, thus bridging the gap.
Again, I say, that the Masters of the Wisdom see neither Jew nor
Gentile, but only souls and sons of God.
_________________________________________
>
> Tempest:
>
> >> Is Andy right or wrong with his quotes?
>
> Allen:
>
> >He's very incomplete, but he is correct to point out her words. There is
> >still too much anti-semitism in this world. Some people accept spiritual
> >writings as 100% truth... Andy's article is needed for those who think they
> >should follow Bailey word-for-word.
> >
> >Andy defended his practice as an Orthodox Jew and that's OK with me. Bailey
> >didn't like any big, stuck western religions --including Catholicism,
> >Protestantism, Islam and Judiasm. I'm of that ilk, too. I think the Big
> >Churches suck, and suck big. They are the cause of much of the political
> >suffering in this world. Big church dogma is constantly used as an excuse to
> >crush the free will of minorities all over the world. When religion moves
> >from personal and into the social realms is when I get queezy.
>
> Huh have you got that right. Personally I am beginning to think all
> religions suck big time -including minor cults too-.
>
> >That reminds me, did you know Benjamin Creme was Jewish? I wonder what he
> >thinks when he reads Bailey's Jewish comments?
>
> I knew that from that anon article which gets posted from time to time
> LOL I have often wondered what Bongo makes of it :-)
>
> I have a question related to this, were those words against the Jews
> Bailey's own words or were they supposed to be from some higher source
> aka channeling or overshadowing by some ascended master?
Her stuff on Jews is pretty consistent in the above quoted stuff
(attributed to channeling DK, a living person at the time) with what she
says in her biography.
>
> Peyote
>
> >> ~Tempest~
_Peyote_
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>>>Bailey's stuff is weird, but I like it.
Tempest:
>> What is your opinion about the charge that Bailey put down the Jews?
Allen:
>Bailey was pretty well unconscious about the plight of the Jews in Europe
>prior to the Hitler era. She called them 'separative', but the Jews had been
>unable to own property or participate in the political arena of their
>countries (except Britain and Holland). They survived by being merchants,
>mostly. The picture of the greedy selfish Jew was a consensus reality that
>she definitely didn't rise above.
>
>There was also the picture of the 'wandering' Jew, suffering divine
>punishment because he didn't believe in the new religion (Christianity)
>which she also perpetuated. I was following the Pope Goes to Israel story a
>few weeks ago and learned that the Catholics official position on Jews were
>that they collectively suffered because 'they killed Jesus'. This position
>was held until the 1960s!
>
>So, her stuff about Jews is definitely not acceptable, but I suspect her
>ideas about Jews weren't all that unique in that time period. Whether some
>of her stuff should be edited out I'm not sure. Some of her books, such as
>The Destiny of Nations and Return of the Christ are already obsolete. The
>publishing house is under a trust and I haven't seen any edited editions of
>her stuff. Could be part of the trust legalities.
>
>But on the other hand, she also railed against the mistreatment of Jews. She
>was blacklisted by the Nazis in the 30s because of her views.
Peyote:
Just one question here, Andy and I found that Bailey also put the
blame on the Jews for what was happening to them is that true or not?
Tempest:
>> Is Andy right or wrong with his quotes?
Allen:
>He's very incomplete, but he is correct to point out her words. There is
>still too much anti-semitism in this world. Some people accept spiritual
>writings as 100% truth... Andy's article is needed for those who think they
>should follow Bailey word-for-word.
>
>Andy defended his practice as an Orthodox Jew and that's OK with me. Bailey
>didn't like any big, stuck western religions --including Catholicism,
>Protestantism, Islam and Judiasm. I'm of that ilk, too. I think the Big
>Churches suck, and suck big. They are the cause of much of the political
>suffering in this world. Big church dogma is constantly used as an excuse to
>crush the free will of minorities all over the world. When religion moves
>from personal and into the social realms is when I get queezy.
Huh have you got that right. Personally I am beginning to think all
religions suck big time -including minor cults too-.
>That reminds me, did you know Benjamin Creme was Jewish? I wonder what he
>thinks when he reads Bailey's Jewish comments?
I knew that from that anon article which gets posted from time to time
LOL I have often wondered what Bongo makes of it :-)
I have a question related to this, were those words against the Jews
Bailey's own words or were they supposed to be from some higher source
aka channeling or overshadowing by some ascended master?
Peyote
>> ~Tempest~
_Peyote_
wrote:
>_Peyote_ <pey...@argh.com> wrote:
>>Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
>>out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
>>when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Just as a point of fact
>here: The Book Of Job, while
>obviously centuries older
>than the Christian Gospels,
>is the most recently written
>part of the Old Testament,
>so it's certainly *not* "one
>of the oldest books in the
>bible." This view reflects a
>broad consensus among Bible
>scholars. Btw, "the oldest
>books in the bible" comprise
>the Pentateuch, the five
>books of Moses.
Thanks for the correction I was under the impression that parts of
Job's manuscript were amongst the oldest -if not the oldest- surviving
manuscript of Judaism.
Your correction was much appreciated Bruce.
Thank you.
Peyote.
_Peyote_
let me know.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:04:33 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
Peyote:
>> My reading leads me to believe that they built on Blavatsky's work and
>> then took of in a new direction. Blavatsky was very adamant by what
>> she meant in her writings.
>>
>
>I don't really feel that there is really a new direction taken
>by the three, especially Bailey to Creme. Any apparant distinction
>from Blavatsky could probably be addressed better by people
>who are more intimately familiar with her work. I base my
>current opinion on my limited direct knowledge of her
>works.
Wait a minute there obviously is a new direction otherwise the Lucis
trust would have no need of making a point that Creme's Maitreya is
different to the one they are expecting.
>I will say this however. Many of Bailey's books are attributed
>directly to the Master DK. I doubt Mr. Creme tries to
>over rule the information in those books. In my dealings with
>this information and questions asked of Mr. Creme this is the
>case. However, Mr. Creme, if his information is correct,
>actually can get interpretations of the Baliey works
>by the Master DK himself:) I think most of the Bailey
>information is actually quite clear though on its own.
Has Benjamin Creme ever been overshadowed by DK?
>When dealing with Blavatsky's works more of her personal
>interpretation of the information she received is
>evident. Most of her works were written in her own
>words and the introduction of this information to the public
>took on a slightly different form then the works of Bailey
>or Creme.
Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
clearly not one and the same.
>The bottom line is I don't really think there are major
>gulfs between the three. I know you bring up the
>Blavastky writtings on Satan but I would have to do
>more research to answer your questions about that
>in more detail. Perhaps someone more familiar with
>Blavastky and also familiar with Bailey could help out.
Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
a distinction and a separation.
Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
Peyote:
>> Do you have ancient texts to support this? What are your oldest
>> surviving texts which can be viewed by the public that exist today?
Casey:
>You know my stance on this. I believe most of the ancient
>texts we talk about have originated from information
>from this group.
Then there is really no proof other than what a few people claimed
once again by their experience. Re-writing or re-interperteitg history
is a common past time but I was under the impression that Blavatsky at
least was -or had seen- a manuscript which was in ancient Tibet.
Does this manuscript exist today? Or is a rumour only?
>> Yes and no in the context Lucifer which became satan in Judaism,
>> Christianity and Islam was permitted free reign and even had access
>> for awhile to be before god YHWH.
>
>My statements above were made by doing a search in the old and
>new testiments and only finding the term "Lucifer" once in Isaiah.
>While reading that section it gives no indication to what you
>have said here. I'm not saying you are wrong (I'm really not
>too strong on the Old Testiment) but can you point me to specific
>verses that indicate this connection and re-naming?
Not a verse where it is stated that 'Lucifer you have now become
satan.' But the reference to Lucifer falling is clear enough as is the
tradition of re-naming a person or creature due to some change in its
duty or nature.
I'll check some other Jewish sources though because I do remember a
specific reference to do with Lucifer becoming satan.
Peyote:
>> Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
>> out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
>> when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
>>
>> If you look into this you will then find the exact opposite to what
>> you have said above. That was one of Blavatsky's main contentions with
>> god being the evil one and the serpent being the true liberator of
>> humanity.
Casey:
>Well, I wasn't talking about refernces to Satan. Now if you
>make me start wading through the Old Testiment in any detail
>I might never forgive you:)
Actually I owe you an apology, Bruce correctly pointed out that Job is
not one of the oldest books in the bible. Anyway the same point still
stands Lucifer/Satan had access to god and what you will find is that
it was quite the opposite to what you said previously.
>> What she forgot to include was the long term effect of that
>> disobedience if one believes in that genesis myth.
>>
>> The Lucifer in the OT did fall of that there is no doubt, where a
>> question remains is as to what did he really fall over and why was he
>> cast down -with others like him as other parts of the bible says-.
>>
>> Well the bible says devil obviously fell due to pride:
>>
>> Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
>> condemnation of the devil.
>>
>> -1 Timothy 3:6-
>>
>> Interestingly enough if we look at other middle eastern texts we find
>> a similar theme here are a few from the Qur'an:
>>
>> And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed
>> down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who
>> reject Faith.
>>
>> -Surah 2:34-
>>
>> It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels
>> prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be
>> of those who prostrate.
>>
>> -Surah 7:11-
>>
>> Etc etc.
>
>The Old testiment to me is a series of stories in poetic verse
>that really need some context. They were basically lessons
>that were more appropriate to that time then they are today.
Possibly but again we come to the question of ancient texts presenting
themselves -with commentaries in some places, which we will look at
further to show the Lucifer / satan connection-
You have the experience of thousands of years against you from
Judaism, Christianity and Islam and not only that some of their
leading theologians that in total amount to millions -billions?- of
peoples.
Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
experience and dubious overshadowing?
Do you see where I am coming from now? Even the Buddhist traditions
reject Creme's assertions that Maitreya will be here soon.
Casey:
>> >As far as what most people would tell you if you asked them is
>> >that Lucifer and Satan are the same thing. Two names for the same
>> >person. However, there is absolutely no biblical reference that
>> >I know of that makes this connection. Satan in the New Testiment
>> >has to do with the anti-Christ and Lucifer in his one mention
>> >in the old testiment is definitely up for interpretation, IMHO.
Peyote:
>> No that is not correct. Lucifer after the fall became satan -he was
>> still Lucifer though- in Judaism & Islam names take on a meaning being
>> related languages basically Lucifer was now called the adversary. This
>> incidently also has happened with people like Abraham/Ibrhaim who was
>> earlier known as Abram.
>>
>> Eo probably has more material on this than I do but if you look
>> closely at the Hebrew people were also called satan however when the
>> definite article 'ha' is used then it is talking about the devil as
>> we commonly know it. In Greek it is similar sa-ta-nas' applies to
>> satan the devil in nearly all its occurrences and is usually
>> accompanied by the definite article 'ho'.
Casey:
>This could all very well be true. But we are already dealing with
>enough translation and oral traditions that you have to admit
>this is all probably fair game for many interpretations.
Again not so if we examine the Zoroastrian faith for example we find
many examples -I believe a lot of Judaism stemmed from earlier
Zoroastrian ideas ... okay so shoot me if you disagree LOL- In that
system we find two gods -despite some misguided westerners trying to
say it is a monotheistic faith which I believe it is not- A good one
and a bad one this shed a lot of light onto the idea of the Jews and
their idea of Lucifer falling and how they adapted it into their own
theology.
Another important source is actually the pagan religions of the time
where we find a similar concept, a good being turns bad, becomes an
adversary and is in an eternal struggle with the good god or goddess.
>> Perhaps or they moved further away from Blavatsky's writings on
>> Lucifer/Satan and serpent revealer concept.
>
>Well, I would say there are probably similiar concepts in both
>Bailey and Creme's teachings but with different and clearer
>context.
Maybe or realized the name was a put of to any who inquired into it.
Peyote:
>> Then if your all coming from the same source why are all three of you
>> so different? Shouldn't the same ascended masters be guiding you and
>> giving you the same information?
Casey:
>Well not me:) But Mr Creme and Alice Bailey yes. Its not
>a matter of guidance but direct information given to Bailey
>and Creme. With Blavatsky, her information was from the
>same source but I would have to look into the precise
>method and how that came out in her writings.
Then why do the other two organizations not accept Creme's newer
version or interpretation? To me that marks a schism or sect.
Peyote:
>> It looks to me more like a normal progression of sorting and sifting
>> information.
Casey:
>I just believe Bailey and Creme more clearly state certain
>aspects in everyday language where Blavatsky was keeping some
>things back and still slightly symbolic.
The Lucis trust does not accept that though does it? Creme is out of
the picture with both organizations but why if you are all supposed to
be accessing the same sources? Why do their experiences not align with
yours Casey?
Peyote:
>> Oh she could be cryptic when she wanted but she could also be quite
>> clear also. She repeated this quite a few times.
Casey:
>Well, I don't think she meant an actual serpent enlightened
>humanity:) She was still speaking symbolically on many
>things.
LOL hardly :-) She was a lot smarter than people give her credit, she
meant it and made it very clear. The Lucifer file by Andrew and myself
you must understand is a small portion collected via a search there is
a lot more than that.
I admire Blavatsky in a peculiar way this is only my opinion but I
would have loved to have been able to talk with her she had in my
opinion a unique way of stirring the pot and boy did she do it well.
Bailey -sorry Allen- I don't like that much, though I will admit she
had some gems in her writings that even got me thinking.
However to be honest in Benjamin Creme's works I find little of
significance or worth, yes the sharing concept is kewl, but that is it
humanists do that all the time and a better job too because they don't
only talk about it they do it.
As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
been said countless times before.
Why can't Maitreya give us a simple formula which would solve all our
energy needs through Benjamin Creme? For me that would be proof enough
that he exists and has the answers.
Peyote:
>> I would like evidence of your earliest surviving manuscripts which can
>> be viewed by the public. Otherwise all it is to me is another
>> interpretation on already established works. In other words I need
>> proof as to how old or far back this really goes. Surely you must have
>> some ancient tibetan manuscripts?
Casey:
>Surely:) No, its just interpretations, but my contention is that
>they are interpretations from the ones that inspired the
>original established works. I realize that this fact alone is
>at the center of this whole controversy but thats just the way
>it is:) Actually, some ancient manuscripts will come to light
>in the near future which are more clear in this conection.
This is not an established fact and can not be given any more weight
than the next persons group or cult who do the same thing. It is an
opinion -claimed to be divine or otherwise- of what already has
existed for thousands of years.
I hope these ancient manuscripts which come to light are not based on
the same hope that Maitreya will appear soon ;-)
Peyote:
>>>Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
>>>their own point of view -supposedly under the guidance of an
>>>ascended master-.
Casey:
>> >HB yes, however, some of Bailey's books are attibuted directly
>> >to the Master DK.
Peyote:
>> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
Casey:
>I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
>earlier.
Then why the separate groups and the rejection of Creme's Maitreya
coming soon by the Lucis trust? Casey that indicates change no matter
how you look at it.
Peyote:
>> And yet they have their own experiences channeling -or overshadowing
>> if you will- doesn't that tell you something Casey? The people around
>> them believe it, have obviously had experiences like you etc etc. So
>> what makes you think your experience or Creme's own voices -whatever-
>> are correct?
Casey:
>Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
>comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Peyote:
>> These ascended masters apparently can't even agree on who is who and
>> with time change their views and guidance.
Casey:
>I don't agree with this. Its more of a move from symbolic
>meanings to a more clear interpretation of the same thing.
Including the ones who are channeling -or being overshadowed- by
Maitreya? They differ, even some claim to be Maitreya themselves so
who is right and how do you know from facts and evidence alone which
is which?
The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
on.
The differences between Blavatsky, bailey and Creme is only one
aspect, what of all the others like David Spangler and Luciferian
doctrines? What of the UCT and its claims? What of those at the
Findhorn community and its claims -where David spent some time
teaching I think-.
If anything it is less clear more confusing and growing so all the
time.
Peyote:
>> >>I present this bit of information sent to me could you verify it in
>> >>context:
>> >
>> >>-Lucifer, Creme preaches, is the only being to have evolved to a
>> >>'7th degree initiation', as opposed to Buddha (6th) or Jesus (4th)
Casey:
>> >If you look back at my original comment on this (which I did:)
>> >I said its was probably true. But in the context of what
>> >I am saying Lucifer is.
Peyote -continuing the quote-
>>All this was from a lecture by Creme in Detroit at the Detroit Unity
>>Temple, sometime in early 1980s (Nov 1981?), attended by about 800
>>people - as reported by Detroit lawyer Constance Cumbey in _Hidden
>>Dangers of the Rainbow_, p.96-7. The initiation level of Jesus
>>temporarily being 5th is confirmed in Bailey's _Initiation, Human
>>and Solar_, p.56.
Casey:
>>OK, I looked and looked but could not find the reference you are
>>refering to. All I found in that book was that Jesus took the 5th
>>initiation in his next life (after Jesus) and never looked back:)
>>The confusion might be that the whole bible story about Jesus was
>>about all 5 initiations and symbolically the resurection is the
>>5th initiation. But I don't see where it is stated (on page 56 or
>>anywhere else in the book) that Jesus took the 5th initiation then
>>went back. If you want you can provide the direct quote and we can talk
>>about it.
Peyote:
>> Okay.
>>
>> >>Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
>> >>Buddha? How many people do you think amongs jews, Christians and
>> >>Muslims would accept that?
Casey:
>> >How? Through the evolutionary process. I would say VERY few
>> >people would accpet that to be true in any religion or not.
>> >However, I feel that most people also would think that
>> >Satan and Lucifer are synonomous which there are absolutely
>> >no references in the bible that point to that.
Peyote:
>> That is your interpretation of it Lucifer as I pointed out was cast
>> down -with others- and in the Hebrew and Arabic context it was due to
>> pride hence the name change. He still is Lucifer though amongst Jews,
>> Christians he is also known as Ha Satan, Iblis, satan. The oral
>> tradition of Judaism might also help you to understand this as some
>> apocryphal books would -Enoch- might be a good place to start.
>>
Peyote:
>>So do categorily deny that Jesus was demoted from the 5th level down
>>to the fourth level? This has never been stated in Baileys work,
>>Cremes or Blavatskys?
>>
>>-The initiation level of Jesus temporarily being 5th is confirmed in
>>Bailey's _Initiation, Human and Solar_, p.56.-
Casey:
>>Again, I looked in the book and don't see the reference you are
>>talking about.
Uhmm okay I'll look into it further.
Peyote:
>>-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
>>our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
Casey:
>>The way I would say it is we are him.
Peyote:
>> Or is it/him a part of us?
Casey:
>Same thing.
Interesting. More on this oversoul Lucifer doctrine in a later
article.
Peyote:
>One thing I am curious about when did Lucifer reach the
>7th degree?
Casey:
>Don't know.
Okay did he -aka Lucifer- have to be a human to ascend to the 7th
degree in the first place?
Peyote:
>> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
>> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash satan &
>> co.
Casey:
>As described in another thread, everthing does have their
>proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
>arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
>Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
>they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
>Its all very dynamic.
Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
perspective on this so bear with me.
First a few questions:
1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
time of Buddha?
6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
forces?
Peyote:
>>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
Peyote:
>> >>But it would not be impossible would it?
Casey:
>>It might be, I don't know.
Okay.
>Casey
Peyote.
_Peyote_
include your posts in it to explain it from another perspective?
Peyote.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:27:04 -0700, Allen Crider
Allen Crider
_Peyote_ wrote:
>
> Thanks Allen for the effort. When Andy and I have our page up can I
> include your posts in it to explain it from another perspective?
>
> Peyote.
sure
ck...@mars.superlink.net
_Peyote_ <pey...@argh.com> wrote:
> I did some major snips again so if something important was left out
> let me know.
Sure thing.
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:04:33 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> My reading leads me to believe that they built on Blavatsky's work
and
> >> then took of in a new direction. Blavatsky was very adamant by what
> >> she meant in her writings.
> >>
> >
> >I don't really feel that there is really a new direction taken
> >by the three, especially Bailey to Creme. Any apparant distinction
> >from Blavatsky could probably be addressed better by people
> >who are more intimately familiar with her work. I base my
> >current opinion on my limited direct knowledge of her
> >works.
>
> Wait a minute there obviously is a new direction otherwise the Lucis
> trust would have no need of making a point that Creme's Maitreya is
> different to the one they are expecting.
OK, you seem to bring this point up a lot in this post so
I will try to address it here and then just refer to this
answer in the rest of the post.
When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
today not the original founders. Mary Bailey was Alice Bailey's
sister in law (I believe). From my understanding, from people
who used to be officers in Lucus Trust, when Alice Baliey
died and Mary Baliey took over, many people who were loyal
and friends of Alice Baliey were asked to leave. When you say
Lucis Trust makes it a point to disagree with Benjamin Creme
you are really just talking about its current leadership. Even
they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
their claims, its only their opinion.
Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
Master DK, why would they do that? Although I do commend them
for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
>
> >I will say this however. Many of Bailey's books are attributed
>>directly to the Master DK. I doubt Mr. Creme tries to
> >over rule the information in those books. In my dealings with
> >this information and questions asked of Mr. Creme this is the
> >case. However, Mr. Creme, if his information is correct,
> >actually can get interpretations of the Baliey works
> >by the Master DK himself:) I think most of the Bailey
> >information is actually quite clear though on its own.
>
> Has Benjamin Creme ever been overshadowed by DK?
Depends on which master Mr. Creme is in contact with:) This
information is not known yet. In the early days
of Alice Bailey's works the name of her contact was not
given either. (We've been trying to get this info out
of Mr. Creme for years:)
>
> >When dealing with Blavatsky's works more of her personal
> >interpretation of the information she received is
> >evident. Most of her works were written in her own
> >words and the introduction of this information to the public
> >took on a slightly different form then the works of Bailey
> >or Creme.
>
> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
> clearly not one and the same.
The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
gotten along grandly:)
>
> >The bottom line is I don't really think there are major
> >gulfs between the three. I know you bring up the
> >Blavastky writtings on Satan but I would have to do
> >more research to answer your questions about that
> >in more detail. Perhaps someone more familiar with
> >Blavastky and also familiar with Bailey could help out.
>
> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
> a distinction and a separation.
Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
or Blavatsky.
>
> Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
> from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
> current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> Do you have ancient texts to support this? What are your oldest
> >> surviving texts which can be viewed by the public that exist today?
>
> Casey:
>
> >You know my stance on this. I believe most of the ancient
> >texts we talk about have originated from information
> >from this group.
>
> Then there is really no proof other than what a few people claimed
> once again by their experience. Re-writing or re-interperteitg history
> is a common past time but I was under the impression that Blavatsky at
> least was -or had seen- a manuscript which was in ancient Tibet.
>
> Does this manuscript exist today? Or is a rumour only?
I certainly don't have it:) It could very well exist but is
not public yet.
What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
the connection you mention more.
Actually, the way I figure it, the longer the tradition is the
more chance it has of being changed over the (thousands of) years.
>
> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
> experience and dubious overshadowing?
I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
>
> Do you see where I am coming from now? Even the Buddhist traditions
> reject Creme's assertions that Maitreya will be here soon.
Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with eachother
about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
If we bring in the Old Testiment and compare it with the New
Testament then I agree that the term God or Lord is used
in more then one way. Which makes your arguments about how
tradition should be considered more valid then current
information even more confusing.
>
> Another important source is actually the pagan religions of the time
> where we find a similar concept, a good being turns bad, becomes an
> adversary and is in an eternal struggle with the good god or goddess.
Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
many of the documents and religions disagree with eachother.
So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
>
> >> Perhaps or they moved further away from Blavatsky's writings on
> >> Lucifer/Satan and serpent revealer concept.
> >
> >Well, I would say there are probably similiar concepts in both
> >Bailey and Creme's teachings but with different and clearer
> >context.
>
> Maybe or realized the name was a put off to any who inquired into it.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> Then if your all coming from the same source why are all three of
you
> >> so different? Shouldn't the same ascended masters be guiding you
and
> >> giving you the same information?
>
> Casey:
>
> >Well not me:) But Mr Creme and Alice Bailey yes. Its not
> >a matter of guidance but direct information given to Bailey
> >and Creme. With Blavatsky, her information was from the
> >same source but I would have to look into the precise
> >method and how that came out in her writings.
>
> Then why do the other two organizations not accept Creme's newer
> version or interpretation? To me that marks a schism or sect.
See my answer above.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> It looks to me more like a normal progression of sorting and
sifting
> >> information.
>
> Casey:
>
> >I just believe Bailey and Creme more clearly state certain
> >aspects in everyday language where Blavatsky was keeping some
> >things back and still slightly symbolic.
>
> The Lucis trust does not accept that though does it? Creme is out of
> the picture with both organizations but why if you are all supposed to
> be accessing the same sources? Why do their experiences not align with
> yours Casey?
Again, look above.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> Oh she could be cryptic when she wanted but she could also be quite
> >> clear also. She repeated this quite a few times.
>
> Casey:
>
> >Well, I don't think she meant an actual serpent enlightened
> >humanity:) She was still speaking symbolically on many
> >things.
>
> LOL hardly :-) She was a lot smarter than people give her credit, she
> meant it and made it very clear. The Lucifer file by Andrew and myself
> you must understand is a small portion collected via a search there is
> a lot more than that.
>
> I admire Blavatsky in a peculiar way this is only my opinion but I
> would have loved to have been able to talk with her she had in my
> opinion a unique way of stirring the pot and boy did she do it well.
>
> Bailey -sorry Allen- I don't like that much, though I will admit she
> had some gems in her writings that even got me thinking.
>
> However to be honest in Benjamin Creme's works I find little of
> significance or worth, yes the sharing concept is kewl, but that is it
> humanists do that all the time and a better job too because they don't
> only talk about it they do it.
>
> As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
> maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
> been said countless times before.
Ok, this is where I just disagree with you. I have listened to
many of Maitreya's messages many time. Even taking into
consideration things that are said in these groups I absolutley
feel the messages are inspiring and very deep while being very
plain and simple at the same time. Its this mixture of
simple ideas put in compelling ways that I really don't find
in many other places. I would suggest people clear their minds
of all the pre-concieved notions around here and actually read,
or better yet listen, to the messages with an open mind.
Yes they are simple but that is by design and pupose.
>
> Why can't Maitreya give us a simple formula which would solve all our
> energy needs through Benjamin Creme? For me that would be proof enough
> that he exists and has the answers.
He could porove himdelf to you in so many ways. However, the
process that is occuring must happen first as described in
other threads. When the time comes for you to make any real
decisions about this you will have more proof then you
know what to do with:)
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> I would like evidence of your earliest surviving manuscripts which
can
> >> be viewed by the public. Otherwise all it is to me is another
> >> interpretation on already established works. In other words I need
> >> proof as to how old or far back this really goes. Surely you must
have
> >> some ancient tibetan manuscripts?
>
> Casey:
>
> >Surely:) No, its just interpretations, but my contention is that
> >they are interpretations from the ones that inspired the
> >original established works. I realize that this fact alone is
> >at the center of this whole controversy but thats just the way
> >it is:) Actually, some ancient manuscripts will come to light
> >in the near future which are more clear in this conection.
>
> This is not an established fact and can not be given any more weight
> than the next persons group or cult who do the same thing. It is an
> opinion -claimed to be divine or otherwise- of what already has
> existed for thousands of years.
Give it as much weight as you feel is warrented. The same
goes for everyone else.
>
> I hope these ancient manuscripts which come to light are not based on
> the same hope that Maitreya will appear soon ;-)
No, we probably won't see these until after Maitreya has
openly emerged.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>>Secondly what HB and AB brought were merely re-interpretations from
> >>>their own point of view -supposedly under the guidance of an
> >>>ascended master-.
>
> Casey:
>
> >> >HB yes, however, some of Bailey's books are attibuted directly
> >> >to the Master DK.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
>
> Casey:
>
> >I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
> >earlier.
>
> Then why the separate groups and the rejection of Creme's Maitreya
> coming soon by the Lucis trust? Casey that indicates change no matter
> how you look at it.
Again its the people in the leadeship positions in those
organizations today not the founders information.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> And yet they have their own experiences channeling -or
overshadowing
> >> if you will- doesn't that tell you something Casey? The people
around
> >> them believe it, have obviously had experiences like you etc etc.
So
> >> what makes you think your experience or Creme's own voices
-whatever-
> >> are correct?
>
> Casey:
>
> >Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
> >comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
>
> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
that when dealing with any situation?
>
> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
No:)
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> These ascended masters apparently can't even agree on who is who
and
> >> with time change their views and guidance.
>
> Casey:
>
> >I don't agree with this. Its more of a move from symbolic
> >meanings to a more clear interpretation of the same thing.
>
> Including the ones who are channeling -or being overshadowed- by
> Maitreya? They differ, even some claim to be Maitreya themselves so
> who is right and how do you know from facts and evidence alone which
> is which?
Well obviously I'm right and they are ALL wrong:)LOL Haven't you
been listening Peyote:) (For those who are just picking
this up now, that was a joke)
>
> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
> on.
Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are
genuine.
>
> The differences between Blavatsky, bailey and Creme is only one
> aspect, what of all the others like David Spangler and Luciferian
> doctrines? What of the UCT and its claims? What of those at the
> Findhorn community and its claims -where David spent some time
> teaching I think-.
What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
all easy:) Yuo claim persoanl experience is subjective but
thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
some persoanl experience?
>
> If anything it is less clear more confusing and growing so all the
> time.
Yes, and Maitreya will have to cut through all the confusion
and make it real simple (which I claim he can).
No. I don't believe, whatever that being really is, that it
evolved through earth's evolution. Maitreya did though.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
> >> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash
satan &
> >> co.
>
> Casey:
>
> >As described in another thread, everthing does have their
> >proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
> >arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
> >Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
> >they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
> >Its all very dynamic.
>
> Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
> atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
> perspective on this so bear with me.
>
> First a few questions:
The following answers are based on my current knowledge
impressions. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on
such matters.
>
> 1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
Yes, but I think the meaning gets confussed sometimes.
For the sake of this discussion I would say its relative.
Like for instance this timing thing. To the Masters and
Maitreya all things have already occured. There is literally
no concept of time. The exact "timing" aspect has to do with
something that is not "real" and thus the difficulty. Its
like all things are pre-determined but the timing and when
events work themselves out on the physical plane depends
on our actions and are not set.
> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
our free will.
> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
> time of Buddha?
The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
(according to my information).
> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
actual role in the scheme of things.
> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
> forces?
Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
roles.
Casey
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
> >>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
>
> Casey:
>
> >>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
> >>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
>
> Peyote:
>
> >> >>But it would not be impossible would it?
>
> Casey:
>
> >>It might be, I don't know.
>
> Okay.
>
> >Casey
>
> Peyote.
>
Kook Watcher
Peyote;
>> Wait a minute there obviously is a new direction otherwise the Lucis
>> trust would have no need of making a point that Creme's Maitreya is
>> different to the one they are expecting.
Casey:
>OK, you seem to bring this point up a lot in this post so
>I will try to address it here and then just refer to this
>answer in the rest of the post.
>
>When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
>society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
>today not the original founders.
However they still claim to follow the same teachings.
>Mary Bailey was Alice Bailey's sister in law (I believe).
>From my understanding, from people who used to be
>officers in Lucus Trust, when Alice Baliey died and
>Mary Baliey took over, many people who were loyal
>and friends of Alice Baliey were asked to leave.
Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
>When you say Lucis Trust makes it a point to
>disagree with Benjamin Creme you are really
>just talking about its current leadership. Even
>they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
>their claims, its only their opinion.
Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
>Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
>They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
>Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
>Master DK, why would they do that? Although I do commend them
>for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
>either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
>If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
However since I don't believe in a DK to start with it is hard for me
to comment on whether or not it is real -obviously I only see it as
words and not much more-.
I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
>The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
>who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
Yes I know.
Peyote:
>> Has Benjamin Creme ever been overshadowed by DK?
Casey:
>Depends on which master Mr. Creme is in contact with:) This
>information is not known yet. In the early days
>of Alice Bailey's works the name of her contact was not
>given either. (We've been trying to get this info out
>of Mr. Creme for years:)
LOL. Good luck and you better hope its not Lucifer -only kidding-.
Peyote:
>> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
>> clearly not one and the same.
Casey:
>The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
>I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
>gotten along grandly:)
That I seriously doubt, did Baily and Blavatsky really get along that
well? Wouldn't Creme's expectance of Maitreya's time line of arrival
differ to Baileys, and not only that wasn't Baileys understanding of
Maitreya different to Creme's?
Peyote:
>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>> a distinction and a separation.
Casey:
>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>or Blavatsky.
As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
own writings and experience.
Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
Peyote:
>> Does this manuscript exist today? Or is a rumour only?
Casey:
>I certainly don't have it:) It could very well exist but is
>not public yet.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> Actually I owe you an apology, Bruce correctly pointed out that Job is
>> not one of the oldest books in the bible. Anyway the same point still
>> stands Lucifer/Satan had access to god and what you will find is that
>> it was quite the opposite to what you said previously.
Casey:
>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>the connection you mention more.
Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
Lucifer/Satan etc.
I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
think his information will blow you away ;-)
-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
fell-
Peyote:
>> Possibly but again we come to the question of ancient texts presenting
>> themselves -with commentaries in some places, which we will look at
>> further to show the Lucifer / satan connection-
>>
>> You have the experience of thousands of years against you from
>> Judaism, Christianity and Islam and not only that some of their
>> leading theologians that in total amount to millions -billions?- of
>> peoples.
Casey:
>Actually, the way I figure it, the longer the tradition is the
>more chance it has of being changed over the (thousands of) years.
Huh if I were you I would examine the Qur'an and Hadiths a bit closer
LOL ;-) and their transmission -chain of authority-. The Bible yes you
have a partial point but you see I also ready non biblical books
apocrypha, Pseudepigraphical Books & Writings Dead Sea Scrolls Texts
etc -including Gnostic texts-
So I am quite familiar with other strands of thoughts amongst the
semite peoples. -Special thanks to Salmun for the loan of his works in
this area-
Peyote:
>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
is right I am a Purist at heart.
Peyote:
>> Do you see where I am coming from now? Even the Buddhist traditions
>> reject Creme's assertions that Maitreya will be here soon.
Casey:
>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
What does the DL say about it? Has Creme met him and discussed his
overshadowing yet with the DL?
Peyote:
>> No that is not correct. Lucifer after the fall became satan -he was
>> still Lucifer though- in Judaism & Islam names take on a meaning
>>being related languages basically Lucifer was now called the adversary.
>>This incidently also has happened with people like Abraham/Ibrhaim who
>>was earlier known as Abram.
>>Eo probably has more material on this than I do but if you look
>> closely at the Hebrew people were also called satan however when
>>the definite article 'ha' is used then it is talking about the devil
>>as we commonly know it. In Greek it is similar sa-ta-nas' applies to
>>satan the devil in nearly all its occurrences and is usually
> accompanied by the definite article 'ho'.
Casey:
>> >This could all very well be true. But we are already dealing with
>> >enough translation and oral traditions that you have to admit
>> >this is all probably fair game for many interpretations.
Peyote:
>> Again not so if we examine the Zoroastrian faith for example we find
>> many examples -I believe a lot of Judaism stemmed from earlier
>> Zoroastrian ideas ... okay so shoot me if you disagree LOL- In that
>> system we find two gods -despite some misguided westerners trying to
>> say it is a monotheistic faith which I believe it is not- A good one
>> and a bad one this shed a lot of light onto the idea of the Jews and
>> their idea of Lucifer falling and how they adapted it into their own
>> theology.
Casey:
>If we bring in the Old Testiment and compare it with the New
>Testament then I agree that the term God or Lord is used
>in more then one way. Which makes your arguments about how
>tradition should be considered more valid then current
>information even more confusing.
Actually it is less confusing if you understand the relationship that
names depict a certain aspect of what the character is doing. The
problem a lot of people make is between the transitional period
between the OT and NT there were many other books written in between
that time.
Even Christian forgeries or apocryphal accounts are useful in
researching this. As for the term god yes it is YHWH or Elohim but he
is also depicted by other names as well again there is no confusion if
you look at the context.
Fundamentalists have problems because of the contradictions -and some
sources which did not originate in Judaism or Christianity- but then
again what can one expect when they are limited to only 66 books LOL.
I think maybe instead of reading the book of Enoch to start with try
looking into the Dead see scrolls especially the commentaries on
already established biblical verses.
Peyote;
>> Another important source is actually the pagan religions of the time
>> where we find a similar concept, a good being turns bad, becomes an
>> adversary and is in an eternal struggle with the good god or goddess.
Casey:
>Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
>many of the documents and religions disagree with each other.
>So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
so that's where we will differ.
But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
say ;-)
Casey:
>> >Well, I don't think she meant an actual serpent enlightened
>> >humanity:) She was still speaking symbolically on many
>> >things.
Peyote:
>> LOL hardly :-) She was a lot smarter than people give her credit, she
>> meant it and made it very clear. The Lucifer file by Andrew and myself
>> you must understand is a small portion collected via a search there is
>> a lot more than that.
>>
>> I admire Blavatsky in a peculiar way this is only my opinion but I
>> would have loved to have been able to talk with her she had in my
>> opinion a unique way of stirring the pot and boy did she do it well.
>>
>> Bailey -sorry Allen- I don't like that much, though I will admit she
>> had some gems in her writings that even got me thinking.
>>
>> However to be honest in Benjamin Creme's works I find little of
>> significance or worth, yes the sharing concept is kewl, but that is it
>> humanists do that all the time and a better job too because they don't
>> only talk about it they do it.
>>
>> As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
>> maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
>> been said countless times before.
Casey:
>Ok, this is where I just disagree with you. I have listened to
>many of Maitreya's messages many time. Even taking into
>consideration things that are said in these groups I absolutley
>feel the messages are inspiring and very deep while being very
>plain and simple at the same time. Its this mixture of
>simple ideas put in compelling ways that I really don't find
>in many other places. I would suggest people clear their minds
>of all the pre-concieved notions around here and actually read,
>or better yet listen, to the messages with an open mind.
>
>Yes they are simple but that is by design and pupose.
Well I still find it dry and boring, nothing new, nothing of great
significance.
Tell you what Casey send me via email 3 of your favorite and most
inspiring Maitreya messages -don't post it here its probably to long
and will add even more BW- and I'll post my opinion or email my
opinion if it is to long.
Fair enough?
Peyote:
>> Why can't Maitreya give us a simple formula which would solve all our
>> energy needs through Benjamin Creme? For me that would be proof enough
>> that he exists and has the answers.
Casey:
>He could porove himdelf to you in so many ways. However, the
>process that is occuring must happen first as described in
>other threads. When the time comes for you to make any real
>decisions about this you will have more proof then you
>know what to do with:)
But why not give us a simple energy solution right now through
Benjamin Creme? I believe it is because like so many channeled
'overshadowed' works these outpourings are nothing more than from ones
own brain and not a higher source at all.
Casey:
>Give it as much weight as you feel is warrented. The same
>goes for everyone else.
Exactly and they all have a go at it from UFO cultists to suicide
cults.
Peyote:
>> I hope these ancient manuscripts which come to light are not based on
>> the same hope that Maitreya will appear soon ;-)
Casey:
>No, we probably won't see these until after Maitreya has
>openly emerged.
Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
I can just see the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Bahai etc headlines now,
'Maitreya manifests fake documents to deceive the true believers.'
>> Peyote:
>>
>> >> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
>>
>> Casey:
>>
>> >I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
>> >earlier.
>>
>> Then why the separate groups and the rejection of Creme's Maitreya
>> coming soon by the Lucis trust? Casey that indicates change no matter
>> how you look at it.
>
>Again its the people in the leadeship positions in those
>organizations today not the founders information.
I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>>
>> >Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
>> >comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
Peyote:
>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>that when dealing with any situation?
Peyote:
>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Casey:
>No:)
Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
whatever.
Peyote:
>> Including the ones who are channeling -or being overshadowed- by
>> Maitreya? They differ, even some claim to be Maitreya themselves so
>> who is right and how do you know from facts and evidence alone which
>> is which?
Casey:
>Well obviously I'm right and they are ALL wrong:)LOL Haven't you
>been listening Peyote:) (For those who are just picking
>this up now, that was a joke)
ROTFL
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
Casey:
>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Peyote:
>> The differences between Blavatsky, bailey and Creme is only one
>> aspect, what of all the others like David Spangler and Luciferian
>> doctrines? What of the UCT and its claims? What of those at the
>> Findhorn community and its claims -where David spent some time
>> teaching I think-.
Casey:
>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>some persoanl experience?
Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
but rather a product of your minds.
Peyote:
>> If anything it is less clear more confusing and growing so all the
>> time.
Casey:
>Yes, and Maitreya will have to cut through all the confusion
>and make it real simple (which I claim he can).
I seriously doubt it. So far nothing has happened and as I said
earlier there have been no great revelations -that I am aware of-
through Benjamin Creme. No Proof of a higher wisdom, no proof of even
a scientific formula like cold fusion.
Peyote:
>>Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
>>Buddha? How many people do you think amongs Jews, Christians
>>and Muslims would accept that?
Casey:
>> >> >How? Through the evolutionary process. I would say VERY few
>> >> >people would accpet that to be true in any religion or not.
>> >> >However, I feel that most people also would think that
>> >> >Satan and Lucifer are synonomous which there are absolutely
>> >> >no references in the bible that point to that.
Peyote:
>> That is your interpretation of it Lucifer as I pointed out was cast
>> down -with others- and in the Hebrew and Arabic context it was due
>>to pride hence the name change. He still is Lucifer though amongst
>>Jews, Christians he is also known as Ha Satan, Iblis, satan. The oral
>> tradition of Judaism might also help you to understand this as some
> apocryphal books would -Enoch- might be a good place to start.
Peyote:
>>-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
>>our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
Casey:
>>The way I would say it is we are him.
Peyote:
>> Or is it/him a part of us?
>> Casey:
>>Same thing.
>>
>> Interesting. More on this oversoul Lucifer doctrine in a later
>> article.
>>
Peyote:
>> Okay did he -aka Lucifer- have to be a human to ascend to the 7th
>> degree in the first place?
Casey:
>No. I don't believe, whatever that being really is, that it
>evolved through earth's evolution. Maitreya did though.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
>> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash
>satan & co.
Casey:
>> >As described in another thread, everthing does have their
>> >proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
>> >arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
>> >Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
>> >they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
>> >Its all very dynamic.
Peyote:
>> Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
>> atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
>> perspective on this so bear with me.
>>
>> First a few questions:
>
>The following answers are based on my current knowledge
>impressions. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on
>such matters.
>
>>
>> 1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
Casey:
>Yes, but I think the meaning gets confussed sometimes.
>For the sake of this discussion I would say its relative.
>Like for instance this timing thing. To the Masters and
>Maitreya all things have already occured. There is literally
>no concept of time. The exact "timing" aspect has to do with
>something that is not "real" and thus the difficulty. Its
>like all things are pre-determined but the timing and when
>events work themselves out on the physical plane depends
>on our actions and are not set.
So then how can Maitreya exist in our time if he has already been here
and gone and is yet back again? If he is here then he is subject to
time even though it has already taken place -and will take place
again-.
Peyote:
>> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
Casey:
>Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
So omnipresence is not real?
Peyote:
>> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
Casey:
>As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
>he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
>our free will.
So he can not come unless the majority of people want him to come? He
will not give this 'experience' to those whom believe it would be evil
and of the anti-christ?
Peyote:
>> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
Casey:
>He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
>> time of Buddha?
Casey:
>The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
>Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
>(according to my information).
I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
know of about 600 BC.
Peyote:
>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
Casey:
>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>actual role in the scheme of things.
So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
and without beginning. Interesting.
Peyote:
>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>> forces?
Casey:
>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>roles.
Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
battle should have already been over?
His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
Casey?
Peyote:
>>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
Peyote:
>>>But it would not be impossible would it?
Casey:
>>It might be, I don't know.
Peyote:
Can Lucifer inhabit human bodies as well?
>Casey
Peyote. Thanks see you in the next post.
caseyk
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:59:33 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>Peyote;
>>> Wait a minute there obviously is a new direction otherwise the Lucis
>>> trust would have no need of making a point that Creme's Maitreya is
>>> different to the one they are expecting.
>Casey:
>>OK, you seem to bring this point up a lot in this post so
>>I will try to address it here and then just refer to this
>>answer in the rest of the post.
>>
>>When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
>>society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
>>today not the original founders.
>However they still claim to follow the same teachings.
And I feel the teachings don't contadict eachother. Granted,
some of Blavatsky's statements need some looking into but
she had a slightly different agenda in a slightly different
time. It was her job to introduce this whole topic and
maybe even create a little controversy and stir things
up.
>>Mary Bailey was Alice Bailey's sister in law (I believe).
>>From my understanding, from people who used to be
>>officers in Lucus Trust, when Alice Baliey died and
>>Mary Baliey took over, many people who were loyal
>>and friends of Alice Baliey were asked to leave.
>Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
>conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
Possibly but it does reflect a situation where the people who
worked the closest with Alice Bailey herself are not part
of the organization now that rejects Mr. Creme's claims.
>>When you say Lucis Trust makes it a point to
>>disagree with Benjamin Creme you are really
>>just talking about its current leadership. Even
>>they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
>>their claims, its only their opinion.
>Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
Well I would say its absolutely an opinion based on their
own studies. But I know other people who have been in that
organization as long or maybe even longer then the leadership
who do agree with Mr. Creme.
>>Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
>>They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
>>Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
>>Master DK, why would they do that? Although I do commend them
>>for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
>>either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
>>If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
>That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
>place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
Maybe, but not with me involved:) The point is they do state that
their teachings came from the Master DK. How could they then
decide they know better now?
>However since I don't believe in a DK to start with it is hard for me
>to comment on whether or not it is real -obviously I only see it as
>words and not much more-.
Ok.
>I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
>have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
>modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
They probably do but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
>>The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
>>who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
>Yes I know.
>Peyote:
>>> Has Benjamin Creme ever been overshadowed by DK?
>Casey:
>>Depends on which master Mr. Creme is in contact with:) This
>>information is not known yet. In the early days
>>of Alice Bailey's works the name of her contact was not
>>given either. (We've been trying to get this info out
>>of Mr. Creme for years:)
>LOL. Good luck and you better hope its not Lucifer -only kidding-.
Nah, its not:)
>Peyote:
>>> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
>>> clearly not one and the same.
>Casey:
>>The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
>>I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
>>gotten along grandly:)
>That I seriously doubt, did Baily and Blavatsky really get along that
>well? Wouldn't Creme's expectance of Maitreya's time line of arrival
>differ to Baileys, and not only that wasn't Baileys understanding of
>Maitreya different to Creme's?
Blavatsky passd away in 1891, I'm not even sure if Bailey was born yet
but they definitely never had a chance to be contemporaries and compare
opinions:) One thing I did just read that was interesting. Apparently
Blavatsky had to fight hard in her own society to make sure
her works were not distorted or changed. So this just goes to further
my point about the current organizations (who I am in no way condeming).
As far as Baileys understanding of Maitreya differing from Creme's, on
this I must disagree with you. Many people who follow the Bailey
teachings think the coming of the Christ is more of a change
in conciousness. However, it is very clearly stated in the later
Bailey books that the coming of the Christ and Maitreya is an
actual physical event.
>Peyote:
>>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>>> a distinction and a separation.
>Casey:
>>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>>or Blavatsky.
>As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
>to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
>experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
>Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
>leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
>happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
Of course:)
>The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
>accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
>arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
>own writings and experience.
I know people who have studied the same teachings at least as long as
the current leadership who do feel Mr. Creme is correct.
>Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
>from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
>current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
You are more then free to have that opinion:)
>Peyote:
>>> Does this manuscript exist today? Or is a rumour only?
>Casey:
>>I certainly don't have it:) It could very well exist but is
>>not public yet.
>Okay.
>Peyote:
>>> Actually I owe you an apology, Bruce correctly pointed out that Job is
>>> not one of the oldest books in the bible. Anyway the same point still
>>> stands Lucifer/Satan had access to god and what you will find is that
>>> it was quite the opposite to what you said previously.
>Casey:
>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>the connection you mention more.
>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>think his information will blow you away ;-)
Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
everyone is using those names in.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
No need to apologize. I never really complained about they wa others see
things.
>Peyote:
>>> Do you see where I am coming from now? Even the Buddhist traditions
>>> reject Creme's assertions that Maitreya will be here soon.
>Casey:
>>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
>Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
>that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
Thats not the point (but I do know some:). The point is they don't even
agree with eachother so who knows what the real answer is.
>What does the DL say about it? Has Creme met him and discussed his
>overshadowing yet with the DL?
I'll have to do a little more research on this but I remember hearing
some comments from DL that the appearance of the next Buudha might not
be so far off.
> Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
This all might possibly be true but to tell you the truth I
forgot the original point we were trying to make out of all of this.
I have already explained how I came to my opriginal comments
about the OT and that they might be wrong.
>Fundamentalists have problems because of the contradictions
-and some
>sources which did not originate in Judaism or Christianity- but then
>again what can one expect when they are limited to only 66 books LOL.
>I think maybe instead of reading the book of Enoch to start with try
>looking into the Dead see scrolls especially the commentaries on
>already established biblical verses.
>Peyote;
>>> Another important source is actually the pagan religions of the time
>>> where we find a similar concept, a good being turns bad, becomes an
>>> adversary and is in an eternal struggle with the good god or goddess.
>Casey:
>>Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
>>many of the documents and religions disagree with each other.
>>So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
>How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
If none of them are correct why are you so concerned that Mr. Creme
doesn't agree with all of them, or some of the interpretations?
>Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
>Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
>for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
>so that's where we will differ.
>But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
>say ;-)
Come on, I won't tell:)
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Fair enough?
If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
to you.
>Peyote:
>>> Why can't Maitreya give us a simple formula which would solve all our
>>> energy needs through Benjamin Creme? For me that would be proof enough
>>> that he exists and has the answers.
>Casey:
>>He could porove himdelf to you in so many ways. However, the
>>process that is occuring must happen first as described in
>>other threads. When the time comes for you to make any real
>>decisions about this you will have more proof then you
>>know what to do with:)
>But why not give us a simple energy solution right now through
>Benjamin Creme? I believe it is because like so many channeled
>'overshadowed' works these outpourings are nothing more than from ones
>own brain and not a higher source at all.
As I thought I stated somewhere, if we receive "free" energy
before we are ready to use it then it might actually cause more
harm then good. For starters if we received free energy
tomorrow our economy would probably collapse by Friday:)
>Casey:
>>Give it as much weight as you feel is warrented. The same
>>goes for everyone else.
>Exactly and they all have a go at it from UFO cultists to suicide
>cults.
Well I'll tell you one thing, I'm never going to comit suicide:)
>Peyote:
>>> I hope these ancient manuscripts which come to light are not based on
>>> the same hope that Maitreya will appear soon ;-)
>Casey:
>>No, we probably won't see these until after Maitreya has
>>openly emerged.
>Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
Oh come on, it won't be that long now:)
>I can just see the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Bahai etc headlines now,
>'Maitreya manifests fake documents to deceive the true believers.'
nah, we can do some testing on them:) Actually, they'll still
probably say that anyway:)lol
>>> Peyote:
>>>
>>> >> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
>>>
>>> Casey:
>>>
>>> >I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
>>> >earlier.
>>>
>>> Then why the separate groups and the rejection of Creme's Maitreya
>>> coming soon by the Lucis trust? Casey that indicates change no matter
>>> how you look at it.
>>
>>Again its the people in the leadeship positions in those
>>organizations today not the founders information.
>I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
>works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
>up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
>Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Exactly, and you don't believe I'm right either, do you? :-)
>Casey:
>>>
>>> >Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
>>> >comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
>Peyote:
>>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
>Casey:
>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>that when dealing with any situation?
>Peyote:
>>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
>Casey:
>>No:)
>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
I already said they were all wrong:)lol
>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
>own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
>personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
>entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
>loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
>whatever.
Ok, back to science. What are the odds that a whole bunch of atoms
came togther and formed this planet and the life on it. The answer
is about the same of winning the lottery 52 weeks in a row:)
(I saw this on PBS so it must be true:)
>Peyote:
>>> Including the ones who are channeling -or being overshadowed- by
>>> Maitreya? They differ, even some claim to be Maitreya themselves so
>>> who is right and how do you know from facts and evidence alone which
>>> is which?
>Casey:
>>Well obviously I'm right and they are ALL wrong:)LOL Haven't you
>>been listening Peyote:) (For those who are just picking
>>this up now, that was a joke)
>ROTFL
>Peyote:
>>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>>> on.
>Casey:
>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
I would hope not:)lol
>Peyote:
>>> The differences between Blavatsky, bailey and Creme is only one
>>> aspect, what of all the others like David Spangler and Luciferian
>>> doctrines? What of the UCT and its claims? What of those at the
>>> Findhorn community and its claims -where David spent some time
>>> teaching I think-.
>Casey:
>>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>>some persoanl experience?
>Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
>but rather a product of your minds.
It could be:) Its up to you to decide (but don't blame me if I don't
agree with you).
>Peyote:
>>> If anything it is less clear more confusing and growing so all the
>>> time.
>Casey:
>>Yes, and Maitreya will have to cut through all the confusion
>>and make it real simple (which I claim he can).
>I seriously doubt it. So far nothing has happened and as I said
>earlier there have been no great revelations -that I am aware of-
>through Benjamin Creme. No Proof of a higher wisdom, no proof of even
>a scientific formula like cold fusion.
Well, from what I understand in from reports from Japan, cold fusion
is closer then we think.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>>> Casey:
>Casey:
>Okay.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
I never said I could fully explain (or comprehend) what the idea
of time not existing really means and how it works exactly.
>Peyote:
>>> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
>Casey:
>>Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
>So omnipresence is not real?
Its real, actually more real then the reality we perceive.
>Peyote:
>>> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
>Casey:
>>As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
>>he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
>>our free will.
>So he can not come unless the majority of people want him to come? He
>will not give this 'experience' to those whom believe it would be evil
>and of the anti-christ?
No, it means He "won't" emerge openly until we are ready and have
invited Him. As I said before, "all" over a certain age will get
the experience.
>Peyote:
>>> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
>Casey:
>>He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
>Okay.
>Peyote:
>>> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
>>> time of Buddha?
>Casey:
>>The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
>>Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
>>(according to my information).
>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>know of about 600 BC.
Are you talking about JME:)lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
>Peyote:
>>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
>Casey:
>>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>>actual role in the scheme of things.
>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>and without beginning. Interesting.
ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
>Peyote:
>>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>>> forces?
>Casey:
>>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>>roles.
>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>battle should have already been over?
>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>Casey?
You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
not what I mean by time not existing.
>Peyote:
>>>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
>Casey:
>>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
>Peyote:
>>>>But it would not be impossible would it?
>Casey:
>>>It might be, I don't know.
>Peyote:
>Can Lucifer inhabit human bodies as well?
I don't think so.
Casey
www.sahreintl.org
Allen Crider
<ck...@mars.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:8ct4p4$e0t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
This Mary Bailey thing happenned in the early 1960s. I doubt very much if
many working at Lucis were around then. That was a very long time ago. But
the point you're making isn't sensible. There is little backup from Bailey's
writing for Ben Creme's insistence that he is some kind of chosen mouthpiece
for a manifested Christ. A Christ, by the way, that is claimed to have
issued false pronouncements of his return. A Christ that is afraid to come
out and play.
The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
> Even
> they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
> their claims, its only their opinion.
They back it up with her material, which is their job.
>
> Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
> They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
> Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
> Master DK, why would they do that?
Languages are not a static thing, Casey. English usage has changed quite a
bit over the past 50 years. I think the newer version is more appropriate
for modern english. There is mention in one of the Bailey books that the GI
should be changed over the times. My friend is working on an article about
the GI and I can provide this reference if you wish.
> Although I do commend them
> for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
> either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
> If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
>
> The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
> who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
That makes sense. Why should they?
I would disagree here. Bailey's contemporaries were Roerich and Rudolf
Steiner. These three (and their organizations) did not see eye-to-eye.
Also, Bailey, Roerich and Steiner presented comprehensive teachings that
advanced modern spiritual thought. Bailey's main concepts were the evolution
of deity, an astrology based on triangles and included non-zodiacal
constellations, the concept of the 7 rays of attribute of manifested
existence. Steiner was even more comprehensive, he even started the
Montessori school system, which is still popular to this day. He worked out
biodynamics as an agricultural system. These were in addition to his
volumnous spiritual teachings.
Ben Creme is a one-note Nancy. He is and does his return of the Christ,
masters of wisdom song. And that's it. He isn't nearly as accomplished as
Blavatsky, Roerich, Bailey or Steiner.
>
Long posting! Gotta go.
[snip]
caseyk
First of all Benjamin Creme doesn't insist this he just tells the story
based on his experience. I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate
by Benjamin Creme not being specifically mentioned in the Bailey books.
He didn't even begin to start his work until around 1960.
>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
I just went to this page and it pretty much says nothing. Actually, I take
that back:) According to what the page says we should be expecting the
Christ today. We are seeing the beginning of the conditions stated.
I encourage people to go to the link and make up their own mind.
>> Even
>> they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
>> their claims, its only their opinion.
>They back it up with her material, which is their job.
Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:) My point here
is that they do have a personal stake in no one being able to
claim better insight into the teachings then they do.
I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
>>
>> Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
>> They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
>> Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
>> Master DK, why would they do that?
>Languages are not a static thing, Casey. English usage has changed quite a
>bit over the past 50 years. I think the newer version is more appropriate
>for modern english.
If thats true then what does that say about all the ancient texts
that everyone keeps using in arguments with me. Or better yet, what
does that say about any aparent differences between Blavatsky
and Creme. Maybe we are really just talking about different times.
Anyhow, I really can't agree with you on this in relation to the
Great Invocation.
> There is mention in one of the Bailey books that the GI
>should be changed over the times. My friend is working on an article about
>the GI and I can provide this reference if you wish.
I would definitely want to see this reference. Frankly I think the
changes to the GI are silly.
>> Although I do commend them
>> for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
>> either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
>> If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
>>
>> The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
>> who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
>That makes sense. Why should they?
Because the information is supposed to come from the same source,
which I believe they do.
Well this just shows how much you know about Creme's works. Have you
actually read Mr. Creme's books or are you just basing this on what
you have read in here?
Casey
Allen Crider
There is nothing to support Ben Creme's efforts except what he imself
has used from Bailey's books.
>
> >The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
> >have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
> >writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
> >position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
>
> I just went to this page and it pretty much says nothing. Actually, I take
> that back:) According to what the page says we should be expecting the
> Christ today. We are seeing the beginning of the conditions stated.
> I encourage people to go to the link and make up their own mind.
They specifically disavow any pre-announcements.
>
> >> Even
> >> they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
> >> their claims, its only their opinion.
>
> >They back it up with her material, which is their job.
>
> Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:) My point here
> is that they do have a personal stake in no one being able to
> claim better insight into the teachings then they do.
I don't think there is much of a personal stake at stake. They have
always claimed they endorse no other organization except their own.
> I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
> for that job?
Publishing, being active in the organization (in New York).
Volunteering. The usual.
> Many people have been studying the works of
> Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
They? Last time I saw a real-live New York Bailey person was when a
white-haired elderly lady came to SF to talk about the release of a new
compilation: The Seven Rays of Life.
However, when you write about a 'purge' in 1960, realize that was 40
years ago. Mary Bailey says in her autobiography A Learning Experience
that some quit. She didn't mention firings, but probably Alice Bailey's
personal secretary got canned.
>
> Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
> the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
>
> >>
> >> Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
> >> They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
> >> Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
> >> Master DK, why would they do that?
>
> >Languages are not a static thing, Casey. English usage has changed quite a
> >bit over the past 50 years. I think the newer version is more appropriate
> >for modern english.
>
> If thats true then what does that say about all the ancient texts
> that everyone keeps using in arguments with me.
Not all that much. Wasn't The King James Bible translated into English
from German, which was translated into German from Latin?
But that G Invocation has a different purpose. I've seen differing
versions of the Lord's Prayer... haven't you? The Lord's Prayer is an
invocation. Besides, the English language has no claim to sacredness,
like sanskrit does.
> Or better yet, what
> does that say about any aparent differences between Blavatsky
> and Creme. Maybe we are really just talking about different times.
> Anyhow, I really can't agree with you on this in relation to the
> Great Invocation.
So what do you say about Spanish-speaking people? Should they say the
Great Invocation in English? If Share International wants to use the old
version, so what?
By they way, World Goodwill is the organization that offered up the
change, not Lucis. Same umbrella, but I figure Lucis is going to keep
the old one.
>
> > There is mention in one of the Bailey books that the GI
> >should be changed over the times. My friend is working on an article about
> >the GI and I can provide this reference if you wish.
>
> I would definitely want to see this reference. Frankly I think the
> changes to the GI are silly.
The spiritual group I belong to changed the Great Invocation on their
own back in 1991. It is much more like the new one:
The Bailey reference I spoke of is in Esoteric Psychology page 692
"All whom you can reach in the countries of the world must be instructed
and helped to spread the use of the Invocation in their own language,
and with wording that will make it acceptable, and a widespread effort
must be made to organize its simultaneous use on the day of the May full moon.
>
> >> Although I do commend them
> >> for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
> >> either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
> >> If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
> >>
> >> The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
> >> who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
>
> >That makes sense. Why should they?
>
> Because the information is supposed to come from the same source,
> which I believe they do.
Different rays have different ways.
Here's a sample of Bailey's titles:
Consciousness of the Atom
A Treatise on Cosmic Fire
Esoteric Astrology
Esoteric Healing
The Rays and Initiations
Esoteric Psychology
Glamour: A World Problem
Initiation Human and Solar
A Treatise on White Magic
etc.
etc. These titles are not all about the same thing, are they?
Then there's Steiner. Here's a very small sample title list:
Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path
An Outline of Esoteric Science
Christianity as a Mystical Fact
Life Between Death and Rebirth
The Archangel Michael
Nature Spirits
The Cycle of the Year as a Path of Initiation
Freedom as Spiritual Activity
Human and Cosmic Thought
Initiation, Eternity, and the Passing Moment
Learning to See in the Spiritual World
Pastoral Medicine
Ancient Myths and the New Isis Mystery
The Evolution of Earth and Man and the Stars
The Principle of Spiritual Economy
Karmic Relationships (8 Volumes!)
The Cycle of the Year as Breathing Process of the Earth
etc. etc. Quite comprehensive. Steiner and Bailey showed a breadth of works!
Now here's Benjamin Creme's library:
A Master Speaks
Maitreya's Mission (3 Volumes)
Messages from Maitreya the Christ
Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom
Transmission: A Meditation for the New Age
The Ageless Wisdom Teaching
Did I miss any? Ben Creme has a one-track mind. There is more to
existence than the study of Masters of Wisdom implies.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
Casey:
>>>When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
>>>society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
>>>today not the original founders.
Peyote:
>>However they still claim to follow the same teachings.
Casey:
>And I feel the teachings don't contadict each other. Granted,
>some of Blavatsky's statements need some looking into but
>she had a slightly different agenda in a slightly different
>time. It was her job to introduce this whole topic and
>maybe even create a little controversy and stir things
>up.
Yes I agree with the stirring bit -still would have loved to meet her
a woman that seems similar to me LOL- Bet Eo and Tempest who have had
fun with her too.
However back to the topic I would like to stress again that the
teachings do contradict each other and this can be plainly proven
from my end, however once again on your end you are presenting the
'if' argument and 'I don't think they contradict each other without'
any proof.
You know I could present a list of proof as to how they differ and on
what, hiding behind the excuse that well ... maybe so and so meant
something else doesn't mean much. Let the words speak for themselves
Casey and let the followers whom have studied their works speak for
themselves.
I am sorry but the evidence is on my side, I even have modern
articles written by Theosophical members which clearly state Lucifer
is satan and the serpent is the liberator of humanity.
Peyote:
>>Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
>>conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
Casey:
>Possibly but it does reflect a situation where the people who
>worked the closest with Alice Bailey herself are not part
>of the organization now that rejects Mr. Creme's claims.
No what it would amount to is a personality difference, I suppose such
petty things would not effect the so called work of the ascended
masters.
Mr Creme is rejected by every organization that I have come across,
they may speak of him but they certainly don't follow him or join
-subscribe- to his brand of ideology.
Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
from those of that group you talk about.
Peyote:
>>Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
Casey
>Well I would say its absolutely an opinion based on their
>own studies. But I know other people who have been in that
>organization as long or maybe even longer then the leadership
>who do agree with Mr. Creme.
Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
camp?
Peyote:
>>That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
>>place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
Casey:
>Maybe, but not with me involved:) The point is they do state that
>their teachings came from the Master DK. How could they then
>decide they know better now?
If you last that long it will happen, it is a common phenomena amongst
groups. -Large or small-.
Peyote:
>>I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
>>have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
>>modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
Casey:
>They probably do but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Why not? Language and meaning change all the time?
Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
translation of the copper scroll-.
So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your argument
is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
Peyote:
>> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
>> clearly not one and the same.
Casey:
>>>The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
>>>I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
>>>gotten along grandly:)
Peyote;
>>That I seriously doubt, did Baily and Blavatsky really get along that
>>well? Wouldn't Creme's expectance of Maitreya's time line of arrival
>>differ to Baileys, and not only that wasn't Baileys understanding of
>>Maitreya different to Creme's?
Casey:
>Blavatsky passd away in 1891, I'm not even sure if Bailey was born yet
>but they definitely never had a chance to be contemporaries and compare
>opinions:)
Peyote:
Correction noted thanks.
Casey;
>One thing I did just read that was interesting. Apparently
>Blavatsky had to fight hard in her own society to make sure
>her works were not distorted or changed. So this just goes to further
>my point about the current organizations (who I am in no way condeming).
No it doesn't further your point ahah finally I am on familiar ground,
Blavatsky was in conflict with people yes, that's true but so what?
She was also under heavy attack from churches which condemned her and
her society. I think few realize the pressure she was under. Here is a
quote I borrowed from one of Salmuns numerous books:
---------------------------------
'We are informed that -Blavatsky- by the 'Modern English Biography'
-F. Boase- that she married twice, the first husband an old man
nearly seventy years, who she deserted three months after marriafe;
and the second a young lad of 16 years whom went mad the day after
marriage. She led a regular bohemian life and kept a gambling hell in
the Tiflis in 1863. Between 1848 and 1857 she professed to visit
Tibet and there learnt the secret of the Mahatmas. In 1871 ...
-she- set up a spiritualistic society in Cairo. There she gotintop
trouble for tricking the public and fleecing them of their money by
deception. She founded the Theosophical society in 1875 and did in
England in 1891.
She wrote the book 'Isis Unveiled', and experts have declared that it
is filled with plagiarism .... She had a violent temper and was
anything but attractive in appearance .....
-Comment not a very nice presentation is it?-
Compiled by WW C Irvine Heresies exposed P 187-188
--------------------
Some quotes for Creme to ponder upon, does he agree with what is
below?
--------------------
Other personal testimonies and views:
The next matter impressed me on the student is the denial of a
personal God, and hence as Madame Blavatsky has pointed out,
Agnostics and Atheists more easily assimilate Theosophical teachings
than do believers in orthodox creeds.
-Mrs Besant in 'Why I became a Theosophist pp 26,27-
--------------------
And again:
We believe in neither vicarious atonement nor in the possibility of
the remission of the smallest sin by any god, not even by a personal
Absolute or Infinite if such a thing could have existence.
-Key to Theosophy p 135-
--------------------
And more:
The historical Christ, then is a glorious being belonging to the great
spiritual hierarchy that guides the spiritual evolution of humanity,
who used for some three years the human body of the disciple Jesus.
-Esoteric Christianity p 140-
--------------------
I would also like to draw attention between the lack of Maitreya being
the head of a hierarchy according to Blavatsky and Besant. The above
came from the same book but I included them for interest sake.
So basically once again I disagree with you her teachings were clearly
outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
opposes distorted them without end.
Peyote:
>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>> a distinction and a separation.
Casey:
>>>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>>>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>>>or Blavatsky.
Peyote:
>>As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
>>to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
>>experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
>
>>Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
>>leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
>>happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
Casey:
>Of course:)
Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
that you sprung from.
Peyote:
>>The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
>>accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
>>arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
>>own writings and experience.
Casey:
>I know people who have studied the same teachings at least as long as
>the current leadership who do feel Mr. Creme is correct.
Who? And why haven't they joined Creme then? Or have they?
Peyote:
>>Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
>>from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
>>current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
Casey:
>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
Facts Casey not guess work please.
Casey:
>
>>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>>the connection you mention more.
Peyote:
>>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>
>>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>
>>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>>think his information will blow you away ;-)
Casey:
>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>everyone is using those names in.
For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
but there is a lot more yet to come.
The context wills be plain also.
>>-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
>>fell-
Casey:
>>>Actually, the way I figure it, the longer the tradition is the
>>>more chance it has of being changed over the (thousands of) years.
Peyote:
>>Huh if I were you I would examine the Qur'an and Hadiths a bit closer
>>LOL ;-) and their transmission -chain of authority-. The Bible yes you
>>have a partial point but you see I also ready non biblical books
>>apocrypha, Pseudepigraphical Books & Writings Dead Sea Scrolls Texts
>>etc -including Gnostic texts-
>
>>So I am quite familiar with other strands of thoughts amongst the
>>semite peoples. -Special thanks to Salmun for the loan of his works in
>>this area-
Peyote:
>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
Peyote:
>>To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
>>whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
>>is right I am a Purist at heart.
Casey:
>>>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>>>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Peyote:
>>Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
>>that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
Casey:
>Thats not the point (but I do know some:). The point is they don't even
>agree with each other so who knows what the real answer is.
It is the point because those disagreements -which you conveniently
left out- are over thousands of years difference -30000, 40000 etc-
and not only that at least one Buddhists I know does not accept that
Maitreya will come at all.
Benjamin Creme is laughed at, you should have learnt that when Dotty
tried to spam the Buddhist NG with his soon arriving Maitreya stuff.
Casey:
>I'll have to do a little more research on this but I remember hearing
>some comments from DL that the appearance of the next Buudha might not
>be so far off.
Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
-snip a whole bunch of stuff explaining word and tractional
connections-
Casey:
>>>If we bring in the Old Testiment and compare it with the New
>>>Testament then I agree that the term God or Lord is used
>>>in more then one way. Which makes your arguments about how
>>>tradition should be considered more valid then current
>>>information even more confusing.
Peyote:
>>Actually it is less confusing if you understand the relationship that
>>names depict a certain aspect of what the character is doing. The
>>problem a lot of people make is between the transitional period
>>between the OT and NT there were many other books written in between
>>that time.
>
>>Even Christian forgeries or apocryphal accounts are useful in
>>researching this. As for the term god yes it is YHWH or Elohim but he
>>is also depicted by other names as well again there is no confusion if
>>you look at the context.
Casey:
>This all might possibly be true but to tell you the truth I
>forgot the original point we were trying to make out of all of this.
>I have already explained how I came to my opriginal comments
>about the OT and that they might be wrong.
The simple fact of how Lucifer is the same person as Iblis/Satan -or
whatever function/name it is in at the time-. You needed context so I
supplied a few basics with the roots of how one idea was transmitted
from religion to religion -including pagan ones-.
I still have a lot more because as yet we haven't even examined the
verse in Isaiah and its context -both within the bible and outside of
the bible- way before Creme came along.
Casey:
>>Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
>>many of the documents and religions disagree with each other.
>>So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
Peyote:
>How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Casey:
>If none of them are correct why are you so concerned that Mr. Creme
>doesn't agree with all of them, or some of the interpretations?
Peyote:
>>Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
>>Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
>>for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
>>so that's where we will differ.
>
>>But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
>>say ;-)
>
>Come on, I won't tell:)
Not a chance LOL.
That sod is one smart bugger even atheists and agnostics acknowledge
him LOL.
Peyote:
-snip-
>>>> As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
>>>> maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
>>>> been said countless times before.
>
Casey:
>
>>>Ok, this is where I just disagree with you. I have listened to
>>>many of Maitreya's messages many time. Even taking into
>>>consideration things that are said in these groups I absolutley
>>>feel the messages are inspiring and very deep while being very
>>>plain and simple at the same time. Its this mixture of
>>>simple ideas put in compelling ways that I really don't find
>>>in many other places. I would suggest people clear their minds
>>>of all the pre-concieved notions around here and actually read,
>>>or better yet listen, to the messages with an open mind.
>>>
>>>Yes they are simple but that is by design and pupose.
Peyote:
>>Well I still find it dry and boring, nothing new, nothing of great
>>significance.
>
>>Tell you what Casey send me via email 3 of your favorite and most
>>inspiring Maitreya messages -don't post it here its probably to long
>>and will add even more BW- and I'll post my opinion or email my
>>opinion if it is to long.
>
>>Fair enough?
Casey:
>If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
>to you.
Casey please -you know we have discussed this via email- don't spend
so much money on these things, if I say I'll read them I will and
besides its cheaper for you.
You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
Casey:
>As I thought I stated somewhere, if we receive "free" energy
>before we are ready to use it then it might actually cause more
>harm then good. For starters if we received free energy
>tomorrow our economy would probably collapse by Friday:)
Actually you did. It would have to be slowly introduced.
Though you do have an interesting point because -and this is a rumour
I can't prove it- a person here in Australia found an energy source
which replaces fuel in cars -and I don't mean solar, alcohol etc-, he
was bought out and the mysterious source of new fuel was never heard
from again :-(
Casey:
>>No, we probably won't see these -the ancient manuscripts- until after Maitreya has
>>openly emerged.
Peyote:
>>Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
Casey:
>Oh come on, it won't be that long now:)
Has anyone ever told you, your a real shit stirrer LOL? :-D
Peyote:
>>I can just see the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Bahai etc headlines now,
>>'Maitreya manifests fake documents to deceive the true believers.'
Casey:
>nah, we can do some testing on them:) Actually, they'll still
>probably say that anyway:)lol
Eh eh.
Peyote:
>>I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
>>works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
>>up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
>>Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>Exactly, and you don't believe I'm right either, do you? :-)
Correct born from evidence which is contrary to what you are saying.
Peyote:
>>>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>>>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>>>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>>>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>>that when dealing with any situation?
>>Peyote:
>>>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>>>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
>>Casey:
>>>No:)
Peyote:
>>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Casey:
>I already said they were all wrong:)lol
What can I say to this LOL. ???
Peyote:
>>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
>>own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
>>personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
>>entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
>>loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
>>whatever.
Casey:
>Ok, back to science. What are the odds that a whole bunch of atoms
>came togther and formed this planet and the life on it. The answer
>is about the same of winning the lottery 52 weeks in a row:)
>(I saw this on PBS so it must be true:)
I would say higher than the odds that a voice in some ones head will
manifest on TV ;-)
Nice try at misdirection. Gee what do you want from me LOL Historical
data on Lucifer/Satan/Iblis plus a heap of other texts from various
non standard texts including pagan mythologies-, a Blavatsky defense,
Bailey discussion and Creme expose and now the origin of the universe
ROTFLMAO I might as well write a book ;-D
However we are here so we exist as a testimony that the lottery was
won 52 weeks in a row -at least-. Now if there are other life forms
elsewhere then maybe the lottery is bogus and chance rules after all.
But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
farts thrown in for good measure.
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
Casey:
>
>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
Peyote:
>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Casey:
>I would hope not:)lol
But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Casey:
>>>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>>>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>>>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>>>some persoanl experience?
Peyote:
>>Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
>>but rather a product of your minds.
Casey:
>It could be:) Its up to you to decide (but don't blame me if I don't
>agree with you).
It would explain the contradictions from supposedly the same or
similar sources. Please consider it and consider coincidence and the
interpretation of those coincidences while you look into it.
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>> Casey:
>>Same thing.
Peyote:
>> Interesting. More on this oversoul Lucifer doctrine in a later
>> article.
Peyote:
>> Okay did he -aka Lucifer- have to be a human to ascend to the 7th
>> degree in the first place?
Casey:
>>No. I don't believe, whatever that being really is, that it
>>evolved through earth's evolution. Maitreya did though.
Peyote:
>> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
>> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash
>satan & co.
Casey:
>> >As described in another thread, everthing does have their
>> >proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
>> >arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
>> >Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
>> >they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
>> >Its all very dynamic.
Peyote:
>> Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
>> atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
>> perspective on this so bear with me.
>>
>> First a few questions:
Casey:
>>>The following answers are based on my current knowledge
>>>impressions. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on
>>>such matters.
Peyote:
>> 1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
Casey:
>>>Yes, but I think the meaning gets confussed sometimes.
>>>For the sake of this discussion I would say its relative.
>>>Like for instance this timing thing. To the Masters and
>>>Maitreya all things have already occured. There is literally
>>>no concept of time. The exact "timing" aspect has to do with
>>>something that is not "real" and thus the difficulty. Its
>>>like all things are pre-determined but the timing and when
>>>events work themselves out on the physical plane depends
>>>on our actions and are not set.
Peyote:
>>So then how can Maitreya exist in our time if he has already been here
>>and gone and is yet back again? If he is here then he is subject to
>>time even though it has already taken place -and will take place
>>again-.
Casey:
>I never said I could fully explain (or comprehend) what the idea
>of time not existing really means and how it works exactly.
Okay
Peyote:
>
>>>> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
Casey:
>>Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
Peyote:
>>So omnipresence is not real?
Casey:
>Its real, actually more real then the reality we perceive.
Peyote:
>> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
Casey:
>>>As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
>>>he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
>>>our free will.
Peyote:
>>So he can not come unless the majority of people want him to come? He
>>will not give this 'experience' to those whom believe it would be evil
>>and of the anti-christ?
Casey:
>No, it means He "won't" emerge openly until we are ready and have
>invited Him. As I said before, "all" over a certain age will get
>the experience.
Peyote:
>> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
Casey:
>He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
>
>>Okay.
Peyote:
>> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
>> time of Buddha?
Casey:
>>>The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
>>>Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
>>>(according to my information).
Peyote:
>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>know of about 600 BC.
Casey:
>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
Have you studied the Buddhist sutras regarding Maitreya? -This is no
meant as a put down it just means if you have I will not have to go
into a lot of data which would blow the BW into oblivion- If you
haven't I will present it however.
Peyote:
>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
Casey:
>>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>>actual role in the scheme of things.
Peyote:
>>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>>and without beginning. Interesting.
Casey:
>ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
for our suffering. Nice :-D
Peyote:
>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>> forces?
Casey:
>>>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>>>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>>>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>>>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>>>roles.
Peyote:
>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>battle should have already been over?
>
>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>Casey?
Casey:
>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>not what I mean by time not existing.
I try to be simplistic.
Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
opportunity? He would already know.
Peyote:
>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>
>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
Peyote:
>
>>But it would not be impossible would it?
Casey:
>>It might be, I don't know.
Peyote:
Can Lucifer inhabit human bodies as well?
>I don't think so.
>Casey
Peyote. Thanks see you in the next post.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
Allen:
>This Mary Bailey thing happenned in the early 1960s. I doubt very much if
>many working at Lucis were around then. That was a very long time ago. But
>the point you're making isn't sensible. There is little backup from Bailey's
>writing for Ben Creme's insistence that he is some kind of chosen mouthpiece
>for a manifested Christ. A Christ, by the way, that is claimed to have
>issued false pronouncements of his return. A Christ that is afraid to come
>out and play.
Casey:
>First of all Benjamin Creme doesn't insist this he just tells the story
>based on his experience. I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate
>by Benjamin Creme not being specifically mentioned in the Bailey books.
>He didn't even begin to start his work until around 1960.
Yet again casey we come to the false predictions he has made and
within any organization you will find sympathizers for other causes.
This in itself does not prove 100% commitment. Like I said an odd
subscription or two to Creme's magazine doesn't count LOL.
Benjamin Creme is only one more self proclaimed prophet -aka John the
Baptist- who has attached himself to the Bailey group. As I explained
in the other post in this thread there are distinct differences.
Allen:
>>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
Casey:
>I just went to this page and it pretty much says nothing. Actually, I take
>that back:) According to what the page says we should be expecting the
>Christ today. We are seeing the beginning of the conditions stated.
>I encourage people to go to the link and make up their own mind.
Actually the site says a lot here are a few excerpts:
----------------------------------------
Today there is an increasing expectancy regarding the return of the
"World Teacher", the Coming One Who will return to lead humanity into
a new age and into a heightened consciousness. In fact, SOME CLAIM
that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form and has been
"SIGHTED" in various parts of the world. Yet the teachings of the
Tibetan Master, given in the books of Alice A. Bailey, make it clear
that humanity itself must first produce the conditions in
consciousness and in world affairs essential to the eventual physical
appearance of the Christ.
When a measure of peace has been restored on Earth, when sharing
begins to govern economic affairs, and when churches and political
groups have begun to clean house, the Christ will then be drawn into
the arena of His work. The Christ will be known by the work he does,
by the world influence He wields and by His ability to work with and
through every individual and every group who have trained themselves
for world service. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
----------------------------------------
Hmm seems to contradict Benjamin Creme very strongly wouldn't you say
Casey? Quite the opposite in some cases. Note carefully the points of
difference.
----------------------------------------
Casey:
>Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:)
As Creme would not like to lose his job.
Casey:
>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>then they do.
Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
Casey:
>I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
>for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
>Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
How about their studies and their own personal experiences like you
keep telling me hmm?
Casey:
>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
-Extra big snip a good article by Allen-
Peyote.
caseyk
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:46:14 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>Allen:
>>This Mary Bailey thing happenned in the early 1960s. I doubt very much if
>>many working at Lucis were around then. That was a very long time ago. But
>>the point you're making isn't sensible. There is little backup from Bailey's
>>writing for Ben Creme's insistence that he is some kind of chosen mouthpiece
>>for a manifested Christ. A Christ, by the way, that is claimed to have
>>issued false pronouncements of his return. A Christ that is afraid to come
>>out and play.
>Casey:
>>First of all Benjamin Creme doesn't insist this he just tells the story
>>based on his experience. I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate
>>by Benjamin Creme not being specifically mentioned in the Bailey books.
>>He didn't even begin to start his work until around 1960.
>Yet again casey we come to the false predictions he has made and
>within any organization you will find sympathizers for other causes.
>This in itself does not prove 100% commitment. Like I said an odd
>subscription or two to Creme's magazine doesn't count LOL.
>Benjamin Creme is only one more self proclaimed prophet -aka John the
>Baptist- who has attached himself to the Bailey group. As I explained
>in the other post in this thread there are distinct differences.
>Allen:
>>>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>>>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>>>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>>>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
>Casey:
>>I just went to this page and it pretty much says nothing. Actually, I take
>>that back:) According to what the page says we should be expecting the
>>Christ today. We are seeing the beginning of the conditions stated.
>>I encourage people to go to the link and make up their own mind.
>Actually the site says a lot here are a few excerpts:
>----------------------------------------
>Today there is an increasing expectancy regarding the return of the
>"World Teacher", the Coming One Who will return to lead humanity into
>a new age and into a heightened consciousness. In fact, SOME CLAIM
>that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form and has been
>"SIGHTED" in various parts of the world. Yet the teachings of the
>Tibetan Master, given in the books of Alice A. Bailey, make it clear
>that humanity itself must first produce the conditions in
>consciousness and in world affairs essential to the eventual physical
>appearance of the Christ.
>When a measure of peace has been restored on Earth, when sharing
>begins to govern economic affairs, and when churches and political
>groups have begun to clean house, the Christ will then be drawn into
>the arena of His work. The Christ will be known by the work he does,
>by the world influence He wields and by His ability to work with and
>through every individual and every group who have trained themselves
>for world service. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
>----------------------------------------
>Hmm seems to contradict Benjamin Creme very strongly wouldn't you say
>Casey? Quite the opposite in some cases. Note carefully the points of
>difference.
OK, I'm glad you posted the actual page (it saved me from having to do it).
This will also try to address Allen's comment about the last line.
First lets look at the conditions that would have to be met before the
physical appearance of the Christ. "When a measure of peace has been restored
to the world". Well lets see, the cold war is over, there are negotiations
for peace in the middle east, the IRA has a peace treaty with Britain,
Aparthied is over, re-unification of Germany, etc. Anyway, I think a case
can be made that a "measure" of peace has been restored.
"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we are
writing off much of the debt to Russia? Also many countries are
starting to write off the debt to many third world nations. We are
also very instrumental in providing resources to Russia durring these
hard times (and they were very recently our mortal enemy). Also
remember the "USA for Africa" movement and many others. I can
go on but I think a case can be made that we are "beginning" to
share more as a world.
"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
different religions and cultures is a decent start. Also, there
has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
could be cleaning house or just politics:)
Now for the last part:)
" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
what she meant. What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
to find the Christ or Maitreya.
Here's one to think about. Even when Maitreya appears
on his first TV interview Mr. Creme will not come out
and say that was the Christ or Maitreya. It will be up
to us to decide for ourselves based on the criteria
listed in your quote above.
>----------------------------------------
>Casey:
>>Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:)
>As Creme would not like to lose his job.
>Casey:
>>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>>then they do.
>Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
>able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
>Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
Actually I don't feel there is a personal stake in it. I certainly
don't have one. The only thing I stand to gain by being right
is that the world will change for the better. If another
group can accomplish this then I think that would be great.
I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
is worth trying:)
>Casey:
>>I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
>>for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
>>Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
>How about their studies and their own personal experiences like you
>keep telling me hmm?
Sure, but that doesn't make them correct anymore then it
makes me correct (which you keep claiming I'm not:).
Its up for each one of us to decide for ourselves.
>Casey:
>>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
>Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
Thats your translation not mine:)
Casey
>-Extra big snip a good article by Allen-
How come you never say that when you snip my articles:)lol
Casey
>Peyote.
caseyk
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Peyote, even if I concede the whole Lucifer/Satan thing (which I don't yet:)
we are talking about an aspect that is hardly talked about by Mr. Creme.
With the vast body or work each has this one thing does not constitute
the prooof you claim IMHO. On top of that you haven't mentioned anything
that Mr. Creme and Alice Bailey differ on.
I doubt Mr. Creme would even disagree with Blavatsky on her writting about
Satan. She was being more symbolic and the concepts they are talking
about are different. However, I will have to read more of Blavatsky's
work before coming to any definite conclusion.
>Peyote:
>>>Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
>>>conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
>Casey:
>>Possibly but it does reflect a situation where the people who
>>worked the closest with Alice Bailey herself are not part
>>of the organization now that rejects Mr. Creme's claims.
>No what it would amount to is a personality difference, I suppose such
>petty things would not effect the so called work of the ascended
>masters.
It absolutely comes down to personal difference, which the master will
not interfere with.
>Mr Creme is rejected by every organization that I have come across,
>they may speak of him but they certainly don't follow him or join
>-subscribe- to his brand of ideology.
ok.
>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
>from those of that group you talk about.
First of all, none of this has to do with supporting Creme 100% of the
way. For just about every different person I know in this work there
is a distinct personal opinion about it. Some just hope its true, some
feel it probably is but are not sure, some feel it most definitely
is true. No one is discouraged from having their own point of view.
Every one who follows this story is distinct in their own right. Its
sort of a catch 22 the way you put it, anyone who has come to the
conclusion that Mr. Creme might be or is correct is "a member
of Creme's cult". So no one could ever agree with Mr. Creme's
views and be a valid source according to this.
>Peyote:
>>>Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
>Casey
>>Well I would say its absolutely an opinion based on their
>>own studies. But I know other people who have been in that
>>organization as long or maybe even longer then the leadership
>>who do agree with Mr. Creme.
>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>camp?
What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean. What difference does it
make what "camp" they are in. My point is that they have studied the works
of Alice Bailey for as long or longer then the current leadership
of the organization. Anyway, some of these people are involved in
both the works of the Arcane society (at some level) and Mr. Creme.
Exactly who really doesn't matter and I'm not going to bring people
into this especially considering what goes on in these groups.
Anyway, the names wouldn't mean much to you anyway.
>Peyote:
>>>That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
>>>place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
>Casey:
>>Maybe, but not with me involved:) The point is they do state that
>>their teachings came from the Master DK. How could they then
>>decide they know better now?
>If you last that long it will happen, it is a common phenomena amongst
>groups. -Large or small-.
Yeah, probably.
>Peyote:
>>>I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
>>>have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
>>>modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
>Casey:
>>They probably do but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
>Why not? Language and meaning change all the time?
But if we look at the actual changes this argument doesn't hold
up.
>Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
>behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
>the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
>English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
>Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
>of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
>Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
>translation of the copper scroll-.
Peyote, have you actually seen the changes? The changes that were
made are not because the meaning of the words changed. It is
basically a watered down version that is just meant to make
sure "no one" could possibly be offended.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote;
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Correction noted thanks.
>Casey;
The point was that if the "leaders of her organization" didn't
even necessarily agree with her while she was alive, what does
that say about their opinion now? You were the one who is using the
opinions of the organizations as an agument and this goes directly
to questioning that they even agreed with Alice Bailey or
Blavatsky (or taking into account the group dynamics
you described).
>---------------------------------
>--------------------
>And again:
>--------------------
>And more:
>-Esoteric Christianity p 140-
>--------------------
I don't understand the point of all the quotes. They don't
preclude Maitreya the way Mr. Creme describes him.
>So basically once again I disagree with you her teachings were clearly
>outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
>opposes distorted them without end.
>Peyote:
>>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>>> a distinction and a separation.
>Casey:
>>>>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>>>>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>>>>or Blavatsky.
>Peyote:
>>>As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
>>>to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
>>>experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
>>
>>>Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
>>>leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
>>>happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
>Casey:
>>Of course:)
>Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
>another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
>that you sprung from.
I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
>Peyote:
>>>The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
>>>accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
>>>arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
>>>own writings and experience.
>Casey:
>>I know people who have studied the same teachings at least as long as
>>the current leadership who do feel Mr. Creme is correct.
>Who? And why haven't they joined Creme then? Or have they?
I think you have a concept of "joining Creme" which doesn't really
exist. I tried to explain this above but we can discuss further if you wish.
>Peyote:
>>>Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
>>>from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
>>>current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
>Casey:
>>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I never
said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
were basically talking about two different things.
>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
So again, who is right?
>Benjamin Creme is laughed at, you should have learnt that when Dotty
>tried to spam the Buddhist NG with his soon arriving Maitreya stuff.
And what does this prove?
>Casey:
>>I'll have to do a little more research on this but I remember hearing
>>some comments from DL that the appearance of the next Buudha might not
>>be so far off.
>Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
As I said, I will have to look into this.
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Not a chance LOL.
>Peyote:
>-snip-
>Peyote:
>Casey:
We are talking about very little expense here and I only
suggested it because that is the way I listen to them
and we were talking about my opinoin.
>You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
>related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
>think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
Don't worry, you won't be taking advantage of me:)
>Casey:
>>As I thought I stated somewhere, if we receive "free" energy
>>before we are ready to use it then it might actually cause more
>>harm then good. For starters if we received free energy
>>tomorrow our economy would probably collapse by Friday:)
>Actually you did. It would have to be slowly introduced.
>Though you do have an interesting point because -and this is a rumour
>I can't prove it- a person here in Australia found an energy source
>which replaces fuel in cars -and I don't mean solar, alcohol etc-, he
>was bought out and the mysterious source of new fuel was never heard
>from again :-(
Don't get me started on the drug companies either:)
>Casey:
>>>No, we probably won't see these -the ancient manuscripts- until after Maitreya has
>>>openly emerged.
>Peyote:
>>>Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
>Casey:
>>Oh come on, it won't be that long now:)
>Has anyone ever told you, your a real shit stirrer LOL? :-D
Well, I guess you have now:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Eh eh.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>>Peyote:
>>>Casey:
>>>>No:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Actually, now that you mention it, if you can come over and clean
my car for me that would be great:)lol
But seriously, I do appreciate your efforts, I just don't happen
to agree with all of your conclusions.
>However we are here so we exist as a testimony that the lottery was
>won 52 weeks in a row -at least-. Now if there are other life forms
>elsewhere then maybe the lottery is bogus and chance rules after all.
Not so, our existence doesn't preclude some sort of "devine" guidance
or plan.
>But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
>too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
>Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
>farts thrown in for good measure.
If you want, but that would just be one more thing you would
have to do and I'm not sure how useful it would be in the
current discussion. Up to you though.
>Peyote:
>>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>>> on.
>Casey:
>>
>>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
>Peyote:
>>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
>Casey:
>>I would hope not:)lol
>But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
>contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Nope, just a differing of opinions.
>Casey:
>>>>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>>>>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>>>>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>>>>some persoanl experience?
>Peyote:
>>>Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
>>>but rather a product of your minds.
>Casey:
>>It could be:) Its up to you to decide (but don't blame me if I don't
>>agree with you).
>It would explain the contradictions from supposedly the same or
>similar sources. Please consider it and consider coincidence and the
>interpretation of those coincidences while you look into it.
We are still discussing if the "actual ideas" contradict eachother.
I still haven't seen anything about Alice Bailey and Mr. Creme
contradicting eachother.
>Peyote:
>>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>>know of about 600 BC.
>Casey:
>>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
>Have you studied the Buddhist sutras regarding Maitreya? -This is no
>meant as a put down it just means if you have I will not have to go
>into a lot of data which would blow the BW into oblivion- If you
>haven't I will present it however.
As far as I know Maitreya is supposed to be the next Buddha in
far off times. What Maitreya was born after te Buddha, is it
the same one that is coming in future times?
>Peyote:
>>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
>Casey:
>>>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>>>actual role in the scheme of things.
>Peyote:
>>>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>>>and without beginning. Interesting.
>Casey:
>>ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
>Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
>for our suffering. Nice :-D
Nope, we are responsible for our suffering. Yes, we are all part of
God but the argument you make is not really going to get us
anywhere.
>Peyote:
>>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>>> forces?
>Casey:
>>>>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>>>>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>>>>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>>>>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>>>>roles.
>Peyote:
>>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>>battle should have already been over?
>>
>>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>>Casey?
>Casey:
>>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>>not what I mean by time not existing.
>I try to be simplistic.
>Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
>relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
>opportunity? He would already know.
Because there really is no "waiting". That term is just really
for our benefit and understanding.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
-big snip-
Peyote:
>>I am sorry but the evidence is on my side, I even have modern
>>articles written by Theosophical members which clearly state Lucifer
>>is satan and the serpent is the liberator of humanity.
Casey:
>Peyote, even if I concede the whole Lucifer/Satan thing (which I don't yet:)
Peyote:
No probs these sort of things take time to look into context etc. I am
however fairly confident you will see what I mean.
Casey:
>we are talking about an aspect that is hardly talked about by Mr. Creme.
Peyote:
I don't doubt that ;-) could you imagine the headlines on that one
'Lucifer is the true oversoul etc etc 'LOL. You might even get a
Fatawah issued against you for that one :-)
>With the vast body or work each has this one thing does not constitute
>the prooof you claim IMHO. On top of that you haven't mentioned anything
>that Mr. Creme and Alice Bailey differ on.
One thing at a time, but if you want we can jump into that a bit ahead
of time, that is fine with me. What I am trying to do is show the
slow progression from one groups ideology to the next.
I do pretty much the same with other religions that claim their ideas
are new/unique or special revelations.
>I doubt Mr. Creme would even disagree with Blavatsky on her writting about
>Satan. She was being more symbolic and the concepts they are talking
>about are different. However, I will have to read more of Blavatsky's
>work before coming to any definite conclusion.
I believe he does, when you look into it please also notice some of
the questions and different discussions that are brought up. Her logic
is very sound and clear and she knew what she was talking about. They
were not spurious thoughts randomly written.
The concept of Lucifer being satan and the serpent being the
liberator are very clear as are her thoughts that the Jewish god was
evil and tried to hinder humanities progress.
Peyote;
>>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
>>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
>>from those of that group you talk about.
Casey:
>First of all, none of this has to do with supporting Creme 100% of the
>way. For just about every different person I know in this work there
>is a distinct personal opinion about it. Some just hope its true, some
>feel it probably is but are not sure, some feel it most definitely
>is true. No one is discouraged from having their own point of view.
>
>Every one who follows this story is distinct in their own right. Its
>sort of a catch 22 the way you put it, anyone who has come to the
>conclusion that Mr. Creme might be or is correct is "a member
>of Creme's cult". So no one could ever agree with Mr. Creme's
>views and be a valid source according to this.
Okay that clears up that for me. However do all believe in common that
Benjamin Creme speaks with the masters of wisdom?
Peyote;
>>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>>camp?
Casey:
>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
soon-.
Casey:
>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
separate -secret- religion.
Casey:
>My point is that they have studied the works
>of Alice Bailey for as long or longer then the current leadership
>of the organization. Anyway, some of these people are involved in
>both the works of the Arcane society (at some level) and Mr. Creme.
>Exactly who really doesn't matter and I'm not going to bring people
>into this especially considering what goes on in these groups.
>Anyway, the names wouldn't mean much to you anyway.
No, but it would be proof and interesting to hear their side of the
story.
Many people say they agree -to avoid debate etc- or go along with it
but in their own beliefs they may not have changed at all. Some
partially change and compromise between two points but I don't class
that as a real confirmation either.
-snip-
Casey -discussing the GI-
>But if we look at the actual changes this argument doesn't hold
>up.
Peyote:
>>Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
>>behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
>>the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
>>English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
>>Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
>>of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
>>Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
>>translation of the copper scroll-.
Casey:
>Peyote, have you actually seen the changes? The changes that were
>made are not because the meaning of the words changed. It is
>basically a watered down version that is just meant to make
>sure "no one" could possibly be offended.
Yes I have seen it, if this is the right version:
------------------------------------
From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.
From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills-
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.
From the center which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.
------------------------------------
I like it and can see it as fitting into many religions that would
have no problem with it. It is great to see evolution IMO in
progression.
Maybe one day it will go a step further and include those who are
Agnostics and atheist's. But for me I find the above very meaningful.
Peyote:
>>So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your argument
>>is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
-added comment- I have been through all this type of argument with
people who insist on the KJV being the only true bible .... it sadly
happens in most religions. Yusif Ali had similar problems with his
modern translation of the Qur'an etc etc.
Casey;
>>>One thing I did just read that was interesting. Apparently
>>>Blavatsky had to fight hard in her own society to make sure
>>>her works were not distorted or changed. So this just goes to further
>>>my point about the current organizations (who I am in no way condeming).
Peyote:
-Added comment:- see the type of abuse she was constantly under? Most
of the above is utter BS written by some idiot that doesn't know what
he is on about, yet she withstood it, plus those within her own
organization. It was anything but easy going for her.
Casey:
>I don't understand the point of all the quotes. They don't
>preclude Maitreya the way Mr. Creme describes him.
Christ not Maitreya is the central figure, it was Christ who
overshadowed Jesus not Maitreya etc etc. Maitreya in both Bailey's and
Blavatsky's books is not the leader of a great spiritual hierarchy.
Show me one reference where it is all Maitreya that is the real
leader. -Not from Creme's literature naturally-.
Peyote:
>>So basically once again I disagree with you, her teachings were clearly
>>outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
>>opposes distorted them without end.
Peyote:
>>Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
>>another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
>>that you sprung from.
Casey:
>I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
Yet I assume they are backed up by the same 'experiences' as those
whom disagree with what you have :-)
>>Casey:
>
>>>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
Peyote:
>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Casey:
>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I never
>said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>were basically talking about two different things.
I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
different things'.
Peyote:
>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
Casey:
>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
Well have those organizations misrepresented their denials of Benjamin
Creme's message? They reject him based on their own studies and
experiences. Casey it is really as simple as that.
Casey:
>>>>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>>>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>>>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>>>>the connection you mention more.
Peyote:
>>>>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>>>>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>>>>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>>>
>>>>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>>>>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>>>>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>>>
>>>>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>>>>think his information will blow you away ;-)
Casey:
>>>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>>>everyone is using those names in.
Peyote:
The historical data is against you and I think if you have been
looking into it you know that. Your only line of defense will be the
often used 'well' it is my feeling ... or experience .. different
interpretations etc'
Peyote:
>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
>>but there is a lot more yet to come.
>
>>The context wills be plain also.
-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which was
very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling you
about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
debunks Creme's views.
>>>>-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
>>>>fell-
Peyote:
>>>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>>>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>>>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>>>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
Peyote:
>>To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
>>whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
>>is right I am a Purist at heart.
Casey:
>>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Peyote:
>>Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
>>that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
Casey:
>>Thats not the point (but I do know some:). The point is they don't even
>>agree with each other so who knows what the real answer is.
Peyote:
>>It is the point because those disagreements -which you conveniently
>>left out- are over thousands of years difference -30000, 40000 etc-
>>and not only that at least one Buddhists I know does not accept that
>>Maitreya will come at all.
Casey:
>So again, who is right?
Like I said before how about none of you?
How about it all being the product of your own
fantasies/wants/desires/hopes, needing to have a cause in life,
emptiness, loneliness, gullibility, coincidence, trickery, in other
words it is nothing more the product of your own mind and wish
fulfillment.
Take your pick of any cult or religion and join it, that is why I
discount these so called 'experiences' which some claim are from
higher sources yet they all contradict each other.
BTW the Buddhist differences are on contextual issues and private
interpretation, in other words theological differences not so called
'higher sources of inspiration' etc.
Peyote;
>>Benjamin Creme is laughed at, you should have learnt that when Dotty
>>tried to spam the Buddhist NG with his soon arriving Maitreya stuff.
Casey:
>And what does this prove?
What I have been trying to tell you all along. Grok? -I love that
word- BTW do you read Sci-Fi?
Peyote;
>>Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
Casey:
>As I said, I will have to look into this.
>>-snip a whole bunch of stuff explaining words and tradional
>>connections-
Casey:
>>>This all might possibly be true but to tell you the truth I
>>>forgot the original point we were trying to make out of all of this.
>>>I have already explained how I came to my opriginal comments
>>>about the OT and that they might be wrong.
Peyote:
>>The simple fact of how Lucifer is the same person as Iblis/Satan -or
>>whatever function/name it is in at the time-. You needed context so I
>>supplied a few basics with the roots of how one idea was transmitted
>>from religion to religion -including pagan ones-.
>
>>I still have a lot more because as yet we haven't even examined the
>>verse in Isaiah and its context -both within the bible and outside of
>>the bible- way before Creme came along.
Casey:
>I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
Thanks, I actually love researching -so much for an un educated man
like me huh lol- It is a pity we are at such different stances in life
it would be nice to talk for once about just concepts. :-(
Peyote:
>>How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Casey:
>>If none of them are correct why are you so concerned that Mr. Creme
>>doesn't agree with all of them, or some of the interpretations?
Peyote:
>>Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
>>Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
>>for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
>>so that's where we will differ.
>>But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
>>say ;-)
Casey:
>>>Come on, I won't tell:)
Peyote:
>>Not a chance LOL.
>
>>That sod is one smart bugger even atheists and agnostics acknowledge
>>him LOL.
Casey:
>If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
>to you.
Peyote:
>>Casey please -you know we have discussed this via email- don't spend
>>so much money on these things, if I say I'll read them I will and
>>besides its cheaper for you.
Casey:
>We are talking about very little expense here and I only
>suggested it because that is the way I listen to them
>and we were talking about my opinoin.
Okay maybe it will be different to just reading it, say do you collect
coins, bank notes etc? How about if I send you some bank notes from
Australia in exchange?
Peyote:
>>You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
>>related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
>>think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
Casey:
>Don't worry, you won't be taking advantage of me:)
Yeah but people do and you know what I mean -we discussed this in that
email- I am sorry but my opinion still stands I don't think that was
fair or right. -Hey and that's coming from a member of the dark lodge
LOL-
Casey:
>Don't get me started on the drug companies either:)
Peyote:
Don't get me curious LOL? You believe they have a cure for cancer
right? I wonder if I guessed right because we read the same stuff?
Peyote:
>>I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
>>works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
>>up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
>>Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>>Exactly, and you don't believe I'm right either, do you? :-)
Peyote:
>>Correct born from evidence which is contrary to what you are saying.
Peyote:
>>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>that when dealing with any situation?
Peyote:
>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Casey:
>
>>>No:)
Peyote:
>>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Peyote:
>>>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
>>>own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
>>>personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
>>>entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
>>>loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
>>>whatever.
Casey:
>>Ok, back to science. What are the odds that a whole bunch of atoms
>>came togther and formed this planet and the life on it. The answer
>>is about the same of winning the lottery 52 weeks in a row:)
>>(I saw this on PBS so it must be true:)
Peyote:
>>I would say higher than the odds that a voice in some ones head will
>>manifest on TV ;-)
>
>
>>Nice try at misdirection. Gee what do you want from me LOL Historical
>>data on Lucifer/Satan/Iblis plus a heap of other texts from various
>>non standard texts including pagan mythologies-, a Blavatsky defense,
>>Bailey discussion and Creme expose and now the origin of the universe
>>ROTFLMAO I might as well write a book ;-D
Casey:
>Actually, now that you mention it, if you can come over and clean
>my car for me that would be great:) lol But seriously, I do appreciate
>your efforts, I just don't happen to agree with all of your conclusions.
Peyote:
>>However we are here so we exist as a testimony that the lottery was
>>won 52 weeks in a row -at least-. Now if there are other life forms
>>elsewhere then maybe the lottery is bogus and chance rules after all.
Casey:
>Not so, our existence doesn't preclude some sort of "devine" guidance
>or plan.
Peyote:
Chemistry and biology does as does evolution. There is no evidence of
guidance, we can attribute it to some higher form but that is a
fallacy. The old design/purpose theory put forward has been debunked
in the past. The only thing left for theists is what I call gap
theories but that is another story within itself.
Peyote:
>>But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
>>too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
>>Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
>>farts thrown in for good measure.
Casey:
>If you want, but that would just be one more thing you would
>have to do and I'm not sure how useful it would be in the
>current discussion. Up to you though.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
>
Casey:
>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
Peyote:
>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Casey:
>>I would hope not:)lol
Peyote:
>>But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
>>contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Casey:
>Nope, just a differing of opinions.
Yet they are based on various people who claim to be in contact with
'Higher sources'? And the followers have the 'experiences to back up
their masters, gurus, god/men, aliens -or whatever- they believe in.
See it goes beyond opinion alone doesn't it? Do these ascended masters
disagree so much about things that they keep sending contradictory
information to their voices on earth? Even those whom think they are
Maitreya or channel or are 'overshadowed' by him?
Still looks like merely the product of ones own brain, that could
account for the contradictions, errors and mundane messages.
By mundane messages I mean nothing is **ever** given which astounds
the scientific world like a solution to our pollution problem or
energy crisis etc etc. They all have their excuses but are simply
unable to produce the goods.
Peyote:
>>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>>know of about 600 BC.
Casey:
>>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
Peyote:
>>Have you studied the Buddhist sutras regarding Maitreya? -This is not
>>meant as a put down it just means if you have I will not have to go
>>into a lot of data which would blow the BW into oblivion- If you
>>haven't I will present it however.
Casey:
>As far as I know Maitreya is supposed to be the next Buddha in
>far off times. What Maitreya was born after the Buddha, is it
>the same one that is coming in future times?
Peyote:
Supposedly yes.
Peyote:
>>>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>>>and without beginning. Interesting.
Casey:
>>ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
Peyote:
>>Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
>>for our suffering. Nice :-D
Casey:
>Nope, we are responsible for our suffering. Yes, we are all part of
>God but the argument you make is not really going to get us
>anywhere.
God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
BTW if we are all a part of god then we are also all a part of satan
and Lucifer since we are all a part of the divine omnipresence.
Peyote:
>>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>>battle should have already been over?
>>
>>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>>Casey?
Casey:
>>>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>>>not what I mean by time not existing.
Peyote:
>>I try to be simplistic.
>
>>Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
>>relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
>>opportunity? He would already know.
Casey:
>Because there really is no "waiting". That term is just really
>for our benefit and understanding.
The word waiting does not indicate this Casey. It appears to be based
on current events and waiting for the right moment. Benjamin Creme has
given false dates before so I assume he took the term 'waiting for a
window of opportunity literally' otherwise he would have said nothing
and just let it happen when it happens.
And yet strangely enough in the 1982 fiasco not one 'ascended master
could explain to Benjamin Creme that Maitreya wan't coming? Again I
produce my case that it is nothing more than the product of Benjamin
Creme's own mind.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
Allen:
>This Mary Bailey thing happenned in the early 1960s. I doubt very much if
>many working at Lucis were around then. That was a very long time ago. But
>the point you're making isn't sensible. There is little backup from Bailey's
>writing for Ben Creme's insistence that he is some kind of chosen mouthpiece
>for a manifested Christ. A Christ, by the way, that is claimed to have
>issued false pronouncements of his return. A Christ that is afraid to come
>out and play.
Casey:
>First of all Benjamin Creme doesn't insist this he just tells the story
>based on his experience. I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate
>by Benjamin Creme not being specifically mentioned in the Bailey books.
>He didn't even begin to start his work until around 1960.
Yet again casey we come to the false predictions he has made and
within any organization you will find sympathizers for other causes.
This in itself does not prove 100% commitment. Like I said an odd
subscription or two to Creme's magazine doesn't count LOL.
Benjamin Creme is only one more self proclaimed prophet -aka John the
Baptist- who has attached himself to the Bailey group. As I explained
in the other post in this thread there are distinct differences.
Allen:
>>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
Casey:
>I just went to this page and it pretty much says nothing. Actually, I take
>that back:) According to what the page says we should be expecting the
>Christ today. We are seeing the beginning of the conditions stated.
>I encourage people to go to the link and make up their own mind.
Actually the site says a lot here are a few excerpts:
----------------------------------------
Today there is an increasing expectancy regarding the return of the
"World Teacher", the Coming One Who will return to lead humanity into
a new age and into a heightened consciousness. In fact, SOME CLAIM
that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form and has been
"SIGHTED" in various parts of the world. Yet the teachings of the
Tibetan Master, given in the books of Alice A. Bailey, make it clear
that humanity itself must first produce the conditions in
consciousness and in world affairs essential to the eventual physical
appearance of the Christ.
When a measure of peace has been restored on Earth, when sharing
begins to govern economic affairs, and when churches and political
groups have begun to clean house, the Christ will then be drawn into
the arena of His work. The Christ will be known by the work he does,
by the world influence He wields and by His ability to work with and
through every individual and every group who have trained themselves
for world service. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
----------------------------------------
Hmm seems to contradict Benjamin Creme very strongly wouldn't you say
Casey? Quite the opposite in some cases. Note carefully the points of
difference.
----------------------------------------
Casey:
>Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:)
As Creme would not like to lose his job.
Casey:
>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>then they do.
Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
Casey:
>I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
>for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
>Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
How about their studies and their own personal experiences like you
keep telling me hmm?
Casey:
>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
-Extra big snip a good article by Allen-
Peyote.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
Casey:
>>>When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
>>>society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
>>>today not the original founders.
Peyote:
>>However they still claim to follow the same teachings.
Casey:
>And I feel the teachings don't contadict each other. Granted,
>some of Blavatsky's statements need some looking into but
>she had a slightly different agenda in a slightly different
>time. It was her job to introduce this whole topic and
>maybe even create a little controversy and stir things
>up.
Yes I agree with the stirring bit -still would have loved to meet her
a woman that seems similar to me LOL- Bet Eo and Tempest who have had
fun with her too.
However back to the topic I would like to stress again that the
teachings do contradict each other and this can be plainly proven
from my end, however once again on your end you are presenting the
'if' argument and 'I don't think they contradict each other without'
any proof.
You know I could present a list of proof as to how they differ and on
what, hiding behind the excuse that well ... maybe so and so meant
something else doesn't mean much. Let the words speak for themselves
Casey and let the followers whom have studied their works speak for
themselves.
I am sorry but the evidence is on my side, I even have modern
articles written by Theosophical members which clearly state Lucifer
is satan and the serpent is the liberator of humanity.
Peyote:
>>Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
>>conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
Casey:
>Possibly but it does reflect a situation where the people who
>worked the closest with Alice Bailey herself are not part
>of the organization now that rejects Mr. Creme's claims.
No what it would amount to is a personality difference, I suppose such
petty things would not effect the so called work of the ascended
masters.
Mr Creme is rejected by every organization that I have come across,
they may speak of him but they certainly don't follow him or join
-subscribe- to his brand of ideology.
Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
from those of that group you talk about.
Peyote:
>>Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
Casey
>Well I would say its absolutely an opinion based on their
>own studies. But I know other people who have been in that
>organization as long or maybe even longer then the leadership
>who do agree with Mr. Creme.
Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
camp?
Peyote:
>>That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
>>place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
Casey:
>Maybe, but not with me involved:) The point is they do state that
>their teachings came from the Master DK. How could they then
>decide they know better now?
If you last that long it will happen, it is a common phenomena amongst
groups. -Large or small-.
Peyote:
>>I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
>>have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
>>modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
Casey:
>They probably do but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Why not? Language and meaning change all the time?
Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
translation of the copper scroll-.
So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your argument
is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
Peyote:
>> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
>> clearly not one and the same.
Casey:
>>>The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
>>>I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
>>>gotten along grandly:)
Peyote;
>>That I seriously doubt, did Baily and Blavatsky really get along that
>>well? Wouldn't Creme's expectance of Maitreya's time line of arrival
>>differ to Baileys, and not only that wasn't Baileys understanding of
>>Maitreya different to Creme's?
Casey:
>Blavatsky passd away in 1891, I'm not even sure if Bailey was born yet
>but they definitely never had a chance to be contemporaries and compare
>opinions:)
Peyote:
Correction noted thanks.
Casey;
>One thing I did just read that was interesting. Apparently
>Blavatsky had to fight hard in her own society to make sure
>her works were not distorted or changed. So this just goes to further
>my point about the current organizations (who I am in no way condeming).
No it doesn't further your point ahah finally I am on familiar ground,
Blavatsky was in conflict with people yes, that's true but so what?
She was also under heavy attack from churches which condemned her and
her society. I think few realize the pressure she was under. Here is a
quote I borrowed from one of Salmuns numerous books:
---------------------------------
'We are informed that -Blavatsky- by the 'Modern English Biography'
-F. Boase- that she married twice, the first husband an old man
nearly seventy years, who she deserted three months after marriafe;
and the second a young lad of 16 years whom went mad the day after
marriage. She led a regular bohemian life and kept a gambling hell in
the Tiflis in 1863. Between 1848 and 1857 she professed to visit
Tibet and there learnt the secret of the Mahatmas. In 1871 ...
-she- set up a spiritualistic society in Cairo. There she gotintop
trouble for tricking the public and fleecing them of their money by
deception. She founded the Theosophical society in 1875 and did in
England in 1891.
She wrote the book 'Isis Unveiled', and experts have declared that it
is filled with plagiarism .... She had a violent temper and was
anything but attractive in appearance .....
-Comment not a very nice presentation is it?-
Compiled by WW C Irvine Heresies exposed P 187-188
--------------------
--------------------
And again:
--------------------
And more:
-Esoteric Christianity p 140-
--------------------
So basically once again I disagree with you her teachings were clearly
outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
opposes distorted them without end.
Peyote:
>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>> a distinction and a separation.
Casey:
>>>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>>>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>>>or Blavatsky.
Peyote:
>>As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
>>to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
>>experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
>
>>Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
>>leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
>>happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
Casey:
>Of course:)
Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
that you sprung from.
Peyote:
>>The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
>>accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
>>arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
>>own writings and experience.
Casey:
>I know people who have studied the same teachings at least as long as
>the current leadership who do feel Mr. Creme is correct.
Who? And why haven't they joined Creme then? Or have they?
Peyote:
>>Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
>>from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
>>current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
Casey:
>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
Facts Casey not guess work please.
Casey:
>
>>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>>the connection you mention more.
Peyote:
>>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>
>>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>
>>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>>think his information will blow you away ;-)
Casey:
>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>everyone is using those names in.
For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
but there is a lot more yet to come.
The context wills be plain also.
>>-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
>>fell-
Casey:
>>>Actually, the way I figure it, the longer the tradition is the
>>>more chance it has of being changed over the (thousands of) years.
Peyote:
>>Huh if I were you I would examine the Qur'an and Hadiths a bit closer
>>LOL ;-) and their transmission -chain of authority-. The Bible yes you
>>have a partial point but you see I also ready non biblical books
>>apocrypha, Pseudepigraphical Books & Writings Dead Sea Scrolls Texts
>>etc -including Gnostic texts-
>
>>So I am quite familiar with other strands of thoughts amongst the
>>semite peoples. -Special thanks to Salmun for the loan of his works in
>>this area-
Peyote:
>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
Peyote:
>>To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
>>whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
>>is right I am a Purist at heart.
Casey:
>>>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>>>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Peyote:
>>Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
>>that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
Casey:
>Thats not the point (but I do know some:). The point is they don't even
>agree with each other so who knows what the real answer is.
It is the point because those disagreements -which you conveniently
left out- are over thousands of years difference -30000, 40000 etc-
and not only that at least one Buddhists I know does not accept that
Maitreya will come at all.
Benjamin Creme is laughed at, you should have learnt that when Dotty
tried to spam the Buddhist NG with his soon arriving Maitreya stuff.
Casey:
>I'll have to do a little more research on this but I remember hearing
>some comments from DL that the appearance of the next Buudha might not
>be so far off.
Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
-snip a whole bunch of stuff explaining word and tractional
connections-
Casey:
>>>If we bring in the Old Testiment and compare it with the New
>>>Testament then I agree that the term God or Lord is used
>>>in more then one way. Which makes your arguments about how
>>>tradition should be considered more valid then current
>>>information even more confusing.
Peyote:
>>Actually it is less confusing if you understand the relationship that
>>names depict a certain aspect of what the character is doing. The
>>problem a lot of people make is between the transitional period
>>between the OT and NT there were many other books written in between
>>that time.
>
>>Even Christian forgeries or apocryphal accounts are useful in
>>researching this. As for the term god yes it is YHWH or Elohim but he
>>is also depicted by other names as well again there is no confusion if
>>you look at the context.
Casey:
>This all might possibly be true but to tell you the truth I
>forgot the original point we were trying to make out of all of this.
>I have already explained how I came to my opriginal comments
>about the OT and that they might be wrong.
The simple fact of how Lucifer is the same person as Iblis/Satan -or
whatever function/name it is in at the time-. You needed context so I
supplied a few basics with the roots of how one idea was transmitted
from religion to religion -including pagan ones-.
I still have a lot more because as yet we haven't even examined the
verse in Isaiah and its context -both within the bible and outside of
the bible- way before Creme came along.
Casey:
>>Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
>>many of the documents and religions disagree with each other.
>>So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
Peyote:
>How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Casey:
>If none of them are correct why are you so concerned that Mr. Creme
>doesn't agree with all of them, or some of the interpretations?
Peyote:
>>Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
>>Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
>>for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
>>so that's where we will differ.
>
>>But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
>>say ;-)
>
>Come on, I won't tell:)
Not a chance LOL.
That sod is one smart bugger even atheists and agnostics acknowledge
him LOL.
Peyote:
-snip-
>>>> As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
>>>> maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
>>>> been said countless times before.
>
Casey:
>
>>>Ok, this is where I just disagree with you. I have listened to
>>>many of Maitreya's messages many time. Even taking into
>>>consideration things that are said in these groups I absolutley
>>>feel the messages are inspiring and very deep while being very
>>>plain and simple at the same time. Its this mixture of
>>>simple ideas put in compelling ways that I really don't find
>>>in many other places. I would suggest people clear their minds
>>>of all the pre-concieved notions around here and actually read,
>>>or better yet listen, to the messages with an open mind.
>>>
>>>Yes they are simple but that is by design and pupose.
Peyote:
>>Well I still find it dry and boring, nothing new, nothing of great
>>significance.
>
>>Tell you what Casey send me via email 3 of your favorite and most
>>inspiring Maitreya messages -don't post it here its probably to long
>>and will add even more BW- and I'll post my opinion or email my
>>opinion if it is to long.
>
>>Fair enough?
Casey:
>If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
>to you.
Casey please -you know we have discussed this via email- don't spend
so much money on these things, if I say I'll read them I will and
besides its cheaper for you.
You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
Casey:
>As I thought I stated somewhere, if we receive "free" energy
>before we are ready to use it then it might actually cause more
>harm then good. For starters if we received free energy
>tomorrow our economy would probably collapse by Friday:)
Actually you did. It would have to be slowly introduced.
Though you do have an interesting point because -and this is a rumour
I can't prove it- a person here in Australia found an energy source
which replaces fuel in cars -and I don't mean solar, alcohol etc-, he
was bought out and the mysterious source of new fuel was never heard
from again :-(
Casey:
>>No, we probably won't see these -the ancient manuscripts- until after Maitreya has
>>openly emerged.
Peyote:
>>Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
Casey:
>Oh come on, it won't be that long now:)
Has anyone ever told you, your a real shit stirrer LOL? :-D
Peyote:
>>I can just see the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Bahai etc headlines now,
>>'Maitreya manifests fake documents to deceive the true believers.'
Casey:
>nah, we can do some testing on them:) Actually, they'll still
>probably say that anyway:)lol
Eh eh.
Peyote:
>>I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
>>works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
>>up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
>>Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>Exactly, and you don't believe I'm right either, do you? :-)
Correct born from evidence which is contrary to what you are saying.
Peyote:
>>>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>>>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>>>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>>>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>>that when dealing with any situation?
>>Peyote:
>>>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>>>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
>>Casey:
>>>No:)
Peyote:
>>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Casey:
>I already said they were all wrong:)lol
What can I say to this LOL. ???
Peyote:
>>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
>>own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
>>personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
>>entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
>>loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
>>whatever.
Casey:
>Ok, back to science. What are the odds that a whole bunch of atoms
>came togther and formed this planet and the life on it. The answer
>is about the same of winning the lottery 52 weeks in a row:)
>(I saw this on PBS so it must be true:)
I would say higher than the odds that a voice in some ones head will
manifest on TV ;-)
Nice try at misdirection. Gee what do you want from me LOL Historical
data on Lucifer/Satan/Iblis plus a heap of other texts from various
non standard texts including pagan mythologies-, a Blavatsky defense,
Bailey discussion and Creme expose and now the origin of the universe
ROTFLMAO I might as well write a book ;-D
However we are here so we exist as a testimony that the lottery was
won 52 weeks in a row -at least-. Now if there are other life forms
elsewhere then maybe the lottery is bogus and chance rules after all.
But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
farts thrown in for good measure.
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
Casey:
>
>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
Peyote:
>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Casey:
>I would hope not:)lol
But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Casey:
>>>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>>>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>>>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>>>some persoanl experience?
Peyote:
>>Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
>>but rather a product of your minds.
Casey:
>It could be:) Its up to you to decide (but don't blame me if I don't
>agree with you).
It would explain the contradictions from supposedly the same or
similar sources. Please consider it and consider coincidence and the
interpretation of those coincidences while you look into it.
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>> Casey:
>>Same thing.
Peyote:
>> Interesting. More on this oversoul Lucifer doctrine in a later
>> article.
Peyote:
>> Okay did he -aka Lucifer- have to be a human to ascend to the 7th
>> degree in the first place?
Casey:
>>No. I don't believe, whatever that being really is, that it
>>evolved through earth's evolution. Maitreya did though.
Peyote:
>> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
>> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash
>satan & co.
Casey:
>> >As described in another thread, everthing does have their
>> >proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
>> >arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
>> >Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
>> >they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
>> >Its all very dynamic.
Peyote:
>> Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
>> atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
>> perspective on this so bear with me.
>>
>> First a few questions:
Casey:
>>>The following answers are based on my current knowledge
>>>impressions. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on
>>>such matters.
Peyote:
>> 1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
Casey:
>>>Yes, but I think the meaning gets confussed sometimes.
>>>For the sake of this discussion I would say its relative.
>>>Like for instance this timing thing. To the Masters and
>>>Maitreya all things have already occured. There is literally
>>>no concept of time. The exact "timing" aspect has to do with
>>>something that is not "real" and thus the difficulty. Its
>>>like all things are pre-determined but the timing and when
>>>events work themselves out on the physical plane depends
>>>on our actions and are not set.
Peyote:
>>So then how can Maitreya exist in our time if he has already been here
>>and gone and is yet back again? If he is here then he is subject to
>>time even though it has already taken place -and will take place
>>again-.
Casey:
>I never said I could fully explain (or comprehend) what the idea
>of time not existing really means and how it works exactly.
Okay
Peyote:
>
>>>> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
Casey:
>>Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
Peyote:
>>So omnipresence is not real?
Casey:
>Its real, actually more real then the reality we perceive.
Peyote:
>> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
Casey:
>>>As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
>>>he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
>>>our free will.
Peyote:
>>So he can not come unless the majority of people want him to come? He
>>will not give this 'experience' to those whom believe it would be evil
>>and of the anti-christ?
Casey:
>No, it means He "won't" emerge openly until we are ready and have
>invited Him. As I said before, "all" over a certain age will get
>the experience.
Peyote:
>> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
Casey:
>He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
>
>>Okay.
Peyote:
>> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
>> time of Buddha?
Casey:
>>>The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
>>>Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
>>>(according to my information).
Peyote:
>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>know of about 600 BC.
Casey:
>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
Have you studied the Buddhist sutras regarding Maitreya? -This is no
meant as a put down it just means if you have I will not have to go
into a lot of data which would blow the BW into oblivion- If you
haven't I will present it however.
Peyote:
>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
Casey:
>>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>>actual role in the scheme of things.
Peyote:
>>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>>and without beginning. Interesting.
Casey:
>ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
for our suffering. Nice :-D
Peyote:
>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>> forces?
Casey:
>>>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>>>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>>>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>>>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>>>roles.
Peyote:
>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>battle should have already been over?
>
>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>Casey?
Casey:
>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>not what I mean by time not existing.
I try to be simplistic.
Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
opportunity? He would already know.
Peyote:
>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>
>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
Peyote:
>
>>But it would not be impossible would it?
Casey:
>>It might be, I don't know.
Peyote:
Can Lucifer inhabit human bodies as well?
>I don't think so.
>Casey
Peyote. Thanks see you in the next post.
Kook Watcher
wrote:
-big snip-
Peyote:
>>I am sorry but the evidence is on my side, I even have modern
>>articles written by Theosophical members which clearly state Lucifer
>>is satan and the serpent is the liberator of humanity.
Casey:
>Peyote, even if I concede the whole Lucifer/Satan thing (which I don't yet:)
Peyote:
No probs these sort of things take time to look into context etc. I am
however fairly confident you will see what I mean.
Casey:
>we are talking about an aspect that is hardly talked about by Mr. Creme.
Peyote:
I don't doubt that ;-) could you imagine the headlines on that one
'Lucifer is the true oversoul etc etc 'LOL. You might even get a
Fatawah issued against you for that one :-)
>With the vast body or work each has this one thing does not constitute
>the prooof you claim IMHO. On top of that you haven't mentioned anything
>that Mr. Creme and Alice Bailey differ on.
One thing at a time, but if you want we can jump into that a bit ahead
of time, that is fine with me. What I am trying to do is show the
slow progression from one groups ideology to the next.
I do pretty much the same with other religions that claim their ideas
are new/unique or special revelations.
>I doubt Mr. Creme would even disagree with Blavatsky on her writting about
>Satan. She was being more symbolic and the concepts they are talking
>about are different. However, I will have to read more of Blavatsky's
>work before coming to any definite conclusion.
I believe he does, when you look into it please also notice some of
the questions and different discussions that are brought up. Her logic
is very sound and clear and she knew what she was talking about. They
were not spurious thoughts randomly written.
The concept of Lucifer being satan and the serpent being the
liberator are very clear as are her thoughts that the Jewish god was
evil and tried to hinder humanities progress.
Peyote;
>>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
>>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
>>from those of that group you talk about.
Casey:
>First of all, none of this has to do with supporting Creme 100% of the
>way. For just about every different person I know in this work there
>is a distinct personal opinion about it. Some just hope its true, some
>feel it probably is but are not sure, some feel it most definitely
>is true. No one is discouraged from having their own point of view.
>
>Every one who follows this story is distinct in their own right. Its
>sort of a catch 22 the way you put it, anyone who has come to the
>conclusion that Mr. Creme might be or is correct is "a member
>of Creme's cult". So no one could ever agree with Mr. Creme's
>views and be a valid source according to this.
Okay that clears up that for me. However do all believe in common that
Benjamin Creme speaks with the masters of wisdom?
Peyote;
>>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>>camp?
Casey:
>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
soon-.
Casey:
>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
separate -secret- religion.
Casey:
>My point is that they have studied the works
>of Alice Bailey for as long or longer then the current leadership
>of the organization. Anyway, some of these people are involved in
>both the works of the Arcane society (at some level) and Mr. Creme.
>Exactly who really doesn't matter and I'm not going to bring people
>into this especially considering what goes on in these groups.
>Anyway, the names wouldn't mean much to you anyway.
No, but it would be proof and interesting to hear their side of the
story.
Many people say they agree -to avoid debate etc- or go along with it
but in their own beliefs they may not have changed at all. Some
partially change and compromise between two points but I don't class
that as a real confirmation either.
-snip-
Casey -discussing the GI-
>But if we look at the actual changes this argument doesn't hold
>up.
Peyote:
>>Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
>>behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
>>the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
>>English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
>>Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
>>of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
>>Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
>>translation of the copper scroll-.
Casey:
>Peyote, have you actually seen the changes? The changes that were
>made are not because the meaning of the words changed. It is
>basically a watered down version that is just meant to make
>sure "no one" could possibly be offended.
Yes I have seen it, if this is the right version:
------------------------------------
From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.
From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills-
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.
From the center which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.
------------------------------------
I like it and can see it as fitting into many religions that would
have no problem with it. It is great to see evolution IMO in
progression.
Maybe one day it will go a step further and include those who are
Agnostics and atheist's. But for me I find the above very meaningful.
Peyote:
>>So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your argument
>>is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
-added comment- I have been through all this type of argument with
people who insist on the KJV being the only true bible .... it sadly
happens in most religions. Yusif Ali had similar problems with his
modern translation of the Qur'an etc etc.
Casey;
>>>One thing I did just read that was interesting. Apparently
>>>Blavatsky had to fight hard in her own society to make sure
>>>her works were not distorted or changed. So this just goes to further
>>>my point about the current organizations (who I am in no way condeming).
Peyote:
-Added comment:- see the type of abuse she was constantly under? Most
of the above is utter BS written by some idiot that doesn't know what
he is on about, yet she withstood it, plus those within her own
organization. It was anything but easy going for her.
>>--------------------
Casey:
>I don't understand the point of all the quotes. They don't
>preclude Maitreya the way Mr. Creme describes him.
Christ not Maitreya is the central figure, it was Christ who
overshadowed Jesus not Maitreya etc etc. Maitreya in both Bailey's and
Blavatsky's books is not the leader of a great spiritual hierarchy.
Show me one reference where it is all Maitreya that is the real
leader. -Not from Creme's literature naturally-.
Peyote:
>>So basically once again I disagree with you, her teachings were clearly
>>outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
>>opposes distorted them without end.
Peyote:
>>Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
>>another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
>>that you sprung from.
Casey:
>I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
Yet I assume they are backed up by the same 'experiences' as those
whom disagree with what you have :-)
>>Casey:
>
>>>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
Peyote:
>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Casey:
>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I never
>said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>were basically talking about two different things.
I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
different things'.
Peyote:
>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
Casey:
>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
Well have those organizations misrepresented their denials of Benjamin
Creme's message? They reject him based on their own studies and
experiences. Casey it is really as simple as that.
Casey:
>>>>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>>>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>>>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>>>>the connection you mention more.
Peyote:
>>>>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>>>>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>>>>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>>>
>>>>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>>>>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>>>>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>>>
>>>>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>>>>think his information will blow you away ;-)
Casey:
>>>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>>>everyone is using those names in.
Peyote:
The historical data is against you and I think if you have been
looking into it you know that. Your only line of defense will be the
often used 'well' it is my feeling ... or experience .. different
interpretations etc'
Peyote:
>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
>>but there is a lot more yet to come.
>
>>The context wills be plain also.
-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which was
very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling you
about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
debunks Creme's views.
>>>>-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
>>>>fell-
Peyote:
>>>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>>>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>>>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>>>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
Peyote:
>>To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
>>whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
>>is right I am a Purist at heart.
Casey:
>>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Peyote:
>>Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
>>that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
Casey:
>>Thats not the point (but I do know some:). The point is they don't even
>>agree with each other so who knows what the real answer is.
Peyote:
>>It is the point because those disagreements -which you conveniently
>>left out- are over thousands of years difference -30000, 40000 etc-
>>and not only that at least one Buddhists I know does not accept that
>>Maitreya will come at all.
Casey:
>So again, who is right?
Like I said before how about none of you?
How about it all being the product of your own
fantasies/wants/desires/hopes, needing to have a cause in life,
emptiness, loneliness, gullibility, coincidence, trickery, in other
words it is nothing more the product of your own mind and wish
fulfillment.
Take your pick of any cult or religion and join it, that is why I
discount these so called 'experiences' which some claim are from
higher sources yet they all contradict each other.
BTW the Buddhist differences are on contextual issues and private
interpretation, in other words theological differences not so called
'higher sources of inspiration' etc.
Peyote;
>>Benjamin Creme is laughed at, you should have learnt that when Dotty
>>tried to spam the Buddhist NG with his soon arriving Maitreya stuff.
Casey:
>And what does this prove?
What I have been trying to tell you all along. Grok? -I love that
word- BTW do you read Sci-Fi?
Peyote;
>>Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
Casey:
>As I said, I will have to look into this.
>>-snip a whole bunch of stuff explaining words and tradional
>>connections-
Casey:
>>>This all might possibly be true but to tell you the truth I
>>>forgot the original point we were trying to make out of all of this.
>>>I have already explained how I came to my opriginal comments
>>>about the OT and that they might be wrong.
Peyote:
>>The simple fact of how Lucifer is the same person as Iblis/Satan -or
>>whatever function/name it is in at the time-. You needed context so I
>>supplied a few basics with the roots of how one idea was transmitted
>>from religion to religion -including pagan ones-.
>
>>I still have a lot more because as yet we haven't even examined the
>>verse in Isaiah and its context -both within the bible and outside of
>>the bible- way before Creme came along.
Casey:
>I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
Thanks, I actually love researching -so much for an un educated man
like me huh lol- It is a pity we are at such different stances in life
it would be nice to talk for once about just concepts. :-(
Peyote:
>>How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Casey:
>>If none of them are correct why are you so concerned that Mr. Creme
>>doesn't agree with all of them, or some of the interpretations?
Peyote:
>>Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
>>Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
>>for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
>>so that's where we will differ.
>>But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
>>say ;-)
Casey:
>>>Come on, I won't tell:)
Peyote:
>>Not a chance LOL.
>
>>That sod is one smart bugger even atheists and agnostics acknowledge
>>him LOL.
Casey:
>If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
>to you.
Peyote:
>>Casey please -you know we have discussed this via email- don't spend
>>so much money on these things, if I say I'll read them I will and
>>besides its cheaper for you.
Casey:
>We are talking about very little expense here and I only
>suggested it because that is the way I listen to them
>and we were talking about my opinoin.
Okay maybe it will be different to just reading it, say do you collect
coins, bank notes etc? How about if I send you some bank notes from
Australia in exchange?
Peyote:
>>You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
>>related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
>>think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
Casey:
>Don't worry, you won't be taking advantage of me:)
Yeah but people do and you know what I mean -we discussed this in that
email- I am sorry but my opinion still stands I don't think that was
fair or right. -Hey and that's coming from a member of the dark lodge
LOL-
Casey:
>Don't get me started on the drug companies either:)
Peyote:
Don't get me curious LOL? You believe they have a cure for cancer
right? I wonder if I guessed right because we read the same stuff?
Peyote:
>>I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
>>works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
>>up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
>>Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>>Exactly, and you don't believe I'm right either, do you? :-)
Peyote:
>>Correct born from evidence which is contrary to what you are saying.
Peyote:
>>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>that when dealing with any situation?
Peyote:
>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Casey:
>
>>>No:)
Peyote:
>>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Peyote:
>>>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
>>>own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
>>>personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
>>>entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
>>>loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
>>>whatever.
Casey:
>>Ok, back to science. What are the odds that a whole bunch of atoms
>>came togther and formed this planet and the life on it. The answer
>>is about the same of winning the lottery 52 weeks in a row:)
>>(I saw this on PBS so it must be true:)
Peyote:
>>I would say higher than the odds that a voice in some ones head will
>>manifest on TV ;-)
>
>
>>Nice try at misdirection. Gee what do you want from me LOL Historical
>>data on Lucifer/Satan/Iblis plus a heap of other texts from various
>>non standard texts including pagan mythologies-, a Blavatsky defense,
>>Bailey discussion and Creme expose and now the origin of the universe
>>ROTFLMAO I might as well write a book ;-D
Casey:
>Actually, now that you mention it, if you can come over and clean
>my car for me that would be great:) lol But seriously, I do appreciate
>your efforts, I just don't happen to agree with all of your conclusions.
Peyote:
>>However we are here so we exist as a testimony that the lottery was
>>won 52 weeks in a row -at least-. Now if there are other life forms
>>elsewhere then maybe the lottery is bogus and chance rules after all.
Casey:
>Not so, our existence doesn't preclude some sort of "devine" guidance
>or plan.
Peyote:
Chemistry and biology does as does evolution. There is no evidence of
guidance, we can attribute it to some higher form but that is a
fallacy. The old design/purpose theory put forward has been debunked
in the past. The only thing left for theists is what I call gap
theories but that is another story within itself.
Peyote:
>>But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
>>too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
>>Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
>>farts thrown in for good measure.
Casey:
>If you want, but that would just be one more thing you would
>have to do and I'm not sure how useful it would be in the
>current discussion. Up to you though.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
>
Casey:
>>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
Peyote:
>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Casey:
>>I would hope not:)lol
Peyote:
>>But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
>>contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Casey:
>Nope, just a differing of opinions.
Yet they are based on various people who claim to be in contact with
'Higher sources'? And the followers have the 'experiences to back up
their masters, gurus, god/men, aliens -or whatever- they believe in.
See it goes beyond opinion alone doesn't it? Do these ascended masters
disagree so much about things that they keep sending contradictory
information to their voices on earth? Even those whom think they are
Maitreya or channel or are 'overshadowed' by him?
Still looks like merely the product of ones own brain, that could
account for the contradictions, errors and mundane messages.
By mundane messages I mean nothing is **ever** given which astounds
the scientific world like a solution to our pollution problem or
energy crisis etc etc. They all have their excuses but are simply
unable to produce the goods.
Peyote:
>>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>>know of about 600 BC.
Casey:
>>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
Peyote:
>>Have you studied the Buddhist sutras regarding Maitreya? -This is not
>>meant as a put down it just means if you have I will not have to go
>>into a lot of data which would blow the BW into oblivion- If you
>>haven't I will present it however.
Casey:
>As far as I know Maitreya is supposed to be the next Buddha in
>far off times. What Maitreya was born after the Buddha, is it
>the same one that is coming in future times?
Peyote:
Supposedly yes.
Peyote:
>>>So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
>>>and without beginning. Interesting.
Casey:
>>ALL is part of God. God is everything (Grok that?).
Peyote:
>>Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
>>for our suffering. Nice :-D
Casey:
>Nope, we are responsible for our suffering. Yes, we are all part of
>God but the argument you make is not really going to get us
>anywhere.
God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
BTW if we are all a part of god then we are also all a part of satan
and Lucifer since we are all a part of the divine omnipresence.
Peyote:
>>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>>battle should have already been over?
>>
>>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>>Casey?
Casey:
>>>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>>>not what I mean by time not existing.
Peyote:
>>I try to be simplistic.
>
>>Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
>>relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
>>opportunity? He would already know.
Casey:
>Because there really is no "waiting". That term is just really
>for our benefit and understanding.
The word waiting does not indicate this Casey. It appears to be based
on current events and waiting for the right moment. Benjamin Creme has
given false dates before so I assume he took the term 'waiting for a
window of opportunity literally' otherwise he would have said nothing
and just let it happen when it happens.
And yet strangely enough in the 1982 fiasco not one 'ascended master
could explain to Benjamin Creme that Maitreya wan't coming? Again I
produce my case that it is nothing more than the product of Benjamin
Creme's own mind.
>Casey
Kook Watcher
Peyote;
>> Wait a minute there obviously is a new direction otherwise the Lucis
>> trust would have no need of making a point that Creme's Maitreya is
>> different to the one they are expecting.
Casey:
>OK, you seem to bring this point up a lot in this post so
>I will try to address it here and then just refer to this
>answer in the rest of the post.
>
>When we are talking about Lucis Trust and the Theosophical
>society we are talking about the organizations as they exist
>today not the original founders.
However they still claim to follow the same teachings.
>Mary Bailey was Alice Bailey's sister in law (I believe).
>From my understanding, from people who used to be
>officers in Lucus Trust, when Alice Baliey died and
>Mary Baliey took over, many people who were loyal
>and friends of Alice Baliey were asked to leave.
Why were they asked to leave? Sounds merely like a personality
conflict nothing major, it happens all the time.
>When you say Lucis Trust makes it a point to
>disagree with Benjamin Creme you are really
>just talking about its current leadership. Even
>they claim no direct contact with the hierarchy to back up
>their claims, its only their opinion.
Yet possibly an opinion based on their own studies and experiences.
>Lucus Trust is even starting to disagree with Alice Bailey (slightly).
>They recently came out with an "updated" version of "The Great
>Invocation". If, as they claim themselves, this came from the
>Master DK, why would they do that? Although I do commend them
>for keeping the teachings in tact in there orignal text. But
>either the teachings came from the Master DK or they didn't.
>If they claim they did, how can they start changing things?
That often happens with sects in time, new inner movements take
place, it will happen to yours also if you exist as long as they do.
However since I don't believe in a DK to start with it is hard for me
to comment on whether or not it is real -obviously I only see it as
words and not much more-.
I guess to take their side perhaps they feel -experience- studied or
have come to the conclusion that this work needs to be updated into a
modern context. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that.
>The same general idea goes for the Theosophical society also,
>who never fully accepted the works of Alice Bailey by the way.
Yes I know.
Peyote:
>> Has Benjamin Creme ever been overshadowed by DK?
Casey:
>Depends on which master Mr. Creme is in contact with:) This
>information is not known yet. In the early days
>of Alice Bailey's works the name of her contact was not
>given either. (We've been trying to get this info out
>of Mr. Creme for years:)
LOL. Good luck and you better hope its not Lucifer -only kidding-.
Peyote:
>> Yet they still differ on issues and the three organizations are
>> clearly not one and the same.
Casey:
>The three organizations are clearly not the same. However,
>I feel the originators of all three organizations would have
>gotten along grandly:)
That I seriously doubt, did Baily and Blavatsky really get along that
well? Wouldn't Creme's expectance of Maitreya's time line of arrival
differ to Baileys, and not only that wasn't Baileys understanding of
Maitreya different to Creme's?
Peyote:
>> Either way the fact you must admit is that neither the Theosophical
>> society or the Lucis trust accept Creme and his Maitreya that alone is
>> a distinction and a separation.
Casey:
>Its only a distinction and separation from "their" point
>of view. Then being the leadership today not Alice Bailey
>or Blavatsky.
As much as it is a difference from 'your' point of view and it is fair
to assume that they to follow their own teachings and have the
experiences to backup the truths that they believe in.
Working once again on the assumption -not a proven fact- that the
leaders themselves would agree is only your opinion that in this case
happens to coincide with what you would like to believe.
The facts are you are different organizations the Lucis Trust does not
accept Creme and I would assume they have studied the matter and
arrived at their conclusions based on an intimate knowledge of their
own writings and experience.
Hence we come back to my original concept that I believe one grew out
from the other and who knows something else may grow out from the
current Creme movement after he dies taking yet another direction.
Peyote:
>> Does this manuscript exist today? Or is a rumour only?
Casey:
>I certainly don't have it:) It could very well exist but is
>not public yet.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> Actually I owe you an apology, Bruce correctly pointed out that Job is
>> not one of the oldest books in the bible. Anyway the same point still
>> stands Lucifer/Satan had access to god and what you will find is that
>> it was quite the opposite to what you said previously.
Casey:
>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>the connection you mention more.
Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
Lucifer/Satan etc.
I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
think his information will blow you away ;-)
-snip OT verses and Qur'anic verses showing how Lucifer/Iblis/satan
fell-
Peyote:
>> Possibly but again we come to the question of ancient texts presenting
>> themselves -with commentaries in some places, which we will look at
>> further to show the Lucifer / satan connection-
>>
>> You have the experience of thousands of years against you from
>> Judaism, Christianity and Islam and not only that some of their
>> leading theologians that in total amount to millions -billions?- of
>> peoples.
Casey:
>Actually, the way I figure it, the longer the tradition is the
>more chance it has of being changed over the (thousands of) years.
Huh if I were you I would examine the Qur'an and Hadiths a bit closer
LOL ;-) and their transmission -chain of authority-. The Bible yes you
have a partial point but you see I also ready non biblical books
apocrypha, Pseudepigraphical Books & Writings Dead Sea Scrolls Texts
etc -including Gnostic texts-
So I am quite familiar with other strands of thoughts amongst the
semite peoples. -Special thanks to Salmun for the loan of his works in
this area-
Peyote:
>> Then on the other hand you have your own small group which has no true
>> historical documents, claims to be in a position to re-interpret what
>> people have followed for thousands of years? Based on no texts only
>> experience and dubious overshadowing?
Casey:
>I know, frustrating isn't it:)lol
To be honest it is ludicrous IMO. Sorry Casey but that is how I see it
whenever a new group springs up and tries the same thing. Perhaps Eo
is right I am a Purist at heart.
Peyote:
>> Do you see where I am coming from now? Even the Buddhist traditions
>> reject Creme's assertions that Maitreya will be here soon.
Casey:
>Actually, I know different Buddhists who disagree with each other
>about the timing of the appearance of the next Buddha.
Ahh yes but how many do you know that don't belong to Creme's cult
that believe he is coming now -or soon-.
What does the DL say about it? Has Creme met him and discussed his
overshadowing yet with the DL?
Peyote:
>> No that is not correct. Lucifer after the fall became satan -he was
>> still Lucifer though- in Judaism & Islam names take on a meaning
>>being related languages basically Lucifer was now called the adversary.
>>This incidently also has happened with people like Abraham/Ibrhaim who
>>was earlier known as Abram.
>>Eo probably has more material on this than I do but if you look
>> closely at the Hebrew people were also called satan however when
>>the definite article 'ha' is used then it is talking about the devil
>>as we commonly know it. In Greek it is similar sa-ta-nas' applies to
>>satan the devil in nearly all its occurrences and is usually
> accompanied by the definite article 'ho'.
Casey:
>> >This could all very well be true. But we are already dealing with
>> >enough translation and oral traditions that you have to admit
>> >this is all probably fair game for many interpretations.
Peyote:
>> Again not so if we examine the Zoroastrian faith for example we find
>> many examples -I believe a lot of Judaism stemmed from earlier
>> Zoroastrian ideas ... okay so shoot me if you disagree LOL- In that
>> system we find two gods -despite some misguided westerners trying to
>> say it is a monotheistic faith which I believe it is not- A good one
>> and a bad one this shed a lot of light onto the idea of the Jews and
>> their idea of Lucifer falling and how they adapted it into their own
>> theology.
Casey:
>If we bring in the Old Testiment and compare it with the New
>Testament then I agree that the term God or Lord is used
>in more then one way. Which makes your arguments about how
>tradition should be considered more valid then current
>information even more confusing.
Actually it is less confusing if you understand the relationship that
names depict a certain aspect of what the character is doing. The
problem a lot of people make is between the transitional period
between the OT and NT there were many other books written in between
that time.
Even Christian forgeries or apocryphal accounts are useful in
researching this. As for the term god yes it is YHWH or Elohim but he
is also depicted by other names as well again there is no confusion if
you look at the context.
Fundamentalists have problems because of the contradictions -and some
sources which did not originate in Judaism or Christianity- but then
again what can one expect when they are limited to only 66 books LOL.
I think maybe instead of reading the book of Enoch to start with try
looking into the Dead see scrolls especially the commentaries on
already established biblical verses.
Peyote;
>> Another important source is actually the pagan religions of the time
>> where we find a similar concept, a good being turns bad, becomes an
>> adversary and is in an eternal struggle with the good god or goddess.
Casey:
>Yes, but you have to admit, according to current interpretations,
>many of the documents and religions disagree with each other.
>So, Peyote, which one of them is correct?
How about none of them including the modern ones like your own cult?
Actually if you want a serious spiritual answer ask Bruce Morgan or
Salmun. I know Salmun has answered this countless times before, -even
for atheists- naturally he assumes they are right in the first place
so that's where we will differ.
But I will admit he has got me stumped a few times, on what I will not
say ;-)
Casey:
>> >Well, I don't think she meant an actual serpent enlightened
>> >humanity:) She was still speaking symbolically on many
>> >things.
Peyote:
>> LOL hardly :-) She was a lot smarter than people give her credit, she
>> meant it and made it very clear. The Lucifer file by Andrew and myself
>> you must understand is a small portion collected via a search there is
>> a lot more than that.
>>
>> I admire Blavatsky in a peculiar way this is only my opinion but I
>> would have loved to have been able to talk with her she had in my
>> opinion a unique way of stirring the pot and boy did she do it well.
>>
>> Bailey -sorry Allen- I don't like that much, though I will admit she
>> had some gems in her writings that even got me thinking.
>>
>> However to be honest in Benjamin Creme's works I find little of
>> significance or worth, yes the sharing concept is kewl, but that is it
>> humanists do that all the time and a better job too because they don't
>> only talk about it they do it.
>>
>> As Andy surmised most of it is a re-hash of stuff already said, the
>> maitreya messages are dull and uninspiring, basically stuff that has
>> been said countless times before.
Casey:
>Ok, this is where I just disagree with you. I have listened to
>many of Maitreya's messages many time. Even taking into
>consideration things that are said in these groups I absolutley
>feel the messages are inspiring and very deep while being very
>plain and simple at the same time. Its this mixture of
>simple ideas put in compelling ways that I really don't find
>in many other places. I would suggest people clear their minds
>of all the pre-concieved notions around here and actually read,
>or better yet listen, to the messages with an open mind.
>
>Yes they are simple but that is by design and pupose.
Well I still find it dry and boring, nothing new, nothing of great
significance.
Tell you what Casey send me via email 3 of your favorite and most
inspiring Maitreya messages -don't post it here its probably to long
and will add even more BW- and I'll post my opinion or email my
opinion if it is to long.
Fair enough?
Peyote:
>> Why can't Maitreya give us a simple formula which would solve all our
>> energy needs through Benjamin Creme? For me that would be proof enough
>> that he exists and has the answers.
Casey:
>He could porove himdelf to you in so many ways. However, the
>process that is occuring must happen first as described in
>other threads. When the time comes for you to make any real
>decisions about this you will have more proof then you
>know what to do with:)
But why not give us a simple energy solution right now through
Benjamin Creme? I believe it is because like so many channeled
'overshadowed' works these outpourings are nothing more than from ones
own brain and not a higher source at all.
Casey:
>Give it as much weight as you feel is warrented. The same
>goes for everyone else.
Exactly and they all have a go at it from UFO cultists to suicide
cults.
Peyote:
>> I hope these ancient manuscripts which come to light are not based on
>> the same hope that Maitreya will appear soon ;-)
Casey:
>No, we probably won't see these until after Maitreya has
>openly emerged.
Great thanks a lot Casey :-(
I can just see the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Bahai etc headlines now,
'Maitreya manifests fake documents to deceive the true believers.'
>> Peyote:
>>
>> >> Then why the changes from Blavatsky to Bailey and now to Creme?
>>
>> Casey:
>>
>> >I really don't believe there were "changes" as described
>> >earlier.
>>
>> Then why the separate groups and the rejection of Creme's Maitreya
>> coming soon by the Lucis trust? Casey that indicates change no matter
>> how you look at it.
>
>Again its the people in the leadeship positions in those
>organizations today not the founders information.
I don't accept that because I believe they ought to know their own
works through extensive study and have the experiences to back them
up. Just like you have your experiences which lead you to believe
Maitreya is real and Benjamin Creme is right.
Casey:
>>
>> >Its all a metter of personal descrimination of the sources. I don't
>> >comdemn for having a different opinion on this matter then I do.
Peyote:
>> Your still missing my point why the differences in experience? It is
>> not about you condemning them its about who believes they are right
>> again based on what? Personal experience and yet those personal
>> experiences -with the divine or whatever- are contradictory.
Casey:
>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>that when dealing with any situation?
Peyote:
>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Casey:
>No:)
Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
own brain chemistry and circumstances, coincidences etc? Your own
personal interpretation which you ascribe to a spiritual cause or
entity? Many circumstances can lead people into these things, hurt,
loneliness, wanting to belong to something, having a purpose in life
whatever.
Peyote:
>> Including the ones who are channeling -or being overshadowed- by
>> Maitreya? They differ, even some claim to be Maitreya themselves so
>> who is right and how do you know from facts and evidence alone which
>> is which?
Casey:
>Well obviously I'm right and they are ALL wrong:)LOL Haven't you
>been listening Peyote:) (For those who are just picking
>this up now, that was a joke)
ROTFL
Peyote:
>> The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>> give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>> on.
Casey:
>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Peyote:
>> The differences between Blavatsky, bailey and Creme is only one
>> aspect, what of all the others like David Spangler and Luciferian
>> doctrines? What of the UCT and its claims? What of those at the
>> Findhorn community and its claims -where David spent some time
>> teaching I think-.
Casey:
>What of the thousands of other opinions. I never said this was
>all easy:) You claim persoanl experience is subjective but
>thats all we have. Who doesn't base what they believe on
>some persoanl experience?
Exactly it sounds to me like the root cause is not spiritual at all
but rather a product of your minds.
Peyote:
>> If anything it is less clear more confusing and growing so all the
>> time.
Casey:
>Yes, and Maitreya will have to cut through all the confusion
>and make it real simple (which I claim he can).
I seriously doubt it. So far nothing has happened and as I said
earlier there have been no great revelations -that I am aware of-
through Benjamin Creme. No Proof of a higher wisdom, no proof of even
a scientific formula like cold fusion.
Peyote:
>>Q2aa. New Question: How did Lucifer advance further than Jesus or
>>Buddha? How many people do you think amongs Jews, Christians
>>and Muslims would accept that?
Casey:
>> >> >How? Through the evolutionary process. I would say VERY few
>> >> >people would accpet that to be true in any religion or not.
>> >> >However, I feel that most people also would think that
>> >> >Satan and Lucifer are synonomous which there are absolutely
>> >> >no references in the bible that point to that.
Peyote:
>> That is your interpretation of it Lucifer as I pointed out was cast
>> down -with others- and in the Hebrew and Arabic context it was due
>>to pride hence the name change. He still is Lucifer though amongst
>>Jews, Christians he is also known as Ha Satan, Iblis, satan. The oral
>> tradition of Judaism might also help you to understand this as some
> apocryphal books would -Enoch- might be a good place to start.
Peyote:
>>-Lucifer is personally in charge of our planetary evolution - thus,
>>our 'creator' -same source, p.95-
Casey:
>>The way I would say it is we are him.
Peyote:
>> Or is it/him a part of us?
>> Casey:
>>Same thing.
>>
>> Interesting. More on this oversoul Lucifer doctrine in a later
>> article.
>>
Peyote:
>> Okay did he -aka Lucifer- have to be a human to ascend to the 7th
>> degree in the first place?
Casey:
>No. I don't believe, whatever that being really is, that it
>evolved through earth's evolution. Maitreya did though.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> If Maitreya is omniscient -and I assume other masters are- how can
>> there be a war in the first place? It should be easy to squash
>satan & co.
Casey:
>> >As described in another thread, everthing does have their
>> >proper place in the scheme of things. These "conflicts"
>> >arise from certain elements overstepping their bounds.
>> >Maitreya doesn't want to "squash" anything or anyone. Even
>> >they have something to learn and are evolving in a way.
>> >Its all very dynamic.
Peyote:
>> Yes I know we are going over some old material. A thread on alt
>> atheism and some comments by Erikc, Fallen and Sniper gave me a new
>> perspective on this so bear with me.
>>
>> First a few questions:
>
>The following answers are based on my current knowledge
>impressions. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on
>such matters.
>
>>
>> 1. Is maitreya really omniscient?
Casey:
>Yes, but I think the meaning gets confussed sometimes.
>For the sake of this discussion I would say its relative.
>Like for instance this timing thing. To the Masters and
>Maitreya all things have already occured. There is literally
>no concept of time. The exact "timing" aspect has to do with
>something that is not "real" and thus the difficulty. Its
>like all things are pre-determined but the timing and when
>events work themselves out on the physical plane depends
>on our actions and are not set.
So then how can Maitreya exist in our time if he has already been here
and gone and is yet back again? If he is here then he is subject to
time even though it has already taken place -and will take place
again-.
Peyote:
>> 2. Is Maitreya omnipresent?
Casey:
>Yes, but again our concepts deal with things that are not "real".
So omnipresence is not real?
Peyote:
>> 3. Is Maitreya all powerful?
Casey:
>As far as we are concerned yes. However, there are things
>he "won't" do that he "can" do. Like infringing on
>our free will.
So he can not come unless the majority of people want him to come? He
will not give this 'experience' to those whom believe it would be evil
and of the anti-christ?
Peyote:
>> 4. By what, who or how did Maitreya come into existence?
Casey:
>He evolved on Earth like we are doing.
Okay.
Peyote:
>> 5. How do you account for the historical Maitreya which was after the
>> time of Buddha?
Casey:
>The historical Maitreya as in the next Buddha? Basically the
>Buddha nd Maitreya go back 100's of thousands of years
>(according to my information).
I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
know of about 600 BC.
Peyote:
>> 6. By who or what did these dark forces come into existence?
Casey:
>They have always existed. As I said before, they do have an
>actual role in the scheme of things.
So these dark forces are like what many would call god, self existent
and without beginning. Interesting.
Peyote:
>> 7. What kind of war is exactly going on between the so called two
>> forces?
Casey:
>Maitreya is working towards evolution and the "dark forces" are
>on the involutionary arc. The problem occurs when the "dark
>forces" start affecting the evolutionary journey of
>humanity. The "war" is really just to straighten out the proper
>roles.
Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
battle should have already been over?
His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
Casey?
Peyote:
>>>Q4a. Will Maitreya -now in a physical body- allow Lucifer to
>>>inhabit him sometime in the future?
Casey:
>>Not that I know of. I would just say no from my understanding but
>>I don't want to speak for Maitreya:)lol
Peyote:
>>>But it would not be impossible would it?
Casey:
>>It might be, I don't know.
Peyote:
Can Lucifer inhabit human bodies as well?
caseyk
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:17:25 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>-big snip-
>Peyote:
>>>I am sorry but the evidence is on my side, I even have modern
>>>articles written by Theosophical members which clearly state Lucifer
>>>is satan and the serpent is the liberator of humanity.
>Casey:
>>Peyote, even if I concede the whole Lucifer/Satan thing (which I don't yet:)
>Peyote:
>No probs these sort of things take time to look into context etc. I am
>however fairly confident you will see what I mean.
Ok, I've been reading a "little" more Blavastky now and am getting
a little clearer picture of what is going on. More on this later in the
post.
>Casey:
>>we are talking about an aspect that is hardly talked about by Mr. Creme.
>Peyote:
>I don't doubt that ;-) could you imagine the headlines on that one
>'Lucifer is the true oversoul etc etc 'LOL. You might even get a
>Fatawah issued against you for that one :-)
>>With the vast body or work each has this one thing does not constitute
>>the prooof you claim IMHO. On top of that you haven't mentioned anything
>>that Mr. Creme and Alice Bailey differ on.
>One thing at a time, but if you want we can jump into that a bit ahead
>of time, that is fine with me. What I am trying to do is show the
>slow progression from one groups ideology to the next.
>I do pretty much the same with other religions that claim their ideas
>are new/unique or special revelations.
Whatever the pace you decide on is fine with me. I was just stating
that you were getting a little ahead of yourself when you said all
the facts that you have shown where they differ when we really
only have discussed one topic (and are still discussing it).
>>I doubt Mr. Creme would even disagree with Blavatsky on her writting about
>>Satan. She was being more symbolic and the concepts they are talking
>>about are different. However, I will have to read more of Blavatsky's
>>work before coming to any definite conclusion.
>I believe he does, when you look into it please also notice some of
>the questions and different discussions that are brought up. Her logic
>is very sound and clear and she knew what she was talking about. They
>were not spurious thoughts randomly written.
Ok, here I will alter my still working evaluation on my readings
of Blavatsky. What she seems to be doing is taking all the
symbolic aspects of just about every other religion and clearly
stating her interpretations. So she is actually being very
clear, and rather sophisticated, but I was mistaking
the vast symbolic discussions as her being symbolic. I will
continue to look into this further.
>The concept of Lucifer being satan and the serpent being the
>liberator are very clear as are her thoughts that the Jewish god was
>evil and tried to hinder humanities progress.
On this it seems the difference betwwen her and Creme is that she goes
rather deeply into these concepts and the use in ancient texts.
Mr. Creme was just touching upon the subject and gave a simple
straight forward answer. They are really writing for different
audiences. Mr. Creme is trying to talk to the bulk of
humanity, I doubt Blavasky was doing the same.
In a way when Mr. Creme talks about Lucifer he is just giving
a simple answer about the actual entity. What Blavatsky is
doing is going deep into the devolopment of humanity
and all the different forces that are involved in this
interplay. If you look at Creme's description that humanity
is a part of Lucifer in this way then you can see that
it doesn't really contradict with Blavatsky's teachings.
>Peyote;
>>>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>>>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
>>>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>>>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
>>>from those of that group you talk about.
>Casey:
>>First of all, none of this has to do with supporting Creme 100% of the
>>way. For just about every different person I know in this work there
>>is a distinct personal opinion about it. Some just hope its true, some
>>feel it probably is but are not sure, some feel it most definitely
>>is true. No one is discouraged from having their own point of view.
>>
>>Every one who follows this story is distinct in their own right. Its
>>sort of a catch 22 the way you put it, anyone who has come to the
>>conclusion that Mr. Creme might be or is correct is "a member
>>of Creme's cult". So no one could ever agree with Mr. Creme's
>>views and be a valid source according to this.
>Okay that clears up that for me. However do all believe in common that
>Benjamin Creme speaks with the masters of wisdom?
Well, many who actively are involved in this work but not all and
it is not required in any way.
>Peyote;
>>>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>>>camp?
>Casey:
>>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
>By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
>with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
>soon-.
Ok, but again, this is in no way a requirement for the people involved.
>Casey:
>>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
>A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
>Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
>another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
>with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
>separate -secret- religion.
I'm not quite getting the relavence of the example.
>Casey:
>-snip-
>Casey -discussing the GI-
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>------------------------------------
>------------------------------------
Hey Peyote, don't I remember you putting down the GI when you thought
is just came from Creme:) Anyway my point was that the context of the
words they changed really have not changed all that much since when
it was written. Like omiting the word "Christ" for instance. It can
be argued that this is devisive and all religions should be
included but this would have been a valid argument back in the
time that Bailey wrote the original GI also. The real reason
not to change it is because its a mantrum and the cadence
is very important when its said. The whole point of the GI is
to actually invoke energies. Its not just some poetic verse
that is supposed to indicate some ideas (which it does also).
>Peyote:
>Casey;
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Ok, you already demonstrated the chart that says the Christ is the
head of the hierarchy. Now for the connection in Bailey's writting
between Maitreya being the Christ and also the World Teacher.
In "Initiation, Human and Solar" page 216.
"....is the name of the office which is at present occupied by the
Lord Maitreya, Who is known in the occident as the Christ. This
office might be translated as that if the World Teacher...."
Esoteric Psychology Vol. II page 684.
"May I add also that the Buddha Himself in His high place and the
blessed Lord Maitreya (known to Christian disciples as
The Christ)......"
Esoteric Healing - page 361.
Too much to quote but read the whole short section title
"On the Christ". This section also ends with
"....the Christ and through their responsiveness to His
work and imminent appearance". Just bringing the last part
up to tie in with Mr. Creme's work on the "imminent appearance".
AND last and certainly not the least I will tie in
two references with an actual chart that puts
Maitreya smack at the head of the hierarchy (for
humanity, Sanat Kumara is actaully at the head over
the spritual hierarchy for the planet itself).
First in "A Treatise on cosmic Fire" page 599..
"...Who manipulate world affairs through the
three departments, of which the rulers on our planet
are the Lord Maitreya, the Manu, and the Mahachohan."
Now for the chart in Initiation, Human and Solar. Page 49.
If you look at the 3 department heads you will find the Manu,
the Mahachohan, and The Bodhisattva (The Christ, The World
Teacher).
I can also show references that Maitreya is the Bodhisattva.
Latter, when we get to it, I will show refernces that
the Christ will be appearing physically on the planet
and the timing is based on certain conditions of
humanities response and actions. I hope you got the
post on that page from the Arcane society which
Allen claimed showed Mr. Creme was wrong and I used
the same text (you provided) to show that is not the case.
>Show me one reference where it is all Maitreya that is the real
>leader. -Not from Creme's literature naturally-.
By the way, thanks for asking:)
And I really didn't get into the fact that the Theosophical
society was promoting J. Krishnamurthi as the vehicle for
Maitreya, the World Teacher.
>Peyote:
>>>So basically once again I disagree with you, her teachings were clearly
>>>outlined but some did attempt to use them for other purposes and her
>>>opposes distorted them without end.
>Peyote:
>>>Then you have no case Casey. This comes back to nothing more than yet
>>>another attempt at re-interpreting now even the very organizations
>>>that you sprung from.
>Casey:
>>I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
>Yet I assume they are backed up by the same 'experiences' as those
>whom disagree with what you have :-)
yeah, and your point is....?
>>>Casey:
>>
>>>>You are more then free to have that opinion:)
>Peyote:
>>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
>Casey:
>>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I never
>>said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>>were basically talking about two different things.
>I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
>manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
>believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
>-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
But if you don't believe in them how can you use it
as "evidence" that Mr. Creme is wrong?
>Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
>Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
>different things'.
>Peyote:
>>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
>Casey:
>>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
>Well have those organizations misrepresented their denials of Benjamin
>Creme's message? They reject him based on their own studies and
>experiences. Casey it is really as simple as that.
And I have shown I can use the exadct same texts to give a case that
Mr. Creme at least "can" be correct.
>Casey:
>>>>>>What I said before was based on the fact that the name Lucifer
>>>>>>is only mentioned once in the OT and that in that verse
>>>>>>none of what you say was mentioned. We will have to explore
>>>>>>the connection you mention more.
>Peyote:
>>>>>Yes the connection is these -I found a little bit more out since our
>>>>>last talk- as I have been busily digging trough the various names for
>>>>>Lucifer/Satan etc.
>>>>
>>>>>I have been collection views from a wide range of people on this -non
>>>>>Christians since they will be biassed- including having a closer look
>>>>>at Blavatsky's own Lucifer/Satan connection.
>>>>
>>>>>One interesting view came from an old friend -who is an agnostic- I
>>>>>think his information will blow you away ;-)
>Casey:
>>>>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>>>>everyone is using those names in.
>Peyote:
>The historical data is against you and I think if you have been
>looking into it you know that. Your only line of defense will be the
>often used 'well' it is my feeling ... or experience .. different
>interpretations etc'
I'm willing to debate the actual historical data. Especially the works
of Alice Bailey and more and more Blavatsky (as I read more).
>Peyote:
>>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
>>>but there is a lot more yet to come.
>>
>>>The context wills be plain also.
>-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
>existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which was
>very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
>connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling you
>about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
>debunks Creme's views.
Come on Peyote, don't just insinuate things, present them so we
can discuss it:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>And what does this prove?
>Peyote;
>Casey:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Some day, maybe its best to do one thing at a time thought:)
>Casey:
>>If its OK, I'd rather make a tape of some of the messages and send them
>>to you.
>Peyote:
>>>Casey please -you know we have discussed this via email- don't spend
>>>so much money on these things, if I say I'll read them I will and
>>>besides its cheaper for you.
>Casey:
>>We are talking about very little expense here and I only
>>suggested it because that is the way I listen to them
>>and we were talking about my opinoin.
>Okay maybe it will be different to just reading it, say do you collect
>coins, bank notes etc? How about if I send you some bank notes from
>Australia in exchange?
By the way, did you ever receive the book? I had it sent to you
a while ago. You can send whatever you want if it makes you feel
better. However, my only cost is going to the cost of a cheap
tape and postage.
>Peyote:
>>>You know my view on people taking advantage of others -whether faith
>>>related or not- I think it is wrong .... yeah tough luck what you
>>>think eh eh. That's my view, and that's what I will stick with.
>Casey:
>>Don't worry, you won't be taking advantage of me:)
>Yeah but people do and you know what I mean -we discussed this in that
>email- I am sorry but my opinion still stands I don't think that was
>fair or right. -Hey and that's coming from a member of the dark lodge
>LOL-
Yikes, maybe I shouldn't be associating with you:)lol
>Casey:
>>Don't get me started on the drug companies either:)
>Peyote:
>Don't get me curious LOL? You believe they have a cure for cancer
>right? I wonder if I guessed right because we read the same stuff?
Well, if they did, and it was cheap, you can bet they sure
wouldn't tell us:(
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>
>>>>No:)
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Okay.
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Nope, just not everyone who thinks they are in contact with
them really are.
>Still looks like merely the product of ones own brain, that could
>account for the contradictions, errors and mundane messages.
It could, its up for you to decide.
>By mundane messages I mean nothing is **ever** given which astounds
>the scientific world like a solution to our pollution problem or
>energy crisis etc etc. They all have their excuses but are simply
>unable to produce the goods.
Oh, its given:) Its just not completely public yet. Soon you will be
amazed how much we work togther with them in the complete open.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Supposedly yes.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Sure:) But for our sake Mr. Creme separates these concepts
so the general public can have a better understanding. What
he wrote about Satan and Lucifer is true but probably not complete.
If he was going to do that he would probably just say read Blavatsky:)
>Peyote:
>>>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>>>battle should have already been over?
>>>
>>>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>>>Casey?
>Casey:
>>>>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>>>>not what I mean by time not existing.
>Peyote:
>>>I try to be simplistic.
>>
>>>Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
>>>relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
>>>opportunity? He would already know.
>Casey:
>>Because there really is no "waiting". That term is just really
>>for our benefit and understanding.
>The word waiting does not indicate this Casey. It appears to be based
>on current events and waiting for the right moment. Benjamin Creme has
>given false dates before so I assume he took the term 'waiting for a
>window of opportunity literally' otherwise he would have said nothing
>and just let it happen when it happens.
No, the word "waiting" has no meaning for Maitreya. However, he
understands our concept of the word and tries to relate our
experience of time to what we see happening with his emergence.
Casey
Kook Watchers
wrote:
Allen:
>>>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>>>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>>>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>>>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
Peyote:
If what Allen is saying above is true -and I don't doubt his word on
it since he seems connected to them- then the very need to set up a
page saying what it says indicates that it does not want to be
associated with Benjamin Creme or others like him.
In other words they reject him.
Otherwise what is the purpose of putting up the page in the first
place?
Peyote:
>>Actually the site says a lot here are a few excerpts:
>
>>----------------------------------------
>
>>Today there is an increasing expectancy regarding the return of the
>>"World Teacher", the Coming One Who will return to lead humanity into
>>a new age and into a heightened consciousness. In fact, SOME CLAIM
>>that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form and has been
>>"SIGHTED" in various parts of the world. Yet the teachings of the
>>Tibetan Master, given in the books of Alice A. Bailey, make it clear
>>that humanity itself must first produce the conditions in
>>consciousness and in world affairs essential to the eventual physical
>>appearance of the Christ.
>
>>When a measure of peace has been restored on Earth, when sharing
>>begins to govern economic affairs, and when churches and political
>>groups have begun to clean house, the Christ will then be drawn into
>>the arena of His work. The Christ will be known by the work he does,
>>by the world influence He wields and by His ability to work with and
>>through every individual and every group who have trained themselves
>>for world service. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
>
>>----------------------------------------
>
>>Hmm seems to contradict Benjamin Creme very strongly wouldn't you say
>>Casey? Quite the opposite in some cases. Note carefully the points of
>>difference.
Casey:
>OK, I'm glad you posted the actual page (it saved me from having to do it).
>This will also try to address Allen's comment about the last line.
>First lets look at the conditions that would have to be met before the
>physical appearance of the Christ. "When a measure of peace has been restored
>to the world". Well lets see, the cold war is over, there are negotiations
>for peace in the middle east, the IRA has a peace treaty with Britain,
>Aparthied is over, re-unification of Germany, etc. Anyway, I think a case
>can be made that a "measure" of peace has been restored.
Nope we still have the fighting in Kosovo, the wars in Africa
-including cult suicides are on the rise- the emergence of Neo Nazis
-especially after the wall came down-, the immigrant and Turkish
problem in Germany-the Kashmir conflict, terrorist activities are up,
Israel with its problems -despite the popes visit- wake up Casey and
read the news.
BTW not all of the IRA factions agree in putting down their arms.
No 'Measure of real peace has been resorted' we now even have to worry
about China and Taiwan, not to mention the wars in Asia or Indonesia
with their atrocities. We have China with its portuguese colonies, the
genocide of the Tibetan people by China, we have Russia with her wars
and economic chaos, -and nuclear weapons- etc etc.
>"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we are
>writing off much of the debt to Russia?
Dubious and that remains to be seen how and if it happens. It will
benefit the people considering the powerful influence the Russian
Mafia has in control. Not to mention the corrupt in the government
itself and the old KGB still is in operation.
Casey:
>Also many countries are starting to write off the debt to many
>third world nations. We are also very instrumental in
>providing resources to Russia durring these hard times
>(and they were very recently our mortal enemy).
As in what exactly Casey? The war still goes on, killing is still
occurring and the Mafia is slowly taking over things. Whom exactly is
being helped? I just received a parcel from Russia where some of the
real problems are going on, the peasants are still suffering as
usual and starving.
Casey:
>Also remember the "USA for Africa" movement and many others. I can
>go on but I think a case can be made that we are "beginning" to
>share more as a world.
No what we are doing is facing the reality that some countries can
not pay of their debts. And who are those debts owed to? The world
banks. It is not a case of sharing at all but a case of the reality
that they simply can not pay of their debts. -It is a bit more complex
than this but for now this will suffice-.
Casey:
>"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
>OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
>work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
>different religions and cultures is a decent start. Also, there
>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the Palestinian
Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
LOL.
Casey:
>Now for the last part:)
>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>what she meant.
So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
Creme's 'experience'?
Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
>Here's one to think about. Even when Maitreya appears
>on his first TV interview Mr. Creme will not come out
>and say that was the Christ or Maitreya. It will be up
>to us to decide for ourselves based on the criteria
>listed in your quote above.
You missed out on the points which said:
1. SOME CLAIM that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form
and has been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
2. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
Oops you failed Casey on both accounts or is the Lucis Trust a bunch
of liars? Face the facts they reject Benjamin Creme and those like
him.
Casey:
>>Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:)
Peyote:
>>As Creme would not like to lose his job.
Casey:
>>>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>>>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>>>then they do.
Peyote:
>>Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
>>able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
>>Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
Casey:
>Actually I don't feel there is a personal stake in it. I certainly
>don't have one. The only thing I stand to gain by being right
>is that the world will change for the better. If another
>group can accomplish this then I think that would be great.
>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>is worth trying:)
Then who is to say the Lucis Trust has a personal stake in it? Your
own argument of defense can be used for them. They can be just stating
the truth as it is.
Casey:
>>I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
>>for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
>>Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
Peyote:
>>How about their studies and their own personal experiences like you
>>keep telling me hmm?
Casey:
>Sure, but that doesn't make them correct anymore then it
>makes me correct (which you keep claiming I'm not:).
>Its up for each one of us to decide for ourselves.
My point exactly, the product of your own mind perhaps?
Casey:
>>>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>>>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
Peyote:
>>Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
Casey:
>Thats your translation not mine:)
But accurate wouldn't you say? Or do you think their work is better
than Benjamin Creme's? Come on Casey admit it you think Creme's stuff
is better and Maitreya will be here soon.
>Casey
Peyote.
Kook Watchers
wrote:
Casey:
>Ok, I've been reading a "little" more Blavastky now and am getting
>a little clearer picture of what is going on. More on this later in the
>post.
Peyote:
Yes and also take careful note of what people say in response to some
of her articles,they are very interesting. I think more you look into
her stuff the more you will find why I like her :-) so much.
Peyote:
>>One thing at a time, but if you want we can jump into that a bit ahead
>>of time, that is fine with me. What I am trying to do is show the
>>slow progression from one groups ideology to the next.
>
>>I do pretty much the same with other religions that claim their ideas
>>are new/unique or special revelations.
Casey:
>Whatever the pace you decide on is fine with me. I was just stating
>that you were getting a little ahead of yourself when you said all
>the facts that you have shown where they differ when we really
>only have discussed one topic (and are still discussing it).
Peyote:
1. Yes you have a point there. I should stress the first point I am
trying to do is present historical -biblical and non biblical data-
from various sources where Lucifer is satan.
2. The Second progression is to Blavatsky and her amazing writings
and where she may have actually derived some of her own sources for
her views including what later followers on this topic thought or
interpreted them as.
3. Thirdly I want to examine Bailey and some of her representations
including changes and leaving things out.
4. Fourthly we progress to Creme and see where he differs from all
three and appears to have a very basic knowledge centered mainly on
Maitreya coming soon.
5. I would like to examine Creme's mythology closer and his lack of
proof and proper validation. -This will be in part from our first
thread that was interrupted-.
Casey:
>Ok, here I will alter my still working evaluation on my readings
>of Blavatsky. What she seems to be doing is taking all the
>symbolic aspects of just about every other religion and clearly
>stating her interpretations. So she is actually being very
>clear, and rather sophisticated, but I was mistaking
>the vast symbolic discussions as her being symbolic. I will
>continue to look into this further.
Peyote:
Okay. I respect Blavatsky in an odd way because of her research, and
the stupid accusation made against her about the 'Isis' work being
plagiarized is bunk because in those days -and I have proof of this-
that was quite a common occurrence. Even Ellen G White -founder of the
SDA's- did this as did Russell -founder of the JW's- etc etc.
In fact one book today I am totally disgusted with -this is slightly
of topic- is a book called 'The Other bible' which in the modern age
is pure plagiarism most of it came from R Charles -1913-etc and yet it
is hailed as a great work, I think its crap and I could have written a
better and more authentic book myself. BTW don't waste your money on
it, it, it only has excerpts. -He couldn't even give full texts :-(
But back to Blavatsky she was quite brilliant and she knew her myths
and again I state she knew what she was talking about and wrote
clearly enough for even an idiot like me to understand it. Some yes
was deep but other stuff was as clear as daylight.
Peyote:
>>The concept of Lucifer being satan and the serpent being the
>>liberator are very clear as are her thoughts that the Jewish god was
>>evil and tried to hinder humanities progress.
Creme:
>On this it seems the difference betwwen her and Creme is that she goes
>rather deeply into these concepts and the use in ancient texts.
>Mr. Creme was just touching upon the subject and gave a simple
>straight forward answer. They are really writing for different
>audiences. Mr. Creme is trying to talk to the bulk of
>humanity, I doubt Blavasky was doing the same.
Peyote:
I think Creme did not study her writings closer enough or did not like
some of her concepts. He watered them down to make them palatable to
the masses. I don't agree with that. It tells us a lot about how he
deals with religious issues and appears very deceptive or at best vey
shallow.
Casey:
>In a way when Mr. Creme talks about Lucifer he is just giving
>a simple answer about the actual entity. What Blavatsky is
>doing is going deep into the devolopment of humanity
>and all the different forces that are involved in this
>interplay. If you look at Creme's description that humanity
>is a part of Lucifer in this way then you can see that
>it doesn't really contradict with Blavatsky's teachings.
But he is misleading people and you don't think the Theosophical
society notice he is watering down their teaching so that it appeals
to the masses he seeks after?
Show me where Creme has blatantly said the serpent is the liberator of
humanity that the god of the Jews is a evil jealous god -who didn't
want man to have knowledge- and that lucifer in fact is satan. Show
me where Creme says that the eating of the tree of good and evil was a
good thin for humanity. Prove it Casey where has Creme said this? I
bet he hasn't.
Peyote;
>>>>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>>>>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right? Can
>>>>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>>>>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive affirmations
>>>>from those of that group you talk about.
Peyote:
>>Okay that clears up that for me. However do all believe in common that
>>Benjamin Creme speaks with the masters of wisdom?
Casey:
>Well, many who actively are involved in this work but not all and
>it is not required in any way.
So would it be accurate then to say that not all within the schism -or
those who hold different views within Baileys organization- 100%
agree that Benjamin Creme is the sole mouth piece for the ascended
masters?
So there may only be a few people after all who agree -or partially
agree- with Creme from Baileys organization? Well Casey that is hardly
an uncommon occurrence and it does not detract from the clear stand
that the Lucis trust disavows any association with Benjamin Creme.
Even you yourself have admitted that they do not agree with Creme.
Peyote;
>>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>>camp?
Casey:
>>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
Peyote:
>>By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
>>with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
>>soon-.
Casey:
>Ok, but again, this is in no way a requirement for the people involved.
So in effect we could have a new myth brewing from Share International
and Benjamin Creme where X amount of people from X amount of various
religions, sects and cults really do believe or at least accept the
ascended masters speak through Creme.
Casey:
>>>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
Peyote:
>>A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
>>Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
>>another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
>>with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
>>separate -secret- religion.
Casey:
>I'm not quite getting the relavence of the example.
Simply that a myth can be produced that X amount of people believe
Creme has got it right about Maitreya -or partially right- in X amount
of religions etc. Naturally there is no real proof to assert the
numbers of those whom are supposed to believe in Creme's myth.
>>Casey -discussing the GI-
>
>>>But if we look at the actual changes this argument doesn't hold
>>>up.
Peyote:
>>Look as you know I am no fan of Bailey but I can see their reasoning
>>behind it. What may have a profound meaning in one age may not have
>>the same meaning in the next. Look at the Bible and Qur'an how many
>>English translations they have gone through and even the Gnostic and
>>Dead Sea Scrolls -at least three to my knowledge- over a short period
>>of time. The Scrolls alone differ from John Allegro to Theodor H.
>>Gaster, and G. Vermes. -If you want a laugh read vermes and Allegro's
>>translation of the copper scroll-.
Casey:
>>>Peyote, have you actually seen the changes? The changes that were
>>>made are not because the meaning of the words changed. It is
>>>basically a watered down version that is just meant to make
>>>sure "no one" could possibly be offended.
Peyote:
>>Yes I have seen it, if this is the right version:
>
>>------------------------------------
>
>>From the point of Light within the Mind of God
>>Let light stream forth into human minds.
>>Let Light descend on Earth.
>>
>>From the point of Love within the Heart of God
>>Let love stream forth into human hearts.
>>May the Coming One return to Earth.
>>
>>From the center where the Will of God is known
>>Let purpose guide all little human wills-
>>The purpose which the Masters know and serve.
>>
>>From the center which we call the human race
>>Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
>>And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
>>
>>Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.
>
>>------------------------------------
>
>>I like it and can see it as fitting into many religions that would
>>have no problem with it. It is great to see evolution IMO in
>>progression.
>
>>Maybe one day it will go a step further and include those who are
>>Agnostics and atheist's. But for me I find the above very meaningful.
Casey:
>Hey Peyote, don't I remember you putting down the GI when you thought
>is just came from Creme:)
Well I like the above version more than the other version LOL :-) It
is more all inclusive and has a good relevance for theists, wiccan's
etc of all ilks.
Casey:
>Anyway my point was that the context of the
>words they changed really have not changed all that much since when
>it was written. Like omiting the word "Christ" for instance. It can
>be argued that this is devisive and all religions should be
>included but this would have been a valid argument back in the
>time that Bailey wrote the original GI also.
The word Christ is divisive to say the least and knocks out just about
every faith that does not believe or accept Christ. -Shit I can't
believe I am defending the GI-
>The real reason not to change it is because its a mantrum
>and the cadence is very important when its said. The whole
>point of the GI is to actually invoke energies. Its not just some
>poetic verse that is supposed to indicate some ideas
>(which it does also).
So? Invocations from many religions -if you want a list I can give you
a heap of them- which have changed over time to suite the modern
textual understanding.
Since I don't believe in their power your argument is mute on me,
however to be fair if such a power was to exist do you really think
that it is limited to a few mere alterations? Isn't it supposed to be
the power behind the words which take effect not the actual words
itself?
As I have said elsewhere I have had similar debates with the KJV bible
adherents who believe any alteration is an abomination and the bible
loses its power. They said the same about the Lords Prayer when it was
modernized. Really Casey I fail to see your point?
Words are words isn't it the intended meaning behind those words -or
the so called powers that be- that takes action despite the language
or the exact way in which we say it?
Peyote:
>>So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your argument
>>is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
>>-added comment- I have been through all this type of argument with
>>people who insist on the KJV being the only true bible .... it sadly
>>happens in most religions. Yusif Ali had similar problems with his
>>modern translation of the Qur'an etc etc.
-snip a vicious and unwarranted attack on Blavatsky for merely daring
to look into things further-
-snip Annie quotes-
Peyote:
>>>>I would also like to draw attention between the lack of Maitreya being
>>>>the head of a hierarchy according to Blavatsky and Besant. The above
>>>>came from the same book but I included them for interest sake.
Casey:
>>>I don't understand the point of all the quotes. They don't
>>>preclude Maitreya the way Mr. Creme describes him.
Peyote:
>>Christ not Maitreya is the central figure, it was Christ who
>>overshadowed Jesus not Maitreya etc etc. Maitreya in both Bailey's and
>>Blavatsky's books is not the leader of a great spiritual hierarchy.
Casey:
>Ok, you already demonstrated the chart that says the Christ is the
>head of the hierarchy. Now for the connection in Bailey's writting
>between Maitreya being the Christ and also the World Teacher.
>
>In "Initiation, Human and Solar" page 216.
>"....is the name of the office which is at present occupied by the
>Lord Maitreya, Who is known in the occident as the Christ. This
>office might be translated as that if the World Teacher...."
Uh so is Christ the real Maitreya? Different names to describe the
same person? Why then does Creme focus on Maitreya and not Christ?
>Esoteric Psychology Vol. II page 684.
>"May I add also that the Buddha Himself in His high place and the
>blessed Lord Maitreya (known to Christian disciples as
>The Christ)......"
See again the equating of Christ as Maitreya -no separation- here
Casey.
>Esoteric Healing - page 361.
>Too much to quote but read the whole short section title
>"On the Christ". This section also ends with
>"....the Christ and through their responsiveness to His
>work and imminent appearance". Just bringing the last part
>up to tie in with Mr. Creme's work on the "imminent appearance".
So Christ is returning and Maitreya is just another word for Him? So
now in the scheme of things who is older? The Christ -not Jesus
obviously- or Maitreya?
We know Maitreya had a historical birth after the 600 BC Buddha that
we know today but when was the birth of the Christ Casey? Long before
that I suspect if it/he even had a birth.
>AND last and certainly not the least I will tie in
>two references with an actual chart that puts
>Maitreya smack at the head of the hierarchy (for
>humanity, Sanat Kumara is actaully at the head over
>the spritual hierarchy for the planet itself).
>
>First in "A Treatise on cosmic Fire" page 599..
>"...Who manipulate world affairs through the
>three departments, of which the rulers on our planet
>are the Lord Maitreya, the Manu, and the Mahachohan."
>
>Now for the chart in Initiation, Human and Solar. Page 49.
>If you look at the 3 department heads you will find the Manu,
>the Mahachohan, and The Bodhisattva (The Christ, The World
>Teacher).
Again Christ the World teacher, you have yet to show me when this
Christ came into existence, unlike Maitreya who did have an early
beginning on earth after the historical Buddha.
>I can also show references that Maitreya is the Bodhisattva.
>Latter, when we get to it, I will show refernces that
>the Christ will be appearing physically on the planet
>and the timing is based on certain conditions of
>humanities response and actions. I hope you got the
>post on that page from the Arcane society which
>Allen claimed showed Mr. Creme was wrong and I used
>the same text (you provided) to show that is not the case.
Yes but Casey your quotes show Christ being the overshadower not
Maitreya. To me it looks like you have tacked on the name Maitreya to
the Christ the same way you have tried to tack on the names Mahdi etc
etc. -Which BTW you made a historical error on but we can go into this
at another time-
To my understanding Creme has focused it the other way around placing
Maitreya as the central figure and not Christ.
Peyote:
>>Show me one reference where it is all Maitreya that is the real
>>leader. -Not from Creme's literature naturally-.
Casey:
>By the way, thanks for asking:)
No probs. I appreciated the quotes BTW.
Casey:
>And I really didn't get into the fact that the Theosophical
>society was promoting J. Krishnamurthi as the vehicle for
>Maitreya, the World Teacher.
Uhmm sorry I didn't get that one myself. I respect the guy a lot
especially when he walked away from it all -Salmun did a similar
thing- and good on them I hate pretenders. It shows me that JK was
some one well worth remembering, may he rest in peace if there is an
afterlife.
Casey:
>>I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
Peyote:
>>Yet I assume they are backed up by the same 'experiences' as those
>>whom disagree with what you have :-)
Casey:
>yeah, and your point is....?
It is about as unreliable as your own experiences that Creme is a
vessel for the ascended masters.
Peyote:
>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Casey:
>>>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I never
>>>said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>>>were basically talking about two different things.
Peyote:
>>I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
>>manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
>>believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
>>-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
Casey:
>But if you don't believe in them how can you use it
>as "evidence" that Mr. Creme is wrong?
Simply because he is historically wrong and has presented a false view
of historical development mythologically or otherwise. You don't
honestly think archaeologists who dig in the ground actually believe
in the myths and texts/engravings they may uncover?
Peyote:
>>Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
>>Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
>>different things'.
Peyote:
>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin Creme's.
Casey:
>>>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>>>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
Based on what evidence Casey? Personal experience again? Come on lets
be straight here they too have their experiences so who is right and
who is wrong? They undoubtedly have studied their own manuscripts
more than you may have.
You see Casey because you are trapped within Creme's cyclic delusion
-of rumours, proof coming later, he speaks with masters etc etc- you
can only arrive at the conclusion that you have ... that being he must
be right. Throw in a few experiences and possible sightings and bingo
your a hooked 'true' believer.
Peyote:
>>Well have those organizations misrepresented their denials of Benjamin
>>Creme's message? They reject him based on their own studies and
>>experiences. Casey it is really as simple as that.
Casey:
>And I have shown I can use the exadct same texts to give a case that
>Mr. Creme at least "can" be correct.
Can does not equate with the term 'is right'. Using this others 'can'
equally be right, however they have a much stronger case than Creme
does with his central theme of Maitreya coming soon. The mere fact -so
far as it seems tome- is that Creme muddled Christ and maitreya up,
not only that the texts you supplied were a portion dealing with non
Blavatsky sources and a few select Bailey sources which when looked at
closely did not really support the idea that Maitreya is the head of
this mythical hierarchy.
Casey:
>>>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the context
>>>everyone is using those names in.
Peyote:
>>The historical data is against you and I think if you have been
>>looking into it you know that. Your only line of defense will be the
>>often used 'well' it is my feeling ... or experience .. different
>>interpretations etc'
Casey:
>I'm willing to debate the actual historical data. Especially the works
>of Alice Bailey and more and more Blavatsky (as I read more).
>
Peyote:
>>>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic cultures
>>>>but there is a lot more yet to come.
>>>
>>>>The context wills be plain also.
>
>>-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
>>existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which was
>>very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
>>connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling you
>>about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
>>debunks Creme's views.
Casey:
>Come on Peyote, don't just insinuate things, present them so we
>can discuss it:)
Uhmm how long do you want this post to really be? Actually I am quite
serious here :-( When I talk about evidence I don't mean a few pages I
mean evidence in the sense of a lot of stuff.
Casey:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>>Casey:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>>What I have been trying to tell you all along. Grok? -I love that
>>word- BTW do you read Sci-Fi?
Peyote;
>>Can you prove this with a quote and what was meant by not far off?
Casey:
>As I said, I will have to look into this.
>-snip a whole bunch of stuff explaining words and tradional
>connections-
Casey:
>>I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
Peyote:
>>Thanks, I actually love researching -so much for an un educated man
>>like me huh lol- It is a pity we are at such different stances in life
>>it would be nice to talk for once about just concepts. :-(
Casey:
>Some day, maybe its best to do one thing at a time thought:)
True. We are playing hopscotch LOl :-)
Peyote:
>>Okay maybe it will be different to just reading it, say do you collect
>>coins, bank notes etc? How about if I send you some bank notes from
>>Australia in exchange?
>
>By the way, did you ever receive the book? I had it sent to you
>a while ago. You can send whatever you want if it makes you feel
>better. However, my only cost is going to the cost of a cheap
>tape and postage.
No I didn't I was looking forward to it???? I received some mail from
Russia -a package- and I thought it was from you ... but sorry no
book.
When did you send it? It usually only takes a week to come from the US
-two weeks during Xmas time-? If its not here by the end of the week
I'll blast the Post office in my usual Peyote style LOL.
Casey:
>Yikes, maybe I shouldn't be associating with you:)lol
Peyote:
LOL we will get you converted yet ;-)
>>Peyote:
>
>>Don't get me curious LOL? You believe they have a cure for cancer
>>right? I wonder if I guessed right because we read the same stuff?
Casey:
>Well, if they did, and it was cheap, you can bet they sure
>wouldn't tell us:(
It was and simple and cheap, first I thought the guy that sent the
material and I checked a URL was a regular kook -surprise surprise he
was a scientist-
I am trying to get Salmun to include his views on his web page but he
is reluctant over the controversy this guy made.
Casey:
>>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>>that when dealing with any situation?
Peyote:
>> Doesn't this indicate something to you Casey about its unreliability
>> which may have absolutely nothing to do with spirituality at all?
Casey:
>>No:)
Peyote:
>>Why not? What is real when none of you can agree on which master said
>>what or who is the real Maitreya, the bona fide channeler
>>'overshadower' etc? You all contradict each other, why?
>>Is it so hard to see that it may be no more than a function of your
Casey:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
Casey:
>AHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
Oops sorry about that :-(
Peyote:
>>But if your serious I will try to answer what I personally have come
>>too accept with a few ideas pinched from the Gnostics, Salmun and
>>Michael -not the idiot Michael Martin BTW- with a few of my own brain
>>farts thrown in for good measure.
Peyote:
>>The so called ascended masters appear to differ amongst themselves,
>>give contradictory messages and are more confusing than your letting
>>on.
Casey:
>Depending on the sources. I don't feel all sources are genuine.
Peyote:
>>And wouldn't they say the same about you?
Casey:
>>I would hope not:)lol
Peyote:
>>But seriously if -and undoubtedly some will- what then Casey? Back to
>>contradictions? This again indicates nothing more than human origins.
Casey:
>>Nope, just a differing of opinions.
Peyote:
>>Yet they are based on various people who claim to be in contact with
>>'Higher sources'? And the followers have the 'experiences to back up
>>their masters, gurus, god/men, aliens -or whatever- they believe in.
>
>>See it goes beyond opinion alone doesn't it? Do these ascended masters
>>disagree so much about things that they keep sending contradictory
>>information to their voices on earth? Even those whom think they are
>>Maitreya or channel or are 'overshadowed' by him?
Casey:
>Nope, just not everyone who thinks they are in contact with
>them really are.
Peyote:
-Added comment-: Then there should be no confusion or contradictory
statements should there Casey? Remember when you defended the older
version of the GI doesn't that indicate something to you? A uniformity
of universal messages instead of a babble of confusing and conflicting
voices from the so called same ascended masters?
Peyote:
>>Still looks like merely the product of ones own brain, that could
>>account for the contradictions, errors and mundane messages.
Casey:
>It could, its up for you to decide.
Peyote:
>>By mundane messages I mean nothing is **ever** given which astounds
>>the scientific world like a solution to our pollution problem or
>>energy crisis etc etc. They all have their excuses but are simply
>>unable to produce the goods.
Casey:
>Oh, its given:) Its just not completely public yet. Soon you will be
>amazed how much we work togther with them in the complete open.
Peyote:
See you are stuck within Creme's trap again 'soon' it will be given.
That is what keeps his people together, rumours, hopes, supposedly
secret information, dubious Maitreya sightings etc etc.
Can't you see Casey it is all the product of one mans fantasy that has
grown proportionally to the amount of people who take it seriously?
Peyote:
>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>know of about 600 BC.
Casey:
>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the question.
>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
LOL not JME but he is a Maitreya contender, actually I was thinking of
a woman that used to be on the net which gave Maitreya messages, I
might still have her URL around if you want I'll post it. You could
even ask Maitreya questions directly. Chan do Ken also claimed he was
in contact with Maitreya and yet again al three of you contradict each
other.
Casey:
>>As far as I know Maitreya is supposed to be the next Buddha in
>>far off times. What Maitreya was born after the Buddha, is it
>>the same one that is coming in future times?
Peyote:
>Supposedly yes.
Peyote:
>>Yes I Grok. However god is also evil then and partially responsible
>>for our suffering. Nice :-D
Casey:
>
>>>Nope, we are responsible for our suffering. Yes, we are all part of
>>>God but the argument you make is not really going to get us
>>>anywhere.
Peyote:
>>God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
>>happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
>>responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
>>stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
>
>>BTW if we are all a part of god then we are also all a part of satan
>>and Lucifer since we are all a part of the divine omnipresence.
Casey:
>Sure:) But for our sake Mr. Creme separates these concepts
>so the general public can have a better understanding. What
>he wrote about Satan and Lucifer is true but probably not complete.
>If he was going to do that he would probably just say read Blavatsky:)
Yeah he should have read more of her work.
Yet we still come back to the point I made earlier which was:
---------
God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
---------
I would like to say the whole Maitreya concept is ludicrous. Maitreya
sits around -or dubiously manifests as various people or in spilt ice
cream- waiting for humanity to invite him onto TV while people are
dying and starving all around the world.
The question is how many people will Maitreya let die today before he
appears on TV? And who is responsible in part for that? Maitreya is
naturally, since he has the powers to stop it at will. Plan or no plan
he is responsible.
If you see a woman about to be raped Casey I guess like me you would
get involved and beat the crap out of the rapist but Maitreya does
nothing but wait for his TV interview and produce dubious so called
miracles? Can't you see how stupid it really is?
Both this god and Maitreya being have a lot to answer for when it
comes to the suffering of humanity over thousands of years.
Peyote:
>>Being outside of time would suggest the war was over before it even
>>began as all things would have been in the same instant, past, present
>>and future. So then how come we are here and Maitreya is here when the
>>battle should have already been over?
>>
>>His very excuse of waiting for a window of opportunity contradicts the
>>notion of being outside of time and being all knowing wouldn't you say
>>Casey?
Casey:
>You are creating a very simplistic model to prove your point. Thats
>not what I mean by time not existing.
Peyote:
>>I try to be simplistic.
>>Now if Maitreya is all knowing and outside of time -so to speak in a
>>relative form as we know it- then why is he WAITING for a window of
>>opportunity? He would already know.
Casey:
>>>Because there really is no "waiting". That term is just really
>>>for our benefit and understanding.
Peyote:
>>The word waiting does not indicate this Casey. It appears to be based
>>on current events and waiting for the right moment. Benjamin Creme has
>>given false dates before so I assume he took the term 'waiting for a
>>window of opportunity literally' otherwise he would have said nothing
>>and just let it happen when it happens.
Casey:
>No, the word "waiting" has no meaning for Maitreya. However, he
>understands our concept of the word and tries to relate our
>experience of time to what we see happening with his emergence.
Peyote: -stating what I said earlier on-:
---------------
And yet strangely enough in the 1982 fiasco not one 'ascended master'
could explain to Benjamin Creme that Maitreya wan't coming? Again I
produce my case that it is nothing more than the product of Benjamin
Creme's own mind.
---------------
Benjamin Creme appears to have thought of this 'waiting in the same
context we do' otherwise why the 1982 failure and why not one warning
from any of the ascended masters explaining to Creme that he was
wrong?
>Casey
Peyote. Thanks for the chat it has been interesting.
ck...@mars.superlink.net
the answer up because Deje.com won't accept anything
this big.
Kook Watchers <p...@agh.com> writes:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:04:12 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>Casey:
>>Ok, I've been reading a "little" more Blavastky now and am getting
>>a little clearer picture of what is going on. More on this later in
the
>>post.
>Peyote:
>Yes and also take careful note of what people say in response to some
>of her articles,they are very interesting. I think more you look into
>her stuff the more you will find why I like her :-) so much.
You do know that she believed in the masters right:)lol
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
Yikes! :)
Let me point something out here Peyote. I'm am more then willing
to keep answering any question you have but the main purpose of
my doing this is just to clear up what Mr. Creme's story actually
is. I have no real desire to defend Mr. Creme or try and
convince anyone that I or Mr. Creme is correct. Frankly, I don't
reeally care who believes this story or not. I just want them to
be able to base their opinion on the actual information.
>Casey:
>>Ok, here I will alter my still working evaluation on my readings
>>of Blavatsky. What she seems to be doing is taking all the
>>symbolic aspects of just about every other religion and clearly
>>stating her interpretations. So she is actually being very
>>clear, and rather sophisticated, but I was mistaking
>>the vast symbolic discussions as her being symbolic. I will
>>continue to look into this further.
>Peyote:
>Okay. I respect Blavatsky in an odd way because of her research, and
>the stupid accusation made against her about the 'Isis' work being
>plagiarized is bunk because in those days -and I have proof of this-
>that was quite a common occurrence. Even Ellen G White -founder of the
>SDA's- did this as did Russell -founder of the JW's- etc etc.
>In fact one book today I am totally disgusted with -this is slightly
>of topic- is a book called 'The Other bible' which in the modern age
>is pure plagiarism most of it came from R Charles -1913-etc and yet it
>is hailed as a great work, I think its crap and I could have written a
>better and more authentic book myself. BTW don't waste your money on
>it, it, it only has excerpts. -He couldn't even give full texts :-(
>But back to Blavatsky she was quite brilliant and she knew her myths
>and again I state she knew what she was talking about and wrote
>clearly enough for even an idiot like me to understand it. Some yes
>was deep but other stuff was as clear as daylight.
Yeah she was quite brilliant and she believed in the existance
of the masters. Whats with that Peyote:)lol
>Peyote:
>>>The concept of Lucifer being satan and the serpent being the
>>>liberator are very clear as are her thoughts that the Jewish god was
>>>evil and tried to hinder humanities progress.
>Creme:
>>On this it seems the difference betwwen her and Creme is that she goes
>>rather deeply into these concepts and the use in ancient texts.
>>Mr. Creme was just touching upon the subject and gave a simple
>>straight forward answer. They are really writing for different
>>audiences. Mr. Creme is trying to talk to the bulk of
>>humanity, I doubt Blavasky was doing the same.
>Peyote:
>I think Creme did not study her writings closer enough or did not like
>some of her concepts. He watered them down to make them palatable to
>the masses. I don't agree with that. It tells us a lot about how he
>deals with religious issues and appears very deceptive or at best vey
>shallow.
Nah.
>Casey:
>>In a way when Mr. Creme talks about Lucifer he is just giving
>>a simple answer about the actual entity. What Blavatsky is
>>doing is going deep into the devolopment of humanity
>>and all the different forces that are involved in this
>>interplay. If you look at Creme's description that humanity
>>is a part of Lucifer in this way then you can see that
>>it doesn't really contradict with Blavatsky's teachings.
>But he is misleading people and you don't think the Theosophical
>society notice he is watering down their teaching so that it appeals
>to the masses he seeks after?
He's not misleading people. He was simply answering a question
with a simple answer. Let me make something clear. Mr. Creme
advocates that anyone who wants to really learn the esoteric
teachings should go read Blavatsky and Bailey. Their is
no real need for him to repeat all that information when its
available to all.
>Show me where Creme has blatantly said the serpent is the liberator of
>humanity that the god of the Jews is a evil jealous god -who didn't
>want man to have knowledge- and that lucifer in fact is satan. Show
>me where Creme says that the eating of the tree of good and evil was a
>good thin for humanity. Prove it Casey where has Creme said this? I
>bet he hasn't.
Thats just great Peyote, you ask me to prove something I never stated in
the first place:) You're not trying to make me look bad are you:)lol
>Peyote;
>>>>>Furthermore those people you mentioned which disagree are they
>>>>>members of Creme's cult or are they distinct in their own right?
Can
>>>>>you prove that they support Creme 100% of the way? BTW Magazine
>>>>>subscriptions don't count. I would like to see positive
affirmations
>>>>>from those of that group you talk about.
>Peyote:
>>>Okay that clears up that for me. However do all believe in common
that
>>>Benjamin Creme speaks with the masters of wisdom?
>Casey:
>>Well, many who actively are involved in this work but not all and
>>it is not required in any way.
>So would it be accurate then to say that not all within the schism -or
>those who hold different views within Baileys organization- 100%
>agree that Benjamin Creme is the sole mouth piece for the ascended
>masters?
Sure, everyone has their own opinion. Whats wrong with that?
>So there may only be a few people after all who agree -or partially
>agree- with Creme from Baileys organization? Well Casey that is hardly
>an uncommon occurrence and it does not detract from the clear stand
>that the Lucis trust disavows any association with Benjamin Creme.
>Even you yourself have admitted that they do not agree with Creme.
Yeah, so why are we arguing about it:)
I'll state it again for. The leadership of the Arcane school
does not believe that Mr. Creme's information is correct.
You know, they are just human, they make mistakes:) I don't
hold it against them:)
>Peyote;
>>>Such as who exactly? And if so why have they not shifted into Creme's
>>>camp?
>Casey:
>>>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
>Peyote:
>>>By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
>>>with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
>>>soon-.
>Casey:
>>Ok, but again, this is in no way a requirement for the people
involved.
>So in effect we could have a new myth brewing from Share International
>and Benjamin Creme where X amount of people from X amount of various
>religions, sects and cults really do believe or at least accept the
>ascended masters speak through Creme.
Well, I wouldn't call it a myth:) But definitely new information.
>Casey:
>>>>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
>Peyote:
>>>A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
>>>Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
>>>another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
>>>with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
>>>separate -secret- religion.
>Casey:
>>I'm not quite getting the relavence of the example.
>Simply that a myth can be produced that X amount of people believe
>Creme has got it right about Maitreya -or partially right- in X amount
>of religions etc. Naturally there is no real proof to assert the
>numbers of those whom are supposed to believe in Creme's myth.
Nope...never said there was:) Let me make this clear again. I don't
plan on proving anything:) Just giving information as I see it.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Casey:
Isn't that what I just said? My point was that this fact
was as true when it was written as it is now. If there
was a point to putting it in in the first place that
point should still exist today. This is just plain
logic.
>>The real reason not to change it is because its a mantrum
>>and the cadence is very important when its said. The whole
>>point of the GI is to actually invoke energies. Its not just some
>>poetic verse that is supposed to indicate some ideas
>>(which it does also).
>So? Invocations from many religions -if you want a list I can give you
>a heap of them- which have changed over time to suite the modern
>textual understanding.
So, who said that was the right thing to do either:) One thing
you should realize, the GI was written in very recent history
not 1000's of years ago.
>Since I don't believe in their power your argument is mute on me,
>however to be fair if such a power was to exist do you really think
>that it is limited to a few mere alterations? Isn't it supposed to be
>the power behind the words which take effect not the actual words
>itself?
Nope, in this case, the actual words do matter. It goes beyond
just an intellectule analysis of the words.
>As I have said elsewhere I have had similar debates with the KJV bible
>adherents who believe any alteration is an abomination and the bible
>loses its power. They said the same about the Lords Prayer when it was
>modernized. Really Casey I fail to see your point?
Nad I fail to see yours.
>Words are words isn't it the intended meaning behind those words -or
>the so called powers that be- that takes action despite the language
>or the exact way in which we say it?
Sometimes. In this case the words and how they are put
together do matter.
>Peyote:
>-snip Annie quotes-
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Quick discussion of what the Christ is. The Christ is an office,
the head of the spiritual hierarchy, and Maitreya is the being
in that office presently. This is stated by Bailey also.
>>Esoteric Psychology Vol. II page 684.
>>"May I add also that the Buddha Himself in His high place and the
>>blessed Lord Maitreya (known to Christian disciples as
>>The Christ)......"
>See again the equating of Christ as Maitreya -no separation- here
>Casey.
I thought that was my point and the answer to your question.
>>Esoteric Healing - page 361.
>>Too much to quote but read the whole short section title
>>"On the Christ". This section also ends with
>>"....the Christ and through their responsiveness to His
>>work and imminent appearance". Just bringing the last part
>>up to tie in with Mr. Creme's work on the "imminent appearance".
>So Christ is returning and Maitreya is just another word for Him? So
>now in the scheme of things who is older? The Christ -not Jesus
>obviously- or Maitreya?
As I stated above, Maitreya holds the position of the Christ
currently.
>We know Maitreya had a historical birth after the 600 BC Buddha that
>we know today but when was the birth of the Christ Casey? Long before
>that I suspect if it/he even had a birth.
We "know" no such thing:) I contend that the actual being
Maitreya is MUCH older then that.
>>AND last and certainly not the least I will tie in
>>two references with an actual chart that puts
>>Maitreya smack at the head of the hierarchy (for
>>humanity, Sanat Kumara is actaully at the head over
>>the spritual hierarchy for the planet itself).
>>
>>First in "A Treatise on cosmic Fire" page 599..
>>"...Who manipulate world affairs through the
>>three departments, of which the rulers on our planet
>>are the Lord Maitreya, the Manu, and the Mahachohan."
>>
>>Now for the chart in Initiation, Human and Solar. Page 49.
>>If you look at the 3 department heads you will find the Manu,
>>the Mahachohan, and The Bodhisattva (The Christ, The World
>>Teacher).
>Again Christ the World teacher, you have yet to show me when this
>Christ came into existence, unlike Maitreya who did have an early
>beginning on earth after the historical Buddha.
I was simply answering your question where in the Bailey books
does she say Maitreya is the Christ. Shesh, you can't
please some people:)
>>I can also show references that Maitreya is the Bodhisattva.
>>Latter, when we get to it, I will show refernces that
>>the Christ will be appearing physically on the planet
>>and the timing is based on certain conditions of
>>humanities response and actions. I hope you got the
>>post on that page from the Arcane society which
>>Allen claimed showed Mr. Creme was wrong and I used
>>the same text (you provided) to show that is not the case.
>Yes but Casey your quotes show Christ being the overshadower not
>Maitreya. To me it looks like you have tacked on the name Maitreya to
>the Christ the same way you have tried to tack on the names Mahdi etc
>etc. -Which BTW you made a historical error on but we can go into this
>at another time-
Again, another assertion, why not just state what you mean.
>To my understanding Creme has focused it the other way around placing
>Maitreya as the central figure and not Christ.
Is that why his first books title is "The Reappearance of the Christ
and the Masters of Wisdom"? I don't even understand the point of
all this anyway to be honest. But of course he focuses on Maitreya
AS the Christ.
What I don't understand, if everyone here loves to study and you
also seem bent on putting down Creme, why don't you actually
read his works before assuming so much?
>Peyote:
>
>>>Show me one reference where it is all Maitreya that is the real
>>>leader. -Not from Creme's literature naturally-.
>Casey:
>>By the way, thanks for asking:)
>No probs. I appreciated the quotes BTW.
Sure.
>Casey:
>>And I really didn't get into the fact that the Theosophical
>>society was promoting J. Krishnamurthi as the vehicle for
>>Maitreya, the World Teacher.
>Uhmm sorry I didn't get that one myself. I respect the guy a lot
>especially when he walked away from it all -Salmun did a similar
>thing- and good on them I hate pretenders. It shows me that JK was
>some one well worth remembering, may he rest in peace if there is an
>afterlife.
All I was trying to point out was that Maitreya was also seen
as "The World Teacher" by the Theosophical society.
>Casey:
>>>I never said you had to agree with my interpretations.
>Peyote:
>>>Yet I assume they are backed up by the same 'experiences' as those
>>>whom disagree with what you have :-)
>Casey:
>>yeah, and your point is....?
>It is about as unreliable as your own experiences that Creme is a
>vessel for the ascended masters.
I never said my experiences were reliable:) They are to me
but I don't necessarily think they should be for others.
>Peyote:
>>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
>Casey:
>>>>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I
never
>>>>said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>>>>were basically talking about two different things.
>Peyote:
>>>I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
>>>manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
>>>believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
>>>-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
>Casey:
>>But if you don't believe in them how can you use it
>>as "evidence" that Mr. Creme is wrong?
>Simply because he is historically wrong and has presented a false view
>of historical development mythologically or otherwise. You don't
>honestly think archaeologists who dig in the ground actually believe
>in the myths and texts/engravings they may uncover?
Ok, maybe he's "historically wrong" but in reality right:)
>Peyote:
>>>Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
>>>Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
>>>different things'.
>Peyote:
>>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin
Creme's.
>Casey:
>>>>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>>>>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
>Based on what evidence Casey? Personal experience again? Come on lets
>be straight here they too have their experiences so who is right and
>who is wrong? They undoubtedly have studied their own manuscripts
>more than you may have.
>You see Casey because you are trapped within Creme's cyclic delusion
>-of rumours, proof coming later, he speaks with masters etc etc- you
>can only arrive at the conclusion that you have ... that being he must
>be right. Throw in a few experiences and possible sightings and bingo
>your a hooked 'true' believer.
I never said he must be right:) Sure, I feel he is but obviously
that doesn't guarantee he is.
>Peyote:
>>>Well have those organizations misrepresented their denials of
Benjamin
>>>Creme's message? They reject him based on their own studies and
>>>experiences. Casey it is really as simple as that.
>Casey:
>>And I have shown I can use the exadct same texts to give a case that
>>Mr. Creme at least "can" be correct.
>Can does not equate with the term 'is right'. Using this others 'can'
>equally be right, however they have a much stronger case than Creme
>does with his central theme of Maitreya coming soon.
Sure, others "could" be right. I never ever have stated I'm definitely
right and others are definitely wrong. You're making me out to
be some kind of fanatic or cult member:)lol
>The mere fact -so
>far as it seems to me- is that Creme muddled Christ and maitreya up,
>not only that the texts you supplied were a portion dealing with non
>Blavatsky sources and a few select Bailey sources which when looked at
>closely did not really support the idea that Maitreya is the head of
>this mythical hierarchy.
First of all you specifically asked me to refernces, so I did.
Why do you feel the need to try and confuse things:) And my last
Bailey quote absolutely shows Maitreya as the head of the
hierarchy, the Bodhisattva.
Casey - This post is continued in another post becuase they
are getting to damn long to post in Deja news:)
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>Casey:
>>>>Maybe, but it probably only comes down to different ideas and the
context
>>>>everyone is using those names in.
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>>>>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>>>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>>>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic
cultures
>>>>>but there is a lot more yet to come.
>>>>
>>>>>The context wills be plain also.
>>
>>>-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
>>>existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which
was
>>>very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
>>>connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling
you
>>>about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
>>>debunks Creme's views.
>Casey:
>>Come on Peyote, don't just insinuate things, present them so we
>>can discuss it:)
>Uhmm how long do you want this post to really be? Actually I am quite
>serious here :-( When I talk about evidence I don't mean a few pages I
>mean evidence in the sense of a lot of stuff.
Yeah, you are probably right. But its not really "fair" to just put
that out there without giving me any possibility of responding.
Of course, no skin of my nose:)
>Casey:
>>>I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
>Peyote:
>>>Thanks, I actually love researching -so much for an un educated man
>>>like me huh lol- It is a pity we are at such different stances in
life
>>>it would be nice to talk for once about just concepts. :-(
>Casey:
>>Some day, maybe its best to do one thing at a time thought:)
>True. We are playing hopscotch LOl :-)
And I don't even know where all the squares are:)
>Peyote:
>>>Okay maybe it will be different to just reading it, say do you
collect
>>>coins, bank notes etc? How about if I send you some bank notes from
>>>Australia in exchange?
>>
>>By the way, did you ever receive the book? I had it sent to you
>>a while ago. You can send whatever you want if it makes you feel
>>better. However, my only cost is going to the cost of a cheap
>>tape and postage.
>No I didn't I was looking forward to it???? I received some mail from
>Russia -a package- and I thought it was from you ... but sorry no
>book.
>When did you send it? It usually only takes a week to come from the US
>-two weeks during Xmas time-? If its not here by the end of the week
>I'll blast the Post office in my usual Peyote style LOL.
Well, I didn't send it directly but I look into it. It would be
a lot simpler if you just moved to the US:)lol
>Casey:
>>Yikes, maybe I shouldn't be associating with you:)lol
>Peyote:
>LOL we will get you converted yet ;-)
Now that is scary:)lol
Then I would be arguing with Dore:)
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>Don't get me curious LOL? You believe they have a cure for cancer
>>>right? I wonder if I guessed right because we read the same stuff?
>Casey:
>>Well, if they did, and it was cheap, you can bet they sure
>>wouldn't tell us:(
>It was and simple and cheap, first I thought the guy that sent the
>material and I checked a URL was a regular kook -surprise surprise he
>was a scientist-
>I am trying to get Salmun to include his views on his web page but he
>is reluctant over the controversy this guy made.
>Casey:
>>>>When it comes down to it all anybody has is personal
>>>>experience when dealing with anything. How do you get around
>>>>that when dealing with any situation?
>Casey:
>>>Not so, our existence doesn't preclude some sort of "devine" guidance
>>>or plan.
>Peyote:
>>>Chemistry and biology does as does evolution. There is no evidence of
>>>guidance, we can attribute it to some higher form but that is a
>>>fallacy. The old design/purpose theory put forward has been debunked
>>>in the past. The only thing left for theists is what I call gap
>>>theories but that is another story within itself.
>Casey:
>>AHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
>Oops sorry about that :-(
Please be careful in the future:)lol
>Peyote:
>>>By mundane messages I mean nothing is **ever** given which astounds
>>>the scientific world like a solution to our pollution problem or
>>>energy crisis etc etc. They all have their excuses but are simply
>>>unable to produce the goods.
>Casey:
>>Oh, its given:) Its just not completely public yet. Soon you will be
>>amazed how much we work togther with them in the complete open.
>Peyote:
>See you are stuck within Creme's trap again 'soon' it will be given.
>That is what keeps his people together, rumours, hopes, supposedly
>secret information, dubious Maitreya sightings etc etc.
>Can't you see Casey it is all the product of one mans fantasy that has
>grown proportionally to the amount of people who take it seriously?
So don't believe it:)
>Peyote:
>>>I was not talking about the lineage of Buddha's -where there is no
>>>contextual evidence that Maitreya was linked to them- I am talking
>>>about the real Maitreya on earth that was born after the Buddha we
>>>know of about 600 BC.
>Casey:
>>Are you talking about JME:) lol Seriously, I don't understand the
question.
>>Who is the real Maitreya that was born after the Buddha?
>LOL not JME but he is a Maitreya contender, actually I was thinking of
>a woman that used to be on the net which gave Maitreya messages, I
>might still have her URL around if you want I'll post it. You could
>even ask Maitreya questions directly. Chan do Ken also claimed he was
>in contact with Maitreya and yet again al three of you contradict each
>other.
I would hope so:)lol
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>>Supposedly yes.
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Oh, he has.
>Yet we still come back to the point I made earlier which was:
>---------
>God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
>happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
>responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
>stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
Well if you feel it stinks you can blame it on God. just
don't get me involved:)
>---------
>I would like to say the whole Maitreya concept is ludicrous. Maitreya
>sits around -or dubiously manifests as various people or in spilt ice
>cream- waiting for humanity to invite him onto TV while people are
>dying and starving all around the world.
>The question is how many people will Maitreya let die today before he
>appears on TV? And who is responsible in part for that? Maitreya is
>naturally, since he has the powers to stop it at will. Plan or no plan
>he is responsible.
Nope, we are responsible. If you don't like that answer blame
God not Maitreya. but thats just between you and them:)
>If you see a woman about to be raped Casey I guess like me you would
>get involved and beat the crap out of the rapist but Maitreya does
>nothing but wait for his TV interview and produce dubious so called
>miracles? Can't you see how stupid it really is?
He does plenty. If he did everything you ask where would that leave
us. We would have no free will. No one would be "allowed" to
make any mistakes. Everyone would be "forced" to be good.
Peyote, can't you see how stupid THAT really is??????????????
>Both this god and Maitreya being have a lot to answer for when it
>comes to the suffering of humanity over thousands of years.
No, we do.
Casey
caseyk
Well, just when I thought we were agreeing with eachother
somewhat on some things you go and write a post like this:)
Well, we'll see what we can do about this:)
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:35:34 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>Allen:
>>>>The Lucis website has quoted Bailey material to explain their position. They
>>>>have gotten so many inquiries about Creme (because he attempts to use her
>>>>writings to supplement his stance) that they felt compelled to offer their
>>>>position. http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/roc.shtml
>Peyote:
>If what Allen is saying above is true -and I don't doubt his word on
>it since he seems connected to them- then the very need to set up a
>page saying what it says indicates that it does not want to be
>associated with Benjamin Creme or others like him.
>In other words they reject him.
A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
proving something to me?
>Otherwise what is the purpose of putting up the page in the first
>place?
No, that is probably the express purpose of the page, that doesn't mean
it makes any sense though:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
I never said there were no conflicts. On the contrary there are probably
hundreds of conflicts still going on. However, it is a commonly
accepted fact (in the news at least) that since the cold war ended
there is a new spirit of peace and cooperation to try and end these
conflicts. It definitely not perfect now but I think many people
would agree that a "measure" of peace has been restored. Especially
since this statement was made right after WWII and at the begining
of the cold war. At the very least its debateable.
>>"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we are
>>writing off much of the debt to Russia?
>Dubious and that remains to be seen how and if it happens. It will
>benefit the people considering the powerful influence the Russian
>Mafia has in control. Not to mention the corrupt in the government
>itself and the old KGB still is in operation.
"Begins" to govern economic affairs. Again, its obviously far from
perfect but steps are being taken.
>Casey:
>>Also many countries are starting to write off the debt to many
>>third world nations. We are also very instrumental in
>>providing resources to Russia durring these hard times
>>(and they were very recently our mortal enemy).
>As in what exactly Casey? The war still goes on, killing is still
>occurring and the Mafia is slowly taking over things. Whom exactly is
>being helped? I just received a parcel from Russia where some of the
>real problems are going on, the peasants are still suffering as
>usual and starving.
I agree that its an absolute mess over there but that really has nothing
to do with what I was saying.
>Casey:
>>Also remember the "USA for Africa" movement and many others. I can
>>go on but I think a case can be made that we are "beginning" to
>>share more as a world.
>No what we are doing is facing the reality that some countries can
>not pay of their debts. And who are those debts owed to? The world
>banks. It is not a case of sharing at all but a case of the reality
>that they simply can not pay of their debts. -It is a bit more complex
>than this but for now this will suffice-.
Yet it is happening, and it was pretty much always the case
that they simply couldn't pay their debts.
>Casey:
>>"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
>>OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
>>work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
>>different religions and cultures is a decent start. Also, there
>>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the Palestinian
>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
>LOL.
Well, I agree this one is harder to demonstrate:)
>Casey:
>>Now for the last part:)
>>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>>what she meant.
>So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
>Creme's 'experience'?
What are you talking about? I simply stated that as far as
Maitreya being the Christ (holding the position of the Christ)
both Bailey and Creme agree.
>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
this is the time.
>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
>>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
Ok, I think I'm going nuts again:) I just stated that Mr. Creme
does not say the Christ is here or there. He also advises people
against going to look for Maitreya. Are you sure we are reading the same
post:)
>>Here's one to think about. Even when Maitreya appears
>>on his first TV interview Mr. Creme will not come out
>>and say that was the Christ or Maitreya. It will be up
>>to us to decide for ourselves based on the criteria
>>listed in your quote above.
>You missed out on the points which said:
>1. SOME CLAIM that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form
>and has been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
>2. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
Again I think you are reading a different post then I am. RIGHT
ABOVE this statement we just got through discussing this exact line.
>Oops you failed Casey on both accounts or is the Lucis Trust a bunch
>of liars? Face the facts they reject Benjamin Creme and those like
>him.
Peyote, you know I have never called anyone a liar. Are you just trying
to incite people? And again, you know very well I have stated many
times now that I agree that they reject Mr. Creme. I just feel they
are mistaken, this is totally different then calling anybody
a liar. Come on Peyote, why are you resorting to tactics like this?
>Casey:
>>>Its probably a job they don't want to lose either:)
>Peyote:
>>>As Creme would not like to lose his job.
>Casey:
>>>>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>>>>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>>>>then they do.
>Peyote:
>>>Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
>>>able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
>>>Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
>Casey:
>>Actually I don't feel there is a personal stake in it. I certainly
>>don't have one. The only thing I stand to gain by being right
>>is that the world will change for the better. If another
>>group can accomplish this then I think that would be great.
>>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>>is worth trying:)
>Then who is to say the Lucis Trust has a personal stake in it? Your
>own argument of defense can be used for them. They can be just stating
>the truth as it is.
This I will give you. Lets assume neither has a personal stake in
it:)
>Casey:
>>>I have a question for you Allen, what exactly qualifies them
>>>for that job? Many people have been studying the works of
>>>Alice Bailey for just as long, if not longer,then they have.
>Peyote:
>>>How about their studies and their own personal experiences like you
>>>keep telling me hmm?
>Casey:
>>Sure, but that doesn't make them correct anymore then it
>>makes me correct (which you keep claiming I'm not:).
>>Its up for each one of us to decide for ourselves.
>My point exactly, the product of your own mind perhaps?
Perhaps.
>Casey:
>>>>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>>>>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
>Peyote:
>>>Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
>Casey:
>>Thats your translation not mine:)
>But accurate wouldn't you say? Or do you think their work is better
>than Benjamin Creme's? Come on Casey admit it you think Creme's stuff
>is better and Maitreya will be here soon.
Well I do think Maitreya IS here and will emerge openly VERY soon:)
>>Casey
>Peyote.
Kook Watchers
>Peyote, these things are getting too long:) I had to split
>the answer up because Deje.com won't accept anything
>this big.
Okay no probs
Casey:
>You do know that she believed in the masters right:)lol
Yes. and it adds to the confusion a bit doesn't it? BTW when you said
masters could you name exactly which one/s :-)
Peyote:
>>1. Yes you have a point there. I should stress the first point I am
>>trying to do is present historical -biblical and non biblical data-
>>from various sources where Lucifer is satan.
>
>>2. The Second progression is to Blavatsky and her amazing writings
>>and where she may have actually derived some of her own sources for
>>her views including what later followers on this topic thought or
>>interpreted them as.
>
>>3. Thirdly I want to examine Bailey and some of her representations
>>including changes and leaving things out.
>
>>4. Fourthly we progress to Creme and see where he differs from all
>>three and appears to have a very basic knowledge centered mainly on
>>Maitreya coming soon.
>
>>5. I would like to examine Creme's mythology closer and his lack of
>>proof and proper validation. -This will be in part from our first
>>thread that was interrupted-.
Casey:
>Yikes! :)
>
>Let me point something out here Peyote. I'm am more then willing
>to keep answering any question you have but the main purpose of
>my doing this is just to clear up what Mr. Creme's story actually
>is. I have no real desire to defend Mr. Creme or try and
>convince anyone that I or Mr. Creme is correct. Frankly, I don't
>reeally care who believes this story or not. I just want them to
>be able to base their opinion on the actual information.
Okay.
>>Peyote:
>>But back to Blavatsky she was quite brilliant and she knew her myths
>>and again I state she knew what she was talking about and wrote
>>clearly enough for even an idiot like me to understand it. Some yes
>>was deep but other stuff was as clear as daylight.
Casey:
>Yeah she was quite brilliant and she believed in the existance
>of the masters. Whats with that Peyote:)lol
Yes and what were the names she is supposed to have had direct
contact with including what manuscript did she claim to see? There
is a connection I believe BTW.
>>Peyote:
>
>>I think Creme did not study her writings closer enough or did not like
>>some of her concepts. He watered them down to make them palatable to
>>the masses. I don't agree with that. It tells us a lot about how he
>>deals with religious issues and appears very deceptive or at best vey
>>shallow.
Peyote:
He is very shallow, I agree with Allen on this one.
Casey:
>Nah.
Casey:
>>In a way when Mr. Creme talks about Lucifer he is just giving
>>a simple answer about the actual entity. What Blavatsky is
>>doing is going deep into the devolopment of humanity
>>and all the different forces that are involved in this
>>>interplay. If you look at Creme's description that humanity
>>is a part of Lucifer in this way then you can see that
>>it doesn't really contradict with Blavatsky's teachings.
Peyote:
>>But he is misleading people and you don't think the Theosophical
>>society notice he is watering down their teaching so that it appeals
>>to the masses he seeks after?
Casey:
>He's not misleading people. He was simply answering a question
>with a simple answer. Let me make something clear. Mr. Creme
>advocates that anyone who wants to really learn the esoteric
>teachings should go read Blavatsky and Bailey. Their is
>no real need for him to repeat all that information when its
>available to all.
Peyote:
Then why doesn't he spill the beans or tell the full story on radio
etc? Sounds like he is misleading to keep some groups from getting
worked up.
Peyote:
>>Show me where Creme has blatantly said the serpent is the liberator of
>>humanity that the god of the Jews is a evil jealous god -who didn't
>>want man to have knowledge- and that lucifer in fact is satan. Show
>>me where Creme says that the eating of the tree of good and evil was a
>>good thin for humanity. Prove it Casey where has Creme said this? I
>>bet he hasn't.
Casey:
>Thats just great Peyote, you ask me to prove something I never stated in
>the first place:) You're not trying to make me look bad are you:)lol
Peyote:
I didn't state you did, what I have said is that Creme is being
misleading and that he does not appear to talk about those aspects of
Blavatsky's work -well at least openly-.
Casey:
>>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
Peyote:
>>By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
>>with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
>>soon-.
Casey:
>Ok, but again, this is in no way a requirement for the people
>involved.
Peyote:
>>So in effect we could have a new myth brewing from Share International
>>and Benjamin Creme where X amount of people from X amount of various
>>religions, sects and cults really do believe or at least accept the
>>ascended masters speak through Creme.
Casey:
>Well, I wouldn't call it a myth:) But definitely new information.
Peyote:
Yet beyond proof right?
Casey:
>
>>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
Peyote:
>
>>A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
>>Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
>>another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
>>with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
>>separate -secret- religion.
Casey:
>>I'm not quite getting the relavence of the example.
>>Simply that a myth can be produced that X amount of people believe
>>Creme has got it right about Maitreya -or partially right- in X amount
>>of religions etc. Naturally there is no real proof to assert the
>>numbers of those whom are supposed to believe in Creme's myth.
Casey:
>Nope...never said there was:) Let me make this clear again. I don't
>plan on proving anything:) Just giving information as I see it.
Peyote:
You have very little proof when it comes to Benjamin Creme's movement
don't you?
Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>>Well I like the above version more than the other version LOL :-) It
>>is more all inclusive and has a good relevance for theists, wiccan's
>>etc of all ilks.
Casey:
>>Anyway my point was that the context of the
>>words they changed really have not changed all that much since when
>>it was written. Like omiting the word "Christ" for instance. It can
>>be argued that this is devisive and all religions should be
>>included but this would have been a valid argument back in the
>>time that Bailey wrote the original GI also.
Peyote:
>>The word Christ is divisive to say the least and knocks out just about
>>every faith that does not believe or accept Christ. -Shit I can't
>>believe I am defending the GI-
Casey:
>Isn't that what I just said? My point was that this fact
>was as true when it was written as it is now. If there
>was a point to putting it in in the first place that
>point should still exist today. This is just plain
>logic.
Peyote:
No it is not just plain logic because the world has changed
tremendously over the last few years especially due to technology.
More people of many more cultures are in contact with each other
unlike the time of Bailey.
Take the NG's for example we have almost every religion, sect and cult
represented along with a wide variety of different paths, native
beliefs and philosophical concepts etc etc.
So your logic fails the circumstances today are not the same as the
circumstances in Baileys time period.
Casey:
>>>The real reason not to change it is because its a mantrum
>>>and the cadence is very important when its said. The whole
>>>point of the GI is to actually invoke energies. Its not just some
>>>poetic verse that is supposed to indicate some ideas
>>>(which it does also).
Peyote:
>>So? Invocations from many religions -if you want a list I can give you
>>a heap of them- which have changed over time to suite the modern
>>textual understanding.
Casey:
>So, who said that was the right thing to do either:)
Peyote:
It was as history has born out, the meanings are still there, the so
called power is still there -well according to the believers anyway-
etc etc.
Casey:
>One thing you should realize, the GI was written in very recent history
>not 1000's of years ago.
Peyote:
One thing you should realize is that technology is rapidly changing
and bringing diverse cultures together, many of which do not accept
Christ, hate him -due to past atrocities done in his name- and so
on. Natives have no relevance to a Christ they don't accept but they
can relate to a god or all powerful being.
You forget the leaps and bounds that have occurred within our
society within just the last 50 years so the GI in a way is old when
looked at from a modern perspective.
Peyote:
>>Since I don't believe in their power your argument is mute on me,
>>however to be fair if such a power was to exist do you really think
>>that it is limited to a few mere alterations? Isn't it supposed to be
>>the power behind the words which take effect not the actual words
>>itself?
Casey:
>Nope, in this case, the actual words do matter. It goes beyond
>just an intellectule analysis of the words.
Prove it scientifically. Or is this another one of your 'experiences'?
Who is to say this new GI does not provide experiences or contains
power?
Peyote:
>>As I have said elsewhere I have had similar debates with the KJV bible
>>adherents who believe any alteration is an abomination and the bible
>>loses its power. They said the same about the Lords Prayer when it was
>>modernized. Really Casey I fail to see your point?
Casey:
>Nad I fail to see yours.
Peyote:
Because you don't want to perhaps? I have been through all of this
with the Lords Prayer, should it be in modern English or stuck back
in 1611? Does it lose its meaning or power if in a modern text? Of
course not people still experience its wonder etc.
Peyote:
>>Words are words isn't it the intended meaning behind those words -or
>>the so called powers that be- that takes action despite the language
>>or the exact way in which we say it?
Casey:
>Sometimes. In this case the words and how they are put
>together do matter.
Peyote:
So you say just like the KJV believers, your stuck in a certain period
of time and are unable to adjust with changes when it comes to
-sacred?- texts. Been there done that.
Peyote:
>So no Casey, language itself is not locked into time and your
>argument is on par with the debates I have with KJV only advocates.
>-added comment- I have been through all this type of argument with
>people who insist on the KJV being the only true bible .... it sadly
>happens in most religions. Yusif Ali had similar problems with his
>modern translation of the Qur'an etc etc.
Peyote:
>>Christ not Maitreya is the central figure, it was Christ who
>>overshadowed Jesus not Maitreya etc etc. Maitreya in both Bailey's
>>and Blavatsky's books is not the leader of a great spiritual hierarchy.
Casey:
>>>Ok, you already demonstrated the chart that says the Christ is the
>>>head of the hierarchy. Now for the connection in Bailey's writting
>>>between Maitreya being the Christ and also the World Teacher.
>>>
>>>In "Initiation, Human and Solar" page 216.
>>>"....is the name of the office which is at present occupied by the
>>>Lord Maitreya, Who is known in the occident as the Christ. This
>>>office might be translated as that if the World Teacher...."
Peyote:
>>Uh so is Christ the real Maitreya? Different names to describe the
>>same person? Why then does Creme focus on Maitreya and not Christ?
Casey:
>Quick discussion of what the Christ is. The Christ is an office,
>the head of the spiritual hierarchy, and Maitreya is the being
>in that office presently. This is stated by Bailey also.
Is it really? Do you have any ancient historical documents to base
this teaching upon?
Now with that aside are you now stating that Christ is NOT a BEING in
his/its own right?
Casey:
>>>Esoteric Psychology Vol. II page 684.
>>>"May I add also that the Buddha Himself in His high place and the
>>>blessed Lord Maitreya (known to Christian disciples as
>>>The Christ)......"
Peyote:
>>See again the equating of Christ as Maitreya -no separation- here
>>Casey.
Casey:
>I thought that was my point and the answer to your question.
It wasn't.
>>>Esoteric Healing - page 361.
>>>Too much to quote but read the whole short section title
>>>"On the Christ". This section also ends with
>>>"....the Christ and through their responsiveness to His
>>>work and imminent appearance". Just bringing the last part
>>>up to tie in with Mr. Creme's work on the "imminent appearance".
Peyote:
>>So Christ is returning and Maitreya is just another word for Him? So
>>now in the scheme of things who is older? The Christ -not Jesus
>>obviously- or Maitreya?
Casey:
>As I stated above, Maitreya holds the position of the Christ
>currently.
Peyote:
What position? Is Christ a real being in his/her/its own right or not?
If it is a real being when did it come into existence?
Peyote:
>>We know Maitreya had a historical birth after the 600 BC Buddha that
>>we know today but when was the birth of the Christ Casey? Long before
>>that I suspect if it/he even had a birth.
Casey:
>We "know" no such thing:) I contend that the actual being
>Maitreya is MUCH older then that.
Peyote:
Prove it from the historical Buddhist texts then Casey if we know no
such thing.
Would you like Bukkyo Dendo to explain it to you or Mitutoyo or even
the guy that sent me the information Eo requested? Take your pick
Casey and lets see this historical proof of yours -that is if you
have any- okay?
Casey:
>>>AND last and certainly not the least I will tie in
>>>two references with an actual chart that puts
>>>Maitreya smack at the head of the hierarchy (for
>>>humanity, Sanat Kumara is actaully at the head over
>>>the spritual hierarchy for the planet itself).
>>>
>>>First in "A Treatise on cosmic Fire" page 599..
>>>"...Who manipulate world affairs through the
>>>three departments, of which the rulers on our planet
>>>are the Lord Maitreya, the Manu, and the Mahachohan."
>>>
>>>Now for the chart in Initiation, Human and Solar. Page 49.
>>>If you look at the 3 department heads you will find the Manu,
>>>the Mahachohan, and The Bodhisattva (The Christ, The World
>>>Teacher).
Peyote:
>>Again Christ the World teacher, you have yet to show me when this
>>Christ came into existence, unlike Maitreya who did have an early
>>beginning on earth after the historical Buddha.
Casey:
>I was simply answering your question where in the Bailey books
>does she say Maitreya is the Christ. Shesh, you can't
>please some people:)
Peyote:
And yet this Christ -whom I still don't know if it/she/he is a real
creature and when if at all it came into existence. Now if it is
real being -Christ- then your above quotes do not prove anything other
than Maitreya is little more than another name for Christ who is the
real head of the spiritual organization.
Casey:
>>>I can also show references that Maitreya is the Bodhisattva.
>>>Latter, when we get to it, I will show refernces that
>>>the Christ will be appearing physically on the planet
>>>and the timing is based on certain conditions of
>>>humanities response and actions. I hope you got the
>>>post on that page from the Arcane society which
>>>Allen claimed showed Mr. Creme was wrong and I used
>>>the same text (you provided) to show that is not the case.
Peyote:
>>Yes but Casey your quotes show Christ being the overshadower not
>>Maitreya. To me it looks like you have tacked on the name Maitreya to
>>the Christ the same way you have tried to tack on the names Mahdi etc
>>etc. -Which BTW you made a historical error on but we can go into this
>>at another time-
Casey:
>Again, another assertion, why not just state what you mean.
Peyote:
I have. -A few times now-
Peyote:
>>To my understanding Creme has focused it the other way around placing
>>Maitreya as the central figure and not Christ.
Casey:
>Is that why his first books title is "The Reappearance of the Christ
>and the Masters of Wisdom"? I don't even understand the point of
>all this anyway to be honest. But of course he focuses on Maitreya
>AS the Christ.
SO who was first Christ -an overshadower- or Maitreya? Who overshadows
who?
Casey:
>What I don't understand, if everyone here loves to study and you
>also seem bent on putting down Creme, why don't you actually
>read his works before assuming so much?
Peyote:
Because I believe he is a fraud -at worst- or delusional -at best- I
will read the book you send, and when I say I'll read it i'll read it
but if he is historically wrong or makes false connection along with
unprovable rumors I will bring them up.
Casey:
>>And I really didn't get into the fact that the Theosophical
>All I was trying to point out was that Maitreya was also seen
>as "The World Teacher" by the Theosophical society.
Peyote:
Which they do not accept as Creme's Maitreya.
Casey:
>I never said my experiences were reliable:) They are to me
>but I don't necessarily think they should be for others.
Peyote:
See the confusion amongst yourselves? It bears out once again that it
probably nothing more than the product of your own minds.
Peyote:
>
>>Thank you but I have the weight of facts -not only mere opinions- you
>>do not have solid facts. If you have facts that all three would have
>>got along greatly please present it. If you have facts that ancient
>>manuscripts exist please present it. If you have facts which show
>>Blavatsky did not mean what she said then please present it.
Casey:
>You don't even believe the "facts" of the ancient manuscripts. I
>never said I did not think Blavatsky did not mean what she said. they
>were basically talking about two different things.
Peyote:
>>I don't need to believe in the myth to accept that it existed as a
>>manuscript in X period of time. There is a difference for me between
>>believing and validating an item, manuscript, statue, mythology
>>-whatever- than to believing what it says is a true account.
Casey:
>But if you don't believe in them how can you use it
>as "evidence" that Mr. Creme is wrong?
Peyote:
>>Simply because he is historically wrong and has presented a false view
>>of historical development mythologically or otherwise. You don't
>>honestly think archaeologists who dig in the ground actually believe
>>in the myths and texts/engravings they may uncover?
Casey:
>Ok, maybe he's "historically wrong" but in reality right:)
Peyote:
You have no proof or evidence of that statement Casey. ;-)
Peyote:
>>Yet where is your solid evidence Casey? As I said before present it.
>Show us the evidence that they were supposedly talking about 'two
>>different things'.
Peyote:
>>Please also present evidence where the followers of those movements
>>have distorted their interpretations or that their experiences are
>>not correct because they do not align with yours and Benjamin
>>Creme's.
Casey:
>It has nothing to do with distorting their interpretations. I simply
>feel they are wrong about Mr. Creme's information.
Peyote:
>>Based on what evidence Casey? Personal experience again? Come on lets
>>be straight here they too have their experiences so who is right and
>>who is wrong? They undoubtedly have studied their own manuscripts
>>more than you may have.
>
>>You see Casey because you are trapped within Creme's cyclic delusion
>>-of rumours, proof coming later, he speaks with masters etc etc- you
>>can only arrive at the conclusion that you have ... that being he must
>>be right. Throw in a few experiences and possible sightings and bingo
>>your a hooked 'true' believer.
Casey:
>I never said he must be right:) Sure, I feel he is but obviously
>that doesn't guarantee he is.
Fair enough.
Casey:
>And I have shown I can use the exadct same texts to give a case that
>Mr. Creme at least "can" be correct.
Peyote:
>>Can does not equate with the term 'is right'. Using this others 'can'
>>equally be right, however they have a much stronger case than Creme
>>does with his central theme of Maitreya coming soon.
Casey:
>Sure, others "could" be right. I never ever have stated I'm definitely
>right and others are definitely wrong. You're making me out to
>be some kind of fanatic or cult member:)lol
Peyote:
Uhmm after the GI discussion I am not so sure LOL I met KJV people
as adamant as you on their points ;-)
Peyote:
>>The mere fact -so far as it seems to me- is that Creme muddled
>>Christ and maitreya up, not only that the texts you supplied
>>were a portion dealing with non Blavatsky sources and a
>>few select Bailey sources which when looked at
>>closely did not really support the idea that Maitreya is the head of
>>this mythical hierarchy.
Casey:
>First of all you specifically asked me to refernces, so I did.
>Why do you feel the need to try and confuse things:) And my last
>Bailey quote absolutely shows Maitreya as the head of the
>hierarchy, the Bodhisattva.
Maitreya before or after the Christ? maitreya overshadowed by Christ
or did Christ pre-date Maitreya? Is Maitreya just another name for the
Christ like Al mahdi etc?
>Casey - This post is continued in another post becuase they
>are getting to damn long to post in Deja news:)
No probs.
See you in the next post.
Peyote.
Kook Watchers
>Here's the second part of the post:
Okay
Peyote:
>>For sure, the case was misrepresented when we took the English word
>>Lucifer LOL and solely applied it to a light bringer ;-) I have
>>already explained how names denote characteristics in semitic
>>cultures but there is a lot more yet to come.
>>The context wills be plain also.
>>-Added comment- What were you to say if I told you Lucifer never
>>existed in the way you think LOL? I found something else out which
>>was very interesting. Either point the Lucifer/Satan/Serpent/Iblis
>>connection is clearly established but that other guy I was telling
>>you about found something even more interesting, but sadly either view
>>debunks Creme's views.
Casey:
>Come on Peyote, don't just insinuate things, present them so we
>can discuss it:)
Peyote:
>>Uhmm how long do you want this post to really be? Actually I am quite
>>serious here :-( When I talk about evidence I don't mean a few pages I
>>mean evidence in the sense of a lot of stuff.
Casey:
>Yeah, you are probably right. But its not really "fair" to just put
>that out there without giving me any possibility of responding.
>Of course, no skin of my nose:)
Peyote:
LOL okay you asked for it. I'll change my online name to peyote 1, 2
etc to keep it in order.
Casey:
>I'm not complaining that you did all that (in fact I appreciate it).
Peyote:
>>Thanks, I actually love researching -so much for an un educated man
>>like me huh lol- It is a pity we are at such different stances in
>>life it would be nice to talk for once about just concepts. :-(
Casey:
>Some day, maybe its best to do one thing at a time thought:)
Peyote:
>True. We are playing hopscotch LOl :-)
Casey:
>And I don't even know where all the squares are:)
Sorry about that :-( This is a huge topic.
Casey:
>>>By the way, did you ever receive the book? I had it sent to you
>>>a while ago. You can send whatever you want if it makes you feel
>>>better. However, my only cost is going to the cost of a cheap
>>>tape and postage.
Peyote:
>>No I didn't I was looking forward to it???? I received some mail from
>>Russia -a package- and I thought it was from you ... but sorry no
>>book.
>
>>When did you send it? It usually only takes a week to come from the US
>>-two weeks during Xmas time-? If its not here by the end of the week
>>I'll blast the Post office in my usual Peyote style LOL.
Peyote:
>>LOL we will get you converted yet ;-)
Casey:
>Now that is scary:)lol Then I would be arguing with Dore:)
Peyote:
Ugh talk about a real need for her meds, BTW if I were you take a
friendly hint, don't mention her name or she will never leave you
alone, then again I doubt she reads the NA NG I hope :-(
Peyote:
>
>>Chemistry and biology does as does evolution. There is no evidence of
>>guidance, we can attribute it to some higher form but that is a
>>fallacy. The old design/purpose theory put forward has been debunked
>>in the past. The only thing left for theists is what I call gap
>>theories but that is another story within itself.
Casey:
>AHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
Peyote:
>>Oops sorry about that :-(
Casey:
>Please be careful in the future:)lol
Peyote:
Yeah its another big subject, been there done that with theists
before, sorry it becomes a habit after awhile.
Peyote:
>>See you are stuck within Creme's trap again 'soon' it will be given.
>>That is what keeps his people together, rumours, hopes, supposedly
>>secret information, dubious Maitreya sightings etc etc.
>
>>Can't you see Casey it is all the product of one mans fantasy that has
>>grown proportionally to the amount of people who take it seriously?
Casey:
>So don't believe it:)
Peyote:
But it is a common trap. I mean this seriously.
Peyote:
>>LOL not JME but he is a Maitreya contender, actually I was thinking of
>>a woman that used to be on the net which gave Maitreya messages, I
>>might still have her URL around if you want I'll post it. You could
>>even ask Maitreya questions directly. Chan do Ken also claimed he was
>>in contact with Maitreya and yet again al three of you contradict each
>>other.
Casey:
>I would hope so:)lol
Someone is telling a fib, is a liar or clearly delusional.
Casey:
Peyote:
>>Supposedly yes.
Peyote:
Casey:
>>Peyote:
Casey:
Peyote:
>>Yeah he should have read more of her work.
Casey:
>Oh, he has.
Peyote:
I wonder.
Peyote:
>Yet we still come back to the point I made earlier which was:
---------
>God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
>happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
>responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
>stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
Casey:
>Well if you feel it stinks you can blame it on God. just
>don't get me involved:)
Peyote:
But it is a part of your system isn't it?
---------
Peyote:
>>I would like to say the whole Maitreya concept is ludicrous. Maitreya
>>sits around -or dubiously manifests as various people or in spilt ice
>>cream- waiting for humanity to invite him onto TV while people are
>>dying and starving all around the world.
>
>>The question is how many people will Maitreya let die today before he
>>appears on TV? And who is responsible in part for that? Maitreya is
>>naturally, since he has the powers to stop it at will. Plan or no plan
>>he is responsible.
Casey:
>Nope, we are responsible. If you don't like that answer blame
>God not Maitreya. but thats just between you and them:)
Peyote:
>>If you see a woman about to be raped Casey I guess like me you would
>>get involved and beat the crap out of the rapist but Maitreya does
>>nothing but wait for his TV interview and produce dubious so called
>>miracles? Can't you see how stupid it really is?
Case:
>He does plenty. If he did everything you ask where would that leave
>us. We would have no free will. No one would be "allowed" to
>make any mistakes. Everyone would be "forced" to be good.
>Peyote, can't you see how stupid THAT really is??????????????
Proof Casey? What does he actually do hmm? As for the example I gave
about the woman being raped explain to me how Maitreya helping her
infringes on our free will ?????? Now that is stupid don't you think?
How does that infringe on free will? I guess next you will be saying
putting criminals is an infringement on our free will or stopping the
holocaust infringes on our free will? That is ridiculous Casey?
One could say his is a forced experience and is an infringement on
our free will for those that don't want him.
Peyote:
>>Both this god and Maitreya being have a lot to answer for when it
>>comes to the suffering of humanity over thousands of years.
Casey:
>No, we do.
Yes so does a being who created it all knowing what suffering he was
creating before it was created, Then we have a guy hanging around
who is waiting for as Tv inert view people are dying all over the
place.
Sorry Casey it is a crazy notion,
Peyote
Caet<
Kook Watcher aka Peyote
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
>
>_Peyote_ wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Allen for the effort. When Andy and I have our page up can I
>> include your posts in it to explain it from another perspective?
>>
>> Peyote.
>
>sure
Thanks.
Peyote.
Kook Watcher aka Peyote
wrote:
Casey:
>Well, just when I thought we were agreeing with eachother
>somewhat on some things you go and write a post like this:)
>Well, we'll see what we can do about this:)
Peyote:
I thought we were getting to agree with each other on points? We
obviously will have differences. :-(
Casey:
>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
>proving something to me?
Peyote:
I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
Casey.
Peyote:
>>Otherwise what is the purpose of putting up the page in the first
>>place?
Casey:
>No, that is probably the express purpose of the page, that doesn't mean
>it makes any sense though:)
See here we differ it does make sense, they are trying to point out
that Creme -and others like him- is not the Maitreya Bailey was
talking about.
Obviously they set that page up to clear up the confusion or perhaps
they were even told of for some of Dotty's spam in their name.
Who knows? I tend to lean towards the idea that they simply wanted it
stated clearly that Creme is neither endorsed or a part of the Lucis
Trust.
-snip new and IMO improved GI-
Casey:
>
>>>OK, I'm glad you posted the actual page (it saved me from having to do it).
>>>This will also try to address Allen's comment about the last line.
>>>First lets look at the conditions that would have to be met before the
>>>physical appearance of the Christ. "When a measure of peace has been restored
>>>to the world". Well lets see, the cold war is over, there are negotiations
>>>for peace in the middle east, the IRA has a peace treaty with Britain,
>>>Aparthied is over, re-unification of Germany, etc. Anyway, I think a case
>>>can be made that a "measure" of peace has been restored.
Peyote:
>>Nope we still have the fighting in Kosovo, the wars in Africa
>>-including cult suicides are on the rise- the emergence of Neo Nazis
>>-especially after the wall came down-, the immigrant and Turkish
>>problem in Germany-the Kashmir conflict, terrorist activities are up,
>>Israel with its problems -despite the popes visit- wake up Casey and
>>read the news.
>
>>BTW not all of the IRA factions agree in putting down their arms.
>
>>No 'Measure of real peace has been resorted' we now even have to worry
>>about China and Taiwan, not to mention the wars in Asia or Indonesia
>>with their atrocities. We have China with its portuguese colonies, the
>>genocide of the Tibetan people by China, we have Russia with her wars
>>and economic chaos, -and nuclear weapons- etc etc.
Casey:
>I never said there were no conflicts. On the contrary there are probably
>hundreds of conflicts still going on. However, it is a commonly
>accepted fact (in the news at least) that since the cold war ended
>there is a new spirit of peace and cooperation to try and end these
>conflicts. It definitely not perfect now but I think many people
>would agree that a "measure" of peace has been restored. Especially
>since this statement was made right after WWII and at the begining
>of the cold war. At the very least its debateable.
Peyote:
A new measure of peace implies more than changes which have occurred
recently. Look at history, changes have always occurred, contracts
made, contracts broken, new hopes for a better world, yet wars still
rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
measure of peace'.
You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea on
this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
picture -aka the world view-.
Casey:
>>>"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we are
>>>writing off much of the debt to Russia?
Peyote:
>>Dubious and that remains to be seen how and if it happens. It will
>>benefit the people considering the powerful influence the Russian
>>Mafia has in control. Not to mention the corrupt in the government
>>itself and the old KGB still is in operation.
Casey:
>"Begins" to govern economic affairs. Again, its obviously far from
>perfect but steps are being taken.
Peyote:
As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
Casey:
>>>Also many countries are starting to write off the debt to many
>>>third world nations. We are also very instrumental in
>>>providing resources to Russia durring these hard times
>>>(and they were very recently our mortal enemy).
Peyote:
>>As in what exactly Casey? The war still goes on, killing is still
>>occurring and the Mafia is slowly taking over things. Whom exactly is
>>being helped? I just received a parcel from Russia where some of the
>>real problems are going on, the peasants are still suffering as
>>usual and starving.
Casey:
>I agree that its an absolute mess over there but that really has nothing
>to do with what I was saying.
Peyote:
Yes it does because these so called steps benefit who? The poor or
those whom are in control? I state again what measure of peace? I see
lots of blather from the UN but that is it.
Casey:
>
>>>Also remember the "USA for Africa" movement and many others. I can
>>>go on but I think a case can be made that we are "beginning" to
>>>share more as a world.
Peyote:
>>No what we are doing is facing the reality that some countries can
>>not pay of their debts. And who are those debts owed to? The world
>>banks. It is not a case of sharing at all but a case of the reality
>>that they simply can not pay of their debts. -It is a bit more complex
>>than this but for now this will suffice-.
Casey:
>Yet it is happening, and it was pretty much always the case
>that they simply couldn't pay their debts.
Peyote:
True but again that is no measure of change or peace, now more money
can be invested in weapons to kill each other. And don't think for a
minute those in control will not use this to their advantage to gain
more control. You should read some mail I get from Africa it is
anything but great debt not withstanding.
Do you really believe that they will use this help for humanitarian
purposes, remember Somalia? Huh what a sick joke.
Casey:
>>>"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
>>>OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
>>>work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
>>>different religions and cultures is a decent start. Also, there
>>>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>>>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
Peyote:
>>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the Palestinian
>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
>>LOL.
Casey:
>Well, I agree this one is harder to demonstrate:)
Yes he tried and tried very hard - respect the guy for that- to make
concessions but he was even shouted at by the Muslims -I picked this
bit of info up from Allen's site-.
Casey:
>Now for the last part:)
>>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>>what she meant.
Peyote:
>>So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
>>Creme's 'experience'?
Casey;
>What are you talking about? I simply stated that as far as
>Maitreya being the Christ (holding the position of the Christ)
>both Bailey and Creme agree.
Peyote:
I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
>>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
>>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
Casey:
>But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
>their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
>came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
>which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
>this is the time.
Peyote:
Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are from
personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
Creme.
Casey:
>>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>>person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
>>>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>>>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>>>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>>>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>>>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
Peyote:
But he does confirm -via the voices in his head- that X person was the
Christ/Maitreya etc etc.
Casey:
>>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
>>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
-Added note James sent me this - ... the false believes of the false
Christ will appear in various places .... and miracles of this false
Christ will abound worldwide ......
It is an interesting view/prophecy but since I don't believe in
miracles in the first place I find it kinda mute LOL -sorry James- ;-)
Peyote:
>Ok, I think I'm going nuts again:) I just stated that Mr. Creme
>does not say the Christ is here or there. He also advises people
>against going to look for Maitreya. Are you sure we are reading the same
>post:)
That is not true he does do that all the time, he even confirms it, if
it was Christ or not they saw. Aka did I see Maitreya.... did I see
Christ in the shopping mall ... Benjamin Cremes confirms this that
they did -via the voices in his head-.
He might advise people to not look for Maitreya but do they listen
-well we know Dotty doesn't for example- so how can you say this? Are
you familiar with all the Share International people and their daily
activities?
Casey:
>>>Here's one to think about. Even when Maitreya appears
>>>on his first TV interview Mr. Creme will not come out
>>>and say that was the Christ or Maitreya. It will be up
>>>to us to decide for ourselves based on the criteria
>>>listed in your quote above.
Peyote:
Uhmm Casey you have missed something important here, Creme doesn't
have to say it because Share International -his foundation- and the
Tara center, yourself, Betsy and even Dotty have already said it ;-)
Creme may have even said it -actually I think he did mention it on the
Art Bell show-. -I could be wrong here though on this-
Sorry I fail to see your point when you have already mentioned it over
and over and over ...........
Peyote:
>>You missed out on the points which said:
>
>>1. SOME CLAIM that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form
>>and has been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
>
>>2. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
Casey:
>Again I think you are reading a different post then I am. RIGHT
>ABOVE this statement we just got through discussing this exact line.
Peyote:
>>Oops you failed Casey on both accounts or is the Lucis Trust a bunch
>>of liars? Face the facts they reject Benjamin Creme and those like
>>him.
-Added comment- yes and I explained it.
Casey:
>Peyote, you know I have never called anyone a liar. Are you just trying
>to incite people? And again, you know very well I have stated many
>times now that I agree that they reject Mr. Creme. I just feel they
>are mistaken, this is totally different then calling anybody
>a liar. Come on Peyote, why are you resorting to tactics like this?
Because the facts demands at least the following:
1. Someone is lying
2. Someone is being deceptive.
3. Someone -and it doesn't have to be Creme only- is delusional
4. Your experiences and studies contradict each other
5. Your so called guidance from the masters disagree
6. Your all wrong -aka fantasy and guess work etc-
7. It is nothing more than the product of your own minds. -so in
effect you are all right LOL-
So again I must ask you Casey did what the Lucis trust put up is an
outright lie or was it one of the above?
Please try to look at this logically. Something is seriously wrong
here, first the attack on the GI -by you- and now the Lucis Trust
denounces Creme. Why? Aren't you all supposed to be guided by the same
masters?
Ditto for the Theosophical's rejection of Creme's work.
Casey:
>>My point here is that they do have a personal stake in
>>no one being able to claim better insight into the teachings
>>then they do.
Peyote:
>Like your organization doesn't have a personal stake in no one being
>able to claim a better insight then what Benjamin Creme comes up with?
>Take your pick Casey there are tons of other groups to pick from.
Casey:
>>Actually I don't feel there is a personal stake in it. I certainly
>>don't have one. The only thing I stand to gain by being right
>>is that the world will change for the better. If another
>>group can accomplish this then I think that would be great.
>>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>>is worth trying:)
Peyote:
>>Then who is to say the Lucis Trust has a personal stake in it? Your
>>own argument of defense can be used for them. They can be just stating
>>the truth as it is.
Casey:
>This I will give you. Lets assume neither has a personal stake in
>it:)
Peyote:
Then why can't you both be right? -I am taking this from the view that
it is all a product of the mind in the first place-.
Casey:
>>>Sure, but that doesn't make them correct anymore then it
>>>makes me correct (which you keep claiming I'm not:).
>>>Its up for each one of us to decide for ourselves.
Peyote:
>>My point exactly, the product of your own mind perhaps?
Casey:
>Perhaps.
Okay.
Casey:
>>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
Peyote:
>Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
Casey:
>Thats your translation not mine:)
Peyote:
>>But accurate wouldn't you say? Or do you think their work is better
>>than Benjamin Creme's? Come on Casey admit it you think Creme's stuff
>>is better and Maitreya will be here soon.
Casey:
>Well I do think Maitreya IS here and will emerge openly VERY soon:)
Yes Casey if you really think so LOL ;-)
Peyote.
>Casey
andr...@removehotmail.com
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
(Snip)
Dear Allen excuse the snip but your answer did not come up on my ISP.
It was said:
> Peyote:
>
> Just one question here, Andy and I found that Bailey also put the
> blame on the Jews for what was happening to them is that true or not?
Allen:
It took me a while to find the passage, but it is in Esoteric Healing
in the chapter Karmic Liabilities. It was published in 1953. It is
kinda long....
__________________________________
The outstanding evidence of the Law of Cause and Effect is the Jewish
race. All nations prove this Law, but I choose to refer to the Hebrew
peoples because their history is so well known and their future and
their destiny are subjects of worldwide, universal concern.
The Jews have always had a symbolic significance; they sum up in
themselves as a nation, down the ages the depths of human evil and the
heights of human divinity. Their aggressive history as narrated in
the
Old Testament is on a par with present-day German accomplishment; yet
Christ was a Jew and it was the Hebrew race which produced Him. Let
this never be forgotten.
The Jews were great aggressors; they despoiled the Egyptians and they
took the Promised Land at the point of the sword, sparing neither man,
woman nor child. Their religious history has been built around a
materialistic Jehovah, possessive, greedy and endorsing and
encouraging aggression. Their history is symbolic of the history of
all aggressors, rationalizing themselves into the belief that they are
carrying out divine purpose, wresting away from people their property
in a spirit of self-defense and finding some reason, adequate to them,
to excuse the iniquity of their action.
Palestine was taken by the Jews because it was "a land flowing with
milk and honey," and the claim was made that the act was undertaken in
obedience to divine command. Later, the symbolism gets most
interesting. They divided into two halves: the Israelites with
headquarters at Samaria, and the Jews (meaning two or three special
tribes out of the twelve) locating around Jerusalem. Dualism ran
through their religious beliefs; they were schooled by the Sadducees
or the Pharisees, and these two groups were in constant conflict.
Christ came as a member of the Jewish race and they renounced Him.
Today the law is working, and the Jews are paying the price, factually
and symbolically, for all they have done in the past. They are
demonstrating the far-reaching effects of the Law.
Factually and symbolically, they stand for culture and civilization;
factually and symbolically, they are humanity; factually and
symbolically, they stand as they have ever chosen to stand, for
separation. They regard themselves as the chosen people and have an
innate consciousness of that high destiny, forgetting their symbolic
role and that it is Humanity which is the chosen people and not one
small and unimportant fraction of the race.
Factually and symbolically, they long for unity and cooperation, yet
know not how to cooperate; factually and symbolically, they are the
"Eternal Pilgrim"; they are mankind, wandering through the mazes of
the
three worlds of human evolution, and gazing with longing eyes towards
a
promised land; factually and symbolically, they resemble the mass of
men, refusing to comprehend the underlying spiritual purpose of all
material phenomena, rejecting the Christ within (as they did centuries
ago the Christ within their borders), grasping for material good and
steadily rejecting the things of the spirit.
They demand the so-called restitution of Palestine, wresting it away
from those who have inhabited it for many centuries; and by their
continued emphasis upon material possession they lose sight of the
true solution, which is that, symbolically and factually again, they
must be assimilated into all the nations, and fused with all the
races, thus demonstrating recognition of the One Humanity.
It is interesting to note that the Jews who inhabited southern
Palestine, and whose chief city was Jerusalem, have succeeded in doing
this and have fused with and been assimilated by the British, the
Dutch and the French in a way that the Israelites, ruled from Samaria,
have never done. I commend this to you for your consideration.
If the Jewish race would recall, therefore, their high symbolic
destiny, and if the rest of humanity would see themselves in the
Jewish people, and if both groups would emphasize the fact of human
stock and cease thinking of themselves in terms of national and racial
units, the karma of humanity would radically change from the
retributive karma of the present to the recompensing good karma of the
future.
Regarding this question from the long range vision (looking backward
historically as well as forward hopefully), the problem is one to
which the Jews themselves must make the larger contribution. They
have never yet faced candidly and honestly (as a race) the problem of
why the many nations, from the time of the Egyptians, have neither
liked nor wanted them. It has always been the same down the
centuries.
Yet there must be some reason, inherent in the people themselves, when
the reaction is so general and universal. Their approach to their
direful problem has been one of supplication, or of distressed
complaint, or of unhappy despair. Their demand has been for the
Gentile nations to put the matter right, and many Gentiles have
attempted to do so.
Until, however, the Jews themselves face up to the situation and admit
that there may be for them the working out of the retributive aspect
of the Law of Cause and Effect, and until they endeavor to ascertain
what it is in them, as a race, which has initiated their ancient and
dire fate, this basic world issue will remain as it has been since the
very night of time.
That within the race there are and have been great, good, just and
spiritual men is unalterably true. A generalization is never a
complete expression of the truth. But, viewing the problem of the
Jews in time and space, in history and today, the points which I have
made will bear careful consideration by the Jews.
What I have said in no way mitigates the guilt of those who have so
sorely abused the Jews. You have a proverb, have you not? that "two
blacks do not make a white." The behavior of the nations towards the
Jews, culminating in the atrocities of the second quarter of the
twentieth century, have no excuse. The law must inevitably work.
Though much that has happened to the Jews originated in their past
history and in their pronounced attitude of separativeness and
nonassimilability, and in their emphasis upon material good, yet the
agents who have brought the evil karma upon them equally incur the
retributive aspect of the same law; the situation has now assumed the
form of a vicious circle of error and wrong doing, of retribution and
revenge, and in view of this the time must come when together the
nations will confer upon this problem, and together they will
cooperate to bring to an end the wrong attitudes on both sides.
All karma of evil nature is solved by the presentation of an accepting
will, a cooperative love, a frank acknowledgment of responsibility and
a skillful adjustment of united joint activity to bring about the good
of humanity as a whole, and not just the good of an individual nation
or people or race. The Jewish problem will not be solved by taking
possession of Palestine, by plaint and demand and by financial
manipulations. That would be but the prolongation of ancient wrong
and material possessiveness.
The problem will be solved by the willingness of the Jew to conform to
the civilization, the cultural background and the standards of living
of the nation to which—by the fact of birth and education—he is
related and with which he should assimilate.
It will come by the relinquishment of pride of race and of the concept
of selectivity; it will come by renouncing dogmas and customs which
are intrinsically obsolete and which create points of constant
irritation to the matrix within which the Jew finds himself; it will
come when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced
manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more
selfless and honest forms of activity.
The Jew, owing to his rays and point of development, is outstandingly
creative and artistic. This he must recognize and not seek as he now
does to dominate in all fields, to grasp all opportunities away from
other people, and so better himself and his own people at the expense
of others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew
forgets that he is a Jew and becomes in his inmost consciousness an
Italian, an American, a Britisher, a German or a Pole. This is not so
at this time. The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage;
that of the Negro will not. This will mean concession and compromise
on the part of the orthodox Jews—not the concession of expediency but
the concession of conviction.
Let me point out also that just as the Kabbalah and the Talmud are
secondary lines of esoteric approach to truth, and materialistic in
their technique (embodying much of the magical work of relating one
grade of matter to the substance of another grade), so the Old
Testament is emphatically a secondary Scripture, and spiritually does
not rank with the Bhagavad-Gita, the ancient Scriptures of the East
and the New Testament.
Its emphasis is material and its effect is to impress a purely
materialistic Jehovah upon world consciousness. The general theme of
the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the
divine wisdom in the first solar system; that system embodied the
creative work of the third aspect of divinity—that of active
intelligence, expressing itself through matter. In this solar system,
the created world is intended to be the expression of the second
aspect, of the love of God.
This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old
Testament is the separative, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct
unit within the fourth or human kingdom. St. Paul summed up the
attitude which humanity should assume in the words: "There is neither
Jew nor Gentile." The evil karma of the Jew today is intended to end
his isolation, to bring him to the point of relinquishing material
goals, of renouncing a nationality that has a tendency to be somewhat
parasitic within the boundaries of other nations, and to express
inclusive love, instead of separative unhappiness.
And what of the Gentile attitude? It is absolutely necessary that the
nations meet the Jew more than half way when he arrives at
altering—slowly and gradually—his nationalistic orthodoxy. It is
essential that they cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and
from placing barriers to cooperation.
The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the
sight of God and man. I refer not here to the abominable cruelties of
the obsessed German people. Behind that lies a history of Atlantean
relationships into which it is needless for me to enter because I
could not prove to you the truth of my statements. I refer to the
history of the past two thousand years and to the everyday behavior of
Gentile people everywhere.
There must be a definite effort upon the part of the nationals of
every country to assimilate the Jews, to inter-marry with them, and to
refuse to recognize as barriers old habits of thought and ancient bad
relations. Men everywhere must regard it as a blot upon their
national integrity if there is the appearance within their borders of
the old duality—Jew and Gentile.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile; there is only Humanity. This war
(1914-1945) should be regarded as having brought to a conclusion the
ancient enmity between Jew and Gentile, and the two groups have now
the opportunity to originate a newer and happier measure of living and
a truly cooperative relation on either side.
The process of assimilation will be slow, for the situation is of so
ancient a date that habits of thought, customary attitudes and
separative customs are well established and hard to overcome. But the
needed changes can be made if goodwill directs the spoken word, the
written presentation and the mode of living together.
The Hierarchy sees no distinction. The Head of the Hierarchy, though
not in a Jewish body at this time, achieved the highest spiritual goal
for humanity whilst in a Jewish vehicle. The Hierarchy is also
sending into Jewish bodies certain disciples who will work with full
intent at the changing of the situation.
There are Jews today, a few in number, who do not think in terms of
being Jews; who are not preoccupied with the Jewish problem to the
exclusion of all else, and who are endeavoring to fuse all people into
one humanity, thus bridging the gap.
Again, I say, that the Masters of the Wisdom see neither Jew nor
Gentile, but only souls and sons of God.
++++++++++++++++++++
My question is.
Does the above still not put equal blame on the Jews for the holocaust
and +all+ their suffering just because they refuse to convert to
Christianity (or Baileys version of it).
Is this a punishment because we rejected Yeshua as the Messiah? I do
not accept that excuse for our persecutions.
Do Orthodox Jews not have the right to keep our own religion and
traditions? I dare say we do as much as I believe you do.
Look at the words closely she uses. I am very sorry Allen but she is
wrong and one more question what did she mean by the words "The Jewish
problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not."
Why does it appear to me that everyone has problems (racial or
religious) but not her own group?
Again I apologize Allen but I can not accept Bailey nor her "inspired'
messages and I dare say I can not even find the gems within her
writing that Peyotes claims are there.
Kind Regards and I bare you no malice.
andr...@removehotmail.com
Kind regards. Please keep going.
andr...@removehotmail.com
May I suggest his site to you Casey (It is not mine but it comes
highly recommended by Salmun http://swnews.net
You may get a better world picture of what is really going on and not
hampered by the fantasy the Creme has weaved for you.
andr...@removehotmail.com
Kind regards.
caseyk
>Okay
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
Actually, I was just making a stupid hopscotch joke:)
>Casey:
>>>>By the way, did you ever receive the book? I had it sent to you
>>>>a while ago. You can send whatever you want if it makes you feel
>>>>better. However, my only cost is going to the cost of a cheap
>>>>tape and postage.
>Peyote:
>>>No I didn't I was looking forward to it???? I received some mail from
>>>Russia -a package- and I thought it was from you ... but sorry no
>>>book.
>>
>>>When did you send it? It usually only takes a week to come from the US
>>>-two weeks during Xmas time-? If its not here by the end of the week
>>>I'll blast the Post office in my usual Peyote style LOL.
>Peyote:
>>>LOL we will get you converted yet ;-)
>Casey:
>>Now that is scary:)lol Then I would be arguing with Dore:)
>Peyote:
>Ugh talk about a real need for her meds, BTW if I were you take a
>friendly hint, don't mention her name or she will never leave you
>alone, then again I doubt she reads the NA NG I hope :-(
I'd like to make a small point here:) If she does start
"bothering" me I'll just ignore her if I want. Its a pretty
simple thing to do in these groups. Thats why I never understood
why everyone was "SO" up in arms about certain posters. I
don't mean to start a whole discussion here about that
its just something I was wondering:)
>Casey:
>>AHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
I agree, it is common in many instances. However, I feel
I have taken that into account in my judgement of
Mr. Creme and his story.
>Peyote:
>>>LOL not JME but he is a Maitreya contender, actually I was thinking of
>>>a woman that used to be on the net which gave Maitreya messages, I
>>>might still have her URL around if you want I'll post it. You could
>>>even ask Maitreya questions directly. Chan do Ken also claimed he was
>>>in contact with Maitreya and yet again al three of you contradict each
>>>other.
>Casey:
>>I would hope so:)lol
>Someone is telling a fib, is a liar or clearly delusional.
Well, yes, someone is wrong. But I'm not calling anyone
a liar or telling them what to believe. I have just come
to believe that Mr. Creme's version is correct. Whatever
that might say about others peoples beliefs is not
really my problem. I don't expect everyone to have the
same views I do.
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>>>Supposedly yes.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Oh, he has.
>Peyote:
>I wonder.
Um, he has:)
>Peyote:
>>Yet we still come back to the point I made earlier which was:
>---------
>>God created -or began it all- knowing full well what was going to
>>happen so who then is ultimately responsible? Yes man is also
>>responsible in our time line but so to is god. His design and plan
>>stinks, whether you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation.
>Casey:
>>Well if you feel it stinks you can blame it on God. just
>>don't get me involved:)
>Peyote:
>But it is a part of your system isn't it?
Well, the reason I didn't get into it is because when I
say "God is eveything" that brings in so much more then
you are even implying and I don't pretend to be able
to even comprehend exactly what that mean completely.
At my level I can accept human free will and that
we have to find our own waym to a point.
>---------
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Case:
Listen, I agree that being raped in a horrible thing but it
absolutely would be an infringement if Maitreya doesn't let
anybody commit any crime. Like I said, we would all be "forced"
to be good.
>How does that infringe on free will? I guess next you will be saying
>putting criminals is an infringement on our free will or stopping the
>holocaust infringes on our free will? That is ridiculous Casey?
Its us who are doing these things. We created the society they
happen in. It is up to us to solve our own problems or
we won't learn anything or evolve.
>One could say his is a forced experience and is an infringement on
>our free will for those that don't want him.
Unless He takes the necessary steps first. By the way, he does
help people and stop crimes when he is "allowed" to.
>Peyote:
>>>Both this god and Maitreya being have a lot to answer for when it
>>>comes to the suffering of humanity over thousands of years.
>Casey:
>>No, we do.
>Yes so does a being who created it all knowing what suffering he was
>creating before it was created, Then we have a guy hanging around
>who is waiting for as Tv inert view people are dying all over the
>place.
You are personifying God then placing blame on him. The concept
of God is much bigger then that.
>Sorry Casey it is a crazy notion,
Not really, just will take us all a lot more time to
understand fully.
Casey
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:29:53 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>wrote:
>Casey:
>>Well, just when I thought we were agreeing with eachother
>>somewhat on some things you go and write a post like this:)
>>Well, we'll see what we can do about this:)
>Peyote:
>I thought we were getting to agree with each other on points? We
>obviously will have differences. :-(
Of course:)
>Casey:
>>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
>>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
>>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
>>proving something to me?
>Peyote:
>I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
>may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
>Casey.
Don't worry, not taking it personal, but you did ask "me" to prove
it:)
>Peyote:
>>>Otherwise what is the purpose of putting up the page in the first
>>>place?
>Casey:
>>No, that is probably the express purpose of the page, that doesn't
mean
>>it makes any sense though:)
>See here we differ it does make sense, they are trying to point out
>that Creme -and others like him- is not the Maitreya Bailey was
>talking about.
I know what they are trying to do:) I just don't agree that they
accomplished the task. By the way, you guys make it seem
like Creme is mentioned on the page which he isn't.
>Obviously they set that page up to clear up the confusion or perhaps
>they were even told of for some of Dotty's spam in their name.
>Who knows? I tend to lean towards the idea that they simply wanted it
>stated clearly that Creme is neither endorsed or a part of the Lucis
>Trust.
But they didn't even mention Creme's name. Although I do agree that
to some extent it is meant for him:)
>-snip new and IMO improved GI-
New, not necessarily improved:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just don't
agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
the statement was written.
>Casey:
>>>>"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we
are
>>>>writing off much of the debt to Russia?
>Peyote:
>>>Dubious and that remains to be seen how and if it happens. It will
>>>benefit the people considering the powerful influence the Russian
>>>Mafia has in control. Not to mention the corrupt in the government
>>>itself and the old KGB still is in operation.
>Casey:
>>"Begins" to govern economic affairs. Again, its obviously far from
>>perfect but steps are being taken.
>Peyote:
>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
I'm not saying things are great. In fact, the whole point of
what I've always said is that it seems like we do need some
guidance before we can really make things better. All I
was trying to point out was that steps are being taken. Even
if these steps actually turn out to be harmful what I am
talking about is steps and motive.
>Do you really believe that they will use this help for humanitarian
>purposes, remember Somalia? Huh what a sick joke.
Yes, things don't always turn out so good but the point, in relation
to this discussion, is the attempts.
>Casey:
>>>>"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
>>>>OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
>>>>work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
>>>>different religions and cultures is a decent start. Also, there
>>>>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>>>>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
>Peyote:
>>>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the
Palestinian
>>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
>>>LOL.
>Casey:
>>Well, I agree this one is harder to demonstrate:)
>Yes he tried and tried very hard - respect the guy for that- to make
>concessions but he was even shouted at by the Muslims -I picked this
>bit of info up from Allen's site-.
But that's my WHOLE point (for this discussion). He is trying.
>Casey:
>>Now for the last part:)
>>>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>>>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>>>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>>>what she meant.
>Peyote:
>>>So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
>>>Creme's 'experience'?
>Casey;
>>What are you talking about? I simply stated that as far as
>>Maitreya being the Christ (holding the position of the Christ)
>>both Bailey and Creme agree.
>Peyote:
>I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
And I'm saying it supports him:)
>>>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
>>>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>>>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>Casey:
>>But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
>>their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
>>came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
>>which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
>>this is the time.
>Peyote:
>Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are from
>personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
>pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
>Creme.
I don't agree they clearly debunk Creme. I actually think
the statements leave open the possibility that this is the
time.
>Casey:
>>>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>>>person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
>>>>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>>>>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>>>>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>>>>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>>>>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
>Peyote:
>But he does confirm -via the voices in his head- that X person was the
>Christ/Maitreya etc etc.
Not a specific person that you can go find. He confirms the experience
but even those with the experiences can't go back and find Maitreya.
>Casey:
>>>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for
the
>>>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
>-Added note James sent me this - ... the false believes of the false
>Christ will appear in various places .... and miracles of this false
>Christ will abound worldwide ......
>It is an interesting view/prophecy but since I don't believe in
>miracles in the first place I find it kinda mute LOL -sorry James- ;-)
>Peyote:
>>Ok, I think I'm going nuts again:) I just stated that Mr. Creme
>>does not say the Christ is here or there. He also advises people
>>against going to look for Maitreya. Are you sure we are reading the
same
>>post:)
>That is not true he does do that all the time, he even confirms it, if
>it was Christ or not they saw. Aka did I see Maitreya.... did I see
>Christ in the shopping mall ... Benjamin Cremes confirms this that
>they did -via the voices in his head-.
But Mr. Creme does not point to a particular person or being and
say he is the Christ or Maitreya. If he did we could all go meet
him and we wouldn't be having these discussions:)
>He might advise people to not look for Maitreya but do they listen
>-well we know Dotty doesn't for example- so how can you say this? Are
>you familiar with all the Share International people and their daily
>activities?
What does this have to do with anything? Mr. Creme does not
indicate that a specfic being (that we can go and see) is the Christ
or Maitreya. He also specifically states you should not "chase"
him. What does it prove if "some" people who hear this story
go look for Maitreya?
>Casey:
>>>>Here's one to think about. Even when Maitreya appears
>>>>on his first TV interview Mr. Creme will not come out
>>>>and say that was the Christ or Maitreya. It will be up
>>>>to us to decide for ourselves based on the criteria
>>>>listed in your quote above.
>Peyote:
>Uhmm Casey you have missed something important here, Creme doesn't
>have to say it because Share International -his foundation- and the
>Tara center, yourself, Betsy and even Dotty have already said it ;-)
>Creme may have even said it -actually I think he did mention it on the
>Art Bell show-. -I could be wrong here though on this-
How could anyone have mentioned that a specific guest on a show
was Maitreya when the show hasn't even happened yet?
>Sorry I fail to see your point when you have already mentioned it over
>and over and over ...........
>Peyote:
>>>You missed out on the points which said:
>>
>>>1. SOME CLAIM that the Christ has already reappeared in physical form
>>>and has been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
>>
>>>2. The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.
>Casey:
>>Again I think you are reading a different post then I am. RIGHT
>>ABOVE this statement we just got through discussing this exact line.
>Peyote:
>>>Oops you failed Casey on both accounts or is the Lucis Trust a bunch
>>>of liars? Face the facts they reject Benjamin Creme and those like
>>>him.
>-Added comment- yes and I explained it.
I think we are going around in circles. Yes they reject Mr. Creme.
No I don't think they are right. No I don't think they are liars
just incorrect.
>Casey:
>>Peyote, you know I have never called anyone a liar. Are you just
trying
>>to incite people? And again, you know very well I have stated many
>>times now that I agree that they reject Mr. Creme. I just feel they
>>are mistaken, this is totally different then calling anybody
>>a liar. Come on Peyote, why are you resorting to tactics like this?
>Because the facts demands at least the following:
>1. Someone is lying
Nope.
>2. Someone is being deceptive.
Nope.
>3. Someone -and it doesn't have to be Creme only- is delusional
I wouldn't say delusion just mistaken (not Mr. Creme).
>4. Your experiences and studies contradict each other
Yes.
>5. Your so called guidance from the masters disagree
Well, they are just interpreting:)
>6. Your all wrong -aka fantasy and guess work etc-
Maybe:)
>7. It is nothing more than the product of your own minds. -so in
>effect you are all right LOL-
Maybe:)
>So again I must ask you Casey did what the Lucis trust put up is an
>outright lie or was it one of the above?
Could be some of the above. I would just say they are mistaken
with good intentions.
>Please try to look at this logically. Something is seriously wrong
>here, first the attack on the GI -by you- and now the Lucis Trust
>denounces Creme. Why? Aren't you all supposed to be guided by the same
>masters?
Well, I never claimed to be "guided" by a master and as far as I know
neither has the leadership of Lucis Trust. We are all working
off the written word (as far as the Bailey books go).
I didn't attack the GI:) I just don't agree it should have been
changed.
>Ditto for the Theosophical's rejection of Creme's work.
Again, I don't think the leadship is claiming to be guided
by any of the masters.
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
Well, maybe we are both wrong but we both can't both be right as
far as Mr. Creme's information that Maitreya has already
returned.
>Casey:
>>>>Sure, but that doesn't make them correct anymore then it
>>>>makes me correct (which you keep claiming I'm not:).
>>>>Its up for each one of us to decide for ourselves.
>Peyote:
>>>My point exactly, the product of your own mind perhaps?
>Casey:
>>Perhaps.
>Okay.
>Casey:
>>>Now I don't want to give the impression I'm totally against
>>>the Arcane Society. I think they do some very good work.
>Peyote:
>>Translation: But not really as good as Benjamin Creme does.
>Casey:
>>Thats your translation not mine:)
>Peyote:
>>>But accurate wouldn't you say? Or do you think their work is better
>>>than Benjamin Creme's? Come on Casey admit it you think Creme's stuff
>>>is better and Maitreya will be here soon.
>Casey:
>>Well I do think Maitreya IS here and will emerge openly VERY soon:)
>Yes Casey if you really think so LOL ;-)
Finally we reach an agreement:)lol
>Peyote.
eo
-snipped-
Dear Casey, I'd like to enter this discussion though I'm only beginning to
read this thread. You don't have to answer of course. Please excuse my foul
flame war with Fallen. I've never been in one like that before. I've been in
flame wars with great thinkers on the net, like Cecil, and several mystics
and theists; but never one this ridiculous.
Anyway, I will post an excerpt from Lindsey's book next week I guess which
alerts Christians (he has a vast reading and viewing audience) to the
"Satanic" ties to Bailey and Lucis Trust.
I have a few questions which won't be very profound. And I'll work my way
down the thread hopefully. Several posts seem to be missing though. :
What's the idea of Christ or Maitreya appearing when there is so much
sharing and peace in the world? Shouldn't Christ be instrumental in bringing
that about?
Also, I believe you are way off in your assessment of conflicts in the
world. There are many movements in the US that are AGAINST sharing with most
other countries. Notice the demonstrations against the WTO and the World
Bank. If anything, things are looking to heat up before they simmer down.
There is still a lot of anger and tension in the world. I could go over the
hotspots, but a trip to www.stratfor.com would suffice to explain.
, we have Russia with her wars
>and economic chaos, -and nuclear weapons- etc etc.
I like the Duma's Salt II ratification, but the ABM treaty discussions could
cause a mess. We are FAR from being out of the woods yet.
>>"When sharing begins to govern economic affairs". Did you know we are
>>writing off much of the debt to Russia?
There is NO serious progress on that front as you should know. The Mafia
might be suppressed, but now there is Western pressure which will force
difficult negotiations, which will take a long time to bring relief to the
poor. Meanwhile the ABM mess must be resolved.
>Dubious and that remains to be seen how and if it happens.
>Casey:
>
>>Also many countries are starting to write off the debt to many
>>third world nations. We are also very instrumental in
>>providing resources to Russia durring these hard times
>>(and they were very recently our mortal enemy).
Untrue. The protests in Washington show that we are FAR from reaching
coordination towards sharing. Russia is FAR from being relieved unless Putin
is a miracle politician...which would make him Maitreya...Yes? And he's
already been on TV. ;)
>Casey:
>
>>Also remember the "USA for Africa" movement and many others. I can
>>go on but I think a case can be made that we are "beginning" to
>>share more as a world.
There are hard feelings in Northern Africa. And Central Africa. There is an
AIDS crisis as well. This is emergency time for Africa. Christ must save
these people instead of waiting till these problems clear up by themselves
(highly unlikely).
>No what we are doing is facing the reality that some countries can
>not pay of their debts. And who are those debts owed to? The world
>banks. It is not a case of sharing at all but a case of the reality
>that they simply can not pay of their debts. -It is a bit more complex
>than this but for now this will suffice-.
>
>Casey:
>
>>"When churches and political groups have begun to clean house".
>>OK, this one is harder to demonstrate:)lol However, the recent
>>work of the Pope trying to mend rifts between the
>>different religions and cultures is a decent start.
Not even close. Read some Christian groups. Many Protestants think a Pope
will be the AC. Cleaning up their act?....There is NO SIGN of that. If
anything, the fundies are getting restless.
Also, there
>>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
You must be kidding. Whichever party wins the elections overall, will be
accused of everything in the book by the opposing party, in the US. You
don't see the DEEP divisions between Repubs and Dems, and libs and conservs,
also business and labor, etc.?
>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the Palestinian
>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
>LOL.
>
>Casey:
>
>>Now for the last part:)
>>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>
>>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>>what she meant.
>
>So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
>Creme's 'experience'?
>
>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>
>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>person and say he is the Christ. Actually, this is your major
>>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
Who was that guy in the photo supposed to be then? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway Tara's pamphlets keep mentioning some guy living anonymously in the
ghettos of London, who is of Asian descent. And who is Creme in telepathic
contant with supposedly?...No one in particular ("To whom it may concern",
maybe?)?
>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
-snipped-
would be great.
>>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>>is worth trying:)
If you make things harder for true seekers and New Agers, because of the
Bailey-Lucifer ties, will you say, "oops, Im sorry"?
Eo
.............................
Allen Crider
<andr...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38fb5dc3...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> related and with which he should assimilate.
>
> It will come by the relinquishment of pride of race and of the concept
> of selectivity; it will come by renouncing dogmas and customs which
> are intrinsically obsolete and which create points of constant
> irritation to the matrix within which the Jew finds himself; it will
> come when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced
> manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more
> selfless and honest forms of activity.
>
>
> The Jew, owing to his rays and point of development, is outstandingly
> creative and artistic. This he must recognize and not seek as he now
> does to dominate in all fields, to grasp all opportunities away from
> other people, and so better himself and his own people at the expense
> of others. Release from the present situation will come when the Jew
> forgets that he is a Jew and becomes in his inmost consciousness an
> Italian, an American, a Britisher, a German or a Pole. This is not so
> at this time. The Jewish problem will be solved by intermarriage;
> that of the Negro will not. This will mean concession and compromise
> the concession of conviction.
>
>
> Let me point out also that just as the Kabbalah and the Talmud are
> secondary lines of esoteric approach to truth, and materialistic in
> their technique (embodying much of the magical work of relating one
> grade of matter to the substance of another grade), so the Old
> Testament is emphatically a secondary Scripture, and spiritually does
> not rank with the Bhagavad-Gita, the ancient Scriptures of the East
> and the New Testament.
>
> Its emphasis is material and its effect is to impress a purely
> materialistic Jehovah upon world consciousness. The general theme of
> the Old Testament is the recovery of the highest expression of the
> divine wisdom in the first solar system; that system embodied the
> intelligence, expressing itself through matter. In this solar system,
> the created world is intended to be the expression of the second
> aspect, of the love of God.
>
> This the Jew has never grasped, for the love expressed in the Old
> Testament is the separative, possessive love of Jehovah for a distinct
> unit within the fourth or human kingdom. St. Paul summed up the
> attitude which humanity should assume in the words: "There is neither
> Jew nor Gentile." The evil karma of the Jew today is intended to end
> his isolation, to bring him to the point of relinquishing material
> goals, of renouncing a nationality that has a tendency to be somewhat
> parasitic within the boundaries of other nations, and to express
> inclusive love, instead of separative unhappiness.
>
>
> And what of the Gentile attitude? It is absolutely necessary that the
> nations meet the Jew more than half way when he arrives at
> essential that they cease from fear and persecution, from hatred and
> from placing barriers to cooperation.
>
> The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the
> sight of God and man. I refer not here to the abominable cruelties of
> the obsessed German people. Behind that lies a history of Atlantean
> relationships into which it is needless for me to enter because I
> could not prove to you the truth of my statements. I refer to the
> history of the past two thousand years and to the everyday behavior of
> Gentile people everywhere.
>
> There must be a definite effort upon the part of the nationals of
> every country to assimilate the Jews, to inter-marry with them, and to
> refuse to recognize as barriers old habits of thought and ancient bad
> relations. Men everywhere must regard it as a blot upon their
> national integrity if there is the appearance within their borders of
Yep. Pretty much so. I had mentioned that in an earlier article somewhere.
>
> Is this a punishment because we rejected Yeshua as the Messiah? I do
> not accept that excuse for our persecutions.
Neither do I.
>
> Do Orthodox Jews not have the right to keep our own religion and
> traditions?
In most countries that's true! Many people continue to suffer in this world
because exclusive societies attempt to force others into their spiritual (or
even atheistic) practices.
> I dare say we do as much as I believe you do.
Absolutely!
> Look at the words closely she uses. I am very sorry Allen but she is
> wrong and one more question what did she mean by the words "The Jewish
> problem will be solved by intermarriage; that of the Negro will not."
Well... yes, I also believe she is wrong. I suppose she claims the Jewish
'culture' would be absorbed due to intermarriage. I haven't read any more
explanation of her take on black relations.
>
> Why does it appear to me that everyone has problems (racial or
> religious) but not her own group?
If 'by her own group' you mean standard Western civilization , no she
fesses up to a lot of problems!
>
> Again I apologize Allen but I can not accept Bailey nor her "inspired'
> messages and I dare say I can not even find the gems within her
> writing that Peyotes claims are there.
They're in there all right. Bailey's stuff generates animosity because of
what she said (as the example above) about Jews.
She covered a lot more ground than just society, politics, etc. But there
isn't any reason to seek out her 'gems' if her other stuff makes you want to
throw up!
>
> Kind Regards and I bare you no malice.
I have no malice towards any, except Dotty... :-)
eo
ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote in message <8dfq2d$dh4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Casey:
>
>>>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
>>>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
>>>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
>>>proving something to me?
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
>>may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
>>Casey.
>
>Don't worry, not taking it personal, but you did ask "me" to prove
>it:)
That was news to me...sort of. There were vague references before. But you
are still vague yourself Casey. You admit the above and below you deflect,
by saying Creme's not mentioned, then saying it WAS partly aimed at him. But
this is relatively unimportant to me.
I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New Age
movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
common understanding among peoples. The hardline Christians will surely say
it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts about
both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some light
from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
Casey:
>
>>>No, that is probably the express purpose of the page, that doesn't
>mean
>>>it makes any sense though:)
>
>>See here we differ it does make sense, they are trying to point out
>>that Creme -and others like him- is not the Maitreya Bailey was
>>talking about.
>
>I know what they are trying to do:) I just don't agree that they
>accomplished the task. By the way, you guys make it seem
>like Creme is mentioned on the page which he isn't.
>
>>Obviously they set that page up to clear up the confusion or perhaps
>>they were even told of for some of Dotty's spam in their name.
>
>>Who knows? I tend to lean towards the idea that they simply wanted it
>>stated clearly that Creme is neither endorsed or a part of the Lucis
>>Trust.
>
>But they didn't even mention Creme's name. Although I do agree that
>to some extent it is meant for him:)
>>>>>This will also try to address Allen's comment about the last line.
>>>>>First lets look at the conditions that would have to be met before
>the
>>>>>physical appearance of the Christ. "When a measure of peace has
>been restored
>>>>>to the world". Well lets see, the cold war is over, there are
>negotiations
>>>>>for peace in the middle east, the IRA has a peace treaty with
>Britain,
>>>>>Aparthied is over, re-unification of Germany, etc. Anyway, I think
>a case
>>>>>can be made that a "measure" of peace has been restored.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>Nope we still have the fighting in Kosovo, the wars in Africa
>>>>-including cult suicides are on the rise- the emergence of Neo Nazis
>>>>-especially after the wall came down-, the immigrant and Turkish
>>>>problem in Germany-the Kashmir conflict, terrorist activities are up,
>>>>Israel with its problems -despite the popes visit-
-snipped
Russia with her wars
>>>>and economic chaos, -and nuclear weapons- etc etc.
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>I never said there were no conflicts. On the contrary there are
>probably
>>>hundreds of conflicts still going on. However, it is a commonly
>>>accepted fact (in the news at least) that since the cold war ended
>>>there is a new spirit of peace and cooperation to try and end these
>>>conflicts. It definitely not perfect now but I think many people
>>>would agree that a "measure" of peace has been restored. Especially
>>>since this statement was made right after WWII and at the begining
>>>of the cold war. At the very least its debateable.
Only in Europe. There is as you admit conflict, in many places. The Viet Nam
and Korean and Gulf Wars were no picnic either. The latest news is that Gulf
War veterans were exposed to nerve gas.
>>Peyote:
>
>>A new measure of peace implies more than changes which have occurred
>>recently. Look at history, changes have always occurred, contracts
>>made, contracts broken, new hopes for a better world, yet wars still
>>rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
>>measure of peace'.
>
>>You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea on
>>this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
>>picture -aka the world view-.
>
>OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just don't
>agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
>the statement was written.
If anything, we are reaching a critical mass. We could explode at any moment
because of weather probs, greenhouse warming, pollution, and most
importantly overpopulation. Also there is a rise in religious fanaticism,
eg. suicides, militias, protests that turn violent. What we DON'T need is
someone mentioning on TV that he is Maitreya and that Lucifer is the
oversoul and that yous all are Lucifer. That may seem funny to us, but
believe me Casey, Peyote was wise not to crosspost this thread. An
appearance or "emergence" like that would confirm Christians', Jews', and
Muslims' worst fears.
>>Peyote:
>
>>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
>
>So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
Not nearly. The only conditions are those the Christians, Muslims, and
Native Americans have predicted: ie. a time of great strife and natural
disasters.
re
>>>>>has been a ton of political scandels that have come out. This
>>>>>could be cleaning house or just politics:)
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the
>Palestinian
>>>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>>>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better either
>>>>LOL.
Yes this is a very weak point against the excerpt. If anything paranoia will
grow concerning a "one world gov". Christian fundies and evangelicals are
ready to stomp over anyone who even hints of one. The labor groups,
environmentalists and conservative isolatioists formed a "holy" alliance
against sharing and world trade agreements. Religions are up in arms like
almost never before, searching for that one world conspiracy.
>>Casey:
>
>>>Well, I agree this one is harder to demonstrate:)
>
>>Yes he tried and tried very hard - respect the guy for that- to make
>>concessions but he was even shouted at by the Muslims -I picked this
>>bit of info up from Allen's site-.
>
>But that's my WHOLE point (for this discussion). He is trying.
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>Now for the last part:)
>
>>>>" The CHRIST WILL NOT BE "CLAIMED OR PROCLAIMED",
>>>>EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."
>
>>>>Yes, Mr. Creme claims that Maitreya is the Christ. However,
>>>>this is EXACTLY what Alice Bailey claimed also so that can't be
>>>>what she meant.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>>>So your saying they are lying in the above because it contradicts
>>>>Creme's 'experience'?
>
>>Casey;
>
>>>What are you talking about? I simply stated that as far as
>>>Maitreya being the Christ (holding the position of the Christ)
>>>both Bailey and Creme agree.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
>
>And I'm saying it supports him:)
Creme does point and communicate telepathically with *his* Maitreya.
>>>>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have drawn
>>>>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>>>>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>
>>Casey:
>
>>>But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
>>>their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
>>>came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
>>>which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
>>>this is the time.
For what? Religions are not nearly in agreement in the US. If anything there
is paranoia in the US about global unification. As America goes, so goes the
world. And I'm not being chauvinistic. I mean, try posting your Maitreya
stuff in alt.bible.prophecy and SEE how many people call your associates
(spammers) evil and workers for the AC.
>>Peyote:
>
>>Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are from
>>personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
>>pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
>>Creme.
>
>I don't agree they clearly debunk Creme. I actually think
>the statements leave open the possibility that this is the
>time.
This is the time yes. But Creme is tainted by his Lucis connections. You
should let the real Maitreya do his work: 3 months ago I wrote that the
Messiah could be a combination of the PC (Time: Man of the Year in 1982) and
the Internet. You remember that I'm sure. You see all that meditation led
Creme to the right year, but like the Baptist he couldn't recognize the
savior.
Certainly his connection to Bailey and Lucis and Lucifer will be exposed,
and guess what. Peace may never be possible.
Do you believe in alternate futures Casey? The Native Americans say we have
choices. The Catholic prophecies say we have choices. The choices are a
spiritual cleansing or a physical (annihilation) cleansing or
"chastisement". Guess which one mentioning Lucifer would enhance. Try to be
honest Casey. If the Internet is the Messiah, that means many thousands of
informed thinkers in many different areas of knowledge will pool resources,
etc. Think of the possibilities. I truly believe though that there will be
about a 7-9 year ideological war on many communication fronts, before there
can be a peaceful evolution. One of the important steps in the process will
be the "discovery" of telepathy.
Tell me if you can Casey, what do you and Creme, whom you are in contact
with, think about telepathy?
There is a lot of info I must hold back, Casey, for several months. But I'd
like a discussion about telepathy with you. This is something impossible
between you and Peyote. You know that Creme says he's in telepathic
communication with Maitreya. But what is telepathy to you? Don't worry, I
won't expose you to the atheists.
I'll even start this off. I'm 99.999999% sure I have a brain, but I'm 100%
sure that telepathy and precognition are human abilities. Still telepathy is
more provable in labs than precognition, especially between identical twins.
You stated that Maitreya does things for the hopeless when he is "allowed".
You stated that Satan overstepped his mandate or words to that effect. Would
you address telepathy, allowed, and overstepped. To me that means the
spirits allow some exchange while censoring others...kind of like censoring
bots with feelings.
>>Casey:
>
>>>>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>>>>person and say he is the Christ.
That's sensible. But his Lucifer references make him a nuisance to human
evolution in my opinion; even though you say Lucifer is all of humanity. Gee
that sounds weird...kind of like your view of Venusians which I posted
before. I didn't see an answer. If you did answer my posting, please let me
know, and I'll check deja. How about it? Please address my opinion that
Maitreya-Christ is the PC-Internet. And please address the topic of
telepathy. And address the topic of how weird the reception would be when
you say to many Americans that Creme believes Lucifer is the morning star
(Venus) who came to earth with the other masters 100,000 years ago to take
up Atlanteans, who were advanced; and among them was Maitreya and Jesus who
showed great promise, so they were instructed as initiates by the masters.
Er...can you say "that sounds weird"?
By the way, don't take this like a personal putdown: I believe the Beatles
are the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and Lennon actually resurrected
bodily from the grave. I also believe that Elvis is still alive and travels
back and forth between Mississippi and the planet Mars every week. ;)
Eo
...........................
Actually, this is your major
>>>>>complaint, isn't it:) When Mr. Creme confirms experiences
>>>>>he really isn't pointed to a specific person, its just an experience
>>>>>by an individual (or group). But Mr. Creme does not say "that guy
>>>>>over there" is the Christ or you can go to this or that place
>>>>>to find the Christ or Maitreya.
>
>>Peyote:
>
>>But he does confirm -via the voices in his head- that X person was the
>>Christ/Maitreya etc etc.
>
>Not a specific person that you can go find. He confirms the experience
>but even those with the experiences can't go back and find Maitreya.
> here though on this-
>
>How could anyone have mentioned that a specific guest on a show
>was Maitreya when the show hasn't even happened yet?
>
>>Sorry I fail to see your point when you have already mentioned it over
>>and over and over ...........
>
>>Casey:
Allen Crider
"eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote in message
news:tQPK4.10982$PV.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote in message <8dfq2d$dh4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >>Casey:
> >
> >>>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
> >>>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
> >>>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
> >>>proving something to me?
> >
> >>Peyote:
> >
> >>I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
> >>may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
> >>Casey.
> >
> >Don't worry, not taking it personal, but you did ask "me" to prove
> >it:)
>
>
>
> That was news to me...sort of. There were vague references before. But you
> are still vague yourself Casey. You admit the above and below you deflect,
> by saying Creme's not mentioned, then saying it WAS partly aimed at him.
But
> this is relatively unimportant to me.
>
> I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
> popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New Age
> movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
> common understanding among peoples. The hardline Christians will surely
say
> it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
The Lucis people have always been an occult group. They never have promised
their stuff as fodder for the masses, like Creme has with his Mayatreya
fellow.
I had a chance to look at Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine last weekend and
she definitely painted Lucifer and Satan as the same being, and that this
being was the lord of the world. Her stuff has never had a large following
(although I think it is quite good)
I can't see either Protestants or Catholics endorsing Creme's dogma, nor
would Muslims (they don't need any stinkin' messiah) nor Buddhists (Buddha
Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been forgotten).
Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite effect to
what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
>
> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
about
> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some light
> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the previous
avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do it.
The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she learns
something we don't already know.
There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky claimed
contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate beings.
Bailey says that enlightenment is a process which burns off the soul. These
ascended masters do not have souls. I don't believe they will ever incarnate
again, but Creme (& to a lesser extent Bailey) claim these masters can
construct a body of manifestation which would resemble a human body. So what
do you think the lay public would say if they were told that their TV
Mayatreya didn't have a soul, that he wasn't 'born of a woman'? ;-)
>
[snip]
eo
Allen Crider wrote in message <8dh2ct$7pif6$1...@fu-berlin.de>...
>
>"eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote in message
>news:tQPK4.10982$PV.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >>Casey:
>> >
>> >>>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
>> >>>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
>> >>>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
>> >>>proving something to me?
>> >
>> >>Peyote:
>> >
>> >>I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
>> >>may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
>> >>Casey.
>> >
>> >Don't worry, not taking it personal, but you did ask "me" to prove
>> >it:)
>>
>>
>>
>> That was news to me...sort of. There were vague references before. But
you
>> are still vague yourself Casey. You admit the above and below you
deflect,
>> by saying Creme's not mentioned, then saying it WAS partly aimed at him.
>But
>> this is relatively unimportant to me.
>>
>> I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
>> popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New Age
>> movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
>say
>> it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
>
>their stuff as fodder for the masses, like Creme has with his Mayatreya
>fellow.
>
>I had a chance to look at Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine last weekend and
>she definitely painted Lucifer and Satan as the same being, and that this
>being was the lord of the world. Her stuff has never had a large following
>(although I think it is quite good)
Yep, her knowledge of the pseudepigrapha (or maybe it's one of her
associate's knowledge) is demonstrated in books attributed to her. The
Lucifer/Satan connection was made rather clear by Andrew's posted excerpts a
month or so ago.
>I can't see either Protestants or Catholics endorsing Creme's dogma,
They would see it as Satan's work of course.
nor
>would Muslims (they don't need any stinkin' messiah)
I wouldn't be surprised if some people would eventually claim to be the Al
or Imam Mahdi though.
nor Buddhists (Buddha
>Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been forgotten).
The Chinese, especially the Taiwanese think his arrival is imminent. I know
of the quote you're referring to though.
>Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite effect to
>what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
Indeed. I don't believe in miracle men or women, at least of the magnitude
of parting the Red Sea, for instance.
So without physical miracles which can't be staged, I can't imagine a verbal
"message" that would unite humanity in beneficent harmony.
>> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
>> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
>about
>> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some light
>> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
>
>I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
>spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the previous
>avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
>lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do it.
>The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she learns
>something we don't already know.
Okay. I believe in this scientific and info age, no one human can fill the
shoes of the anticipated Messiah. Therefore my suggestion of the
PC-Internet. We disagree though on the meaning of arrival prophecies and the
nature of the teacher.
>There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
>telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky claimed
>contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate beings.
Ah, now you are giving me useful new info (for me). I'd like to read Casey's
views though on telepathy in general. I have an extensive knowledge in this
field. I'd like to know what Creme knows from his words (via Casey). If I
read unenlightening responses, I will know Creme is simply trolling blindly
with borrowed and altered info.
>Bailey says that enlightenment is a process which burns off the soul. These
>ascended masters do not have souls. I don't believe they will ever
incarnate
>again, but Creme (& to a lesser extent Bailey) claim these masters can
>construct a body of manifestation which would resemble a human body. So
what
>do you think the lay public would say if they were told that their TV
>Mayatreya didn't have a soul, that he wasn't 'born of a woman'? ;-)
Interesting info. Of course, I believe NO ONE will show up and claim
infinite wisdom or omniscience because he would be exposed as a fraud in
minutes. Someone would ask him, for the sake of world peace and unification,
please tell us all of the closing numbers in stock markets around the world
tomorrow. If he says,"I came to drop hints and tell you to seek peace, and
that you have free will so I need not prove anything to you"; I'm sure
people like me would have some rotten tomatoes ready to throw at his
limousine as he departs - since any street preacher could utter similar
tripe. As for miracles happening before Maitreya arrives, EVERY religious
group would claim credit. So you KNOW what that means: Creme must announce
another year and day and time for the miracle, which would immediately be
followed by Maitreya's face on TV...Ah, these fantasies people like to
believe in...Reminds me of the "rapture" promise last September in various
prophecy newsgroups (on the Feast of Trumpets).
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>"eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote in message
>news:tQPK4.10982$PV.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>The Lucis people have always been an occult group. They never have
promised
>their stuff as fodder for the masses, like Creme has with his Mayatreya
>fellow.
>I had a chance to look at Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine last weekend
and
>she definitely painted Lucifer and Satan as the same being, and that
this
>being was the lord of the world. Her stuff has never had a large
following
>(although I think it is quite good)
>I can't see either Protestants or Catholics endorsing Creme's dogma,
nor
>would Muslims (they don't need any stinkin' messiah) nor Buddhists
(Buddha
>Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been
forgotten).
>Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite
effect to
>what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
The thing is Maitreya will be much more simple and much more
profound then people on this group think. He won't appear
as a "Magic King". Yes, eventually Maitreya will demonstrate some
of the things I say he can do but it will be a natural progression
to that point.
>>
>> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I
do
>> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
>about
>> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some
light
>> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
>I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
>spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the
previous
>avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
>lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do
it.
>The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she
learns
>something we don't already know.
>There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
>telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky
claimed
>contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate
beings.
Mr. Creme does claim the masters are living people. He states that
Jesus is living right now in Rome and in a body that was born (it is
a little old though:).
>Bailey says that enlightenment is a process which burns off the soul.
These
>ascended masters do not have souls. I don't believe they will ever
incarnate
>again, but Creme (& to a lesser extent Bailey) claim these masters can
>construct a body of manifestation which would resemble a human body. So
what
>do you think the lay public would say if they were told that their TV
>Mayatreya didn't have a soul, that he wasn't 'born of a woman'? ;-)
Maitreya absolutely has a soul. In fact he is his soul while we are
just reflections of ours.
Casey
>>
>[snip]
caseyk
>-snipped-
I never felt this was a closed discussion, feel free to ask
whatever questions whenever you want. Whatever you and
Fallen have going is between you two:)
>Anyway, I will post an excerpt from Lindsey's book next week I guess which
>alerts Christians (he has a vast reading and viewing audience) to the
>"Satanic" ties to Bailey and Lucis Trust.
I can hardley wait:)lol
>I have a few questions which won't be very profound. And I'll work my way
>down the thread hopefully. Several posts seem to be missing though. :
>What's the idea of Christ or Maitreya appearing when there is so much
>sharing and peace in the world? Shouldn't Christ be instrumental in bringing
>that about?
>Also, I believe you are way off in your assessment of conflicts in the
>world. There are many movements in the US that are AGAINST sharing with most
>other countries. Notice the demonstrations against the WTO and the World
>Bank. If anything, things are looking to heat up before they simmer down.
>There is still a lot of anger and tension in the world. I could go over the
>hotspots, but a trip to www.stratfor.com would suffice to explain.
Ok, I read the whole post and it seems most of your comments are that
things really aren't so good and why would a Christ wait til we fix
things before he helps us (correct me if I got this wrong).
Anyway, my point was never that things are so great or that every
event that I mentioned turned out good. By the same token
I was not implying that Maitreya would wait until we fixed
everything to emerge.
The whole point is that we had to at leat "start" moving in the
right direction then Maitreya's hand would be freed to help
us much more directly. I agree with you that many of the
initiatives mentioned below either are not working out well at
all or were done for selfish reasons (politcal reasons).
The real point here, however, is that even if the politicians
are doing something to appease the general public to get
elected and also might have alterior motives they are
still doing because that is "our" general will. Humanity
is demanding that the politicians move in these directions, thats
the only reason many politicians do anything nowadays, to get re-elected.
The point is that humanity is moving in that direction. There is
a general will that the countries should work together to
end conflicts and hardship. For the point I'm trying to make
it really doesn't matter how effective they are just that they
are trying. Of course it would be much better if they were
more effective but its the token gestures that will allow
Maitreya to help us more directly.
By the way, we are already past that point in Maitreya's open
emergence. He is coming to help more directly. Now its just a
matter of emerging at the exact best time for us.
Yes, but my point is that person in the photo is just that, a person
in a photo. It wasn't even how Maitreya looks exactly in London.
It was how those people expected to see the Christ (although
I'm told there are many similarities). The thing I'm saying
Mr. Creme is not doing is pointing to a specific person anyone
can actually go see and say that is the Christ. I realize this
is a fine line but its up for you to decide if it meets
the "criteria". I'm just bringing up a point.
>>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
>>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
> been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
>-snipped-
>would be great.
>>>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>>>is worth trying:)
>If you make things harder for true seekers and New Agers, because of the
>Bailey-Lucifer ties, will you say, "oops, Im sorry"?
I don't really believe Bailey does make things harder for New Agers.
Anyone who actually reads her information in its entire context
would see this. It actually clears many things up. What makes
things confusing is when people use little snipets of her work
and try to use it against her IMHO.
Casey
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote in message
<8dfq2d$dh4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>Casey:
>>
>>>>A couple of things here. First of all I have always agreed that
>>>>Lucis Trust/Arcane Society does not want to be associated
>>>>with Mr. Creme. You knew that so why act like you are
>>>>proving something to me?
>>
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>I am not trying to prove to you the obvious but to other people who
>>>may not be ware of some of these things. Don't take it so personal
>>>Casey.
>>
>>Don't worry, not taking it personal, but you did ask "me" to prove
>>it:)
>That was news to me...sort of. There were vague references before. But
you
>are still vague yourself Casey. You admit the above and below you
deflect,
>by saying Creme's not mentioned, then saying it WAS partly aimed at
him. But
>this is relatively unimportant to me.
I have stated many times that I understand that the Arcane school/Lucis
trust organization does not accept Mr. Creme's views about Maitreya
being here now. I don't know how much clearer I can get. All I
was saying about Mr. Creme's name not being mentioned was when refering
to the page that we are talking about now. The way Peyote was talking
he made it sound like Mr. Creme's name was specifically mentioned
on the page and it isn't.
>I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
>popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New
Age
>movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
>common understanding among peoples. The hardline Christians will surely
say
>it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
But this is all before they actually experience these beings themselves.
Until that happens its all guesswork on who would react what way. Yews
I agree that some of the things I talk about would be automatically
rejected by many today (from their current viewpoint).
>Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
>believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
about
>both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some
light
>from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
Sure:)
>Russia with her wars
>>>>>and economic chaos, -and nuclear weapons- etc etc.
>>
>>>Casey:
>>
>>>>I never said there were no conflicts. On the contrary there are
>>probably
>>>>hundreds of conflicts still going on. However, it is a commonly
>>>>accepted fact (in the news at least) that since the cold war ended
>>>>there is a new spirit of peace and cooperation to try and end these
>>>>conflicts. It definitely not perfect now but I think many people
>>>>would agree that a "measure" of peace has been restored. Especially
>>>>since this statement was made right after WWII and at the begining
>>>>of the cold war. At the very least its debateable.
>Only in Europe. There is as you admit conflict, in many places. The
Viet Nam
>and Korean and Gulf Wars were no picnic either. The latest news is that
Gulf
>War veterans were exposed to nerve gas.
I tried to address what I meant in the other part of this thread.
Actually, what is happening is all the deep seated problems and
separations are boiling to the surface. They have always been
there but not so apparant. Now that they are visible to all
we can start to address the root causes and problems.
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
>>
>>So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
>Not nearly. The only conditions are those the Christians, Muslims, and
>Native Americans have predicted: ie. a time of great strife and natural
>disasters.
I was specifically talking about the Lucis Trust page.
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>>>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the
>>Palestinian
>>>>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>>>>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better
either
>>>>>LOL.
>Yes this is a very weak point against the excerpt. If anything paranoia
will
>grow concerning a "one world gov". Christian fundies and evangelicals
are
>ready to stomp over anyone who even hints of one. The labor groups,
>environmentalists and conservative isolatioists formed a "holy"
alliance
>against sharing and world trade agreements. Religions are up in arms
like
>almost never before, searching for that one world conspiracy.
It all depends on how things are approached. I realize that what I'm
stating Maitreya will do is VERY difficult and almost beyond
belief. He will have to reach everyone coming from millions of
different viewpoints. Thats why many of the things he talks
about will be very simple and clear and cut through all the
separations.
>>>I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
>>
>>And I'm saying it supports him:)
>Creme does point and communicate telepathically with *his* Maitreya.
Well, Mr. Creme actually doesn't communicate directly with Maitreya
on a regular basis. He is in constant telepathic communication
with one of the senior members of hierarchy. Yes, I say Mr. Creme
talks about a specific being but he does not say exactly who
he is (as in a physical being we can go see) or where he can
be found. So Mr. Creme is saying this being he is talking
about is the Christ but does not point him out.
>>>>>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have
drawn
>>>>>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>>>>>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>>
>>>Casey:
>>
>>>>But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
>>>>their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
>>>>came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
>>>>which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
>>>>this is the time.
>For what? Religions are not nearly in agreement in the US. If anything
there
>is paranoia in the US about global unification. As America goes, so
goes the
>world. And I'm not being chauvinistic. I mean, try posting your
Maitreya
>stuff in alt.bible.prophecy and SEE how many people call your
associates
>(spammers) evil and workers for the AC.
When Maitreya speaks to the world himself it won't be as the Christ
or the Buddha or using any of those names. He will simply be
asked to be called a teacher and talk directly about problems
and solutions that everyone can relate to.
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are
from
>>>personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
>>>pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
>>>Creme.
>>
>>I don't agree they clearly debunk Creme. I actually think
>>the statements leave open the possibility that this is the
>>time.
>This is the time yes. But Creme is tainted by his Lucis connections.
You
>should let the real Maitreya do his work: 3 months ago I wrote that the
>Messiah could be a combination of the PC (Time: Man of the Year in
1982) and
>the Internet. You remember that I'm sure. You see all that meditation
led
>Creme to the right year, but like the Baptist he couldn't recognize the
>savior.
>Certainly his connection to Bailey and Lucis and Lucifer will be
exposed,
>and guess what. Peace may never be possible.
Maitreya will probably not talk about such things but it won't have
to be "exposed". Its in the Bailey books for all to see.
>Do you believe in alternate futures Casey? The Native Americans say we
have
>choices. The Catholic prophecies say we have choices. The choices are a
>spiritual cleansing or a physical (annihilation) cleansing or
>"chastisement". Guess which one mentioning Lucifer would enhance. Try
to be
>honest Casey. If the Internet is the Messiah, that means many thousands
of
>informed thinkers in many different areas of knowledge will pool
resources,
>etc. Think of the possibilities. I truly believe though that there will
be
>about a 7-9 year ideological war on many communication fronts, before
there
>can be a peaceful evolution. One of the important steps in the process
will
>be the "discovery" of telepathy.
I believe that in one way the future is set and in another way it isn't.
All things that will ever happen have already happened. However, how
they parcipitate on the physical plane depends on what we do with
our free will. This can affect the "apparent" timing of things and
maybe even the form they take on the physical plane.
>Tell me if you can Casey, what do you and Creme, whom you are in
contact
>with, think about telepathy?
Well, I do not claim to be telepathic or understant it fully but I can
address aat least a portion of what it means and what Mr. Creme
has gone through. For more information yuo can read the Alice
Bailey book on telepathy. There should be plenty of information
to think about since a whole book is devoted to it.
How Mr. Creme communicates with his master (after many years of
lessons and preparation) is through actual ideas. From our
perspective this could translate into an actual voice in our head
but that is mostly the brain interpreting the information. There
is also telepathy involved in intuition.
>There is a lot of info I must hold back, Casey, for several months. But
I'd
>like a discussion about telepathy with you. This is something
impossible
>between you and Peyote. You know that Creme says he's in telepathic
>communication with Maitreya. But what is telepathy to you? Don't worry,
I
>won't expose you to the atheists.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on telepathy but I can try to
discuss
some aspects (starting with my info above) and I suggest the Alice
Bailey book "Telepathy" for a much more in depth discussion.
>I'll even start this off. I'm 99.999999% sure I have a brain, but I'm
100%
>sure that telepathy and precognition are human abilities. Still
telepathy is
>more provable in labs than precognition, especially between identical
twins.
>You stated that Maitreya does things for the hopeless when he is
"allowed".
>You stated that Satan overstepped his mandate or words to that effect.
Would
>you address telepathy, allowed, and overstepped. To me that means the
>spirits allow some exchange while censoring others...kind of like
censoring
>bots with feelings.
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. When I say Maitreya is not
"allowed" to do certain things it is because he works under laws
that he will not (probably could) break. Most
involve not infringing on our free will. First of all I am not
personifying Satan. It is more of an idea then a being.
It is really certain forces affecting areas that they shouldn't
be working with.
>>>Casey:
>>
>>>>>>What Mr. Creme does not do is point to a specific
>>>>>>person and say he is the Christ.
>That's sensible. But his Lucifer references make him a nuisance to
human
>evolution in my opinion; even though you say Lucifer is all of
humanity. Gee
>that sounds weird...kind of like your view of Venusians which I posted
>before. I didn't see an answer. If you did answer my posting, please
let me
>know, and I'll check deja. How about it? Please address my opinion that
>Maitreya-Christ is the PC-Internet. And please address the topic of
>telepathy. And address the topic of how weird the reception would be
when
>you say to many Americans that Creme believes Lucifer is the morning
star
>(Venus) who came to earth with the other masters 100,000 years ago to
take
>up Atlanteans, who were advanced; and among them was Maitreya and Jesus
who
>showed great promise, so they were instructed as initiates by the
masters.
>Er...can you say "that sounds weird"?
I completely agree that all I have to say is VERY "weird" as far as
general perception goes. Maitreya is not going to blurt all these
things out in his first interview. Nothings will be hiden and
people will have all the information available in te Bailey books
but Maitreya will speak at a much more basic and simple level
that everyone will be able to relate to. He won't call himself
the Christ or the Buddha or the Messiah. He will talk about
the problems that face all of us today and the simple answers.
Probably the most complex topic he will talk about for a while
will be the concept of sharing and seeing everyone as
one humanity. I'm not even certain if he will call himself
Maitreya or not.
>By the way, don't take this like a personal putdown: I believe the
Beatles
>are the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and Lennon actually
resurrected
>bodily from the grave. I also believe that Elvis is still alive and
travels
>back and forth between Mississippi and the planet Mars every week. ;)
I'm sure you do:)lol
Casey
>Eo
ck...@mars.superlink.net
Kook Watchers <p...@agh.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:10:12 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>
> >Peyote, these things are getting too long:) I had to split
> >the answer up because Deje.com won't accept anything
> >this big.
>
> Okay no probs
>
> Casey:
>
> >You do know that she believed in the masters right:)lol
>
> Yes. and it adds to the confusion a bit doesn't it? BTW when you said
> masters could you name exactly which one/s :-)
I believe one of the masters she was in contact with was the
master KH (who to my understanding will be the next World
Teacher, but not for a while:).
Not quite sure.
>
> >>Peyote:
> >
> >>I think Creme did not study her writings closer enough or did not
like
> >>some of her concepts. He watered them down to make them palatable to
> >>the masses. I don't agree with that. It tells us a lot about how he
> >>deals with religious issues and appears very deceptive or at best
vey
> >>shallow.
>
> Peyote:
>
> He is very shallow, I agree with Allen on this one.
Yes, but neither of you have actually read any of his books let
alone all of his books to form a valid opinion IMHO.
Its taking me years to get some of the story out on these
groups:) How on earth can anyone do it on a 30-minute
radio show? Obviously he is not going to bring up
some subjects that he would not have time to fully
explore and might cause a gut reaction (based on a lack
of information).
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>Show me where Creme has blatantly said the serpent is the liberator
of
> >>humanity that the god of the Jews is a evil jealous god -who didn't
> >>want man to have knowledge- and that lucifer in fact is satan. Show
> >>me where Creme says that the eating of the tree of good and evil was
a
> >>good thin for humanity. Prove it Casey where has Creme said this? I
> >>bet he hasn't.
>
> Casey:
>
> >Thats just great Peyote, you ask me to prove something I never stated
in
> >the first place:) You're not trying to make me look bad are you:)lol
>
> Peyote:
>
> I didn't state you did, what I have said is that Creme is being
> misleading and that he does not appear to talk about those aspects of
> Blavatsky's work -well at least openly-.
When have you heard him speak:) If he is doing a 30-minute
radio interview there is a TON of stuff thats left out. But
how can it be any other way given the limited time?
>
> Casey:
>
> >>What does "shifted into Creme's camp" mean.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>By this I mean accepting that Benjamin Creme is literally in contact
> >>with the masters of wisdom and his Maitreya stuff real -aka coming
> >>soon-.
>
> Casey:
>
> >Ok, but again, this is in no way a requirement for the people
> >involved.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>So in effect we could have a new myth brewing from Share
International
> >>and Benjamin Creme where X amount of people from X amount of various
> >>religions, sects and cults really do believe or at least accept the
> >>ascended masters speak through Creme.
>
> Casey:
>
> >Well, I wouldn't call it a myth:) But definitely new information.
>
> Peyote:
>
> Yet beyond proof right?
For now.
>
> Casey:
> >
> >>What difference does it make what "camp" they are in.
>
> Peyote:
> >
> >>A big difference for example examine how a Bahai can still attend a
> >>Mosque or a Christian Church -yet still remain a Bahai-. There is
> >>another less know group called the Druze whom also do this, they mix
> >>with Muslims but are not really Muslims at all and have their own
> >>separate -secret- religion.
>
> Casey:
>
> >>I'm not quite getting the relavence of the example.
>
> >>Simply that a myth can be produced that X amount of people believe
> >>Creme has got it right about Maitreya -or partially right- in X
amount
> >>of religions etc. Naturally there is no real proof to assert the
> >>numbers of those whom are supposed to believe in Creme's myth.
>
> Casey:
>
> >Nope...never said there was:) Let me make this clear again. I don't
> >plan on proving anything:) Just giving information as I see it.
>
> Peyote:
>
> You have very little proof when it comes to Benjamin Creme's movement
> don't you?
Proof, yes. Evidence (as far as I'm concerned) there is
plenty of.
I actually think the term "Christ" has even a broader meaning
now then it did then. With the New Age movement the term
is used as the "Christ conciousness" which starts to break
down some religious barriers.
I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. Obviously they
are free to put out any changes thay want to.
Maitreya is an actual being. Maitreya is "a" Christ. All it
really means is the ability of a being to fully embody the
Christ conciousness in his/her actual being. Maitreya
is the only person from the planet earth who has accomplished
this so far. There are many other being in the universe
who are also Christ. In relation to the hierarchy it is
also considered a position. The being in the hierarchy who
embodies these energies.
>
> Casey:
>
> >>>Esoteric Psychology Vol. II page 684.
> >>>"May I add also that the Buddha Himself in His high place and the
> >>>blessed Lord Maitreya (known to Christian disciples as
> >>>The Christ)......"
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>See again the equating of Christ as Maitreya -no separation- here
> >>Casey.
>
> Casey:
>
> >I thought that was my point and the answer to your question.
>
> It wasn't.
Well, it was my point at least:)
>
> >>>Esoteric Healing - page 361.
> >>>Too much to quote but read the whole short section title
> >>>"On the Christ". This section also ends with
> >>>"....the Christ and through their responsiveness to His
> >>>work and imminent appearance". Just bringing the last part
> >>>up to tie in with Mr. Creme's work on the "imminent appearance".
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>So Christ is returning and Maitreya is just another word for Him? So
> >>now in the scheme of things who is older? The Christ -not Jesus
> >>obviously- or Maitreya?
>
> Casey:
>
> >As I stated above, Maitreya holds the position of the Christ
> >currently.
>
> Peyote:
>
> What position? Is Christ a real being in his/her/its own right or not?
> If it is a real being when did it come into existence?
Answered above.
>
> Peyote:
>
> >>We know Maitreya had a historical birth after the 600 BC Buddha that
> >>we know today but when was the birth of the Christ Casey? Long
before
> >>that I suspect if it/he even had a birth.
>
> Casey:
>
> >We "know" no such thing:) I contend that the actual being
> >Maitreya is MUCH older then that.
>
> Peyote:
>
> Prove it from the historical Buddhist texts then Casey if we know no
> such thing.
>
> Would you like Bukkyo Dendo to explain it to you or Mitutoyo or even
> the guy that sent me the information Eo requested?
No thanks:)
>Take your pick
> Casey and lets see this historical proof of yours -that is if you
> have any- okay?
>
I think you know the answer to this one:)
As explained before its more of an achievement by Maitreya at
a certain point. There are other Christs in the universe.
This is explained in more detail above.
> Casey:
>
> >What I don't understand, if everyone here loves to study and you
> >also seem bent on putting down Creme, why don't you actually
> >read his works before assuming so much?
>
> Peyote:
>
> Because I believe he is a fraud -at worst- or delusional -at best- I
> will read the book you send, and when I say I'll read it i'll read it
> but if he is historically wrong or makes false connection along with
> unprovable rumors I will bring them up.
I place no conditions on anything. I would just hope you
would read all the information with at least a partial
open mind:)
>
> Casey:
>
> >>And I really didn't get into the fact that the Theosophical
> >All I was trying to point out was that Maitreya was also seen
> >as "The World Teacher" by the Theosophical society.
>
> Peyote:
>
> Which they do not accept as Creme's Maitreya.
>
> Casey:
>
> >I never said my experiences were reliable:) They are to me
> >but I don't necessarily think they should be for others.
>
> Peyote:
>
> See the confusion amongst yourselves? It bears out once again that it
> probably nothing more than the product of your own minds.
You can keep saying this but I don't agree:)
Not any good enough for you:)
Explained above.
Casey
>
> >Casey - This post is continued in another post becuase they
> >are getting to damn long to post in Deja news:)
>
> No probs.
>
> See you in the next post.
>
> Peyote.
>
eo
caseyk wrote in message <8dhoi7$1d47$1...@earth.superlink.net>...
Well, I know it won't sway you. But it has the bare essentials. If I shake
off the virus I've had for two days I'll post it in two segments today. His
sources seem well enough informed though Lindsey's retelling may be slightly
off. The point is: Christians are ready for the "one world gov" and the AC
and Lucifer/Satan as the chief architect of the rebellion against Christ.
Your archetype will only convince them to carry 9 mm pistols to work with
them everyday, to shoot anyone who seems slightly suspicious (connected to
Satan and the "body snatcher pod" people who have been brainwashed by the
one world conspirators). You DON'T know what you're playing around with
here. Osho and Sai Baba and Moon aren't and weren't dangerous because they
cannot be linked to Lucis Trust and Lucifer. Your group can, even by YOUR
very own words.
ANYWAY, I hope you don't try to evade the issues presented in my other
posting yesterday. It was a little verbose, but it is essential for learning
what spiritual beliefs you have. If all you can do is spout 1930-1960
concepts about spirituality (Bailey), I will know you haven't a clue about
the latest work on psi.
For instance, I DO BELIEVE in your spiritual hierarchy!!!! But you MUST
understand, some people like me know that there are billions of spirits in
the collective consciousness which are associated with the MANY belief
systems in the world, past and present. The spirits have been around for as
long as sentient beings have been around. For instance, that crazy guy named
Carl Gustav Jung (the father of analytic psychology) believed he had a
spirit guide named Philemon. He communicated with that spirit. He gives an
interesting account in his Memories and Reflections book.
Nostradamus believed he was in contact with the archangel Michael.
Fortunately for me, I have never heard voices or seen spirits, but I know
they're out there; and there is currently a war among MANY different
spiritual factions. Your spiritual hierarchy is PUNY compared to the holy
spirit of Christianity, the angels of Christianity, the Buddha spirits, the
Krishna, Kali, Aztec spirits, etc. Still, you do get a slight bounce from
the evil baggage connected to the Lucifer thought form. I hope that makes
you happy. ;) Anyway, you have an empire to defend, so I know you and Creme
will continue to do what you've been doing, because you believe it's your
right. Unfortunately, you keep on multiplying like rabbits, meaning most of
the funds you receive goes into self-promotion. Perhaps some people would
turn away from Creme and shun him like the plague he is, if he comes out and
states like you have (you're in contact with Creme) that Lucifer is the
oversoul, and all people are Lucifer, and Venusians 100,000 years ago
Atlantis...Yadayadayada. So I see Creme as harmful to the New Age movement,
while Moon is a harmless false Christ whom no one understands anyway, when
he speaks on TV. But your empires will keep on trucking, and the debunkers
will be on your case...I think that's fair, since I believe you're being
inconsiderate to the Native Americans, astrologers, Tarot readers,
spiritualists, psychics, Hindus, Buddhists, mystics, environmentalists,
energy medicine healers, UFO believers (who are no further out there than
your group which believes in Venusians taking up Maitreya and Jesus 100,000
years ago to be initiates), prophecy believers who are not connected
directly to hard-line literal Armageddon beliefs, etc. - who DO NOT want to
be LINKED to Lucifer.
Please Casey. Look more closely. Yes many of the spirits see a better path,
but the population is far from seeing it. Yes there have been some good
changes in the global economy, which creates some victims of job loss and
lower pay and lay offs. Anyway look at the protests against the IMF. The SAM
E kooks who were at Seattle were trying to make a splash in Washington,
under the false prestense of wanting to promote sharing in the world. I can
prove this to you, but what the heck, you know that kookiness is rising in
the world.
thats
>the only reason many politicians do anything nowadays, to get re-elected.
>
>The point is that humanity is moving in that direction. There is
>a general will that the countries should work together to
>end conflicts and hardship.
The people won't stand for a one world concept. Plus have you ever heard of
the League of Nations? WW2 happened anyway. If anything, we have united
Arabs, united Christians against Satan, concerned scientists and humanists,
concerned religious and spiritual groups, etc. and nealy ALL of these groups
want to have NOTHING to do with Creme and Lucis Trust. I've read enough of
Bailey's material to know that she paved the way for SOME spiritualists, but
her archetype is now way out in the FRINGE. There are still the beliefs
about Atlantis and channeling Atlanteans, but the new PARADIGM will be based
on a critical examination of genetical influence, other motivational
factors, possibly psi understanding (when the spirits allow), a new look at
ancient texts and archaeological evidence, a global economic system which
GRADUALLY moves away from the greed motivation, brain chemistry,
pharmocology, using tech to clean up the environment and beneficially affect
the weather several years from now. Bailey's Tibetan didn't have knowledge
of the new science except in PERHAPS the vaguest terms.
For the point I'm trying to make
>it really doesn't matter how effective they are just that they
>are trying.
It better matter, or they're another League of Nations before a WW.
Of course it would be much better if they were
>more effective but its the token gestures that will allow
>Maitreya to help us more directly.
There have been token gestures in every generation. The difference now is
the info and high tech age, and we don't need no stinkin' Maitreya (single
negative meant of course).
>By the way, we are already past that point in Maitreya's open
>emergence. He is coming to help more directly. Now its just a
>matter of emerging at the exact best time for us.
Are you sure you got the okay from the Venusians to declare that (via
Creme)?
Wait a minute is that what your books and mags say?...That this is some guy
in a photo, not necessarily the real Maitreya, just someone in a picture who
posed for us to make you think about Maitreya, and BTW Maitreya doesn't
REALLY look like this anyway "in London"?
>It was how those people expected to see the Christ (although
>I'm told there are many similarities).
So it could have been a few people paid a hundred bucks for posing for a
publicity still. I didn't know Saddam was so hard up for money.
Told by whom? Why doesn't the coward show his dumb face, so we can throw
stones at him (Muslim tradition) or do a dragon parade (Chinese) in front of
him.
The thing I'm saying
>Mr. Creme is not doing is pointing to a specific person anyone
>can actually go see and say that is the Christ. I realize this
>is a fine line but its up for you to decide if it meets
>the "criteria".
It meets the criteria to a point except for the counterpoints already
raised. It's convenient that if Creme ever points to someone in front of
major media souces, that poor guy will be "stoned" by interrogators and
revealed for the fraud he is (if he's more than a voice in Creme's head).
Look Casey, grow up, there are no miracle men or women. The only "miracle"
is telepathy and precog (and a SLIGHT degree of telekinesis) because those
abilities aren't understood yet because it was maladaptive to not deny
telepathy exists, and not make a concerted effort to block out incoming
messages which could be CONSCIOUSLY recognized. But denial can be costly
when the truth is needed. And when WMDs become miniaturized and
continent-destroyingly powerful, we will have a problem on our hands, unless
we learn the truth about the human brain FAST. Parting the Red Sea and
Merlin and turning a billion gallons of water into wine by wishing it is
hogwash.
>I'm just bringing up a point.
>
>
>>>Interesting LOL the bible says to not go looking here or there for the
>>>Christ :-) That is a reference to the false Christ BTW.
>> been "SIGHTED" in various parts of the world.
>
>
>
>>-snipped-
>
>
>>would be great.
>>>>I just have come to the personal conclusion that this route
>>>>is worth trying:)
>
>
>
>>If you make things harder for true seekers and New Agers, because of the
>>Bailey-Lucifer ties, will you say, "oops, Im sorry"?
>
>I don't really believe Bailey does make things harder for New Agers.
>Anyone who actually reads her information in its entire context
>would see this. It actually clears many things up. What makes
>things confusing is when people use little snipets of her work
>and try to use it against her IMHO.
Sorry Casey, you don't understand, I am like billions of world inhabitants.
We ALL don't have time to wade through Baileys line of books at Borders.
What you give us though, about Lucifer being the light bringer (don't forget
the first thing most people would see would be Lucis Trust and a light will
come on in their heads saying, oh yeah that's connected to Lucifer - the
adversary and evil one), the all-good oversoul, one of the highest ranking
masters who taught the initiates Jesus and Maitreya, and that Lucifer is all
humans, and the Venusians and Atlantis 100,000 years ago (when Homo Sapiens
Sapiens like the LATER version Cro-Magnon man looked very different from
us); is just laughable. I will keep pounding the Lucifer connection against
you, even though I read some of the material about the Jews and Christ -
because it DOESN'T matter what YOU believe about Lucifer. It MATTERS what
BILLIONS of people believe about Lucifer. They are the ones who will be
toting the guns in their work places. Please don't side step my offer to
exchange views on telepathy and the modern experiments on psi. It's very
important to see if Creme knows what telepathy means.
Eo
PS: I'll head over to the Bailey sites and read some more.
eo
ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote in message <8dicle$9cl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
What "beings"? Will Lucifer the oversoul make an appearance with Maitreya?
>Until that happens its all guesswork on who would react what way. Yews
>I agree that some of the things I talk about would be automatically
>rejected by many today (from their current viewpoint).
It's no guess work. People are waiting for the AC and false prophet, and a
false evil one world gov, which will collapse under its deceptions,
signalling the return of Christ. Over a billion people believe some form of
this, while maybe a few housand people believe your vague projections. BTW,
Moon marries off ten thousand people in a single day. The only problem is
your group invests everything (almost ) in self-promotion. Creme is the man
with the connection to the masters...and so forth.
Well, now you admit there are terrible problems and DEEP divisions, so there
is a contradiction to the above, but you're right, now, we have severe
problems that need addressing.
Okay. But you see, Casey, you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge
concerning prophecies. Most people are at the same level. When people see a
small portion of the prophecies come true, they will get down on their knees
and say, it was true now the rest of the prophecies will come true, thank
God, Lucifer has arrived with his false prophet Creme, Casey, and the
unknown guy in the corner who keeps dropping hints that we should listen to
him, and Casey keeps saying he might be Maitreya. Oh thank the Lord, Lucifer
has unveiled his AC...And Jesus is coming soon. Hallelujah, etc.
>>>>Peyote:
>>>
>>>>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
>>>
>>>So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
>
>>Not nearly. The only conditions are those the Christians, Muslims, and
>>Native Americans have predicted: ie. a time of great strife and natural
>>disasters.
>
>I was specifically talking about the Lucis Trust page.
Your assessments of global affairs and geo-politics fell short. And the
religions are more looney rather than more conciliatory. All they need is a
Dajjal or AC to set them wild in the streets, ready to lynch the predicted
evil ones.
>>>>Peyote:
>>>
>>>>>>Did you read where the Pope was tried to be drawn into the
>>>Palestinian
>>>>>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly a
>>>>>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better
>either
>>>>>>LOL.
>
>>Yes this is a very weak point against the excerpt. If anything paranoia
>will
>>grow concerning a "one world gov". Christian fundies and evangelicals
>are
>>ready to stomp over anyone who even hints of one. The labor groups,
>>environmentalists and conservative isolatioists formed a "holy"
>alliance
>>against sharing and world trade agreements. Religions are up in arms
>like
>>almost never before, searching for that one world conspiracy.
>
>It all depends on how things are approached. I realize that what I'm
>stating Maitreya will do is VERY difficult and almost beyond
>belief. He will have to reach everyone coming from millions of
>different viewpoints. Thats why many of the things he talks
>about will be very simple and clear and cut through all the
>separations.
Not with the methods you hint at below.
>>>>I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
>>>
>>>And I'm saying it supports him:)
>
>>Creme does point and communicate telepathically with *his* Maitreya.
>
>Well, Mr. Creme actually doesn't communicate directly with Maitreya
>on a regular basis.
Sporadically is enuf.
He is in constant telepathic communication
>with one of the senior members of hierarchy.
Well, when Creme tells of a true scientific breakthrough before anyone else
that is of the greatest magnitude, I might start believing you. Till then,
it sounds like another voice among his delusions and self-important
fantasies.
Yes, I say Mr. Creme
>talks about a specific being but he does not say exactly who
>he is (as in a physical being we can go see) or where he can
>be found.
Convenient methodology if he doesn't exist.
So Mr. Creme is saying this being he is talking
>about is the Christ but does not point him out.
He better not, or I will gather some rotten tomatoes for his ugly face. I'm
being irreverent because I see no reason to believe Creme than I do the
sidewalk screamers who hear voices.
>>>>>>Come on Casey they have studied their works extensively, have
>drawn
>>>>>>their own conclusions and without doubt have the 'experiences'
>>>>>>-spiritual or otherwise- to back it up.
>>>
>>>>Casey:
>>>
>>>>>But as you say, that isn't proof of anything except that that is
>>>>>their opinion. They have studied the works so much but all they
>>>>>came up with to "prove" the Christ isn't here is the one page
>>>>>which in my opinion actually shows its very possible that
>>>>>this is the time.
>
>>For what? Religions are not nearly in agreement in the US. If anything
>there
>>is paranoia in the US about global unification. As America goes, so
>goes the
>>world. And I'm not being chauvinistic. I mean, try posting your
>Maitreya
>>stuff in alt.bible.prophecy and SEE how many people call your
>associates
>>(spammers) evil and workers for the AC.
>
>When Maitreya speaks to the world himself it won't be as the Christ
>or the Buddha or using any of those names. He will simply be
>asked to be called a teacher and talk directly about problems
>and solutions that everyone can relate to.
Er...You and Betsy are doing that. Do you see the reception you're getting?
And if there are miracles in the world, every religious faction or cult
would take credit, so your people better start telling us AGAIN the exact
miracle, year day time etc.
>>>>Peyote:
>>>
>>>>Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are
>from
>>>>personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
>>>>pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
>>>>Creme.
>>>
>>>I don't agree they clearly debunk Creme. I actually think
>>>the statements leave open the possibility that this is the
>>>time.
>
>>This is the time yes. But Creme is tainted by his Lucis connections.
>You
>>should let the real Maitreya do his work: 3 months ago I wrote that the
>>Messiah could be a combination of the PC (Time: Man of the Year in
>1982) and
>>the Internet. You remember that I'm sure. You see all that meditation
>led
>>Creme to the right year, but like the Baptist he couldn't recognize the
>>savior.
>
>>Certainly his connection to Bailey and Lucis and Lucifer will be
>exposed,
>>and guess what. Peace may never be possible.
Also, you're spiritual hierarchy DOES exist, but so do BILLIONS of other
archetypes in the collective consciousness and collective unconscious. MANY
of those thought forms are FAR MORE powerful than your hierarchy as patched
together by HB and Bailey. The Christian holy spirit archetype would be one
example.
>Maitreya will probably not talk about such things but it won't have
>to be "exposed". Its in the Bailey books for all to see.
Lindsey has exposed Lucis quite well. But it won't register in his viewing
audiences minds very LOUDLY until Creme's Maitreya shows his ugly face, if
he dares. I have those tomatoes ready.
>>Do you believe in alternate futures Casey? The Native Americans say we
>have
>>choices. The Catholic prophecies say we have choices. The choices are a
>>spiritual cleansing or a physical (annihilation) cleansing or
>>"chastisement". Guess which one mentioning Lucifer would enhance. Try
>to be
>>honest Casey. If the Internet is the Messiah, that means many thousands
>of
>>informed thinkers in many different areas of knowledge will pool
>resources,
>>etc. Think of the possibilities. I truly believe though that there will
>be
>>about a 7-9 year ideological war on many communication fronts, before
>there
>>can be a peaceful evolution. One of the important steps in the process
>will
>>be the "discovery" of telepathy.
>
>I believe that in one way the future is set and in another way it isn't.
That's vaguely put, but good IMO.
>All things that will ever happen have already happened. However, how
>they parcipitate on the physical plane depends on what we do with
>our free will. This can affect the "apparent" timing of things and
>maybe even the form they take on the physical plane.
That's gibberish!!!! Try again. This time use some real knowledge. The
spirits are feverishly working to influence our decisions while fighting
each other at times, and yes we have free will. Occasionally one can get a
glimpse of an important event. But that is VERY OCCASIONALLY...Definitely
not usually the case. If you show some knowledge beyond that nonsense from
ancient texts, I will tell you more about alternate futures...also the
physiology of precognition and telepathy.
>>Tell me if you can Casey, what do you and Creme, whom you are in
>contact
>>with, think about telepathy?
>
>Well, I do not claim to be telepathic or understant it fully but I can
>address aat least a portion of what it means and what Mr. Creme
>has gone through.
Oh my. You don't know about telepathy, if you're not aware of your own
telepathic experiences.
For more information yuo can read the Alice
>Bailey book on telepathy. There should be plenty of information
>to think about since a whole book is devoted to it.
That's very RUDE, Casey, try again. I would not say to you, You do not know
about Jesus, if you want to here's a Bible. Start from page one. Or I could
mention the DSS, the NT Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi, church fathers. If you want
to know where I stand on the historical Christ read those texts, after all
there are a lot of mentionings of him. Come on do better than that. Either
admit you don't know much at all about telepathy, or give outdated excerpts
from that book. I don't want to know what that book says, unless you give me
the passages written HERE like any polite person will do. I'll try to look
at some different material from Bailey today. I already know about
telepathy, I want to know if you do. I can't post the Lindsey material for a
while it seems. I haven't the time.
>How Mr. Creme communicates with his master (after many years of
>lessons and preparation) is through actual ideas. From our
>perspective this could translate into an actual voice in our head
>but that is mostly the brain interpreting the information.
Wrongo. That's mild or deep schizophrenia. Telepathy is much more SPORADIC.
I'll get more specific when you show you have a clue what you're discussing.
For instance, MANY channelers have been exposed as frauds using other
voices. Perhaps speaking in tongues is real. But you can't understand what
the heck they're saying, and you're not saying Creme babbles in tongues.
Anyway the frauds speak in modern English sometimes, when they are asked how
this is possible, they say because I have been watching earth. But then come
the questions about history, even simple questions, NOT PREPARED for and
guess what the supreme entity channeled can't respond or has some arrogant
obfuscation. FAKERS.
There
>is also telepathy involved in intuition.
So. Explain what you mean by that. I can write a book on just that topic
alone. Being polite now, please expound on that comment, and I'll know a
little bit more about how I should address your understanding of telepathy.
Telepathy does not come at you like a written speech. You should know that
by studying REAL psychics. Try Tony Cordero, Van Praagh, Ingo Swann, and
several others. Also there are the controversial remote viewers. Show you
know about Rhine and Honorton, and the science of Penrose. This is very
important, because telepathy is one of the building blocks of mystical
beliefs. You should know that by now. Paul wrote of speaking in tongues and
prophesying. Now you must study modern research on the topic if you want to
show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might just be clueless like
Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read this.
>>There is a lot of info I must hold back, Casey, for several months. But
>I'd
>>like a discussion about telepathy with you. This is something
>impossible
>>between you and Peyote. You know that Creme says he's in telepathic
>>communication with Maitreya. But what is telepathy to you? Don't worry,
>I
>>won't expose you to the atheists.
>
>Again, I don't claim to be an expert on telepathy but I can try to
>discuss
>some aspects (starting with my info above)
Meager. Sorry, but that's a fact.
and I suggest the Alice
>Bailey book "Telepathy" for a much more in depth discussion.
I already know about telepathy. Don't be rude. Quote some expert knowledge
from that book if it's so good.
>>I'll even start this off. I'm 99.999999% sure I have a brain, but I'm
>100%
>>sure that telepathy and precognition are human abilities. Still
>telepathy is
>>more provable in labs than precognition, especially between identical
>twins.
>>You stated that Maitreya does things for the hopeless when he is
>"allowed".
>>You stated that Satan overstepped his mandate or words to that effect.
>Would
>>you address telepathy, allowed, and overstepped. To me that means the
>>spirits allow some exchange while censoring others...kind of like
>censoring
>>bots with feelings.
>
>I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. When I say Maitreya is not
>"allowed" to do certain things it is because he works under laws
>that he will not (probably could) break. Most
>involve not infringing on our free will.
So he will be like Dr Laura, but less demanding. He would say you shouldn't
kill, but you have free will to do so if you want.
First of all I am not
>personifying Satan. It is more of an idea then a being.
Do you have an idea what spirits are made of? Show you have a clue. Saying
an idea is close, but Satan is much MORE than an idea. You are sounding like
a therapist who hasn't read Jung.
>It is really certain forces affecting areas that they shouldn't
>be working with.
An answer, but not very elucidating.
Than I'll save my tomatoes for his next interview. Worldwide you
said...Hmmmmmm.
Nothings will be hiden and
>people will have all the information available in te Bailey books
>but Maitreya will speak at a much more basic and simple level
>that everyone will be able to relate to. He won't call himself
>the Christ or the Buddha or the Messiah. He will talk about
>the problems that face all of us today and the simple answers.
Kind of like doc Laura without the assertiveness, becos of the prime
directive (free will).
>Probably the most complex topic he will talk about for a while
>will be the concept of sharing and seeing everyone as
>one humanity.
Gee, where have I heard that before, probably from accounts of thousands of
preachers and prophets for thousands of years.
I'm not even certain if he will call himself
>Maitreya or not.
So the world will listen intently to the man with no name (Clint Eastwood
spaghetti Westerns).
>>By the way, don't take this like a personal putdown: I believe the
>Beatles
>>are the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and Lennon actually
>resurrected
>>bodily from the grave. I also believe that Elvis is still alive and
>travels
>>back and forth between Mississippi and the planet Mars every week. ;)
>
>I'm sure you do:)lol
Lol.
>Casey
>
>>Eo
Allen Crider
<ck...@mars.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:8dhq9n$jkn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Allen Crider" <allen...@disciples.com> writes:
>
>
> >"eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote in message
> >news:tQPK4.10982$PV.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> promised
> >their stuff as fodder for the masses, like Creme has with his Mayatreya
> >fellow.
>
> >I had a chance to look at Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine last weekend
> and
> >she definitely painted Lucifer and Satan as the same being, and that
> this
> >being was the lord of the world. Her stuff has never had a large
> following
> >(although I think it is quite good)
>
> >I can't see either Protestants or Catholics endorsing Creme's dogma,
> nor
> >would Muslims (they don't need any stinkin' messiah) nor Buddhists
> (Buddha
> >Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been
> forgotten).
>
> >Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite
> effect to
> >what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
>
> The thing is Maitreya will be much more simple and much more
> profound then people on this group think.
About as simple and profound as Ben Creme's 'messages from Mayatreya' that
have NOT captivated the world?
> He won't appear
> as a "Magic King".
Which, of course, puts even less reason behind the Ben Creme's TV appearance
story. Going on TV is no big deal, Casey.
> Yes, eventually Maitreya will demonstrate some
> of the things I say he can do but it will be a natural progression
> to that point.
Guess what? I totally don't believe Mayatreya exists, and I totally do not
believe any sort of miracles passing from a 'higher' being who has
supposedley been hiding in London since 1977.
>
> >>
> >> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I
> do
> >> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
> >about
> >> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some
> light
> >> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
>
> >I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
> >spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the
> previous
> >avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
> >lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do
> it.
> >The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she
> learns
> >something we don't already know.
>
> >There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
> >telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky
> claimed
> >contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate
> beings.
>
> Mr. Creme does claim the masters are living people. He states that
> Jesus is living right now in Rome and in a body that was born (it is
> a little old though:).
There is no identifiable Jesus living in Rome. But... tell me the official
stuff:
Jesus is living in Rome, right?
This Jesus was 'born of a woman' and has a human body, right?
Why then does Share present claims that this Jesus fellow appears to people
in a completely different forms and was actually claimed to be in a woman's
body dancing the rhumba with Mayatreya?
How old is 'he'?
Where does he live?
What does he do?
Where can I find him? Why not?
Why do you believe this story?
Why does Creme claim that Mayatreya has self-constructed his own body (was
not born)? Why do you disagree with Creme on this point?
>
> >Bailey says that enlightenment is a process which burns off the soul.
> These
> >ascended masters do not have souls. I don't believe they will ever
> incarnate
> >again, but Creme (& to a lesser extent Bailey) claim these masters can
> >construct a body of manifestation which would resemble a human body. So
> what
> >do you think the lay public would say if they were told that their TV
> >Mayatreya didn't have a soul, that he wasn't 'born of a woman'? ;-)
>
> Maitreya absolutely has a soul. In fact he is his soul while we are
> just reflections of ours.
Then you are stating that this Mayatreya is on the wheel of reincarnation?
According to the Bailey teachings, one replaces their soul as it 'burns
off', but a replacement soul body itself is not formed, thus one gets off
the wheel of reincarnation... one cannot physically take a form. According
to Bailey, a high-placed master can create a form by the process she called
mayavirupa. This is what Ben Creme claims Mayatreya did to manifest. But now
you are saying that he was born? And you are also saying that this Jesus
fellow was also born? Then that means they have a soul body, and have not
left the wheel of reincarnation, the have not completed the (5th?)
initiation?
>
> Casey
>
> >>
>
> >[snip]
Allen Crider
"eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote in message
But this is only a Shiite teaching. The Sunnis don't have any such messiah
in their dogma, and none whatsoever is mentioned in the Quran. While looking
this over, I found an interesting Shia website about the Imam Mahdi, an
entire book online.
http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm
>
>
> nor Buddhists (Buddha
> >Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been forgotten).
>
>
>
> The Chinese, especially the Taiwanese think his arrival is imminent. I
know
> of the quote you're referring to though.
>
>
> >Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite effect
to
> >what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
>
>
>
> Indeed. I don't believe in miracle men or women, at least of the magnitude
> of parting the Red Sea, for instance.
>
> So without physical miracles which can't be staged, I can't imagine a
verbal
> "message" that would unite humanity in beneficent harmony.
Me neither. I don't even think it is humanity's rightful place to have such
harmony given to it until it learns to work things out. Humanity couldn't
handle a heaven on earth without a lot more mental evolution. A perfect
place where everyone gets their way would be more like hell on earth to me!
:-)
>
>
>
> >> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
> >> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
> >about
> >> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some
light
> >> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
> >
> >I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
> >spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the
previous
> >avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
> >lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do
it.
> >The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she
learns
> >something we don't already know.
>
>
>
> Okay. I believe in this scientific and info age, no one human can fill the
> shoes of the anticipated Messiah. Therefore my suggestion of the
> PC-Internet. We disagree though on the meaning of arrival prophecies and
the
> nature of the teacher.
One one hand we have their Mayatreya talking about sharing, and with the
internet we have such things as Napster... I can see your point.
>
>
> >There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
> >telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky claimed
> >contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate beings.
>
>
>
> Ah, now you are giving me useful new info (for me). I'd like to read
Casey's
> views though on telepathy in general. I have an extensive knowledge in
this
> field. I'd like to know what Creme knows from his words (via Casey). If I
> read unenlightening responses, I will know Creme is simply trolling
blindly
> with borrowed and altered info.
I didn't like Casey's answer at all.... :-)
Looking at it metaphysically, I believe that thoughtforms are substance (in
their own realm) and that if each time somebody thought about the return of
Christ, a grain of sand manifested, we would have a mountain. I guess people
like Betsy, Casey and especially Dotty are puilling with a lot of desire and
are thus very polarized to these thoughtforms. I guess that because I am
polarized against devotion, I collect these thoughtforms too!
>
>
>
>
~Tempest~
wrote:
>_Peyote_ <pey...@argh.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:34:17 EDT, ck...@saturn.superlink.net (caseyk)
>>wrote:
>>
>>Peyote:
>>
>>>Flattery will get you nowhere:)
>>
>>Well I tried :-)
>>
>>>>From the first set:
>>>
>>>>Peyote:
>>>
>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>> Questions about Lucifer
>
>[snip]
>>
>>Job being one of the oldest books in the bible clearly bears this
>>out. Here is where you have to separate what god YHWH -Elohim- does
>>when disobedience comes and what Lucifer/satan does of his own accord.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Just as a point of fact
>here: The Book Of Job, while
>obviously centuries older
>than the Christian Gospels,
>is the most recently written
>part of the Old Testament,
>so it's certainly *not* "one
>of the oldest books in the
>bible." This view reflects a
>broad consensus among Bible
>scholars. Btw, "the oldest
>books in the bible" comprise
>the Pentateuch, the five
>books of Moses.
Dear Bruce according to different sources the book of Job has not
been accurately dated and in some commentaries it is classed as
possibly one of the oldest pieces of literature to survive.
Compact Bib;e Dictionary p 286 (Some scholars here believe it may
have been written during Solomon's time)
All Scripture is inspired and beneficial p 95
Digression in BibLical theory and dating p 978
The Problem of Dating Biblical manuscripts p 134
The theological dilemma of Job and Satan p11
I have other references as well if you would like to verify them.
There are as you mentioned other scholars whom disagree but amongst
scholars that is not uncommon.
With Love
~Tempest~
>__________________________________________________
>http://come.to/realization
>http://www.atman.net/realization
>http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
>http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
ck...@mars.superlink.net
Well it will be even a bigger deal that just with ideas
he will be able to capture the attention of the world.
Don't worry, the first interview will not disappoint:)
Jesus has the ability to appear anywhere in the world in many
different forms.
>How old is 'he'?
>Where does he live?
>What does he do?
>Where can I find him? Why not?
>Why do you believe this story?
My understanding is that Jesus is in a body that is over 600 years old.
I have stated many time why I think this story is true. I can provide
a link to a more comprehensive discussion on this if you want.
>Why does Creme claim that Mayatreya has self-constructed his own body
(was
>not born)? Why do you disagree with Creme on this point?
I did not say that Maitreya was born, just Jesus. Maitreya is in a self
created body.
I never stated such a thing about Maitreya, just Jesus.
As far as the information you provided in relation to
Jesus I will have to do a little research.
Casey
ck...@mars.superlink.net
Nope.
I have always stated this. I'm not sure what contradiction
you are refering to. In fact this is my whole point in
why we might need a "Maitreya".
Some people might react this way. I don't feel its a reason
for us to live without the truth though.
>
> >>>>Peyote:
> >>>
> >>>>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
> >>>
> >>>So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
> >
> >>Not nearly. The only conditions are those the Christians, Muslims,
and
> >>Native Americans have predicted: ie. a time of great strife and
natural
> >>disasters.
> >
> >I was specifically talking about the Lucis Trust page.
>
> Your assessments of global affairs and geo-politics fell short. And
the
> religions are more looney rather than more conciliatory. All they need
is a
> Dajjal or AC to set them wild in the streets, ready to lynch the
predicted
> evil ones.
Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
jump to any quick conclusions.
Well, I never compared Betsy and myself to Maitreya:)
Obviously we have different opinions on this subject. I'm willing
to leave it at that.
>
> >>Tell me if you can Casey, what do you and Creme, whom you are in
> >contact
> >>with, think about telepathy?
> >
> >Well, I do not claim to be telepathic or understant it fully but I
can
> >address aat least a portion of what it means and what Mr. Creme
> >has gone through.
>
> Oh my. You don't know about telepathy, if you're not aware of your own
> telepathic experiences.
I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
>
> For more information yuo can read the Alice
> >Bailey book on telepathy. There should be plenty of information
> >to think about since a whole book is devoted to it.
>
> That's very RUDE, Casey, try again. I would not say to you, You do not
know
> about Jesus, if you want to here's a Bible. Start from page one. Or I
could
> mention the DSS, the NT Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi, church fathers. If you
want
> to know where I stand on the historical Christ read those texts, after
all
> there are a lot of mentionings of him. Come on do better than that.
Either
> admit you don't know much at all about telepathy, or give outdated
excerpts
> from that book. I don't want to know what that book says, unless you
give me
> the passages written HERE like any polite person will do. I'll try to
look
> at some different material from Bailey today. I already know about
> telepathy, I want to know if you do. I can't post the Lindsey material
for a
> while it seems. I haven't the time.
All I was saying is that I don't have the knowledge on this
subject to discuss it at the depth you want. I was only
giving you a reference in case you wanted to use it.
If you feel you know all you need to know that is fine
with me. I'm not quite sure why you got so upset over this.
>
> >How Mr. Creme communicates with his master (after many years of
> >lessons and preparation) is through actual ideas. From our
> >perspective this could translate into an actual voice in our head
> >but that is mostly the brain interpreting the information.
>
> Wrongo. That's mild or deep schizophrenia. Telepathy is much more
SPORADIC.
> I'll get more specific when you show you have a clue what you're
discussing.
>
> For instance, MANY channelers have been exposed as frauds using other
> voices. Perhaps speaking in tongues is real. But you can't understand
what
> the heck they're saying, and you're not saying Creme babbles in
tongues.
>
> Anyway the frauds speak in modern English sometimes, when they are
asked how
> this is possible, they say because I have been watching earth. But
then come
> the questions about history, even simple questions, NOT PREPARED for
and
> guess what the supreme entity channeled can't respond or has some
arrogant
> obfuscation. FAKERS.
I don't have any practical knowledge of telepathy. If you
feel what I stated is "wrongo" that is fine but there is not
much more I can say.
>
> There
> >is also telepathy involved in intuition.
>
> So. Explain what you mean by that. I can write a book on just that
topic
> alone. Being polite now, please expound on that comment, and I'll know
a
> little bit more about how I should address your understanding of
telepathy.
> Telepathy does not come at you like a written speech. You should know
that
> by studying REAL psychics. Try Tony Cordero, Van Praagh, Ingo Swann,
and
> several others. Also there are the controversial remote viewers. Show
you
> know about Rhine and Honorton, and the science of Penrose. This is
very
> important, because telepathy is one of the building blocks of mystical
> beliefs. You should know that by now. Paul wrote of speaking in
tongues and
> prophesying. Now you must study modern research on the topic if you
want to
> show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might just be clueless
like
> Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read this.
Like I said I don;t have the knowledge to discuss this further
and I certainly won;t make the same mistake of giving you
a reference again:)
>
> >>There is a lot of info I must hold back, Casey, for several months.
But
> >I'd
> >>like a discussion about telepathy with you. This is something
> >impossible
> >>between you and Peyote. You know that Creme says he's in telepathic
> >>communication with Maitreya. But what is telepathy to you? Don't
worry,
> >I
> >>won't expose you to the atheists.
> >
> >Again, I don't claim to be an expert on telepathy but I can try to
> >discuss
> >some aspects (starting with my info above)
>
> Meager. Sorry, but that's a fact.
>
> and I suggest the Alice
> >Bailey book "Telepathy" for a much more in depth discussion.
>
> I already know about telepathy. Don't be rude. Quote some expert
knowledge
> from that book if it's so good.
All I can say is what you know about telepathy is in some
disagreement with what Mr. Creme discusses about it. You
can make of that what you wish. If that invalidates Mr. Creme's
story for you that is fine with me.
Obviously from your point of view I don't have a clue:)
I'm not sure what else I can say.
Casey
eo
Allen Crider wrote in message <8djdqv$7pcni$1...@fu-berlin.de>...
Yep I'm aware of the Shia. Peyote was gonna give me some Al Mahdi prophecies
from Hadiths. But the Sunnis believe in Jesus' return as Messiah. They also
have Dajjal prophecies too, if I'm not mistaken. There're a lot posted on
websites. If you can't find one, I could give you URLs. I especially like
the prophecy (I notice weird ones) that the Dajjal will have one eye and be
hairy. Perhaps a lot of wires could be considered....
While looking
>this over, I found an interesting Shia website about the Imam Mahdi, an
>entire book online.
>
>http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm
>>
>>
>> nor Buddhists (Buddha
>> >Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been forgotten).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Chinese, especially the Taiwanese think his arrival is imminent. I
>know
>> of the quote you're referring to though.
>>
>>
>> >Even a Magic King appearing on television would have the opposite effect
>to
>> >what Creme says. People don't trust magic tricks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed. I don't believe in miracle men or women, at least of the
magnitude
>> of parting the Red Sea, for instance.
>>
>> So without physical miracles which can't be staged, I can't imagine a
>verbal
>> "message" that would unite humanity in beneficent harmony.
>
>Me neither. I don't even think it is humanity's rightful place to have such
>harmony given to it until it learns to work things out. Humanity couldn't
>handle a heaven on earth without a lot more mental evolution.
100% agreement.
A perfect
>place where everyone gets their way would be more like hell on earth to me!
>:-)
I dunno... ;)
>> >> Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I
do
>> >> believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
>> >about
>> >> both. Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some
>light
>> >> from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
>> >
>> >I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
>> >spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the
>previous
>> >avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
>> >lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do
>it.
>> >The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she
>learns
>> >something we don't already know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay. I believe in this scientific and info age, no one human can fill
the
>> shoes of the anticipated Messiah. Therefore my suggestion of the
>> PC-Internet. We disagree though on the meaning of arrival prophecies and
>the
>> nature of the teacher.
>
>One one hand we have their Mayatreya talking about sharing, and with the
>internet we have such things as Napster... I can see your point.
Also I believe the religions, including the Mayan calendar people's (a web
search will show the interest in that topic) beliefs, saw something. I'm
guessing a lot of what they saw was interpreted backwards with a little
sugar frosting added on top for their denomination.
Yep. I have many analagous ones like the "wise old man" as an archetype vs
the old man who waits on the park bench to strangle squirrels. What Casey
doesn't understand is that even the archetypes such as 'hamburgers being
tasty but not totally good for you if eaten daily' are stronger than
Bailey's spiritual hierarchy, because more people reinforce it daily. So we
might have a very similar view here.
I guess people
>like Betsy, Casey and especially Dotty are puilling with a lot of desire
and
>are thus very polarized to these thoughtforms. I guess that because I am
>polarized against devotion, I collect these thoughtforms too!
I'm partial to the hamburger one myself. ;)
eo
ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote in message <8dkeoc$i0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Well, you are full of evasions Casey. Just what fantasy belief do you have
now? We will experience what beings?
Things are same old same old in most of the world. You stated a NEW air of
cooperation. If anything, there is peace at the end of a gun...by putting
down Milosevic and Saddam and confining Kaddafi, starving out 3.5 million
North Koreans. And there's a lot more like Algeria Turkey Chehcnya etc.
That's not cooperation. There is a fragile peace at best among the
superpowers. And what keeps the peace isn't new. It's called MAD and started
about 50 years ago. As for churches cooperating, that also hasn't advanced,
Pope and Dalai Lama visits to the holy land notwithstanding. The anti-one
world wackos are even appearing in France with the recent bombings of some
McDonalds' there... Several of them, by anti-globalization groups. So you
say things are getting better as far as cooperation, now you say things are
very bad. You like double speak.
Anyway yes, we do need some new wisdom, and I'm gonna keep pounding the
Lucifer connection at you - using your very own words. Anytime you want
reminding, I'll pull up that ridiculous explanation of Lucifer as the
oversoul of humanity, that his fall meant Lucifer incarnating into humans,
that all humans are Lucifer, and the Venusian spiritual hierarchy taking up
Maitreya and Jesus 100,000 from Atlantis becos they had promise...Then they
were taught by the masters as initiates. To this day Jesus and Buddha or
Maitreya are not at the level of Lucifer. Since those are your own words,
you can't play the game you've been playing in this thread, of hide and seek
with the various versions between HB and AB and Creme...and how we should
read Creme's books. We have your words, and your personal communications
with Creme and that's enuf for me to go on. He may even have stayed at your
house. And all of that reading has not taught you anything about the
important foundations of what you discuss: ie. channeling, telapathic
communication, and communication with spirits.
>still
>> >>>>rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
>> >>>>measure of peace'.
>> >>>
>> >>>>You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea
>on
>> >>>>this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
>> >>>>picture -aka the world view-.
>> >>>
>> >>>OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just
>don't
>> >>>agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
>> >>>the statement was written.
Don't forget insanity rising in the world. Mad bombers and shooters and
cults...All the while we have MAD hanging over our heads. If that's a new
measure of "peace" ie. rise in insanity and proliferation of nukes, then you
must think that standing on a ledge or precipice is a new way to find inner
tranquility.
>> >>If anything, we are reaching a critical mass. We could explode at
>any
>> >moment
>> >>because of weather probs, greenhouse warming, pollution, and most
>> >>importantly overpopulation. Also there is a rise in religious
>> >fanaticism,
>> >>eg. suicides, militias, protests that turn violent. What we DON'T
>need
>> >is
>> >>someone mentioning on TV that he is Maitreya and that Lucifer is the
>> >>oversoul and that yous all are Lucifer. That may seem funny to us,
>but
>> >>believe me Casey, Peyote was wise not to crosspost this thread. An
>> >>appearance or "emergence" like that would confirm Christians',
>Jews',
>> >and
>> >>Muslims' worst fears.
>> >
>> >Actually, what is happening is all the deep seated problems and
>> >separations are boiling to the surface. They have always been
>> >there but not so apparant. Now that they are visible to all
>> >we can start to address the root causes and problems.
>>
>> Okay. But you see, Casey, you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge
>> concerning prophecies.
You admit you don't know the psychic process except in an infinitesmally
small dose.
Most people are at the same level. When people
>>see a
>> small portion of the prophecies come true, they will get down on their
>knees
>> and say, it was true now the rest of the prophecies will come true,
>thank
>> God, Lucifer has arrived with his false prophet Creme, Casey, and the
>> unknown guy in the corner who keeps dropping hints that we should
>listen to
>> him, and Casey keeps saying he might be Maitreya. Oh thank the Lord,
>Lucifer
>> has unveiled his AC...And Jesus is coming soon. Hallelujah, etc.
>
>Some people might react this way. I don't feel its a reason
>for us to live without the truth though.
You have NO IDEA what is true and false, so you inconsiderately defend the
spamming of remote dreams and fantasies based on a lack of knowledge of
psychic phenomena which is closely linked to "channeling" telepathy and
contact with spirits. It would be like saying it's possible to put men on
Mars via spacecraft and return them home, without knowing the basic details
about gravity and the solar system.
>> >>>>Peyote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>As steps throughout history have always been taken .... so?
>> >>>
>> >>>So? I'm just showing that the condition might have been met.
>> >
>> >>Not nearly. The only conditions are those the Christians, Muslims,
>and
>> >>Native Americans have predicted: ie. a time of great strife and
>natural
>> >>disasters.
>> >
>> >I was specifically talking about the Lucis Trust page.
And Bailey's book passage in the Christ book where a similar passage is
written.
>> Your assessments of global affairs and geo-politics fell short. And
>the
>> religions are more looney rather than more conciliatory. All they need
>is a
>> Dajjal or AC to set them wild in the streets, ready to lynch the
>predicted
>> evil ones.
>
>Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
>of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
>of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
>jump to any quick conclusions.
While the SI material spammers spam with hate in their minds and a "oh yeah,
well in your face" attitude for entire threads of people. Yes people do lose
their tempers. The greatest human example among Western people was Jesus who
said sell your garments and purchase swords, also he became violent in the
temple when the moneychangers...He might have said more than you spawn of
vipers on occasion. But some of the SI spammers don't feel love or even
humane motivation. They spam becos they want attention and revenge, like
Dore. Or the rare ones spam with good intentions (a contradiction), but
don't know they're making the world more dangerous by spreading a belief
system that can clearly be connected to Lucifer the "oversoul". That would
only raise suspicions and paranoia in the world if enuf people see
Maitreya's (the one Creme talks about) ugly face.
>>Israeli conflict? More sects and cults appear everyday. Hardly
>a
>> >>>>>>cleaning up of the house Casey. Politics is hardly any better
>> >either
>> >>>>>>LOL.
>> >
>> >>Yes this is a very weak point against the excerpt. If anything
>paranoia
>> >will
>> >>grow concerning a "one world gov". Christian fundies and
>evangelicals
>> >are
>> >>ready to stomp over anyone who even hints of one. The labor groups,
>> >>environmentalists and conservative isolatioists formed a "holy"
>> >alliance
>> >>against sharing and world trade agreements. Religions are up in arms
>> >like
>> >>almost never before, searching for that one world conspiracy.
>> >
>> >It all depends on how things are approached. I realize that what I'm
>> >stating Maitreya will do is VERY difficult and almost beyond
>> >belief. He will have to reach everyone coming from millions of
>> >different viewpoints. Thats why many of the things he talks
>> >about will be very simple and clear and cut through all the
>> >separations.
>>
>> Not with the methods you hint at below.
Plus his ugly face is NOT what we need for our motivation. There are many
sensible people in the world communicating on the net. Some are Christian
scholars who finally are fed up with the coverups in the cloisters.
>> >>>>I am saying the above flatly contradicts Creme.
>> >>>
>> >>>And I'm saying it supports him:)
>> >
>> >>Creme does point and communicate telepathically with *his* Maitreya.
>> >
>> >Well, Mr. Creme actually doesn't communicate directly with Maitreya
>> >on a regular basis.
>>
>> Sporadically is enuf.
>>
>> He is in constant telepathic communication
>> >with one of the senior members of hierarchy.
You know close to NOTHING about telepathy. You use words out of ignorance,
like if I believed there was no gravity and believed if I shoot an arrow
beyond sight, it will reach the moon. That's what your faith is like...you
even admit your lack of knowledge concerning telepathy. As for communication
with spirits and "channeling", you haven't a clue.
Because you are handsomer and Betsy is prettier.
The wise old man is another more powerful thought form than SI's and
Bailey's hierarchy, so is astrology (Age of Aquarius), palm and Tarot
reading, and psychic reading and healing, psi and auras, nature preservation
and worship, energy medicine, energy vortexes, shamam, prophesying from many
cultures, Eastern religion, mysticism eg. Hermeticism etc., UFOs, etc. These
archetypes and thought forms represent ever so much more of the New Age than
Creme Bailey HP and their Venusian hierarchy. And hopefully you won't grow
in the New Age. Your group is a malignant tumor that must be side stepped,
as humans evolve mentally intellectually and technologically.
You have an UNINFORMED opinion. Let's make that perfectly clear. Anytime you
want to debate the topic, I'll prove it to you.
>> >>Tell me if you can Casey, what do you and Creme, whom you are in
>> >contact
>> >>with, think about telepathy?
>> >
>> >Well, I do not claim to be telepathic or understant it fully but I
>can
>> >address aat least a portion of what it means and what Mr. Creme
>> >has gone through.
>>
>> Oh my. You don't know about telepathy, if you're not aware of your own
>> telepathic experiences.
>
>I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
You better not, or I'll test you man.
You miss the point totally. If you don't know about what's real and what's
not real in "channeling", telepathy, and communication with spirits; you
shouldn't even use such terms. You can't be any kind of trustworthy
(knowledgewise) evaluator of whether Creme is sane, schizoid (slightly or
very), whether he's conning people like you and possibly himself, whether he
is building a big scam, or whether he truly communicates with spirits. The
REAL accounts have been given on TV talk shows like Larry King Live during
phone seances, where lately Edwards and Van Praagh are put to the test in
front of millions of TV viewers, and they hardly ever make a bad appearance.
I've watched enuf "psychics" in action to know who's faking it, and who's
for real. I can spot a con a mile away. I can also tell when someone is not
conning the audience. Watch Edward and Van Praagh and learn what is
possible. We're not atheists, but you haven't a clue what the BEST psychics
are capable of (and not capable of) in repeatable experiments.
Honesty is admirable. But you shouldn't go around spouting terms you have NO
practical knowledge of. Try again when you experience telepathy and when you
learn from the experts when they reveal as much as you should know before
you start "explaining" "channeling", telepathy experiences and spiritual
contact.
Yes, there are many books I can mention for you. But if it would help SI
recruit believers in Lucifer as the oversoul and all humans, I'd rather not.
But if you study the subject, be prepared for real debates concerning real
repeatable experiments worldwide.
You know that Creme says he's in telepathic
>> >>communication with Maitreya. But what is telepathy to you? Don't
>worry,
>> >I
>> >>won't expose you to the atheists.
>> >
>> >Again, I don't claim to be an expert on telepathy but I can try to
>> >discuss
>> >some aspects (starting with my info above)
>>
>> Meager. Sorry, but that's a fact.
>>
>> and I suggest the Alice
>> >Bailey book "Telepathy" for a much more in depth discussion.
>>
>> I already know about telepathy. Don't be rude. Quote some expert
>knowledge
>> from that book if it's so good.
>
>All I can say is what you know about telepathy is in some
>disagreement with what Mr. Creme discusses about it. You
>can make of that what you wish. If that invalidates Mr. Creme's
>story for you that is fine with me.
Unfortunately you know nothing about the subject. So far your vague
references suggest he is a schizophrenic who hears voices in his head, or
he's a con artist who reads a lot of Bailey. When you say something that
indicates TRUE communication with spirits. I promise I'll let you know
you're VERY close.
Well you failed in the intuition test. But nice try. Your best bet is with
the texts, but that's Peyote's forte, wherever the heck he is. I really like
his persona, but he is very inconsistent.
Eo
kook Watcher
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
Allen:
>The Lucis people have always been an occult group. They never have promised
>their stuff as fodder for the masses, like Creme has with his Mayatreya
>fellow.
Yes it was an arcane school meant for those interested in these areas.
Creme's rubbish is a blatant attempt at mass production and
commercialization of a myth.
>I had a chance to look at Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine last weekend and
>she definitely painted Lucifer and Satan as the same being, and that this
>being was the lord of the world. Her stuff has never had a large following
>(although I think it is quite good)
I agree, she is very different but some of her stuff is very good. I
particularly love the way she has that unique ability for tying things
together.
>I can't see either Protestants or Catholics endorsing Creme's dogma, nor
>would Muslims (they don't need any stinkin' messiah) nor Buddhists (Buddha
>Maitreya will not appear until time when the Dharma has been forgotten).
Yep and the Bahai's are quite clear in their prophecy that anyone who
appears before the 100 years is up -still about 8-900 years to go- is
a 'lying imposter'. Well so the Bahai's say :-)
>I have come to believe, after reflecting on years of endless Mayatreya
>spamming, that a RETURNING messiah isn't going to happen. All the previous
>avatars in the world are people who became enlightened during their
>lifetime. They left the wheel, so to speak, and showed others how to do it.
>The next messiah, I believe, will be somebody like us except he/she learns
>something we don't already know.
That also makes sense, I was reading in one Al hadith -I think it was-
where when Muhammed died they tried to invent stories about miracles
and his return. Luckily this was quickly squashed by Abu Bakr -from
Aishah'a family-.
Perhaps a great love -with an amount of gullibility- produces this
need to have their god, guru or whatever return again in some form or
manner?
>There is a difference between Creme and Blavatsky/Bailey vis-a-vis
>telepathic contact with 'masters of wisdom'. Bailey and Blavatsky claimed
>contact with living people. Creme claims contact with discarnate beings.
Not defending Creme aghh perish the thought but I thought he has met
supposedly real life masters which taught him. Not sure though if he
has personally met Maitreya.
>Bailey says that enlightenment is a process which burns off the soul. These
>ascended masters do not have souls. I don't believe they will ever incarnate
>again, but Creme (& to a lesser extent Bailey) claim these masters can
>construct a body of manifestation which would resemble a human body. So what
>do you think the lay public would say if they were told that their TV
>Mayatreya didn't have a soul, that he wasn't 'born of a woman'? ;-)
LOL the Buddhists would say 'see he can't be Maitreya LOL- and a whole
unity of voices from different religions -including non theists- would
be laughing their heads of.
Peyote.
kook Watcher
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be surprised if some people would eventually claim to be the Al
>> or Imam Mahdi though.
>
>But this is only a Shiite teaching. The Sunnis don't have any such messiah
>in their dogma, and none whatsoever is mentioned in the Quran. While looking
>this over, I found an interesting Shia website about the Imam Mahdi, an
>entire book online.
>
>http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm
Just a few things i picked up about Islam:
The Shia are odd in many ways and have a lot of small sects -the
twelevers, ismalis etc- who believe the twelfth Imam disappeared and
will one day re appear again.
Within Suni tradition there is almost no chance in hell someone would
get away with being called Imam Al Mahdi, the prophecies are very
clear about his arrival, where, how, etc.
There was a group a called the Ahmadi's -1800's- which did fool a fair
few Muslims, he claimed to be the 'promised one' of Islam but he and
his followers I have found easy of debunk though because of their
failed and in some cases invented Islamic prophecies.
The Babied and Bahia's were two other groups which cam out of Islam as
well as smaller and obscure sects like the Drupe. etc etc.
--Please keep up the interesting discussion I am really learning
heaps-
kook Watcher
Casey:
>The thing is Maitreya will be much more simple and much more
>profound then people on this group think. He won't appear
>as a "Magic King". Yes, eventually Maitreya will demonstrate some
>of the things I say he can do but it will be a natural progression
>to that point.
So when is the date now for this miraculous time?
Casey:
>Mr. Creme does claim the masters are living people. He states that
>Jesus is living right now in Rome and in a body that was born (it is
>a little old though:).
Why would Jesus be in Rome when he was supposed to have been
resurrected? Don't tell me he came back as a baby and they threw away
his resurrected body? That contradicts the BIble Casey?
Another point: in one of Creme's kook farts he claims he saw Jesus as
a baby and the woman was Maitreya in disguise?
Casey:
>Maitreya absolutely has a soul. In fact he is his soul while we are
>just reflections of ours.
He should have a soul considering he was born after the historical
Buddha we know of from about 600BC LOL.
>Casey
Peyote
kook Watcher
Allen:
>>Which, of course, puts even less reason behind the Ben Creme's TV
>appearance story. Going on TV is no big deal, Casey.
Casey
>Well it will be even a bigger deal that just with ideas
>he will be able to capture the attention of the world.
>Don't worry, the first interview will not disappoint:)
So you keep saying but again I must ask how many times must this
Maitreya man fail to appear before you wake up to the fact that r is
not real. This divine outpouring of love for the entire world will
simply not happen Casey.
>Jesus has the ability to appear anywhere in the world in many
>different forms.
>
>>How old is 'he'?
>
>>Where does he live?
>
>>What does he do?
>
>>Where can I find him? Why not?
>
>>Why do you believe this story?
>
>My understanding is that Jesus is in a body that is over 600 years old.
So Jesus was born again only 600 years ago? By whom and what proof do
you have of these claims?
>I have stated many time why I think this story is true. I can provide
>a link to a more comprehensive discussion on this if you want.
You believe it based on no facts pertaining to real evidence which
could be examined in a court of law. It is only your faith Casey
nothing more. You have no real proof only rum ours, and hearsay.
>I did not say that Maitreya was born, just Jesus. Maitreya is in a self
>created body.
Please show me this within the Buddhist texts Casey.
>I never stated such a thing about Maitreya, just Jesus.
>As far as the information you provided in relation to
>Jesus I will have to do a little research.
Peyote.
kook Watcher
Casey:
>I have stated many times that I understand that the Arcane school/Lucis
>trust organization does not accept Mr. Creme's views about Maitreya
>being here now. I don't know how much clearer I can get. All I
>was saying about Mr. Creme's name not being mentioned was when refering
>to the page that we are talking about now. The way Peyote was talking
>he made it sound like Mr. Creme's name was specifically mentioned
>on the page and it isn't.
I never mentioned Benjamin Creme was mentioned in the article -I
think- but anyone with even half a brain could see it was to do with
him and other like him LOL.
Casey:
>But this is all before they actually experience these beings themselves.
>Until that happens its all guesswork on who would react what way. Yews
>I agree that some of the things I talk about would be automatically
>rejected by many today (from their current viewpoint).
Rejected as the long awaited deception of which Christians ans Muslims
make up a very large number of the population. Other groups will also
discount it based on heir own teaching and experiences.
Casey:
>Actually, what is happening is all the deep seated problems and
>separations are boiling to the surface. They have always been
>there but not so apparant. Now that they are visible to all
>we can start to address the root causes and problems.
And the root causes are? What exactly Casey are these root problem or
causes hmm?
See there is no real measure of peace is there?
-snip for BW a great article by Casey and Eo-
kook Watcher
Eo:
>I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
>popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New Age
>movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
>common understanding among peoples. The hardline Christians will surely say
>it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
True not to mention Judaism, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims etc etc and all
for different reasons not only the concept of Lucifer itself. Even
Wiccans will white or black- would differ on this point as I have only
just recently found out. -Apparently a lot of people still think
witches are devil/satanic worshippers LOL-
Eo:
>Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
>believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts about
>both.
Spot on Eo.
Currently I don't care what Messiah stands up -if he is a real one and
not bogus- whether he is the Islamic one, Jewish one, Christian one,
Bahai one -in a 1000 years-, or the real Maitreya 30-40000 years from
now.
If it happens it happens that is how I see it, but I do't pin my
entire life hope waiting for some miracle man to help solve al my
problems when the human race now has the capacity to solve its own
problems -if we were not so damned greedy and selfish-.
About Telepathy, yes that I have serious doubts about.
I am open minded and if it can be proven then yes I will agree. Being
right or wrong has never ben an issue for me if I am right good, if
wrong great I have learnt something new.
However if I am tricked then the shit hits the fan ;-)
Eo:
>Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some light
>from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
I see your approach would be very different to mine :-) Good luck I
look forward to seeing the answers from Casey on this one.
Eo:
>If anything, we are reaching a critical mass. We could explode at any moment
>because of weather probs, greenhouse warming, pollution, and most
>importantly overpopulation. Also there is a rise in religious fanaticism,
>eg. suicides, militias, protests that turn violent. What we DON'T need is
>someone mentioning on TV that he is Maitreya and that Lucifer is the
>oversoul and that yous all are Lucifer. That may seem funny to us, but
>believe me Casey, Peyote was wise not to crosspost this thread. An
>appearance or "emergence" like that would confirm Christians', Jews', and
>Muslims' worst fears.
It would be a disaster, lets just hope Maitreya doesn't try to rebuild
the temple of David ;-)
Then we will know for sure whether John was on mushies or not LOL.
-Big snip see previous article in this thread of Eo's and Casey's
interesting discussion. -
kook Watcher
-snips-
Casey:
>I know what they are trying to do:) I just don't agree that they
>accomplished the task. By the way, you guys make it seem
>like Creme is mentioned on the page which he isn't.
Peyote:
Well isn't it funny how almost everyone thinks that it is to do with
him, It must been the way they worded it LOL ;-)
Casey:
>But they didn't even mention Creme's name. Although I do agree that
>to some extent it is meant for him:)
Peyote:
They really don't have to do they? It interprets itself clear all on
its own. I guess it would stop a lot of people being misdirected to
Benjamin Creme's camp. Who knows maybe one day you will put up
something similar to stop people from bugging you about a new cult
that has arisen?
Peyote:
>>A new measure of peace implies more than changes which have occurred
>>recently. Look at history, changes have always occurred, contracts
>>made, contracts broken, new hopes for a better world, yet wars still
>>rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
>>measure of peace'.
>
>>You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea on
>>this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
>>picture -aka the world view-.
Casey:
>OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just don't
>agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
>the statement was written.
That's fair enough, people have been saying throughout history that a
new era of measure of peace has been established when reality has
shown otherwise.
I understand that because of your belief in Maitreya, you will need to
see these changes so that they may verify your ideology regarding
Benjamin Creme.
But again I say the facts are clearly against you, no matter what
fantasy you may choose to hold onto.
>>Peyote:
>
>>True but again that is no measure of change or peace, now more money
>>can be invested in weapons to kill each other. And don't think for a
>>minute those in control will not use this to their advantage to gain
>>more control. You should read some mail I get from Africa it is
>>anything but great debt not withstanding.
Casey:
>I'm not saying things are great. In fact, the whole point of
>what I've always said is that it seems like we do need some
>guidance before we can really make things better. All I
>was trying to point out was that steps are being taken. Even
>if these steps actually turn out to be harmful what I am
>talking about is steps and motive.
Casey it is a fact throughout history that steps have always been
taken in one form or another to try and end some track of disaster,
likewise motive has always been there too. So much more is needed.
Peyote:
>>Do you really believe that they will use this help for humanitarian
>>purposes, remember Somalia? Huh what a sick joke.
Case:
>Yes, things don't always turn out so good but the point, in relation
>to this discussion, is the attempts.
The world is and has always been full of intent, -some fail some
don't- it still means nothing and has no new meaning even in this era.
Other religious groups who have tried to interpret signs in their own
day have oddly enough said similar things to what you are saying now
-aka see the millennial movements of th 1700's and 1800's. -
Peyote:
>>Yes he tried and tried very hard - respect the guy for that- to make
>>concessions but he was even shouted at by the Muslims -I picked this
>>bit of info up from Allen's site-.
Casey:
>But that's my WHOLE point (for this discussion). He is trying.
And it failed. Intent alone is rarely if ever good enough. But again
the Popes visit fanned the flames of some Muslims, made no real change
and as always these so called winds of changes are only views as so by
you because of the trap that Benjamin Creme has you in.
You need to look for any sign of a possible change or hope because n
the back of your mind it validates that maitreya is real and is trying
to help out on the word stage. What you overlook is the other side,
the suffering, the misery, the non hope etc. Is Maitreya also to be
held responsible for that or does he only take credit for the good
things is n\the world?
Peyote:
>>Correct -about the opinion part- which is born like your own are from
>>personal experiences. Now as to the page numbers who cares how many
>>pages are needed? They made a very clear statement which debunks
>>Creme.
Case:
>I don't agree they clearly debunk Creme. I actually think
>the statements leave open the possibility that this is the
>time.
It clearly debunks him in perhaps one of the best cases of diplomacy I
have seen in a long tine ROTFLMAO. That is one I have to give to the
Lucis Trust.
Peyote:
>>But he does confirm -via the voices in his head- that X person was the
>>Christ/Maitreya etc etc.
Casey:
>Not a specific person that you can go find. He confirms the experience
>but even those with the experiences can't go back and find Maitreya.
Wasn't a person pointed out as Maitreya at the Tokyo lecture? Whether
he disappears later on or not is not the issue, the issue is you have
him appearing here and there and that is a no no according to the
bible which warns people away from such occurrences and so called
miracles -sightings or otherwise-
Peyote:
>>Uhmm Casey you have missed something important here, Creme doesn't
>>have to say it because Share International -his foundation- and the
>>Tara center, yourself, Betsy and even Dotty have already said it ;-)
>>Creme may have even said it -actually I think he did mention it on the
>>Art Bell show-. -I could be wrong here though on this-
Case:
>How could anyone have mentioned that a specific guest on a show
>was Maitreya when the show hasn't even happened yet?
Peyote:
I didn't say Maitreya appeared on the Art Bell show I said Benjamin
did, preaching about Maitreya being here soon. If I remember correctly
Art even asked Maitreya to come onto his show LOL when/if he does
appear.
So with all the artificial hype you have created -generally amongst
yourselves since no one else really cares- of course if some Maitreya
character appears on TV, you will all going into fits of ecstasy LOL.
Casey:
>>Peyote, you know I have never called anyone a liar. Are you just
>>trying to incite people? And again, you know very well I have stated
>>many times now that I agree that they reject Mr. Creme. I just feel they
>>are mistaken, this is totally different then calling anybody a liar.
>>Come on Peyote, why are you resorting to tactics like this?
Peyote:
>>Because the facts demands at least the following:
>
>>1. Someone is lying
Casey:
>Nope.
Peyote:
>>2. Someone is being deceptive.
Casey:
>Nope.
Peyote:
>>3. Someone -and it doesn't have to be Creme only- is delusional
Casey:
>I wouldn't say delusion just mistaken (not Mr. Creme).
Peyote:
>>4. Your experiences and studies contradict each other
Casey:
>Yes.
Peyote:
>>5. Your so called guidance from the masters disagree
Casey:
>Well, they are just interpreting:)
Peyote:
>>6. Your all wrong -aka fantasy and guess work etc-
Casey:
>Maybe:)
Peyote:
>>7. It is nothing more than the product of your own minds. -so in
>>effect you are all right LOL-
Casey:
>Maybe:)
Peyote:
>>So again I must ask you Casey did what the Lucis trust put up is an
>>outright lie or was it one of the above?
Case:
>Could be some of the above. I would just say they are mistaken
>with good intentions.
Okay.
Peyote:
>>Please try to look at this logically. Something is seriously wrong
>>here, first the attack on the GI -by you- and now the Lucis Trust
>>denounces Creme. Why? Aren't you all supposed to be guided by the same
>>masters?
Casey:
>Well, I never claimed to be "guided" by a master and as far as I know
>neither has the leadership of Lucis Trust. We are all working
>off the written word (as far as the Bailey books go).
Benjamin Creme is and it appears you may be quite close to him?
Case:
>I didn't attack the GI:) I just don't agree it should have been
>changed.
Why not? -I know we have been through this before- but it is stupid,
technology changes, meaning changes, Christ -aka Churchianity- is very
offensive to some -with good reasons if you look at history and
current events- and as I pointed out that the Lords Prayer been
altered because of modern changes. Is it suddenly less powerful? No of
course not.
I noticed Allen brought up another point, do we get Spanish people to
read the GI in English or Spanish, as I have said before I have had
similar debates with KLV only adherents and even an Islamic friend who
insist on knowing the Arabic of the Qur'an before you can fully
understand it.
Personally I think the changes are good and more inclusive and not so
Christian centric, maybe a new version will come out which caters to
all people from all over the world.
Peyote:
>>Ditto for the Theosophical's rejection of Creme's work.
Casey:
>Again, I don't think the leadship is claiming to be guided
>by any of the masters.
Who knows? However the facts remain they reject Creme and his claims.
Casey:
>>Well I do think Maitreya IS here and will emerge openly VERY soon:)
Peyote
>>Yes Casey if you really think so LOL ;-)
Casey:
>Finally we reach an agreement:)lol
>
>Casey
LOL what ca I say to that :-)
Peyote.
kook Watcher
I forgot who said this :
>>> What "beings"? Will Lucifer the oversoul make an appearance with
>>Maitreya?
Casey:
>>Nope.
However it is possible though right? It can happen.
Eo:
>Things are same old same old in most of the world. You stated a NEW air of
>cooperation. If anything, there is peace at the end of a gun...by putting
>down Milosevic and Saddam and confining Kaddafi, starving out 3.5 million
>North Koreans. And there's a lot more like Algeria Turkey Chehcnya etc.
>That's not cooperation. There is a fragile peace at best among the
>superpowers. And what keeps the peace isn't new. It's called MAD and started
>about 50 years ago. As for churches cooperating, that also hasn't advanced,
>Pope and Dalai Lama visits to the holy land notwithstanding. The anti-one
>world wackos are even appearing in France with the recent bombings of some
>McDonalds' there... Several of them, by anti-globalization groups. So you
>say things are getting better as far as cooperation, now you say things are
>very bad. You like double speak.
Because it really is double speak. On the one hand Benjamin Creme's
cult gives them one bit of information -which they swallow as truth-
whilst on the other hand, reality demands that no new era of peace or
change has been entered into.
In this brief article we will not even get into the topic of so called
utopian change attempts of the past LOL we would be here for ever.
Creme is neither the first nor do I doubt his group will be the last
to come up with this kind of system.
Eo:
>Anyway yes, we do need some new wisdom, and I'm gonna keep pounding the
>Lucifer connection at you - using your very own words. Anytime you want
>reminding, I'll pull up that ridiculous explanation of Lucifer as the
>oversoul of humanity, that his fall meant Lucifer incarnating into humans,
>that all humans are Lucifer, and the Venusian spiritual hierarchy taking up
>Maitreya and Jesus 100,000 from Atlantis becos they had promise...Then they
>were taught by the masters as initiates. To this day Jesus and Buddha or
>Maitreya are not at the level of Lucifer. Since those are your own words,
>you can't play the game you've been playing in this thread, of hide and seek
>with the various versions between HB and AB and Creme...and how we should
>read Creme's books. We have your words, and your personal communications
>with Creme and that's enuf for me to go on. He may even have stayed at your
>house. And all of that reading has not taught you anything about the
>important foundations of what you discuss: ie. channeling, telapathic
>communication, and communication with spirits.
You should see the files I have been collecting on just this topic
alone I never knew there were so many believers in Lufice/Satan
including what another break way from the AA Bailey group 'David. S.'
call the Luciferian doctrine of initiation'.
>Don't forget insanity rising in the world. Mad bombers and shooters and
>cults...All the while we have MAD hanging over our heads. If that's a new
>measure of "peace" ie. rise in insanity and proliferation of nukes, then you
>must think that standing on a ledge or precipice is a new way to find inner
>tranquility.
Double think my friend, double think ;-)
Eo:
>You miss the point totally. If you don't know about what's real and what's
>not real in "channeling", telepathy, and communication with spirits; you
>shouldn't even use such terms. You can't be any kind of trustworthy
>(knowledgewise) evaluator of whether Creme is sane, schizoid (slightly or
>very), whether he's conning people like you and possibly himself, whether he
>is building a big scam, or whether he truly communicates with spirits. The
>REAL accounts have been given on TV talk shows like Larry King Live during
>phone seances, where lately Edwards and Van Praagh are put to the test in
>front of millions of TV viewers, and they hardly ever make a bad appearance.
>I've watched enuf "psychics" in action to know who's faking it, and who's
>for real. I can spot a con a mile away. I can also tell when someone is not
>conning the audience. Watch Edward and Van Praagh and learn what is
>possible. We're not atheists, but you haven't a clue what the BEST psychics
>are capable of (and not capable of) in repeatable experiments.
Good point.
>Unfortunately you know nothing about the subject. So far your vague
>references suggest he is a schizophrenic who hears voices in his head, or
>he's a con artist who reads a lot of Bailey. When you say something that
>indicates TRUE communication with spirits. I promise I'll let you know
>you're VERY close.
From reading this post and going over some other posts it appears he
may suffer from a mild form, though to me it looks like -unless he is
secretly taking medication- 'he' 'the central personality' is the one
in control and not like most schizophrenics.
My personal view is he is a delusional person that loves attention
more than almost anything else in the world, from people, visitors and
of course the media also :-)
I think he is sincere -even though wrong- I base this on his failed
predictions of 1982, 1994 and 1997 if he really was a scam that didn't
believe in his own stuff he would not have kept setting dates --unless
he craves media attention that much LOL-.
To keep doing this he must either totally brain dead or actually
believe in Maitreya's arrival.
Eo:
>Well you failed in the intuition test. But nice try. Your best bet is with
>the texts, but that's Peyote's forte, wherever the heck he is. I really like
>his persona, but he is very inconsistent.
Still here there have been problems with my NG server so I used the
down time to call in on some friends to discuss this Lucifer/Satan
thingy for Casey.
-snip rest of a good article see Eo's and Casey's previous post for
the full details-
kook Watcher
Eo:
>> What "beings"? Will Lucifer the oversoul make an appearance with
>Maitreya?
Casey:
>Nope.
But it is possible right? Like we discussed before?
If I am right Eo may be discussing the anti-christ'sd supposed reign
of 3 and a half year of peace and prosperity along with various
spiritual encounters but then in the middle of the three and a half
years the anti-christ goes mad and begins the new holocaust on
humanity.
>I have always stated this. I'm not sure what contradiction
>you are refering to. In fact this is my whole point in
>why we might need a "Maitreya".
The points that a variety of people have outlined here is the very
reason why we ** do not** Maitreya or any other miracle man or problem
solver.
>Some people might react this way. I don't feel its a reason
>for us to live without the truth though.
Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
Casey:
>Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
>of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
>of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
>jump to any quick conclusions.
That is infringing on their free will to reject him and his
experience. I have heard that he is appearing to fundamentalists to
'soften the up' but your fail to see that it will not work.
Eo:
>> ancient texts, I will tell you more about alternate futures...also the
>> physiology of precognition and telepathy.
Sounds interesting Eo.
Casey
>Obviously we have different opinions on this subject. I'm willing
>to leave it at that.
I don't know I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
Casey:
>I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
I thought you would, isn't it supposed to be one of the cornerstones
of Benjamin Creme's discussions with these 'ascended masters'? Are
there many telepathic's amongst Benjamin Creme's group?
>All I was saying is that I don't have the knowledge on this
>subject to discuss it at the depth you want. I was only
>giving you a reference in case you wanted to use it.
>If you feel you know all you need to know that is fine
>with me. I'm not quite sure why you got so upset over this.
I assumed since you are in contact with Benjamin Creme and his people
telepathy would be a common occurrence. Is it true that Benjamin
almost always -if not always- gets a message from one of the mater
before the next Share International publishing deadline?
Casey:
>I don't have any practical knowledge of telepathy. If you
>feel what I stated is "wrongo" that is fine but there is not
>much more I can say.
I found Eo's reply interesting, I asked a so called channeler once
about why this guy was a master from ancient Egypt LOL I got almost
the same really Eo did, he has been around us for awhile and learn't
English. :-( Yeah right.
Eo:
>Now you must study modern research on the topic if you
>want to show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might
>just be clueless like Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read this.
ROTFL yeah right ;-) You just could't resist LOL.
Casey:
>All I can say is what you know about telepathy is in some
>disagreement with what Mr. Creme discusses about it. You
>can make of that what you wish. If that invalidates Mr. Creme's
>story for you that is fine with me.
Why is it that true believers of any religion/faith/sect or cult have
so much trouble seeing that their leader could be a fraud, or
delusional?
Casey:
>Obviously from your point of view I don't have a clue:)
>I'm not sure what else I can say.
Does Creme know?
Do your books outline these mysteries at all? Are Angels really made
from fire, spirit, wave forms, thought patterns, air, wind, or what
exactly? What is the difference between an angel and a Jinn?
Does Creme go into some depth into the mysteries of the sphere's and
their influences over each other? -Huh bet Eo didn't know I knew about
that one LOL-
-snip for BW a good discussion between Casey and Eo-
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:10:34 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>Eo:
>>> What "beings"? Will Lucifer the oversoul make an appearance with
>>Maitreya?
>Casey:
>>Nope.
>But it is possible right? Like we discussed before?
>If I am right Eo may be discussing the anti-christ'sd supposed reign
>of 3 and a half year of peace and prosperity along with various
>spiritual encounters but then in the middle of the three and a half
>years the anti-christ goes mad and begins the new holocaust on
>humanity.
I have a completely different view on what the anti-Christ is.
Anyway the version above never made any sense to me.
>>I have always stated this. I'm not sure what contradiction
>>you are refering to. In fact this is my whole point in
>>why we might need a "Maitreya".
>The points that a variety of people have outlined here is the very
>reason why we ** do not** Maitreya or any other miracle man or problem
>solver.
>>Some people might react this way. I don't feel its a reason
>>for us to live without the truth though.
>Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
>bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
>align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
>Casey:
>>Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
>>of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
>>of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
>>jump to any quick conclusions.
>That is infringing on their free will to reject him and his
>experience. I have heard that he is appearing to fundamentalists to
>'soften the up' but your fail to see that it will not work.
We will see:)
>Eo:
>>> ancient texts, I will tell you more about alternate futures...also
the
>>> physiology of precognition and telepathy.
>Sounds interesting Eo.
>Casey
>>Obviously we have different opinions on this subject. I'm willing
>>to leave it at that.
>I don't know I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
>Casey:
>>I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
>I thought you would, isn't it supposed to be one of the cornerstones
>of Benjamin Creme's discussions with these 'ascended masters'? Are
>there many telepathic's amongst Benjamin Creme's group?
Benjamin Creme is in constant telepathic contact with his master.
That doesn't mean I know the actual technical details.
No one else is telepathic in this group at that level.
We are all telepathic to some extent (meaning even you:).
>>All I was saying is that I don't have the knowledge on this
>>subject to discuss it at the depth you want. I was only
>>giving you a reference in case you wanted to use it.
>>If you feel you know all you need to know that is fine
>>with me. I'm not quite sure why you got so upset over this.
>I assumed since you are in contact with Benjamin Creme and his people
>telepathy would be a common occurrence. Is it true that Benjamin
>almost always -if not always- gets a message from one of the mater
>before the next Share International publishing deadline?
Telepathy, at the level we are talking about, is not a
common occurance at all. Only Mr. Creme (in this group) has
a constant (completely clear) telepathic rapport with his
master.
>Casey:
>>I don't have any practical knowledge of telepathy. If you
>>feel what I stated is "wrongo" that is fine but there is not
>>much more I can say.
>I found Eo's reply interesting, I asked a so called channeler once
>about why this guy was a master from ancient Egypt LOL I got almost
>the same really Eo did, he has been around us for awhile and learn't
>English. :-( Yeah right.
>Eo:
>>Now you must study modern research on the topic if you
>>want to show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might
>>just be clueless like Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read
this.
>ROTFL yeah right ;-) You just could't resist LOL.
>Casey:
>>All I can say is what you know about telepathy is in some
>>disagreement with what Mr. Creme discusses about it. You
>>can make of that what you wish. If that invalidates Mr. Creme's
>>story for you that is fine with me.
>Why is it that true believers of any religion/faith/sect or cult have
>so much trouble seeing that their leader could be a fraud, or
>delusional?
I don't know Peyote, why is that:)lol
>Casey:
>>Obviously from your point of view I don't have a clue:)
>>I'm not sure what else I can say.
>Does Creme know?
Yes.
Casey
>Do your books outline these mysteries at all? Are Angels really made
>from fire, spirit, wave forms, thought patterns, air, wind, or what
>exactly? What is the difference between an angel and a Jinn?
>Does Creme go into some depth into the mysteries of the sphere's and
>their influences over each other? -Huh bet Eo didn't know I knew about
>that one LOL-
>-snip for BW a good discussion between Casey and Eo-
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:22:40 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>Casey:
>>I have stated many times that I understand that the Arcane
school/Lucis
>>trust organization does not accept Mr. Creme's views about Maitreya
>>being here now. I don't know how much clearer I can get. All I
>>was saying about Mr. Creme's name not being mentioned was when
refering
>>to the page that we are talking about now. The way Peyote was talking
>>he made it sound like Mr. Creme's name was specifically mentioned
>>on the page and it isn't.
>I never mentioned Benjamin Creme was mentioned in the article -I
>think- but anyone with even half a brain could see it was to do with
>him and other like him LOL.
>Casey:
>>But this is all before they actually experience these beings
themselves.
>>Until that happens its all guesswork on who would react what way.
Yews
>>I agree that some of the things I talk about would be automatically
>>rejected by many today (from their current viewpoint).
>Rejected as the long awaited deception of which Christians ans Muslims
>make up a very large number of the population. Other groups will also
>discount it based on heir own teaching and experiences.
>Casey:
>>Actually, what is happening is all the deep seated problems and
>>separations are boiling to the surface. They have always been
>>there but not so apparant. Now that they are visible to all
>>we can start to address the root causes and problems.
>And the root causes are? What exactly Casey are these root problem or
>causes hmm?
The main root cause is that people don;t see humanity as one.
They don't see the begger on the street or the starving person
in the third world country the same as they see a family member
or friend. Soon we will see them as ourselves and we will not
let them suffer anymore. Many people don't even have any
self respect for themselves and thats where everything
really starts.
>See there is no real measure of peace is there?
It depends on your definition of "measure":)
Casey
>-snip for BW a great article by Casey and Eo-
ck...@mars.superlink.net
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:52:53 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>-snips-
>Casey:
>>I know what they are trying to do:) I just don't agree that they
>>accomplished the task. By the way, you guys make it seem
>>like Creme is mentioned on the page which he isn't.
>Peyote:
>Well isn't it funny how almost everyone thinks that it is to do with
>him, It must been the way they worded it LOL ;-)
Maybe:)
>Casey:
>>But they didn't even mention Creme's name. Although I do agree that
>>to some extent it is meant for him:)
>Peyote:
>They really don't have to do they? It interprets itself clear all on
>its own. I guess it would stop a lot of people being misdirected to
>Benjamin Creme's camp. Who knows maybe one day you will put up
>something similar to stop people from bugging you about a new cult
>that has arisen?
I was never claiming it wasn't mostly directed at Mr. Creme. Just
wanted to clarify the small point about his name not actually
appearing:)
>Peyote:
>>>A new measure of peace implies more than changes which have occurred
>>>recently. Look at history, changes have always occurred, contracts
>>>made, contracts broken, new hopes for a better world, yet wars still
>>>rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
>>>measure of peace'.
>>
>>>You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea on
>>>this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
>>>picture -aka the world view-.
>Casey:
>>OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just don't
>>agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
>>the statement was written.
>That's fair enough, people have been saying throughout history that a
>new era of measure of peace has been established when reality has
>shown otherwise.
>I understand that because of your belief in Maitreya, you will need to
>see these changes so that they may verify your ideology regarding
>Benjamin Creme.
>But again I say the facts are clearly against you, no matter what
>fantasy you may choose to hold onto.
:-)
>>>Peyote:
>>
>>>True but again that is no measure of change or peace, now more money
>>>can be invested in weapons to kill each other. And don't think for a
>>>minute those in control will not use this to their advantage to gain
>>>more control. You should read some mail I get from Africa it is
>>>anything but great debt not withstanding.
>Casey:
>>I'm not saying things are great. In fact, the whole point of
>>what I've always said is that it seems like we do need some
>>guidance before we can really make things better. All I
>>was trying to point out was that steps are being taken. Even
>>if these steps actually turn out to be harmful what I am
>>talking about is steps and motive.
>Casey it is a fact throughout history that steps have always been
>taken in one form or another to try and end some track of disaster,
>likewise motive has always been there too. So much more is needed.
Yeah, much more is definitely needed. But here we are just
talking about the criteria on the Lucis trust page.
>Peyote:
>>>Do you really believe that they will use this help for humanitarian
>>>purposes, remember Somalia? Huh what a sick joke.
>Case:
>>Yes, things don't always turn out so good but the point, in relation
>>to this discussion, is the attempts.
>The world is and has always been full of intent, -some fail some
>don't- it still means nothing and has no new meaning even in this era.
>Other religious groups who have tried to interpret signs in their own
>day have oddly enough said similar things to what you are saying now
>-aka see the millennial movements of th 1700's and 1800's. -
It really has nothing to do with interpreting signs. I was just trying
to demonstrate that it was "possible" the criteria on the Lucis
Trust page had been met.
>Peyote:
>>>Yes he tried and tried very hard - respect the guy for that- to make
>>>concessions but he was even shouted at by the Muslims -I picked this
>>>bit of info up from Allen's site-.
>Casey:
>>But that's my WHOLE point (for this discussion). He is trying.
>And it failed. Intent alone is rarely if ever good enough. But again
>the Popes visit fanned the flames of some Muslims, made no real change
>and as always these so called winds of changes are only views as so by
>you because of the trap that Benjamin Creme has you in.
>You need to look for any sign of a possible change or hope because n
>the back of your mind it validates that maitreya is real and is trying
>to help out on the word stage. What you overlook is the other side,
>the suffering, the misery, the non hope etc. Is Maitreya also to be
>held responsible for that or does he only take credit for the good
>things is n\the world?
Again, this was all about showing the possibility that the criteria
were met.
>Peyote:
>Case:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
No one was pointed out by Mr. Creme. Mr. Creme confirmed an
experience after the fact.
>Peyote:
>>>Uhmm Casey you have missed something important here, Creme doesn't
>>>have to say it because Share International -his foundation- and the
>>>Tara center, yourself, Betsy and even Dotty have already said it ;-)
>>>Creme may have even said it -actually I think he did mention it on
the
>>>Art Bell show-. -I could be wrong here though on this-
>Case:
>>How could anyone have mentioned that a specific guest on a show
>>was Maitreya when the show hasn't even happened yet?
>Peyote:
>I didn't say Maitreya appeared on the Art Bell show I said Benjamin
>did, preaching about Maitreya being here soon. If I remember correctly
>Art even asked Maitreya to come onto his show LOL when/if he does
>appear.
I think we started to talk about two different things but we pretty
much have gone through both our points in this thread so I'm
willing to let you answer one more time (if you want) and
leave it at that.
>So with all the artificial hype you have created -generally amongst
>yourselves since no one else really cares- of course if some Maitreya
>character appears on TV, you will all going into fits of ecstasy LOL.
On the contrary. When Maitreya appears on TV he will have to
be "mighty" impressive for me to go into "fits of ecstasy":)
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Nope.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Nope.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Yes.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Maybe:)
>Peyote:
>Casey:
>>Maybe:)
>Peyote:
>Case:
>Okay.
>Peyote:
>Casey:
According to me Benjamin Creme absolutely is but we were talking about
why I might disagree with the Lucis trust on "some" issues. Anyway,
lets not blow how "close" I might be with Mr. Creme out of
proportion. My only reason for even bringing up my contact
with Mr. Creme was to give some perspective on my judgement
of him.
>Case:
>>I didn't attack the GI:) I just don't agree it should have been
>>changed.
>Why not? -I know we have been through this before- but it is stupid,
>technology changes, meaning changes, Christ -aka Churchianity- is very
>offensive to some -with good reasons if you look at history and
>current events- and as I pointed out that the Lords Prayer been
>altered because of modern changes. Is it suddenly less powerful? No of
>course not.
Ok, lets put it this way. I completely see your point and don't
even necessarily disagree with it. However, IF (stay with me here),
the actual words put togther the way they do have some sort of
energetic affect as a mantrum because of how its phrased then
it would be wrong to change any word. If not then change it
as much as you like:)
>I noticed Allen brought up another point, do we get Spanish people to
>read the GI in English or Spanish, as I have said before I have had
>similar debates with KLV only adherents and even an Islamic friend who
>insist on knowing the Arabic of the Qur'an before you can fully
>understand it.
Regarding the other languages, it was stated in a Bailey book by the
master DK himself that it had been translated into many languages.
So many of the translations took place while Alice Bailey was still
working with the master DK. I would have to look into if he
had any influence on the translations.
>Personally I think the changes are good and more inclusive and not so
>Christian centric, maybe a new version will come out which caters to
>all people from all over the world.
As far as general perception goes, it is definitely more inclusive.
However, my point is that the GI has a very specific purpose and
changes the words affects that purpose. If I'm wrong so be it.
One point here is that even Lucis Trust states that they will
continue to use the old version.
Casey
>Peyote:
>>>Ditto for the Theosophical's rejection of Creme's work.
>Casey:
>>Again, I don't think the leadship is claiming to be guided
>>by any of the masters.
>Who knows? However the facts remain they reject Creme and his claims.
>Casey:
>>>Well I do think Maitreya IS here and will emerge openly VERY soon:)
>Peyote
>>>Yes Casey if you really think so LOL ;-)
>Casey:
>>Finally we reach an agreement:)lol
>>
>>Casey
>LOL what ca I say to that :-)
>Peyote.
caseyk
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:09:08 GMT, ck...@mars.superlink.net wrote:
>Casey:
>>The thing is Maitreya will be much more simple and much more
>>profound then people on this group think. He won't appear
>>as a "Magic King". Yes, eventually Maitreya will demonstrate some
>>of the things I say he can do but it will be a natural progression
>>to that point.
>So when is the date now for this miraculous time?
I'm not saying anything different then I have ever said. The first
interview will be VERY impressive and there will be at least
one world wide miracle corresponding to the timing of the interview.
However, Maitreya will not claim any connection to the miracle
and he will not "necessarily" perform any "miracles" at the first
interview. The first interview will capture the attention of the
world. There will also be many "well known" people who come out
in support of Maitreya after the first interview.
>Casey:
>>Mr. Creme does claim the masters are living people. He states that
>>Jesus is living right now in Rome and in a body that was born (it is
>>a little old though:).
>Why would Jesus be in Rome when he was supposed to have been
>resurrected? Don't tell me he came back as a baby and they threw away
>his resurrected body? That contradicts the BIble Casey?
I'm not that concerned with contradicting people's interpretation
of the bible:) Maitreya was actually the one who ressurected Jesus's
body. Jesus had one more life before becoming a master.
>Another point: in one of Creme's kook farts he claims he saw Jesus as
>a baby and the woman was Maitreya in disguise?
As I said before, either one can appear in many different forms (at the
same time:)
>Casey:
>>Maitreya absolutely has a soul. In fact he is his soul while we are
>>just reflections of ours.
>He should have a soul considering he was born after the historical
>Buddha we know of from about 600BC LOL.
I have a question about that. Is the "student" Maitreya in the Buddhist
texts the same being who is supposed to be the next Buddha?
Casey
>>Casey
>Peyote
eo
kook Watcher wrote in message
<9bjvfssvkbvlv3hiv...@4ax.com>...
>>Maitreya?
>
>
>>Nope.
>
>But it is possible right? Like we discussed before?
>
>If I am right Eo may be discussing the anti-christ'sd supposed reign
>of 3 and a half year of peace and prosperity along with various
>spiritual encounters but then in the middle of the three and a half
>years the anti-christ goes mad and begins the new holocaust on
>humanity.
Definitely not that. First of all, IMO, spirits have been duking it out with
each other for millennia (warring), but now the battle seems more intense
with clearer battle lines drawn.
The second half (3 1/2 years) would be when the AC gets a pie in his face,
and his followers suffer (hopefully only symbolically).
>>I have always stated this. I'm not sure what contradiction
>>you are refering to. In fact this is my whole point in
>>why we might need a "Maitreya".
>
>The points that a variety of people have outlined here is the very
>reason why we ** do not** Maitreya or any other miracle man or problem
>solver.
Unfortunately we disagree here. In ten years, people will have access to
suitcase weapons which can destroy a continent (a virus spread by vaccinated
terrorists eg.). We need some kind of "awakening" as mentioned by the Native
Americans, Buddhists, and many other cultures. The Christians, Muslims, and
others will see this as a dire threat though they also await beneficial
change...but actually no one world gov would be threatened, only lies and
coverups will be threatened, according to one alternate future. In
Revelation, it's the angels (nature?) who inflict the suffering and death.
Hopefully the dire future can be averted. Even Catholics believe we have a
choice to save our lives. It's those darn rapture freaks who are so darn
certain the world will be destroyed, and then they would return to build a
New ...
Strangely enuf, Creme's Maitreya has competition. Search for Saint Germain
if you have time. One of the prominent mystics of our time has written a
book which I looked at last night; which reveals a new her (Elizabeth Claire
Prophet). She already is famous for her predictions of doom and her commune
in the NW of the US, or the plain states. Anyway now she claims she
"channels" Saint Germain who is closely connected to the Theosophical
Society branch in Europe. This could be another kook fight! Kind of like
Dore and tsog. Please tell Lurky that tsog should tone down his act, because
he's getting a lot of people targeting him rather than Dore. Actually Dore
serves as a good tune up for important debates which I believe will take
place next year. She's a human being, not a metal duck in a shooting
gallery; but if she wants to do battle, maybe this battle shouldn't be ended
with a two week knock out. Maybe there is a purpose she serves for us, to
battle "true believers" in weird fantasies.
>>Some people might react this way. I don't feel its a reason
>>for us to live without the truth though.
>
>Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
>bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
>align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
Creme is NOT the truth; Saint Germain is! ;) I'd like to see Creme duke it
out with E.C. Prophet. She is the HPB of our time, really. She attended a
seminary, wrote books and shorter works on the pseudepigrapha; and now she
is merging Aquarian Age thinking with HPB imagery and ascended masters.
Prophet would cream mister Creme. No kidding. Of course Lindsey would call
both Satanic. Next week I'll post an extract from Lindsey's book linking the
New Age movement to Lucifer, thanks to Lucis Trust and their efforts to
drown out the vast majority of other archetypes in the New Age movement
which I've mentioned several times already. Nearly all of them don't want to
be linked to Lucifer, even if he does come from Venus!
>Casey:
>
>>Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
>>of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
>>of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
>>jump to any quick conclusions.
>
>That is infringing on their free will to reject him and his
>experience. I have heard that he is appearing to fundamentalists to
>'soften the up' but your fail to see that it will not work.
Saint Germain will make people forget about Creme's Maitreya man. Casey
might be distraught. LOL. He thinks only Creme has the best connections and
answers.
>Eo:
>
>>> ancient texts, I will tell you more about alternate futures...also the
>>> physiology of precognition and telepathy.
>
>Sounds interesting Eo.
>
>
>Casey
>
>>Obviously we have different opinions on this subject. I'm willing
>>to leave it at that.
>
>
>I don't know I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
There's a bunch of that stated by Prophet, "nothing written in stone",
written by Prophet through her communications with Saint Germain. Her book
is interesting. She apparently has a better concept of failed prophecies and
alternate futures than Creme does. And, sorry, Casey doesn't have a clue.
As for the physiology, the latest research points to quantum effects in the
microtubules within neurons. There is actual photographic evidence. But my
purpose is to NOT to get in the way of atheists and their working to keep
theists and con artists on their toes. That also goes for agnostics, or
atheist-agnostics like Malkin and possibly you, Peyote.
>Casey:
>
>>I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
>
>I thought you would, isn't it supposed to be one of the cornerstones
>of Benjamin Creme's discussions with these 'ascended masters'? Are
>there many telepathic's amongst Benjamin Creme's group?
He can't judge if he hasn't a clue. Neither can he clarify what he doesn't
know.
>>All I was saying is that I don't have the knowledge on this
>>subject to discuss it at the depth you want. I was only
>>giving you a reference in case you wanted to use it.
>>If you feel you know all you need to know that is fine
>>with me. I'm not quite sure why you got so upset over this.
I want to know what you know, Casey. That way I can decide if you are in a
position to clarify anything about the real or imagined experieces of the
guy you know pretty well. Also I don't care to have the New Age movement
(astrology, psychic phenomena, prophecy from many sources, true contact with
spirits, Native American mysticism, Eastern religions and mysticism,
Hermeticism, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, environmentalists, natural healing,
energy medicine, energy vortexes, UFOs, education about alternate futures,
etc.) connected with Lucifer, which is what you
and your spammers insist on doing, in our face, proudly proclaiming nothing
is hidden. Well, when Creme's Maitreya shows his ugly face, I'll have some
eggs and tomatoes ready for him. I explained the thing about responding with
"read a book".
>I assumed since you are in contact with Benjamin Creme and his people
>telepathy would be a common occurrence. Is it true that Benjamin
>almost always -if not always- gets a message from one of the mater
>before the next Share International publishing deadline?
>
>Casey:
>
>>I don't have any practical knowledge of telepathy. If you
>>feel what I stated is "wrongo" that is fine but there is not
>>much more I can say.
>
>I found Eo's reply interesting, I asked a so called channeler once
>about why this guy was a master from ancient Egypt LOL I got almost
>the same really Eo did, he has been around us for awhile and learn't
>English. :-( Yeah right.
Yep. There are trance-like states you can go into, but basically the
showmanship is the medium's method of tapping into available info in the
collective consciousness. Writing entire articles and books as someone else
is bogus. Any historian can debunk a "channeler" by asking questions neither
knows the answer to, but which the spirits of the greatest artists and
leaders in history should know, and the channeler will try to answer through
his igorance with some arrogant evasion.
>Eo:
>
>>Now you must study modern research on the topic if you
>>want to show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might
>>just be clueless like Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read
this.
>
>ROTFL yeah right ;-) You just could't resist LOL.
Well, I didn't know you knew about the spheres, that's very important info
that only the greatest medium's know. LOL...No I don't have the slightest
knowledge of the spheres. I only know of crystals and Aristotle's 72 spheres
that make up the universe. More about the spheres below.
>Casey:
>
>>All I can say is what you know about telepathy is in some
>>disagreement with what Mr. Creme discusses about it. You
>>can make of that what you wish. If that invalidates Mr. Creme's
>>story for you that is fine with me.
>
>Why is it that true believers of any religion/faith/sect or cult have
>so much trouble seeing that their leader could be a fraud, or
>delusional?
The need to feel they have the inside track on reality, and that other
groups have it wrong or misinterpreted. Self-importance is common. As Allen
points out we must learn about our motivations and evolve mentally. That
means a team effort between many special fields of knowledge concerning
neuroscience and psychology and IMO parapsychology and mysticism.
>Casey:
>
>>Obviously from your point of view I don't have a clue:)
>>I'm not sure what else I can say.
>
>Does Creme know?
How could he be a true judge except through blind faith.
>Do your books outline these mysteries at all? Are Angels really made
>from fire, spirit, wave forms, thought patterns, air, wind, or what
>exactly? What is the difference between an angel and a Jinn?
>
>Does Creme go into some depth into the mysteries of the sphere's and
>their influences over each other? -Huh bet Eo didn't know I knew about
>that one LOL-
I claim ignorance about the spheres. LOL...unless you mean good and
evil...devas and daevas. Perhaps you can enlighten all of us. But really,
it's like what Allen calls thought forms. I believe there is an organic
internet, similar to the electronic Internet. Current theories point to
quantum theory and nonlocal connections. So a spirit can be like a computer
program with emotions, purpose, and pride. Thoughts are firings of neurons
in various parts of the brain. This connection can be made more permanent by
the hippocampus. If you connect all of that and more, I guess you get
spheres! (laughing)
eo
kook Watcher wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:34:01 GMT, "eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote:
>
>Eo:
>
>>I hope you know I'm not trying to fight you for the sake of fighting a
>>popular enemy. I truly believe the Lucis Trust connection to the New Age
>>movement will make things very difficult for any smooth transition to a
>>common understanding among peoples. The hardline Christians will surely
say
>>it's Jesus versus Lucifer.
>
>True not to mention Judaism, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims etc etc and all
>for different reasons not only the concept of Lucifer itself. Even
>Wiccans will white or black- would differ on this point as I have only
>just recently found out. -Apparently a lot of people still think
>witches are devil/satanic worshippers LOL-
Some witches are kewl. I consulted a couple after seeing "The Craft". They
told me what they believe is real and not.
>Eo:
>
>>Also, I come from a VERY different standpoint than Peyote. You see I do
>>believe in a Messiah and I do believe in telepathy. Peyote has doubts
about
>>both.
>
>Spot on Eo.
I like when Peter Lemesurier uses that expression. It's very unheard of in
the US, AFAI know.
>Currently I don't care what Messiah stands up -if he is a real one and
>not bogus- whether he is the Islamic one, Jewish one, Christian one,
>Bahai one -in a 1000 years-, or the real Maitreya 30-40000 years from
>now.
>
>If it happens it happens that is how I see it, but I do't pin my
>entire life hope waiting for some miracle man
I don't believe in miracle men (parting the Red Sea etc.). Actually I agree
with Allen: he or she might not be the miraculous Messiah, but a person who
sees something overlooked. You know my opinion of who's the Messiah, so
there's no hiding that from you. I don't believe one person can fill the
shoes of the anticipated Christ. As for the AC and beast prophecies, that
must be worked out next year IMO. I've got loads of material, it's quite
sensible IMO, and I can't reveal it till next year; as I've stated to you
and Tempest before. But there will be beast accusations a plenty flying
around, for the next several years. I believe that is a certainty, like
during the days of Luther.
to help solve al my
>problems when the human race now has the capacity to solve its own
>problems -if we were not so damned greedy and selfish-.
There are a lot more obstacles: mostly refusal to see different paths, for
thousands of reasons.
>About Telepathy, yes that I have serious doubts about.
>
>I am open minded and if it can be proven then yes I will agree. Being
>right or wrong has never ben an issue for me if I am right good, if
>wrong great I have learnt something new.
>
>However if I am tricked then the shit hits the fan ;-)
I better watch out then. LOL. I might be trying to pull a fast one on you.
;)
No really, I won't try to prove much of anything now. The alt.atheists are
doing great work debunking the religionists. I wouldn't want to give them
doubts *now*. When the time is right, the spirits (****NOT necessarily the
Venusian spiritual hierarchy****) will open the floodgates and telepathy
would be impossible to deny, again IMO.
>Eo:
>
>>Can you see that perhaps answering my questions may shed some light
>>from an intuitional point of view, rather than a purely textual one?
>
>I see your approach would be very different to mine :-) Good luck I
>look forward to seeing the answers from Casey on this one.
>
>Eo:
>
>>If anything, we are reaching a critical mass. We could explode at any
moment
>>because of weather probs, greenhouse warming, pollution, and most
>>importantly overpopulation. Also there is a rise in religious fanaticism,
>>eg. suicides, militias, protests that turn violent. What we DON'T need is
>>someone mentioning on TV that he is Maitreya and that Lucifer is the
>>oversoul and that yous all are Lucifer. That may seem funny to us, but
>>believe me Casey, Peyote was wise not to crosspost this thread. An
>>appearance or "emergence" like that would confirm Christians', Jews', and
>>Muslims' worst fears.
>
>It would be a disaster, lets just hope Maitreya doesn't try to rebuild
>the temple of David ;-)
No one better, till we know our own human nature better.
I find this as funny, in view of the recent Dore and tsog debate: Creme's
Maitreya has some new competition - his name is Saint Germain. A well-known
American Christian mystic named E.C. Prophet says she is in communication
with him. Germain is tied to the Theosophical Society and the ascended
masters and preaches of the Aquarian Age and the choice between world
salvation or destruction. I'd like to see Creme (and his Maitreya) fight it
out with Prophet (and Saint Germain). May the best master win. (grinning
because many people believe they are the perfect master).
watching kooks
wrote:
Casey:
>>>The thing is Maitreya will be much more simple and much more
>>>profound then people on this group think. He won't appear
>>>as a "Magic King". Yes, eventually Maitreya will demonstrate some
>>>of the things I say he can do but it will be a natural progression
>>>to that point.
Peyote:
>>So when is the date now for this miraculous time?
Casey:
>I'm not saying anything different then I have ever said. The first
>interview will be VERY impressive and there will be at least
>one world wide miracle corresponding to the timing of the interview.
>However, Maitreya will not claim any connection to the miracle
>and he will not "necessarily" perform any "miracles" at the first
>interview. The first interview will capture the attention of the
>world. There will also be many "well known" people who come out
>in support of Maitreya after the first interview.
Peyote:
Sounds more unimpressive as we go along, More like a stage act or a
info commercial with special guest stars suddenly coming forward
giving their testimonies.
Casey:
>>>Mr. Creme does claim the masters are living people. He states that
>>>Jesus is living right now in Rome and in a body that was born (it is
>>>a little old though:).
Peyote:
>>Why would Jesus be in Rome when he was supposed to have been
>>resurrected? Don't tell me he came back as a baby and they threw away
>>his resurrected body? That contradicts the BIble Casey?
Casey:
>I'm not that concerned with contradicting people's interpretation
>of the bible:) Maitreya was actually the one who ressurected Jesus's
>body. Jesus had one more life before becoming a master.
You don't seem to care about any other evidence -textual or otherwise-
which contradicts your cults teachings. Can you show me in the
Biblical texts exactly where it was stated that Maitreya resurrected
Jesus and that Jesus failed to make the grade of an ascended master so
had to come back again -600 years later I assume-?
Peyote:
>>Another point: in one of Creme's kook farts he claims he saw Jesus as
>>a baby and the woman was Maitreya in disguise?
Casey:
>As I said before, either one can appear in many different forms (at the
>same time:)
LOL no wonder so many people who believe this stuff can have Maitreya
sightings all over the world.
Casey:
>>Maitreya absolutely has a soul. In fact he is his soul while we are
>>just reflections of ours.
Peyote:
>>He should have a soul considering he was born after the historical
>>Buddha we know of from about 600BC LOL.
Casey:
>I have a question about that. Is the "student" Maitreya in the Buddhist
>texts the same being who is supposed to be the next Buddha?
According to Tan, Maitreya -the real one- will have the pure Buddha
nature, according to Denko, Maitreya will literally be the next
Buddha. It is a fine distinction but if you want I can get the same
gentleman whom answered Eo's questions to define it for you from the
original language.
Either way Maitreya you talk about is not the Maitreya that the
historical texts talk about not the majority of Buddhist groups
-including mixtures like Shinto etc-
Peyote.
>Casey
watching kooks
-snip
Casey:
>I have a completely different view on what the anti-Christ is.
>Anyway the version above never made any sense to me.
Well apparently it is not one of Eo's ideas. However to many it makes
a lot ore sense than your own version of truth does. I have even heard
so called prophecies in churches given -as a supposed gift of the
spirit- where the anti-christ will do all that and more.
Naturally they have the gift of prophecy and hence their experience
just has to be right LOL.
Peyote:
>>Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
>>bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
>>align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
Casey:
>>>Thats why Maitreya is being very careful when deciding the timing
>>>of his open emergence. Its also why he is appearing to groups
>>>of these people so they have an experience of him and won't
>>>jump to any quick conclusions.
Peyote:
>>That is infringing on their free will to reject him and his
>>experience. I have heard that he is appearing to fundamentalists to
>>'soften the up' but your fail to see that it will not work.
Casey:
>We will see:)
That is an infringement of their rights. Maitreya has not been openly
asked for , He is not wanted. He is believed by many to be evil, the
anti-chirst/dajaal or an imposter again neither invited or wanted,
Casey:
>>Why is it that true believers of any religion/faith/sect or cult have
>>so much trouble seeing that their leader could be a fraud, or
>>delusional?
Peyote:
>I don't know Peyote, why is that:)lol
I can't answer that on the grounds I may jeopardize our extremely
stretched friendship as it is to breaking point. LOL
Peyote:
>>Do your books outline these mysteries at all? Are Angels really made
>>from fire, spirit, wave forms, thought patterns, air, wind, or what
>>exactly? What is the difference between an angel and a Jinn?
>
>>Does Creme go into some depth into the mysteries of the sphere's and
>>their influences over each other? -Huh bet Eo didn't know I knew about
>>that one LOL-
>
>>-snip for BW a good discussion between Casey and Eo-
Peyote.
watching kooks
Peyote:
>>If I am right Eo may be discussing the anti-christ'sd supposed reign
>>of 3 and a half year of peace and prosperity along with various
>>spiritual encounters but then in the middle of the three and a half
>>years the anti-christ goes mad and begins the new holocaust on
>>humanity.
Eo:
>Definitely not that. First of all, IMO, spirits have been duking it out with
>each other for millennia (warring), but now the battle seems more intense
>with clearer battle lines drawn.
>
>The second half (3 1/2 years) would be when the AC gets a pie in his face,
>and his followers suffer (hopefully only symbolically).
Right I see for some odd reason I kept thinking of Hal Lindsy's views.
-sorry about that-
Will it in your view be a battle of idealogies or a real physical
battle?
Peyote:
>>The points that a variety of people have outlined here is the very
>>reason why we ** do not** Maitreya or any other miracle man or problem
>>solver.
Eo:
>Unfortunately we disagree here. In ten years, people will have access to
>suitcase weapons which can destroy a continent (a virus spread by vaccinated
>terrorists eg.). We need some kind of "awakening" as mentioned by the Native
>Americans, Buddhists, and many other cultures. The Christians, Muslims, and
>others will see this as a dire threat though they also await beneficial
>change...but actually no one world gov would be threatened, only lies and
>coverups will be threatened, according to one alternate future. In
>Revelation, it's the angels (nature?) who inflict the suffering and death.
>Hopefully the dire future can be averted. Even Catholics believe we have a
>choice to save our lives. It's those darn rapture freaks who are so darn
>certain the world will be destroyed, and then they would return to build a
>New ...
Very interesting perspective Eo. I do believe that disaster can be
averted by proper action, however as dear friend always says 'how may
times can you tell people not to do what they like to do'. -Aka
lectures, overpopulation, destruction of forests etc etc.
Please don't get me even started on the rapture theory :-) I have
debunked, proved, argued -all from their own bible and history- that
it is neither biblical nor sensible and in some case downright stupid.
Been ther done that as it looks like you too LOL.
Eo:
>Strangely enuf, Creme's Maitreya has competition. Search for Saint Germain
>if you have time.
I know a little about him, I think I may even have a picture of him
-drawing- in one of those I AM movement thingies.
Eo:
>One of the prominent mystics of our time has written a
>book which I looked at last night; which reveals a new her (Elizabeth Claire
>Prophet). She already is famous for her predictions of doom and her commune
>in the NW of the US, or the plain states. Anyway now she claims she
>"channels" Saint Germain who is closely connected to the Theosophical
>Society branch in Europe. This could be another kook fight!
Could be,Salmun has a book about her predictions -an older one- where
much of what she said didn't happen. I'll try to borrow it of him, or
post it if he has already scanned it.
Eo:
>Kind of like Dore and tsog. Please tell Lurky that tsog should tone
>down his act, because he's getting a lot of people targeting him
>rather than Dore. Actually Dore serves as a good tune up for
>important debates which I believe will take place next year.
>She's a human being, not a metal duck in a shooting
>gallery; but if she wants to do battle, maybe this battle shouldn't be ended
>with a two week knock out. Maybe there is a purpose she serves for us, to
>battle "true believers" in weird fantasies.
Okay.
Peyote:
>>Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
>>bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
>>align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
Eo:
>Creme is NOT the truth; Saint Germain is! ;)
Yikes isn't St Germain supposed to be a ascended master also?
>I'd like to see Creme duke it
>out with E.C. Prophet. She is the HPB of our time, really. She attended a
>seminary, wrote books and shorter works on the pseudepigrapha; and now she
>is merging Aquarian Age thinking with HPB imagery and ascended masters.
>Prophet would cream mister Creme. No kidding. Of course Lindsey would call
>both Satanic. Next week I'll post an extract from Lindsey's book linking the
>New Age movement to Lucifer, thanks to Lucis Trust and their efforts to
>drown out the vast majority of other archetypes in the New Age movement
>which I've mentioned several times already. Nearly all of them don't want to
>be linked to Lucifer, even if he does come from Venus!
That much I know, I have been busy of late searching for mediums etc
who claim to be in contact with higher powers/bengs and so far the
majority agree Lucife/Satan are one and the same, Lucifer was thrown
out of heaven -though the reasons as to why differ- et etc.
A few groups however -one which is supposed to have sprung fro the
Bailey camp- David Spanglar -not sure of the exact spelling- wrote a
interesting piece where we will ALL have to go through a 'Luciferian
initiation.'
Casey:
>>>Obviously we have different opinions on this subject. I'm willing
>>>to leave it at that.
Peyote:
>>I don't know I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
Eo:
>There's a bunch of that stated by Prophet, "nothing written in stone",
>written by Prophet through her communications with Saint Germain. Her book
>is interesting. She apparently has a better concept of failed prophecies and
>alternate futures than Creme does. And, sorry, Casey doesn't have a clue.
>
>As for the physiology, the latest research points to quantum effects in the
>microtubules within neurons. There is actual photographic evidence. But my
>purpose is to NOT to get in the way of atheists and their working to keep
>theists and con artists on their toes. That also goes for agnostics, or
>atheist-agnostics like Malkin and possibly you, Peyote.
Fair enough.
Casey:
>>I never claimed to know about the actual working of telepathy.
Peyote;
>>I thought you would, isn't it supposed to be one of the cornerstones
>>of Benjamin Creme's discussions with these 'ascended masters'? Are
>>there many telepathic's amongst Benjamin Creme's group?
Eo:
>He can't judge if he hasn't a clue. Neither can he clarify what he doesn't
>know.
Then how can he teach it is true or better than what other people
receive? Just because it 'feels' right or aligns with his 'experience?
>I want to know what you know, Casey. That way I can decide if you are in a
>position to clarify anything about the real or imagined experieces of the
>guy you know pretty well. Also I don't care to have the New Age movement
>(astrology, psychic phenomena, prophecy from many sources, true contact with
>spirits, Native American mysticism, Eastern religions and mysticism,
>Hermeticism, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, environmentalists, natural healing,
>energy medicine, energy vortexes, UFOs, education about alternate futures,
>etc.) connected with Lucifer, which is what you
>and your spammers insist on doing, in our face, proudly proclaiming nothing
>is hidden. Well, when Creme's Maitreya shows his ugly face, I'll have some
>eggs and tomatoes ready for him. I explained the thing about responding with
>"read a book".
I wonder how many NA groups go along with this Lucifer concept and how
he is supposed to hab\ve reached a higher stage than both Buddha and
Jesus?
Peyote:
>>I assumed since you are in contact with Benjamin Creme and his people
>>telepathy would be a common occurrence. Is it true that Benjamin
>>almost always -if not always- gets a message from one of the mater
>>before the next Share International publishing deadline?
Eo:
>Yep. There are trance-like states you can go into, but basically the
>showmanship is the medium's method of tapping into available info in the
>collective consciousness. Writing entire articles and books as someone else
>is bogus. Any historian can debunk a "channeler" by asking questions neither
>knows the answer to, but which the spirits of the greatest artists and
>leaders in history should know, and the channeler will try to answer through
>his igorance with some arrogant evasion.
Pity :-(
Eo:
>>>Now you must study modern research on the topic if you
>>>want to show you know mystical realms. Otherwise you might
>>>just be clueless like Peyote. ;) I'm just kidding Peyote, if you read
>this.
Peyote:
>>ROTFL yeah right ;-) You just could't resist LOL.
Eo:
>Well, I didn't know you knew about the spheres, that's very important info
>that only the greatest medium's know. LOL...No I don't have the slightest
>knowledge of the spheres. I only know of crystals and Aristotle's 72 spheres
>that make up the universe. More about the spheres below.
No comment .
Peyote::
>>Why is it that true believers of any religion/faith/sect or cult have
>>so much trouble seeing that their leader could be a fraud, or
>>delusional?
Eo:
>The need to feel they have the inside track on reality, and that other
>groups have it wrong or misinterpreted. Self-importance is common. As Allen
>points out we must learn about our motivations and evolve mentally. That
>means a team effort between many special fields of knowledge concerning
>neuroscience and psychology and IMO parapsychology and mysticism.
Yes very well said.
>I claim ignorance about the spheres. LOL...unless you mean good and
>evil...devas and daevas.
No not from the Avesta's or vedas LOL. Sorry old friend but it was
meant as joke that backfired, I knew you were into all of this and
wrongly assumed you may have thought I had not heard about it myself
:-( Sorry no put down was intended, -Well you know me anyway if I
want to put someone down I bloody will and to hell with personal
appearances.
>Perhaps you can enlighten all of us. But really,
>it's like what Allen calls thought forms. I believe there is an organic
>internet, similar to the electronic Internet. Current theories point to
>quantum theory and nonlocal connections. So a spirit can be like a computer
>program with emotions, purpose, and pride. Thoughts are firings of neurons
>in various parts of the brain. This connection can be made more permanent by
>the hippocampus. If you connect all of that and more, I guess you get
>spheres! (laughing)
Thanks for the info, it has as usual given me things to study up on,
Peyote.
watching kooks
Casey:
>>>Actually, what is happening is all the deep seated problems and
>>>separations are boiling to the surface. They have always been
>>>there but not so apparant. Now that they are visible to all
>>>we can start to address the root causes and problems.
Peyote:
>>And the root causes are? What exactly Casey are these root problem or
>>causes hmm?
Casey:
>The main root cause is that people don;t see humanity as one.
>They don't see the begger on the street or the starving person
>in the third world country the same as they see a family member
>or friend. Soon we will see them as ourselves and we will not
>let them suffer anymore. Many people don't even have any
>self respect for themselves and thats where everything
>really starts.
I generally agree and would add in 'self absorption' t to the list
where spirital/religous or cult groups are involved. Everything is
seen through the group mind and fairly easily directed by authority
figure. Naturally when a group of believers come together they
reinforce each other even more.
Peyote:
>>See there is no real measure of peace is there?
Casey:
>It depends on your definition of "measure":)
No it depends on the available information. if we are forced to define
'measure' as you want us too then we almost always have had this
'measure'.
>Casey
Peyote
eo
watching kooks wrote in message
<3qi4gsc69nhtvmdbq...@4ax.com>...
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:27:51 GMT, "eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote:
>
>Peyote:
>
>>>If I am right Eo may be discussing the anti-christ'sd supposed reign
>>>of 3 and a half year of peace and prosperity along with various
>>>spiritual encounters but then in the middle of the three and a half
>>>years the anti-christ goes mad and begins the new holocaust on
>>>humanity.
>
>Eo:
>
>>Definitely not that. First of all, IMO, spirits have been duking it out
with
>>each other for millennia (warring), but now the battle seems more intense
>>with clearer battle lines drawn.
>>
>>The second half (3 1/2 years) would be when the AC gets a pie in his face,
>>and his followers suffer (hopefully only symbolically).
>
>Right I see for some odd reason I kept thinking of Hal Lindsy's views.
>-sorry about that-
>
> Will it in your view be a battle of idealogies or a real physical
>battle?
I'm hoping for the former, but unfortunately real kooks can cause a stampede
someday through demagoguery. So I believe there are alternate futures.
>Peyote:
>
>>>The points that a variety of people have outlined here is the very
>>>reason why we ** do not** Maitreya or any other miracle man or problem
>>>solver.
>
>Eo:
>
>>Unfortunately we disagree here. In ten years, people will have access to
>>suitcase weapons which can destroy a continent (a virus spread by
vaccinated
>>terrorists eg.). We need some kind of "awakening" as mentioned by the
Native
>>Americans, Buddhists, and many other cultures. The Christians, Muslims,
and
>>others will see this as a dire threat though they also await beneficial
>>change...but actually no one world gov would be threatened, only lies and
>>coverups will be threatened, according to one alternate future. In
>>Revelation, it's the angels (nature?) who inflict the suffering and death.
>>Hopefully the dire future can be averted. Even Catholics believe we have a
>>choice to save our lives. It's those darn rapture freaks who are so darn
>>certain the world will be destroyed, and then they would return to build a
>>New ...
>
>Very interesting perspective Eo. I do believe that disaster can be
>averted by proper action, however as dear friend always says 'how may
>times can you tell people not to do what they like to do'. -Aka
>lectures, overpopulation, destruction of forests etc etc.
There will be ways. Even the scholarly movement to find the historical Jesus
is a major step in the right direction. I will keep hinting that there will
be important debates next year.
>Please don't get me even started on the rapture theory :-) I have
>debunked, proved, argued -all from their own bible and history- that
>it is neither biblical nor sensible and in some case downright stupid.
>Been ther done that as it looks like you too LOL.
Yep. Especially in the Bible prophecy group.
>Eo:
>
>>Strangely enuf, Creme's Maitreya has competition. Search for Saint Germain
>>if you have time.
>
>I know a little about him, I think I may even have a picture of him
>-drawing- in one of those I AM movement thingies.
Well EC Prophet has now written two books on him. So the Saint will advance
beyond Creme's Maitreya probably.
>Eo:
>
>>One of the prominent mystics of our time has written a
>>book which I looked at last night; which reveals a new her (Elizabeth
Claire
>>Prophet). She already is famous for her predictions of doom and her
commune
>>in the NW of the US, or the plain states. Anyway now she claims she
>>"channels" Saint Germain who is closely connected to the Theosophical
>>Society branch in Europe. This could be another kook fight!
>
>Could be,Salmun has a book about her predictions -an older one- where
>much of what she said didn't happen. I'll try to borrow it of him, or
>post it if he has already scanned it.
Please don't bother. Her new stuff may be worth looking at though. It is
full of Aquarian Age references. I know of her doomsday forecasts in the
past, which failed, and of course the commune was a heavily fortified bomb
shelter mostly because of EC's forecasts. She even made the cover of Time or
Newsweek as the priestess of doom.
I'm certainly not pimping her. I'm interested if she debates Creme, becos
his Maitreya has some competition. It's ironic though, that a Christian
mystic like her would get mixed up with Satan-related hierarchies.
>Eo:
>
>>Kind of like Dore and tsog. Please tell Lurky that tsog should tone
>>down his act, because he's getting a lot of people targeting him
>>rather than Dore. Actually Dore serves as a good tune up for
>>important debates which I believe will take place next year.
>>She's a human being, not a metal duck in a shooting
>>gallery; but if she wants to do battle, maybe this battle shouldn't be
ended
>>with a two week knock out. Maybe there is a purpose she serves for us, to
>>battle "true believers" in weird fantasies.
>
>Okay.
Also, despite bothering Lurky, she throws the fundies for a loop! God the
daughter...(Laughing). She may be mean-spirited and even have a death wish
for herself, but I see the fundies as the real threat to global
survival...Only my opinion. But it's true, I admire her energy. If only it
were directed properly. For all I know, she may be doing a purpose for good,
by making fundies and all people study the real texts and not trusting only
what their pastor or others say.
>Peyote:
>
>>>Truth according to who or what? Take your pick there is an entire
>>>bonanza of truths to pick from, you can always find one wi\hich will
>>>align with your own 'experiences' ;-)
>
>Eo:
>
>>Creme is NOT the truth; Saint Germain is! ;)
>
>Yikes isn't St Germain supposed to be a ascended master also?
Of course. I'm being sarcastic. I don't root for either because of their
ties to HPB. I'm only trying to rattle Casey.
>>I'd like to see Creme duke it
>>out with E.C. Prophet. She is the HPB of our time, really. She attended a
>>seminary, wrote books and shorter works on the pseudepigrapha; and now she
>>is merging Aquarian Age thinking with HPB imagery and ascended masters.
>>Prophet would cream mister Creme. No kidding. Of course Lindsey would call
>>both Satanic. Next week I'll post an extract from Lindsey's book linking
the
>>New Age movement to Lucifer, thanks to Lucis Trust and their efforts to
>>drown out the vast majority of other archetypes in the New Age movement
>>which I've mentioned several times already. Nearly all of them don't want
to
>>be linked to Lucifer, even if he does come from Venus!
>
>That much I know, I have been busy of late searching for mediums etc
>who claim to be in contact with higher powers/bengs and so far the
>majority agree Lucife/Satan are one and the same, Lucifer was thrown
>out of heaven -though the reasons as to why differ- et etc.
Uh huh. That's useful. Some mediums are outrageous fakes as you probably
know though.
>A few groups however -one which is supposed to have sprung fro the
>Bailey camp- David Spanglar -not sure of the exact spelling- wrote a
>interesting piece where we will ALL have to go through a 'Luciferian
>initiation.'
No thanks (as far as the initiation). But I will save this article with a
reminder to look for David someday. Like you, I've been researching many
things at once.
Right. He hasn't a clue. But neither do most people. So he can say what he
wants, and who can oppose him. I can. But I don't want to prove anything
yet. Atheists at alt.atheism must keep fighting the good fight. But as far
as Casey's explainations there's a saying that in the world of the blind,
the man with one (working) eye is king.
>>I want to know what you know, Casey. That way I can decide if you are in a
>>position to clarify anything about the real or imagined experieces of the
>>guy you know pretty well. Also I don't care to have the New Age movement
>>(astrology, psychic phenomena, prophecy from many sources, true contact
with
>>spirits, Native American mysticism, Eastern religions and mysticism,
>>Hermeticism, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, environmentalists, natural healing,
>>energy medicine, energy vortexes, UFOs, education about alternate futures,
>>etc.) connected with Lucifer, which is what you
>>and your spammers insist on doing, in our face, proudly proclaiming
nothing
>>is hidden. Well, when Creme's Maitreya shows his ugly face, I'll have some
>>eggs and tomatoes ready for him. I explained the thing about responding
with
>>"read a book".
>
>I wonder how many NA groups go along with this Lucifer concept and how
>he is supposed to hab\ve reached a higher stage than both Buddha and
>Jesus?
Well Kayla can find out by visiting each group and explaining. :-(
>Peyote:
>
>>>I assumed since you are in contact with Benjamin Creme and his people
>>>telepathy would be a common occurrence. Is it true that Benjamin
>>>almost always -if not always- gets a message from one of the mater
>>>before the next Share International publishing deadline?
>
>Eo:
>
>>Yep. There are trance-like states you can go into, but basically the
>>showmanship is the medium's method of tapping into available info in the
>>collective consciousness. Writing entire articles and books as someone
else
>>is bogus. Any historian can debunk a "channeler" by asking questions
neither
>>knows the answer to, but which the spirits of the greatest artists and
>>leaders in history should know, and the channeler will try to answer
through
>>his igorance with some arrogant evasion.
>
>Pity
Yep. BTW, I have lots of telepathic experiences, but I don't pretend to know
everything about mediums, becos I don't.
None taken. LOL. I certainly don't know everything about psi anyway.
-Well you know me anyway if I
>want to put someone down I bloody will and to hell with personal
>appearances.
>
>>Perhaps you can enlighten all of us. But really,
>>it's like what Allen calls thought forms. I believe there is an organic
>>internet, similar to the electronic Internet. Current theories point to
>>quantum theory and nonlocal connections. So a spirit can be like a
computer
>>program with emotions, purpose, and pride. Thoughts are firings of neurons
>>in various parts of the brain. This connection can be made more permanent
by
>>the hippocampus. If you connect all of that and more, I guess you get
>>spheres! (laughing)
>
>Thanks for the info, it has as usual given me things to study up on,
The encyclopedia will suffice. Try Bell's Theorem and quantum mechanics. I
have books by Roger Penrose, but heck, if approached properly, some people
from a physics group could help us. I know the work of a kewl guy at the
physics new theories newsgroup.
>Peyote.
watching kooks
Peyote:
>>True not to mention Judaism, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims etc etc and all
>>for different reasons not only the concept of Lucifer itself. Even
>>Wiccans will white or black- would differ on this point as I have only
>>just recently found out. -Apparently a lot of people still think
>>witches are devil/satanic worshippers LOL-
Eo:
>Some witches are kewl. I consulted a couple after seeing "The Craft". They
>told me what they believe is real and not.
Yes they are, yet amazingly you still get people who think they
believe in Lucifer/Satan LOL.
Maitreya's so called advent would not even go dow well with Satanists
or Luciferians,
>>Currently I don't care what Messiah stands up -if he is a real one and
>>not bogus- whether he is the Islamic one, Jewish one, Christian one,
>>Bahai one -in a 1000 years-, or the real Maitreya 30-40000 years from
>>now.
>>
>>If it happens it happens that is how I see it, but I do't pin my
>>entire life hope waiting for some miracle man
>
>
>I don't believe in miracle men (parting the Red Sea etc.). Actually I agree
>with Allen: he or she might not be the miraculous Messiah, but a person who
>sees something overlooked. You know my opinion of who's the Messiah, so
>there's no hiding that from you. I don't believe one person can fill the
>shoes of the anticipated Christ. As for the AC and beast prophecies, that
>must be worked out next year IMO. I've got loads of material, it's quite
>sensible IMO, and I can't reveal it till next year; as I've stated to you
>and Tempest before. But there will be beast accusations a plenty flying
>around, for the next several years. I believe that is a certainty, like
>during the days of Luther.
Okay.
Eo:
>to help solve al my
>>problems when the human race now has the capacity to solve its own
>>problems -if we were not so damned greedy and selfish-.
Peyote:
Oh the solutions are there already I believe, they are just not
economically profitable enough yet.
Eo:
>There are a lot more obstacles: mostly refusal to see different paths, for
>thousands of reasons.
>
>
>>About Telepathy, yes that I have serious doubts about.
>>
>>I am open minded and if it can be proven then yes I will agree. Being
>>right or wrong has never ben an issue for me if I am right good, if
>>wrong great I have learnt something new.
>>
>>However if I am tricked then the shit hits the fan ;-)
>
>
>
>I better watch out then. LOL. I might be trying to pull a fast one on you.
>;)
>
>No really, I won't try to prove much of anything now. The alt.atheists are
>doing great work debunking the religionists. I wouldn't want to give them
>doubts *now*. When the time is right, the spirits (****NOT necessarily the
>Venusian spiritual hierarchy****) will open the floodgates and telepathy
>would be impossible to deny, again IMO.
Fair enough, i'll look forward to it.
Eo:
>>It would be a disaster, lets just hope Maitreya doesn't try to rebuild
>>the temple of David ;-)
>
>
>
>No one better, till we know our own human nature better.
>
>I find this as funny, in view of the recent Dore and tsog debate: Creme's
>Maitreya has some new competition - his name is Saint Germain. A well-known
>American Christian mystic named E.C. Prophet says she is in communication
>with him. Germain is tied to the Theosophical Society and the ascended
>masters and preaches of the Aquarian Age and the choice between world
>salvation or destruction. I'd like to see Creme (and his Maitreya) fight it
>out with Prophet (and Saint Germain). May the best master win. (grinning
>because many people believe they are the perfect master).
>
Yeah tell me about it. Oh well at least on the Internet their occupied
for awhile instead of doing some crazy stuff out in ther real world,
Peyote.
eo
watching kooks wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 05:59:38 GMT, "eo" <8...@eo.eo> wrote:
>
>Peyote:
>
>>>for different reasons not only the concept of Lucifer itself. Even
>>>Wiccans will white or black- would differ on this point as I have only
>>>just recently found out. -Apparently a lot of people still think
>>>witches are devil/satanic worshippers LOL-
>
>
>>Some witches are kewl. I consulted a couple after seeing "The Craft". They
>>told me what they believe is real and not.
>
>believe in Lucifer/Satan LOL.
Yes, well some do chant and cast spells in the name of Asmodias. I'm not
sure of the spelling. He's said to be a demon though.
>Maitreya's so called advent would not even go dow well with Satanists
>or Luciferians,
Certainly not the Satanists. I think there're a diverse group. One cult's
leader, a major figure died recently. The Luciferians would include Creme,
HPB, Lucis and others whom you've researched a lot I guess, so they're a
diverse group also. And Creme's Maitreya would not be what the other groups
want, becos he is probably some poor jerk walking around London, waiting to
be tabbed the new Krishna(murti).
>>>Currently I don't care what Messiah stands up -if he is a real one and
>>>not bogus- whether he is the Islamic one, Jewish one, Christian one,
>>>Bahai one -in a 1000 years-, or the real Maitreya 30-40000 years from
>>>now.
>>>
>>>If it happens it happens that is how I see it, but I do't pin my
>>>entire life hope waiting for some miracle man
>>
>>
>>I don't believe in miracle men (parting the Red Sea etc.). Actually I
agree
>>with Allen: he or she might not be the miraculous Messiah, but a person
who
>>sees something overlooked. You know my opinion of who's the Messiah, so
>>there's no hiding that from you. I don't believe one person can fill the
>>shoes of the anticipated Christ. As for the AC and beast prophecies, that
>>must be worked out next year IMO. I've got loads of material, it's quite
>>sensible IMO, and I can't reveal it till next year; as I've stated to you
>>and Tempest before. But there will be beast accusations a plenty flying
>>around, for the next several years. I believe that is a certainty, like
>>during the days of Luther.
>
>Okay.
Actually, when you attribute text in short articles it gets confusing. The
arrows might be enuf.
I'd just like to say, I hope Lurky doesn't hate me for going after his
favorite Messiah. I've made certain decisions about Dore and True Son, and I
like the fact that fundamentalists are reading the Bible for a change,
instead of only listening to someone else. I hope that Lurky can forgive me
someday, especially by next year, seriously. Also you and I disagree on the
nature of fallen. I hope you don't interfere, but Lurky and True Son can
interfere all they want.
>Eo:
>
>>to help solve al my
>>>problems when the human race now has the capacity to solve its own
>>>problems -if we were not so damned greedy and selfish-.
>
>Peyote:
>
>Oh the solutions are there already I believe, they are just not
>economically profitable enough yet.
Well first we must understand what benefits a religion can bring, and
religion's origin. Allen and Bruce might have some important opinions about
this topic. Your questions are good (unfortunately I haven't read all of
them, but David answered pretty well about free will). But I come from the
standpoint of rituals which bring you closer to tapping the collective
consciousness. Dowsing is for real IMO, for instance. If you feel good about
yourself, you would make good psychic decisions in war, agriculture,
choosing a mate, etc. If men were only frightened by lightning into creating
gods and religion, they could have saved a lot of energy by slapping
themselves in the face everytime they heard thunder - rather than building
enormous pyramids, huge stone carvings, etc. Someday we should discuss this
in detail. probably not now though.
>Eo:
>
>>There are a lot more obstacles: mostly refusal to see different paths, for
>>thousands of reasons.
>>
>>
>>>About Telepathy, yes that I have serious doubts about.
>>>
>>>I am open minded and if it can be proven then yes I will agree. Being
>>>right or wrong has never ben an issue for me if I am right good, if
>>>wrong great I have learnt something new.
>>>
>>>However if I am tricked then the shit hits the fan ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>I better watch out then. LOL. I might be trying to pull a fast one on you.
>>;)
>>
>>No really, I won't try to prove much of anything now. The alt.atheists are
>>doing great work debunking the religionists. I wouldn't want to give them
>>doubts *now*. When the time is right, the spirits (****NOT necessarily the
>>Venusian spiritual hierarchy****) will open the floodgates and telepathy
>>would be impossible to deny, again IMO.
>
>Fair enough, i'll look forward to it.
Again, that's only my opinion.
>Eo:
>
>>>It would be a disaster, lets just hope Maitreya doesn't try to rebuild
>>>the temple of David ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>No one better, till we know our own human nature better.
>>
>>I find this as funny, in view of the recent Dore and tsog debate: Creme's
>>Maitreya has some new competition - his name is Saint Germain. A
well-known
>>American Christian mystic named E.C. Prophet says she is in communication
>>with him. Germain is tied to the Theosophical Society and the ascended
>>masters and preaches of the Aquarian Age and the choice between world
>>salvation or destruction. I'd like to see Creme (and his Maitreya) fight
it
>>out with Prophet (and Saint Germain). May the best master win. (grinning
>>because many people believe they are the perfect master).
>>
>
>Yeah tell me about it. Oh well at least on the Internet their occupied
>for awhile instead of doing some crazy stuff out in ther real world,
There're enuf of those already outside in Europe and the US and Middle East
and Asia. This will be an interesting year still, but I still feel next year
will bring the important debates...Only a feeling of mine...
>Peyote.
eo
interesting concept; different stages or levels of energy, huh.
My dictionary states:
"Spheres - (esoteric) various levels of energy in the ETHERIC WORLD formed
by universal state of consciousnes; each level is inhabited with soul-minds
who have made their TRANSITION; see PLANES. Similar: DIMENSIONS, PLATEAUS,
MANSIONS."
Well I haven't progressed that far in my understanding of the bioplasmic
universe. I learn something new everyday.
Also there is a long definition for 'Spheres of Resonance', but I don't
think that's what you meant.
I believe there are billions of archetypes in the collective consciousness.
I just don't know what their names are. I hope we as a species will learn
the basic foundations of what the archetypes are made of though.
..........................................
watching kooks wrote in message
<3qi4gsc69nhtvmdbq...@4ax.com>...
>
watching kooks
Hi Eo
Peyote:
>>Yes they are, yet amazingly you still get people who think they
>>believe in Lucifer/Satan LOL.
Eo:
>Yes, well some do chant and cast spells in the name of Asmodias. I'm not
>sure of the spelling. He's said to be a demon though.
Yeah you got the spelling right that demon/spirit -well according to
the Hebrews is responsible for matrimonial unhappiness-. The
Christians viewed it as a associate of the devil, superintendent of
the gambling houses in the court of hell, spreader of dissipation
variously depicted as having the head of a bull, as a man with a fiery
breath or as a ram.
Peyote:
>>Maitreya's so called advent would not even go dow well with Satanists
>>or Luciferians,
>
Eo:
>
>Certainly not the Satanists. I think there're a diverse group. One cult's
>leader, a major figure died recently.
Some of their reasoning is quite strong and even better put together
than Creme's own group.
Eo
>The Luciferians would include Creme, HPB, Lucis and others whom
>you've researched a lot I guess, so they're a diverse group also. And
>Creme's Maitreya would not be what the other groups want, becos
>he is probably some poor jerk walking around London, waiting to
>be tabbed the new Krishna(murti).
Some may join in with Creme's Lucifer's 7 deg and him not being a
fallen angel or that he is good but like you say they are a diverse
group some believe he is a fallen angel -but was misjudged- other say
we need him for or evolution etc etc.
Eo:
>>I don't believe in miracle men (parting the Red Sea etc.). Actually I
>agree with Allen: he or she might not be the miraculous Messiah, but a person
>who sees something overlooked. You know my opinion of who's the Messiah, so
>there's no hiding that from you. I don't believe one person can fill the
>shoes of the anticipated Christ. As for the AC and beast prophecies, that
>must be worked out next year IMO. I've got loads of material, it's quite
>sensible IMO, and I can't reveal it till next year; as I've stated to you
>and Tempest before. But there will be beast accusations a plenty flying
>around, for the next several years. I believe that is a certainty, like
>during the days of Luther.
Peyote:
>>Okay.
>
>
>
>Actually, when you attribute text in short articles it gets confusing. The
>arrows might be enuf.
>
>I'd just like to say, I hope Lurky doesn't hate me for going after his
>favorite Messiah. I've made certain decisions about Dore and True Son, and I
>like the fact that fundamentalists are reading the Bible for a change,
>instead of only listening to someone else. I hope that Lurky can forgive me
>someday, especially by next year, seriously. Also you and I disagree on the
>nature of fallen. I hope you don't interfere, but Lurky and True Son can
>interfere all they want.
Naw Lurky is lurky he probably smoked a bit extra read his posts the
next day -not stoned- and had a heat attack LOL. He is not one to
bear grudges. I know what he is like so don't worry about him he takes
awhile to get into gear and back on the bandwagon LOL -hoping everyone
has forgotten- :-D
Eo:
>Well first we must understand what benefits a religion can bring, and
>religion's origin. Allen and Bruce might have some important opinions about
>this topic. Your questions are good (unfortunately I haven't read all of
>them, but David answered pretty well about free will). But I come from the
>standpoint of rituals which bring you closer to tapping the collective
>consciousness. Dowsing is for real IMO, for instance. If you feel good about
>yourself, you would make good psychic decisions in war, agriculture,
>choosing a mate, etc. If men were only frightened by lightning into creating
>gods and religion, they could have saved a lot of energy by slapping
>themselves in the face everytime they heard thunder - rather than building
>enormous pyramids, huge stone carvings, etc. Someday we should discuss this
>in detail. probably not now though.
>
Fair enough It ought to be interesting.
Eo:
>I find this as funny, in view of the recent Dore and tsog debate: Creme's
>Maitreya has some new competition - his name is Saint Germain. A
>well-known American Christian mystic named E.C. Prophet says she is in
>communication with him. Germain is tied to the Theosophical Society and the
>ascended masters and preaches of the Aquarian Age and the choice between
>world salvation or destruction. I'd like to see Creme (and his Maitreya) fight
>it out with Prophet (and Saint Germain). May the best master win. (grinning
>because many people believe they are the perfect master).
There will be a few other contenders Michael Martin our esteemed True
Guru of the West and another guy whom may or may not join in -probably
not since he rarely posts and avoids people -other than to tell
stories- rarely answers mail or even questions in his own thread.
But Michael should be fun.
Eo
>There're enuf of those already outside in Europe and the US and Middle East
>and Asia. This will be an interesting year still, but I still feel next year
>will bring the important debates...Only a feeling of mine...
Lets hope some real problems are solved and some real action is
finally taken before it is to late.
Peyote.
watching kooks
Peyote:
>>>>A new measure of peace implies more than changes which have occurred
>>>>recently. Look at history, changes have always occurred, contracts
>>>>made, contracts broken, new hopes for a better world, yet wars still
>>>>rage on. Same ol same ol. Sorry there is no evidence for a 'new
>>>>measure of peace'.
>>>
>>>>You have picked a few incidents connected them and based your idea on
>>>>this whilst avoiding that nothing really has changed in the big
>>>>picture -aka the world view-.
>
Casey:
>
>>>OK, I think we carried that one as far as we could go. I just don't
>>>agree that we haven't established a new measure of peace since
>>>the statement was written.
Peyote:
>>That's fair enough, people have been saying throughout history that a
>>new era of measure of peace has been established when reality has
>>shown otherwise.
>
>>I understand that because of your belief in Maitreya, you will need to
>>see these changes so that they may verify your ideology regarding
>>Benjamin Creme.
>
>>But again I say the facts are clearly against you, no matter what
>>fantasy you may choose to hold onto.
Casey:
>:-)
Peyote:
>>>
>>>>True but again that is no measure of change or peace, now more money
>>>>can be invested in weapons to kill each other. And don't think for a
>>>>minute those in control will not use this to their advantage to gain
>>>>more control. You should read some mail I get from Africa it is
>>>>anything but great debt not withstanding.
>
Peyote:
>
>>Other religious groups who have tried to interpret signs in their own
>>day have oddly enough said similar things to what you are saying now
>>-aka see the millennial movements of th 1700's and 1800's. -
Casey:
>It really has nothing to do with interpreting signs. I was just trying
>to demonstrate that it was "possible" the criteria on the Lucis
>Trust page had been met.
Peyote:
Even in the face of both the past and present that they haven't? It
appears you are trying to tie in Creme with the Lucis trust by saying
the criteria so far been met.
Peyote:
>>So with all the artificial hype you have created -generally amongst
>>yourselves since no one else really cares- of course if some Maitreya
>>character appears on TV, you will all going into fits of ecstasy LOL.
Casey:
>On the contrary. When Maitreya appears on TV he will have to
>be "mighty" impressive for me to go into "fits of ecstasy":)
Ever seen perfectly normal chelas go barmy when thei guru appears at a
lecture hall? I wonder if people also claim to feel different around
Bejamin Creme?
Case:
>>>I didn't attack the GI:) I just don't agree it should have been
>>>changed.
Peyote:
>>Why not? -I know we have been through this before- but it is stupid,
>>technology changes, meaning changes, Christ -aka Churchianity- is very
>>offensive to some -with good reasons if you look at history and
>>current events- and as I pointed out that the Lords Prayer been
>>altered because of modern changes. Is it suddenly less powerful? No of
>>course not.
Case:
>Ok, lets put it this way. I completely see your point and don't
>even necessarily disagree with it. However, IF (stay with me here),
>the actual words put togther the way they do have some sort of
>energetic affect as a mantrum because of how its phrased then
>it would be wrong to change any word. If not then change it
>as much as you like:)
I see your point also.
Peyote:
>>I noticed Allen brought up another point, do we get Spanish people to
>>read the GI in English or Spanish, as I have said before I have had
>>similar debates with KLV only adherents and even an Islamic friend who
>>insist on knowing the Arabic of the Qur'an before you can fully
>>understand it.
Casey:
>Regarding the other languages, it was stated in a Bailey book by the
>master DK himself that it had been translated into many languages.
>So many of the translations took place while Alice Bailey was still
>working with the master DK. I would have to look into if he
>had any influence on the translations.
Peyote:
>>Personally I think the changes are good and more inclusive and not so
>>Christian centric, maybe a new version will come out which caters to
>>all people from all over the world.
Casey:
>As far as general perception goes, it is definitely more inclusive.
>However, my point is that the GI has a very specific purpose and
>changes the words affects that purpose. If I'm wrong so be it.
>One point here is that even Lucis Trust states that they will
>continue to use the old version.
I guess we shall see huh.
Have a nice day Casey and thanks for the chat.
Peyote.
watching kooks
Part One
Here are a few brief parts I promised casey discussing the
Lucifer/Satan connection from various people and religions. I have
tried to keep it as concise as possible because the some of the files
are huge.
============================
1. Non Christian and non Satanist views of Lucifer
This article is written in praise of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, or
whatever you want to call him. ...... The Devil - Lucifer - is a force
for good (where I define 'good' simply as that which I value, not
wanting to imply any universal validity or necessity to the
orientation). 'Lucifer' means 'light-bringer' and this should begin to
clue us in to his symbolic importance. The story is that God threw
Lucifer out of Heaven because Lucifer had started to question God and
was spreading dissension among the angels. We must remember that this
story is told from the point of view of the Godists (if I may coin a
term) and not from that of the Luciferians (I will use this term to
distinguish us from the official Satanists with whom I have
fundamental differences). The truth may just as easily be that Lucifer
resigned from heaven.
Ref: How lucifer.com got its name
============================
2. Non Christian -Word Origins-
There is a bit of a contraversy over what the word Pyramid actually
means. From the Greek word 'pyramis' means 'wheaten cake'; perhaps
what a pyramid might look like from the distance. From the Egyptian
word 'peremus' means 'what goes straight up'. Finally from a
combination of Greek and Eqyptian 'purmet' which would mean 'fire of
ten'. This could tie into the Zodiac God of Fire; or 'a ten form
measure of fire' which is a symbolic figure for 'manifest life'. This
could also relate to 'Lord of Flames' a reference to Lucifer (see
illuminate). Also, in Egyptian culture a setting sun is a symbol
for death.
============================
3. Non Christian -Word Origins-
Lucifer:
a. The leader of the rebellious angels who was cast into hell and
became satan wo tempt men through pride and vanity. In demonlogy
Lucifer is the emperor of the infernl regions.
b. -Astrol- a name for Venus when rising before the Sun as a morning
star. -p94-
Satan.
a. From a Hebrew word meaning adversary. Satan is the name most
frequently employed in the ible to refer to the Devil. God's advesry.
b. -Yoga- The demoniac force of the subconscious impressions which
arise as a residue of pst selfish acts and whi intrde in the present
to obstruct medtation. -p136-
-Dictionary of the occult and paranrmal. J.P. Chaplin.
============================
4. Modern version by a channler
WHY THE SERPENT IS THE EMBLEM OF THE HOUSE OF ENKI & THOTH
A long, long time ago ... there was a "rebellion" amongst the
Archangelic Host, ..... Over countless aeons, these "Sons of God" (or,
rather, SUNS of God) came to be known collectively as the Hosts of
Lucifer - the Most Brilliant Lieutenant of the Most High.
============================
5. A modern Channeler speaks about Lucifer/Satan
Chapter One: Lucifer, A Criminal Against Humanity
by Young Soon Kim Channeling Sang Hun Lee
Chapter I - The Life of Lucifer and the Events He Precipitated
1. The True Nature of Lucifer
Lucifer was created at the time God created all creatures. His status
was that of an errand runner who would carry out various tasks that
required attention in the Garden of Eden. God loved Lucifer. He
closely inspected all the created beings in the Garden of Eden,
developed them, and guided and taught Lucifer to enjoy them. For his
part, Lucifer went throughout the Garden in accordance with God's
commands. He enjoyed his life there, and was obedient to God. Later,
God created Adam and Eve, and set them in the position of His
children. He directed Lucifer to look after, teach, and love Adam and
Eve with all his heart.
At first, Lucifer was extremely happy. He took pride in the fact that
he was looking after God's children. He was moved by God's love for
him, and he protected God's children and raised them with care. As
time went on, though, Lucifer saw that Adam and Eve were growing up
just fine with less and less need of his help. Gradually, Lucifer
began to turn against God's love.
Lucifer began to think, "No matter how I look at it, I'm the one who
was here first and worked hard to cultivate this Garden. Why is it
that God cares for and loves Adam and Eve more than me?" The seed of
resentment toward God was beginning to sprout within Lucifer's heart.
Sometimes, Satan would protest to God. "Why do You give Your work to
Adam and Eve, when You have never done so to me? Why do you reserve
such special love for Adam and Eve? I am disappointed. How can You
do this to me?" This is how he began to rebel against God.
There were several incidents of this type, and eventually Lucifer came
to the point in his heart where he no longer stood in the position
that he needed to maintain. ..... Gradually, Lucifer began to avoid
being seen by God. Meanwhile, Adam and Eve were naive, and followed
Lucifer's every action. Lucifer acted as though he alone were their
parent. He avoided God, and acted as though he alone was the master of
creation. He controlled Adam and Eve, and gradually led them farther
and farther away from God.
He avoided God more and more, and acted like a master, a king, and
even the parent. .... God warned Lucifer that he should return to his
post and maintain his position, but Lucifer's heart was already filled
with curses for God. Lucifer no longer cared about his position or his
station in life. God admonished Lucifer on many occasions.
God admonished Lucifer from several angles to let him know that
abandoning his position was a great sin in the eyes of God. Each time,
though, Lucifer rebelled by telling God that anything God did in His
position, Lucifer could also do.
God gave several warnings, trying to avoid having a blot on history.
Lucifer, however, began to plant in Eve the arrogant concept that he
was the highest of all beings and that he could even become higher
than God. As evil began to attack like waves washing against the
shore, God endured tremendous pain and continued to admonish Lucifer.
Finally, though, Lucifer became a criminal in the eyes of history. ...
God lived in sorrow for years. As Eve grew into maturity, she began to
realize that her relationship with Lucifer was wrong. She then began
to plant in Adam the same insecurity and fear that she had received
from Lucifer.
February 10 1999
=============================
6. -Another Self Proclimed Prophet/chaneler Jenny says:
Let us clearly undrstand that Lucifer is our enemy known as satan the
serprent and the liar, who fell because of his pride
=============================
7. Another modern version or channler about satan
Subject: A Concise Adamic History by Antares
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:57:44 +0800
Organization: Magick River
WHY THE SERPENT IS THE EMBLEM OF THE HOUSE OF ENKI & THOTH
A long, long time ago (in a galaxy not so far away - in fact, in the
Milky Way itself), there was a "rebellion" amongst the Archangelic
Host, as a result of which certain Aspects of the All-Being One
"separated" from Source .... Over countless aeons, these "Sons of God"
(or, rather, SUNS of God) came to be known collectively as the Hosts
of Lucifer - the Most Brilliant Lieutenant of the Most High.
... out of these so-called Luciferic Intelligences many technically
proficient races evolved, and they began to colonize and inhabit
suitable planets in various star systems. As they gained mastery over
the elements and ways to apply their arcane knowledge, there was a
corresponding loss of ability to FEEL. Cold logic gradually replaced
the warmth of love pure and simple in these worlds.
=============================
8. -A Self Proclaimed prophet Sollog says:-
The Lucifer Conspiracy!
A scholarly analysis of the origins of Lucifer or Satan in Western
Mythos. You will be shocked at the hidden meanings of Lucifer revealed
by Sollog in this amazing work!
Sollog also exposes Secret Societies that worship LUCIFER for POWER.
============================
9. Fallen Angels
"fallen" angels. Myth and legend have taken the concept of these
angels and created many horror stories. ....
When we talk about the Fallen Angels, we must first consider the
legend of the Watchers, .... This legend has been passed down through
generations to create one myth of "fallen" angels.
We then have to go back to the legend of The War In Heaven. Many
religions have this concept in their teachings so I will place
information here about these viewpoints as I research more.
There are several accounts of what happened to cause the War in
Heaven, but the generally accepted one involves the creation of
humanity.
God desired that all angels in heaven bow down to humanity, (as in to
serve and protect mankind), and Lucifer refused. He wasn't the only
one, and this became a major bone of contention among the angels.
*Note* A good example of how this story might go, read Memnoch, The
Devil by Anne Rice.
At the same time as Lucifer disobeying God in heaven, the Watchers,
angels who were evidently something different than the being of pure
living fire that most of their companions were, went down to earth on
a mission from God to teach human beings certain tasks.
As legend states, these angels saw that the women of earth were
beautiful and became lustful for them. They mated with them, and as a
result were cast from heaven. A great war rose up. The heavenly host
was victorious, and Satan, (or the Hebrew ha-Satan, the adversary),
and his followers were tossed out of heaven and into hell, a place of
eternal fire and torment.
Taken in part from
The Fallen Host
The Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
A Dictionary of Angels' by Gustav Davidson
================================
10. Mythololgy
The story of Lucifer as Satan, the fallen rebellious angel, is largely
based based on non-canonical sources: the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, earlier faiths -ie zoroastrianism-. There are also
many pre-Christian myths and allegories that include stories about
Lucifer, which is the Latin name for the Greek Eosphoros. In his
Theogony Hesiod speaks of two divine beings, the brothers
Eosphoros (the morning star) and Hesperos (the evening star). They are
the children of Astraios (the starry heaven) and Eos (the dawn). The
morning star, like the Virgin of the Sea, is one of the titles given
to Divine Mother goddesses such as the Roman Venus, the Phoenician
Astarte, the Jewish Ashtoreth, and the later Christian Holy Virgin. In
the oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed to have
conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition, Michael
defeats Lucifer.
================================
11. File Zoroastrian
Angel -Varios defnitions & tradtions-
[Gr.,=messenger], bodiless, immortal spirit, limited in knowledge and
power, accepted in the traditional belief of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam and other religions. Angels appear frequently in the Bible,
often in critical roles, e.g., visiting Abraham and Lot (Gen. 18; 19),
wrestling with Jacob (Gen. 32.24.32), and guiding Tobit (Tobit 5). The
Bible also speaks of guardian angels, protecting individuals or
nations. Dan. 10.10.21; Mat. 18.10. In the Gospels an angel announced
the Incarnation to the Virgin Mary (Luke 1), and an angel at the empty
tomb revealed the Resurrection (Mat. 28.1-7). While Judaism has no
fixed ordering of classes of angels, Christianity has a specific
hierarchy. Codified in its classic form in the 5th cent by St.
Dionysius the Areopagite, in The Celestial Hierarchy. In descending
order the ranks of angels are seraphim, cherubim, thrones;
dominations, virtues, powers; principalities, arch-angels, and angels.
Roman Catholics and the Orthodox venerate angels, and the cult of
guardian angels is especially extensive in the West (feast of Guardian
Angels: Oct.
2). Protestants have generally abandoned the cult of angels. In
Christianity, the angels of Hell, or dark angels, or devils, are the
evil counterpart of the heavenly host; the chief of them, Satan (or
Lucifer), was cast out of heaven for leading a revolt. They are often
viewed as the initiators of evil temptations. ....
Angels play an important role in many other religions. Later
Zoroastrian theology has numerous classes of yazatas - worshipful
beings. Zoroastrian notions of angels influenced the intricate
theories of heavenly beings of Gnostic systems and Manichaeism.
In Islam the four archangels Jibrail, Mikail, Israfil, and Izrail (the
Angel of Death) often act in place of Allah. The Kiram al-Katibin are
the recording angels. According to a popular tradition, each person
has two scribe angels, the one on the right side recording good deeds,
the one on the left taking note of transgressions. A lower order of
angels is the jinn.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993, Columbia
University Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.
---------------------------------
12. ZOROASTRIANISM
Introduction
Zoroastrianism is a small religion with about 140,000 members. Yet its
importance to humanity is much greater than its numbers might suggest,
because:
of the important impact their theology has had on Christianity and
other later religions, in the beliefs surrounding God and Satan, the
soul, heaven and hell, savior, resurrection, final judgment, etc.
It is one of the oldest religions still in existence, It may have been
the first monotheistic religion.
The religion was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster in Greek;
Zarthosht in India and Persia). Conservative Zoroastrians assign a
date of 6000 BCE to the founding of the religion; other followers
estimate 600 BCE. Historians and religious scholars generally date his
life sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE on the basis of his style of
writing.
Zoroastrian Beliefs
Beliefs include:
A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme. Communication between Himself
and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or
Bounteous Immortals. Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian
sacred text, these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts, and
are sometimes personified.
One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being
worshipped, and An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu,
who opposes Ahura Mazda.
The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including
humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the
Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time.
Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil
as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.
Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.
The universe will go through three eras:
References
Farhand Mehr, "The Zoroastrian Tradition", Element Books, (1991)
Duchesne-Guilemin (translated by Henning), "Wisdom of the East" C.E.
Tuttle (1992)
================================
13. Christian
The M+G+R Foundation
GOD * MAN * MIRACLES * PARAPSYCHOLOGY * FAITH * MIND
Miracles..., Myth or Reality? - Which Is The Truth?
This brief essay is written for those who believe in God. Nonetheless,
the agnostic, the unbeliever and .... also cordially invited to review
the information. .....
First, let us review the individual components that have a direct
relation to this particular manifestation of the ancient "man vs.
God" syndrome; that is, when man wants to be equal to God [see Adam
and Eve in Genesis].
V. Supernatural Events of Evil Nature
Case in point - If the system that He created would have allowed it,
the moment Lucifer and other angels refused to serve Him,
God could have withdrawn the attributes granted to them and thus, in
effect, cancel their evil influence in this world.
============================
14. Christian:
They are of common origin but the glue is man's reach for the heavens
as Lucifer tried so long ago. The various pyramids around the world,
though technical marvels, are but Ziggurats for religious and
astronomical purposes. The technical part is enlightening ... This is
kind of a metaphor for our day as the Swastika represents the melding
of the spiritual and technical in man's effort to become as God.
Pastor Bob
=============================
15. -General article- Satan
[Heb., (= (adversary], in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the
principle of evil conceived as a person; also called the Devil. In
Christian tradition Satan was the leader of the angels who rebelled
against God and who were cast out of heaven. He and his followers are
seen as tempters of humanity and the source of evil in the world. He
has numerous other names, such as Lucifer, Beelzebub, Evil One, and
Prince of Darkness.
=============================
16. WHAT ABOUT ANGELS -Christian-
Psalms 148:1-6 tells us that God created the angels. They did not
evolve into being. Here we learn several important facts about angels.
Since God created angels as angels forever, they do not evolve. We do
not become angels in the hereafter. Scripture teaches that the angels
do not reproduce themselves (Matthew 22:30). Thus the original number
of angels will never increase or decrease. We consider angels as a
company of beings and do not regard them as a race. Their number may
be in the trillions. Scripture compares the number of angels with the
number of stars to help us visualize the vast number.
Angels are spirit beings. They have separate and individual
personalities. In all probability no two angels are alike. They have
the three necessary features required of personality, intelligence,
will, and emotion. Angels are superior to men (Psalms 8:4-5) being
stronger (Psalms 103:20; II Peter 2:11), smarter (Daniel 9:21-22;
10:14), and swifter (Daniel 9:21; Rev. 14:1). Still, they are inferior
to God.
Although Scripture gives the names of only four angels, one can
conclude that each has a name. In addition there are ranks and
different types of angels listed. The only Archangel mentioned in the
Bible is Michael. While the Scriptures mention the angel Gabriel more
often than they mention Michael, he is not ranked as an archangel.
There are angels called Cherubims. They kept Adam from the Tree of
Life. Before his fall Satan (then known as Lucifer) was the chief
cherubim angel (Isa. 14:12; Ezek 28:14). Seraphins are angels whose
role includes forming the great chorus praising God. Scripture simply
refer to most angels as angels. Finally there are the fallen angels.
These are the one-third who fell with Lucifier. For information on the
fallen angels see the tract "What About Demons."
The exciting and comforting facts about angels are their work and
duties. The word angel means messenger. In this role their primary
mission is always to glorify God. In glorifying God they serve Him in
many ways. In heaven they worship the person of God (Psa. 29:1; Isa.
6:3; Rev. 19:4). The angels predicted the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:31;
Matt. 1:20,21) and then announced His birth (Luke 2:19). They helped
protect Him (Matt. 2:13; Psa. 91:11). When Jesus was in the garden the
angel ministered to Him (Luke 22:43). Matthew (28:2-6) states that it
was an angel who rolled away the tombstone and announced the
resurrection of Jesus. The Scriptures record in Acts 1:10,11 the angel
predicting Jesus' second coming. Second Thessalonians states that the
angels will accompany Jesus at the second coming. There are many other
cases of the angels serving God to His glory.
In addition the Scriptures teach that the angels duties also include
watching over mankind. The Bible is full of cases where angels inform,
instruct, and interpret both the Will and Word of God. There are also
many cases recorded where angels protect and comfort man. Space does
not allow listing most of the recorded cases described in the
Scriptures. However, the following examples show the angels at work.
It was angels who protected Lot from the Sodomites and led him and
his family out of Sodom (Genesis 19:10,11). An angel stood by Paul
telling him to fear not (Acts 27:24). An angel opened the prison
doors and brought the apostles out (Acts 5:19). An angel released
Peter from his chains and prison (Acts 12:7). Most comforting is the
story told by Jesus in Luke 16:22. Here when the beggar died, the
angels carried him into Abraham's bosom.
Often it is an angel who is sent by God to answer our prayers (Daniel
9:21-23; 10:12-13; Acts 10). Scripture records 104 cases where angels
have appeared before man.
Thus Christians should find comfort in the strength and protection God
offers through His angels."For He shall give His angels charge over
thee to keep thee in all thy ways" (Psalms 91:11). Hebrews 13:2 tells
us, "be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have
entertained angels unaware.
WHAT ABOUT DEMONS
Many people, when caught doing something wrong, say the devil made me
do it. We often refer to a child getting into mischief as a demon or
little devil. Most people picture evil in a red suit with horns and a
tail carrying a pitch fork. Very few people can describe the devil and
his works. Does the devil have helpers, and if so, who and what are
they?
The devil (Lucifer, Satan) has under his control the demons, like an
army who serve him. Demons are fallen angels. They were not evil from
the beginning. The tract "What About Angels" showed that angels do
exist. This is further verified by mythologies. Nearly every ancient
nation speaks of the characteristics of beings similar to what we call
angels. Babylonian mythology pictures them as messengers from gods to
men. Roman and Greek mythology use terms such as semi-gods, fauns, and
naiads, who visited the earth. Mythologies are the faint and distorted
echoes of a common primeval knowledge possessed by the culture. If
such beings as angels did not exist, we would not find them in the
traditional beliefs of the nations of old.
To understand the role of the fallen angels, we first must review
their fall. Many Bible scholars believe that Isaiah 14 gives a
description of the fall of Lucifer, the son of the morning, also
called Satan or the devil. Some feel that this angel-prince may well
have been an archangel or chief of the angels. Ezek. 28:12-15 refers
to him as the anointed cherub that covereth. Isaiah tells of his pride
and desire to ascend above the heights of the clouds and be like the
most High (Isaiah 14:13,14). In his struggle for
power, he apparently convinced and converted one third of the angels
to follow him. These angels are what we now call demons.
Unlike God, Satan is not omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient. While
that is true, we must remember that he has literally millions of
demons available to do his bidding. Most people think of Satan
residing in hell. However, Scripture teaches that he resides in both
heaven and here on earth (Job 1:6,7; Zechariah 3:1,2; Rev. 12:7-12).
Satan designs his activities to separate man from God.
Satan works in very clever ways. One of the special ways is that he
imitates what he is trying to defeat. Consider a counterfeit twenty
dollar bill. To pass, it must look like the real bill or we
immediately reject it. Look at some of the names in the Scriptures
that refer to Satan; god of this world (II Cor. 4:4), the deceiver
(Rev. 20:10), the tempter (1 Thes 3:5), a liar (John 8:44), and the
price of demons (Beelzebub) (Matt. 12:24). His strategy has always
been the same. He bases his lies on perverting the
word of God. Satan is a Bible reader, but not a Bible lover. He reads
the Scriptures to try to change God's word.
As a master of deception, he loves to take God's words out of context.
This is demonstrated at the fall of man (Gen. 3:1-5). Here Satan
promised Eve that she would not die, but become like God. These same
promises are still being used against man today. Today there are many
groups following Satan's deceptions. Many of these groups claim to be
following the Scriptures, yet their teachings are different. They have
added to, or changed the words of God. Interestingly, some actually
teach that man will evolve to godhood. Others deny the deity of Jesus,
and His resurrection.
The fallen angels or demons are divided into two groups. One group is
the chained or bound fallen angels (II Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Luke 8:31;
Rev. 9:14). These angels have no freedom. The second group is the
unchained fallen angels. It is these demons under Satan's control that
we must be concerned about. For these demons are described in
Scripture as capable of possessing man. The New Testament records 12
cases of people possessed by demons. In seven of these cases Jesus
personally freed them. It is interesting that in one case, the
Geresene demoniac (Matt. 8:32; Mark 5:8; Luke 8:33), many demons
controlled the victim. Seven demons possessed Mary Magdalene (Mark
16:9; Luke 8:2). Besides the 12 cases listed by name, the apostles
delivered many unnamed, possessed people (Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:22).
In Addition to their roles in possessing people, demons are active in
many other ways. Scriptures reveal their roles as familiar spirits
(Deut. 18:11; Isa 8:10; 19:3), seducing spirits (1 Tim 4:1) and wicked
spirits (Luke 11:26). The most common of these today is the familiar
spirit.
Scripture records angels both holy and fallen from Genesis through
Revelations. Thus we can be sure they exist and are active today.
=============================
18. Lucifer / Devil -Christian-
Sin of Angels!
II Peter 2:4: ''For if God spared not the angels that sinned.'' Here
is the sin of angels mentioned.
Was there a chaotic condition brought about on the earth as a result
of the sins of angles? The sin of the angels is mentioned first, and
it occurred first! There was a devil already there in existence by the
time Adam was created. So the sin of the angels happened before the
creation of man.
Now read II Peter 2:6. ''Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into
ashes, [God] condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example
to those that afterward should live ungodly."
Universal sin was in those two Canaanite cities. Physical destruction
came to the entire part of the surface of the earth which those people
occupied as a result of that sin. Then didn't such a destruction come
to the earth as a result of the sins of the angels which occurred
before Adam?
Now quickly turn over to Jude. In the sixth verse, you read this: "And
the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation [they had a place where they lived, a habitation, an
estate, and they left it], God hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Notice! It is the
sinning angels who are reserved in those chains under darkness,
restrained from light, restrained from truth until the judgment of the
great day.
Angels Possess the Earth!
How plain! They had an estate which they didn't keep. In Hebrews 2:5
we read this: ''For unto the angels hath God not put in subjection the
world to come of which we speak." In other words, The World Tomorrow,
the Kingdom of God, will not be under subjection to angels. The
present one is under subjection of fallen angels. The demons, and the
devil who is their head, rule this present earth and sway its
inhabitants. The Bible everywhere indicates and affirms that very
fact.
How did they obtain their dominion? How did they acquire their power?
How did they maintain their control? Where did the devil get the power
to control and to lead and to rule this world?
The devil is the leader of fallen angels, as you will find in a number
of places ( John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11). In II Cor.4:4 the
devil is called the god of this world. He is the king or the prince of
the evil world that we live in today. Let's see something about the
origin of the devil.
Turn to Isaiah 14, beginning with verse 4, "'Thou shalt take up this
proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, 'How hath the oppressor
ceased the golden city ceased!'"
Here is a king of Babylon.
This account continues to tell how he had disrupted the earth. He was
an invader, a conqueror. He was a war monger, trying to take away from
others and trying to acquire all he could. He had just the opposite
philosophy from that of God. In other words, he had the philosophy of
the devil. He represented. the devil. The king of Babylon was the
devil's instrument and tool.
Now we find in verse 12 that this lesser human type lifts to the great
anti-type - the devil - whom he represented and whose tool and
instrument he was.
Rebellion of Lucifer
Things are said about the great former cherub, the devil, that could
not be said about a human being. God says, "How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer." Lucifer means shining one, or shining star of the
dawn. God names things or people, or beings what they are. Lucifer was
originally a shining "star." Stars represent angels (Rev. 1:20). He
was a great cherub whose duties were represented by the bright morning
star. He was a light bringer. In other words, one who had great
knowledge and truth and light, and who was to give it to those who
were placed under him. He was placed in a certain rule and authority
over angels.
Continuing in Isaiah 14: "How art thou cut down to the ground which
didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will
ascend into heaven.'" Then he must have been BELOW heaven. He must
have been ON THE EARTH.
He said, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars (that is, the angels] of God." I want you to notice he had a
throne, but he wasn't willing to be content with his jurisdiction. He
was out to rule the universe.
Now notice what else Lucifer said: "I will ascend above the heights of
the CLOUDS. I will be like the most High." "I'm going to be god
myself," he said.
Lucifer Becomes the Devil
So Lucifer became the devil. God changed his name when his character
changed. He tried to make himself God. But we find HE WAS CAST DOWN TO
THIS EARTH.
Now, quickly turn over to Ezekiel 28, verse 1. "Son of man, say unto
the prince of Tyrus. . ." The prince of Tyre, or Tyrus, was a very
evil man. He was an aggressor, an invader, a conqueror. He was a tool
of the devil. Now, as we come to the twelfth verse, just as in Isaiah
14, the lesser type lifts up to the great anti-type. We find the devil
himself pictured! Now we find one that is not human at all. For a few
verses, it is talking about the devil himself, and not about a human
being.
Beginning at verse 12: ''Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the
king of Tyrus." Here is the REAL king that ruled in and through the
prince of Tyrus. "And say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God. Thou
sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Here was
one who sealed up the sum total of perfection, of wisdom, and beauty.
Could that be said about a man? Does God speak like that of any mortal
man? Never! He is speaking of some being far greater than man. Notice,
"Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God." On the earth! Then he
said, "The workmanship of thy tabrets and thy pipes was prepared in
thee in the day that thou wast CREATED." This was not a human being,
who was born.
The prophet continues to say, "Thou art the anointed CHERUB that
covereth." If you will refer to Exodus 25, verses 16-22, you will find
the type of the throne of God described. Included in the earthly type
- the tabernacle in the days of Moses - was the mercy seat which was a
picture of the very throne of God. On it two cherubim were placed.
They were made of metals, of course, but their wings stretched out and
covered the very throne of God. They symbolized the two great cherubs
whose wings cover the very throne of God.
Through Ezekiel, God says: "Thou art the anointed cherub that
covereth." In other words, one of the two great cherubs ruling over
millions of other angels! He was a created being. He sealed up the sum
total of perfection, of wisdom, and of beauty. Then in verse 14, we
read this: "I have set thee so," God said. God had set him in office.
"Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God,'' - Palestine or Eden! "Thou
wast perfect in thy ways from the day thou wast created. Here was a
being that was created perfect UNTIL INIQUITY WAS FOUND IN HIM.
That iniquity was described in Isaiah 14. He said, "I'm not satisfied
with what I have. I'm going to become an invader. I'm going to take
God's place and be the God of the universe." That was the devil's sin
- INSUBORDINATION.
How the Earth Became Chaotic
A third of the angels united with Satan in the rebellion. That is what
caused the chaos of this earth. The sin of angels reached into the
heavens and brought chaos on earth. What the geologists and
astronomers see is not an evolving universe, but the wreckage of a
titanic battle waged by spirits throughout space - a battle fought
before man's creation.
The earth was created perfect and complete. Then it BECAME chaotic as
a result of rebellion. And in six days, God re-made the earth,
re-shaped, re-fashioned it, and created human beings upon it.
He gave Adam a chance to take the place of Satan the devil. Remember,
Lucifer had been placed in rulership. God placed the great cherub,
Lucifer, to carry out His government on the earth; but Lucifer refused
to carry out God's will, God's commands, God's government. He wanted
to substitute his own - So he disqualified himself.
Adam had the chance to supplant him. In the contest to see if Adam
would conquer, if he would obey God, he failed. He obeyed the devil
instead, and man became the property of the devil, and the whole human
race was sold down the river to the devil ever since.
Jesus Christ came years later and He entered the great contest - the
contest of the temptation on the Mount. He REFUSED to obey the devil.
He quoted scripture correctly. He obeyed God. Finally, He turned to
the devil, and He gave Satan a command. He said, "Get away from me,"
and the devil obeyed!
=========================================
19. Christian
Dragons in Paradise
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
. . . that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" (Revelation
12:9). …. .Just so, God had also created the fallen angel, Satan, who
had taken over the body of the serpent back in Paradise, and God could
vanquish him, as well.
That old Dragon had invaded Paradise, and God had cast him out into
the earth, where he continues to this day leading men and women to
rebel against God and His Word. It is he "which deceiveth the whole
world" (Revelation 12:9)
Satan is, indeed, still alive and well on Planet Earth! Overt Satanism
is increasingly influential, especially among young people, and so are
witchcraft, astrology, spiritism, theosophy, and all the other occult
"sciences," all of them based squarely on the age-old deception of
evolutionary pantheism. Furthermore, there are many New Age cults and
even secret fraternities and lodges that, at least in their advanced
degrees, actually honor Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12) as their highest object
of worship, in effect uniting with him in his determination to "exalt
my throne above the stars of God" and to "be like the most High"
(Isaiah 14:13,14). All are seeking to bring in a "new world order,"
with a world government, a global economic system, and especially a
world religion of evolutionary humanistic pantheism, with monotheistic
religions, especially Biblical Christianity, banished from
the earth.
================================================
20. Blavatsky
Presented below are a few portions of writings which deal with the
topic of Lucifer.
Such is not presented in this thread for debate it is presented as
background information of the discussion at hand.
The point of the questions that Peyote and myself put forward is not
over what one deems right or wrong more true to the point is the
sources which Share International draws from and the basic
incompatibility with Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish
and Bahai teachings.
All sources are from the Theosophical society.
Lucifer references
Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to
bear or bring." ... And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or
lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for
Satan, Lord of Darkness.
As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, ............
The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first radiant beam that does
away with the darkness of night. It is a symbol of the development of
the divine light in man, for the first awakening of
self-consciousness, for independent thinking and the real
application of free will.
It appears that the whole story of Lucifer as Satan, the fallen
rebellious angel, is based entirely on non-canonical
sources: the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. .... In the
oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed
to have conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition,
Michael defeats Lucifer.
From Sunrise magazine, October/November 1996.
Some Light on Lucifer By Ina Belderis.
``````````````````````````````````
A number of symbols and mythical elements are important for a general
understanding of the work. First, the symbol of the Grail combines
elements of legends from Persia and Asia Minor with those from Celtic
mythology. The Grail, the cup which Jesus Christ used at the Last
Supper, was made from the stone which fell from Lucifer's crown as he
plunged to earth. Lucifer (the Light-bringer) brought the mental
principle to evolving humanity. The stone from Lucifer's
crown can therefore be regarded as ego-consciousness or "I am I":
without the awakening mind principle humanity would not be able to
acquire knowledge, and the first step along this path is "I am I."
That this stone was fashioned into a cup or bowl which was used to
catch the blood of Christ elevates its meaning because it then stands
for the divine self, atma-buddhi. As Wagner remarked, it becomes
"Grail consciousness" -- purified, redeemed "I am." The Grail is
entrusted to Titurel. He gathers a brotherhood of knights around him,
called the knights of the Grail, who devote themselves to
the service of this Grail consciousness through noble deeds.
Wagner's Parsifal By Rolf May
``````````````````````````````````
Perhaps the most important evolutionary event insofar as humanity is
concerned took place in the third root-race and is remembered in all
the world's religions and legendary histories. When the human vehicle
was ready, the heretofore slumbering human mind awakened. The Greeks
expressed it as Prometheus stealing from the gods the fire of mind for
mankind. In the Far East the manasaputras or Sons of Mind were said to
have incarnated in humanity and thus awakened it into mental life and
self-awareness, qualities which distinguish the human from the animal.
These superior beings had evolved beyond the human stage in a previous
cosmic cycle and returned to inflame the latent human mind.
Christian mythology remembers it in the story of Lucifer, the
Lightbringer, who was on the right hand of God and cast out to make
his way to the Garden of Eden: Lucifer, the Christian Prometheus, who
as a serpent tempted Eve with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil. Thereafter humans possessed the power to choose; they
could sow and reap karma in a far more potent manner than before.
There could no longer be an Eden or idyllic mindless life, for
humanity now had self-conscious mind.
The Six Fundamental Propositions of The Secret Doctrine
By John P. Van Mater
``````````````````````````````````
Moreover, the serpent in almost every land was not originally a symbol
of cunning or deception, but rather of wisdom and a bringer of light
and understanding. If we consider the serpent of Genesis in the role
of a "Light-bringer," which is what Lucifer means, we can see how
amazingly different will be our whole concept of man's origin.
Expanding Horizons by James A. Long
Copyright © 1965 by Theosophical University Press.
``````````````````````````````````
By drawing the five-pointed star of Lucifer (which has its crown-point
downward) and writing the name of Cain beneath the lowest point, and
those of his descendants successively at each of the other points, it
will be found that each fifth name -- which would be written beneath
that of Cain -- is that of a murderer. In the Talmud this genealogy is
given complete, and thirteen murderers range themselves in line below
the name of Cain. This is no coincidence. Siva is the Destroyer, but
he is also the Regenerator. Cain is a murderer, but he is also the
creator of nations, and an inventor. This star of Lucifer is the same
one that John sees falling down to earth in his Apocalypse.
Isis Unveiled by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
The world of sceptics and fanatics may call it, one -- an empty "ism"
-- the other "Satanism": they can never crush it. Theosophists have
been called Atheists, haters of Christianity, the enemies of God and
the gods. They are none of these. Therefore, they have agreed this day
to publish a clear statement of their ideas, and a profession of their
faith -- with regard to monotheism and Christianity, at any rate --
and to place it before the impartial reader to judge them and their
detractors on the merits of their respective faiths.
No truth-loving mind would object to such honest and sincere dealing,
nor will it be dazzled by any amount of new light thrown upon the
subject, howsoever much startled otherwise. On the contrary, such
minds will thank LUCIFER, perhaps, while those of whom it was said
"qui vult decipi decipiatur" -- let them be deceived by all means!
Studies in Occultism by H. P. Blavatsky
``````````````````````````````````
The vala tells of the end of the golden age of innocence and of the
death of the sun-god Balder through the agency of his blind brother
Hoder -- ignorance and darkness -- instigated by Loki, the mischievous
elf of human intelligence. As in many other tales of the fall from
innocence of the early humans, the agent which brought about our
knowledge of good and evil and the power to choose between them, has
borne the blame for all subsequent ills in the world.
The biblical Lucifer, the light-bringer, from "bright and morning
star" has been transformed into a devil; the Greek Prometheus who gave
mankind the fire of mind was chained to a rock for the duration of the
world and will be rescued only when Herakles, the human soul, shall
have attained perfection at the end of its labors. Similarly, Loki was
bound beneath the nether gates of the underworld to suffer torment
until the cycle's completion. In each case the sacrifice brought us
humans the inner light needed to illumine our path to godhood, which
will be gained through conscious effort and self-conscious
regeneration in ultimate reunion with our divine source.
The Masks of Odin by Elsa-Brita Titchenell
``````````````````````````````````
The "Serpent" fallen from on high, "deorsum fluens," was credited with
the possession of the Keys of the Empire of the Dead, [[tou thanatus
arche]] to that day, when Jesus saw it "falling like lightning from
heaven" (Luke x. 17, 18),
the Roman Catholic interpretation of cadebat ut fulgur to the
contrary, notwithstanding; and it means indeed that even "the devils
are subject" to the Logos -- who is WISDOM, but who, as the opponent
of ignorance, is Satan or Lucifer at the same time.
This remark refers to divine Wisdom falling like lightning on, and
quickening the intellects of those who fight the devils of ignorance
and superstition. Up to the time when Wisdom, in the shape of the
incarnating Spirits of MAHAT, descended from on high to animate and
call the Third Race to real conscious life, humanity -- if it can be
so called in its animal, senseless state --was of course doomed to --
moral as well as to physical death. The Angels fallen into generation
are referred to metaphorically as Serpents and Dragons of Wisdom.
------
* The allegory of the fire of Prometheus is another version of the
rebellion of the proud Lucifer, who was hurled down to the bottomless
pit, or simply unto our Earth, to live as man. The Hindu Lucifer, the
Mahasura, is also said to have become envious of the Creator's
resplendent light, and, at the head of inferior Asuras (not gods, but
spirits), to have rebelled against Brahma; for which Siva hurled him
down to Patala. But, as philosophy goes hand in hand with allegorical
fiction in Hindu myths,
the devil is made to repent, and is afforded the opportunity to
progress: he is a sinful man esoterically, and can by yoga devotion,
and adeptship, reach his status of one with the deity, once more.
Hercules, the Sun-god, descends to Hades (the cave of Initiation) to
deliver the victims from their tortures, etc., etc. The Christian
Church alone creates eternal torment for the devil and the damned,
that she has invented.
--------
Man remaining the pale shadow of the inert, immutable, and motionless
perfection, the one negative and passive attribute of the real I am
that I am, would have been doomed to pass through life on earth as in
a heavy dreamless sleep; hence a failure on this plane.
The Beings, or the Being, collectively called Elohim, who first (if
ever) pronounced the cruel words, "Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and
take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever . . . " must
have been indeed the Ilda-baoth, the Demiurge of the Nazarenes, filled
with rage and envy against his own creature, whose reflection created
Ophiomorphos.
In this case it is but natural -- even from the dead letter standpoint
-- to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and
benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the
"Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of
the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first
to whisper: "in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing
good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour.
An "adversary" to Jehovah the "personating spirit," he still remains
in esoteric truth the ever-loving "Messenger" (the angel), the
Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and
who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality -- the
latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man
into an undying "Wandering Jew."
As narrated in King's "Gnostics," "Ilda-Baoth, whom several sects
regarded as the God of Moses, was not a pure spirit, he was ambitious
and proud, and rejecting the spiritual light of the middle space
offered him by his mother Sophia-Achamoth, he set himself to create a
world of his own. Aided by his sons, the six planetary genii, he
fabricated man, but this one proved a failure. It was a monster,
soulless, ignorant, and crawling on all fours on the ground like a
material beast.
Ilda-Baoth was forced to implore the help of his spiritual mother. She
communicated to him a ray of her divine light, and so animated man and
endowed him with a soul. And now began the animosity of Ilda-Baoth
toward his own creature. Following the impulse of the divine light,
man soared higher and higher in his aspirations; very soon he began
presenting not the image of his creator Ilda-Baoth but rather that of
the Supreme Being, the 'primitive man,' Ennoia.
Then the Demiurgos was filled with rage and envy; and fixing his
jealous eye on the abyss of matter, his looks envenomed with passion
were suddenly reflected as in a mirror; the reflection became animate,
and there arose out of the abyss Satan, serpent, Ophiomorphos -- 'the
embodiment of envy and cunning. He is the union of all that is most
base in matter, with the hate, envy, and craft of a spiritual
intelligence.' " This is the exoteric rendering of the Gnostics, and
the allegory, though a sectarian version, is suggestive, and seems
true to life. It is the natural deduction from the dead letter text of
chapter iii. of Genesis.
--------------
"Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active, or, as M. Jules Baissac
calls it, the 'Centrifugal Energy of the Universe' in a cosmic sense.
He is Fire, Light, Life, Struggle, Effort, Thought, Consciousness,
Progress, Civilization, Liberty, Independence.
At the same time he is pain, which is the Re-action of the pleasure of
action, and death -- which is the revolution of life -- Satan, burning
in his own hell, produced by the fury of his own momentum -- the
expansive disintegration of the nebulae which is to concentrate into
new worlds. And fitly is he again and again baffled by the eternal
Inertia of the passive energy of the Kosmos -- the inexorable 'I AM'
-- the flint from which the sparks are beaten out.
Fitly is he . . . and his adherents . . . consigned to the 'sea of
fire,' because it is the Sun (in one sense only in the Cosmic
allegory), the fount of life in our system, where they are purified
(disintegrated) and churned up to re-arrange them for another
life (the resurrection); that Sun which, as the origin of the active
principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of
the Mundane Satan . . . ."
To demonstrate furthermore the accuracy of Baissac's general theory
(in Le Diable et Satan) cold is known to have a 'Centripetal' effect.
"Under the influence of cold everything contracts . . . . Under it
life hybernates, or dies out, thought congeals, and fire is
extinguished. Satan is immortal in his own Fire-Sea -- it is only in
the 'Nifl-heim' (the cold Hell of the Scandinavian Eddas) of the 'I
AM' that he cannot exist. But for all that there is a kind of Immortal
Existence in the Nifl-heim, and that existence must be painless and
peaceful, because it is Unconscious and Inactive.
In the Kingdom of Jehovah (if this God were all that the Jews and
Christians claim for him) there is no Misery, no War, no marrying
and giving in marriage, no change, no Individual Consciousness.*All is
absorbed in the spirit of the most Powerful.
It is emphatically a kingdom of Peace and loyal Submission as that of
the 'Arch-Rebel' is one of War and Revolution . . . . . It (the
former) is in fact what Theosophy calls Nirvana. But then Theosophy
teaches that separation from the Primal Source having once occurred,
Re-union can only be achieved by Will -- Effort -- which is distinctly
Satanic in the sense of this essay."
It is "Satanic" from the standpoint of orthodox Romanism, for it is
owing to the prototype of that which became in time the Christian
Devil -- to the Radiant Archangels, Dhyans-Chohans, who refused to
create, because they wanted Man to become his own creator and an
immortal god -- that men can reach Nirvana and the haven of
heavenly divine Peace.
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
It is in one sense the descent of the manasaputras, agnishvattas, and
other Sons of Flame, who endowed the mindless forms with the divine
spark; so that Prometheus is Lucifer, Phosphoros, the Light-bringer,
the serpent of Eden, etc.
Copyright © 1999 by Theosophical University Press. All rights
reserved.
``````````````````````````````````
(c) The Zohar speaks of "Black Fire," which is Absolute Light-Wisdom.
To those who, prompted by old theological prejudice, may say: "But the
Asuras are the rebel Devas, the opponents of the Gods -- hence devils,
and the spirits of Evil," it is answered: Esoteric philosophy admits
neither good nor evil per se, as existing independently in nature. The
cause for both is found, as regards the Kosmos, in the necessity of
contraries or contrasts, and with respect to man, in his human nature,
his ignorance and passions.
There is no devil or the utterly depraved, as there are no Angels
absolutely perfect, though there may be spirits of Light and of
Darkness; thus LUCIFER -- the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and
Freedom of Thought -- is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which
helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for
Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the "Adversary" in his lowest
aspect -- both of which are reflected in our Ego. Lactantius, speaking
of the Nature of Christ, makes the LOGOS, the Word, the first-born
brother of Satan, the "first of all creatures." (Inst. div. Book II.,
c. viii., "Qabbalah," 116.)
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
We are, in our present stage, on an odyssey in search of our real
selves that began far, far back in time. The universal story tells
that long ago we outgrew the age of innocence (the Garden of Eden), a
childlike and pure spiritual state, and on being tempted by the
serpent (Lucifer-lightbringer) we ate of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil (Adam and Eve representing humanity), and
mind was awakened, giving us the power self-consciously to direct our
destiny as individually responsible beings.
Why I Believe in Reincarnation
By Ingrid Van Mater
``````````````````````````````````
The serpent is the teacher of man, as are the Christos, Prometheus,
Lucifer, and the Savior under various other names. But he is also the
tempter -- or rather, the one who tries and tests man. For how is man
to exercise the divine prerogative of free will unless he is given a
free choice? Therefore the teacher is rightly called a tempter, but
not in a malign sense.
So the serpent or Devil may very well stand for the lower nature of
man, which (as we know) is a dire and dismal reality, a specter we
have ourselves raised and must lay; and man's savior, the divine
wisdom the serpent may just as well stand for man's savior, the divine
wisdom from above. Only let us not personify them into a Jehovah and a
Satan; and let us remember that our body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost, even though we may have desecrated the shrine.
The Universal Mystery-Language and Its Interpretation by H. T. Edge.
Chapter 4: THE SERPENT
``````````````````````````````````
Far from being a serpent of evil, the Fallen Angel or Lucifer was
truly a "Light-bringer" -- a Prometheus whose daring brought the
flaming ember from the gods in order that self-conscious contact with
our sleeping god-spark might bring to man awareness of his innate
godhood. This is the real meaning of the story of Genesis. It is all
there.
Expanding Horizons by James A. Long
Three Pillars of Ancient Tradition
``````````````````````````````````
Nothing is inflicted upon man by God or Satan. Satan -- the word means
"adversary" -- is called a shadow of the light of God. In the role of
Lucifer he is the "lightbringer"; the self-generated illusions of
material existence are the darkness which must be overcome before the
human soul can become part of the light of God.
Job -- Story of Initiation
By Raymond Rugland
``````````````````````````````````
Another version of the event is also given, when the serpent of Eden
urges Eve to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and
evil. He too is the awakener: Lucifer, the bright and most beautiful
angel, the light-bringer who defies the elohim (gods).
The Masks of Odin by Elsa-Brita Titchenell
``````````````````````````````````
The event has been symbolized in the myth of Prometheus. He brought
the spiritual fire to mortals and was chained to the rock of matter,
our human bodies, where he will remain through the ages until man
himself rises to his level and liberates him. The story of Adam and
Eve in the Garden has the same basis, in which, to the popular
fancy, Lucifer the Light-bringer masquerades as Satan, an evil force.
Rounds and Races:
Our Divine Parentage and Destiny by Gertrude W. van Pelt.
Chapter 5 The Third Root-Race
``````````````````````````````````
The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible
he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early
morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic
craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the
depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the
Morning," or man- vantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into
Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had
to be sacrificed to the new dogma. (See Book II.) "Bright Space, son
of dark Space," corresponds to the Ray dropped at the first thrill of
the new "Dawn" into the great Cosmic depths, from which it re-emerges
differentiated as Oeaohoo the younger, (the "new LIFE"), to become, to
the end of the life-cycle, the germ of all things. He is "the
Incorporeal man who contains in himself the divine Idea," -- the
generator of Light and Life, to use an expression of Philo Judaeus. He
is called the "Blazing Dragon of Wisdom,"
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 1
``````````````````````````````````
Hence Loki is identical with Lucifer (light-bringer). This title,
given to the Prince of Darkness, is very suggestive and is a
vindication in itself against theological slander. But Loki is still
more closely related to Prometheus, as he is shown chained to a sharp
rock, while Lucifer, identified with Satan, was chained down in hell;
a circumstance, however, which prevented neither of them from acting
in all freedom on Earth, if we accept the theological paradox in its
fulness.
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
There is at present no need to touch upon the mystic and manifold
meaning of the name Jehovah in its abstract sense, one independent of
the Deity falsely called by that name. It was a blind created
purposely by the Rabbins, a secret preserved by them with ten-fold
care after the Christians had despoiled them of this God-name which
was their own property.*
The "Serpent," moreover, is not Satan, but the bright Angel, one of
the Elohim clothed in radiance and glory, who, promising the woman
that if they ate of the forbidden fruit "ye shall not surely die,"kept
his promise, and made man immortal in his incorruptible nature. He is
the Iao of the mysteries, the chief of the Androgyne creators of
men.
Chapter iii. contains (esoterically) the withdrawal of the veil of
ignorance that closed the perceptions of the Angelic Man,
made in the image of the "Boneless" gods, and the opening of his
consciousness to his real nature; thus showing the bright
Angel (Lucifer) in the light of a giver of Immortality, and as the
"Enlightener"; while the real Fall into generation and matter is to be
sought in chapter iv.
There, Jehovah-Cain, the male part of Adam the dual man, having
separated himself from Eve, creates in her "Abel," the first natural
woman,* and sheds the Virgin blood.
Now Cain, being shown identical with Jehovah, on the authority of the
correct reading of verse i. (chapter iv., Genesis), in the original
Hebrew text; and the Rabbins teaching that "Kin (Cain), the Evil, was
the Son of Eve by Samael, the devil who took Adam's place"; and the
Talmud adding that "the evil Spirit, Satan, and Samael, the angel of
Death, are the same" --(Babba Battra, 16a) -- it becomes easy to see
that Jehovah (mankind, or "Jah-hovah") and Satan (therefore the
tempting Serpent) are one and the same in every particular. There is
no Devil, no Evil, outside mankind to produce a Devil. Evil is a
necessity in, and one of the supporters of the manifested universe. It
is a necessity for progress and evolution, as night is necessary for
the production of Day, and Death for that of Life -- that man may live
for ever.
Satan represents metaphysically simply the reverse or the polar
opposite of everything in nature.* He is the "adversary,"
allegorically, the "murderer," and the great Enemy of all, because
there is nothing in the whole universe that has not two sides -- the
reverses of the same medal. But in that case, light, goodness, beauty,
etc., may be called Satan with as much propriety as the Devil, since
they are the adversaries of darkness, badness, and ugliness. And now
the philosophy and the rationale of certain early Christian sects --
called heretical and viewed as the abomination of the times -- will
become more comprehensible.
Vol. 2, THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
``````````````````````````````````
Demon est Deus inversus: that is to say, through every point of
Infinite Space thrill the magnetic and electrical currents of
animate Nature, the life-giving and death-giving waves, for death on
earth becomes life on another plane. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial
light, the "Holy Ghost" and "Satan," at one and the same time, visible
Space being truly filled with the differentiated Breath invisibly; and
the Astral Light, the manifested effects of the two who are one,
guided and attracted by ourselves, is the Karma of humanity, both a
personal and impersonal entity: personal, because it is the mystic
name given by St. Martin to the Host of divine Creators, guides and
rulers of this planet; impersonal, as the Cause and effect of
universal Life and Death.
The Fall was the result of man's knowledge, for his "eyes were
opened." Indeed, he was taught Wisdom and the hidden knowledge by the
"Fallen Angel," ...........
And now it stands proven that Satan, or the Red Fiery Dragon, the
"Lord of Phosphorus" (brimstone was a theological improvement), and
Lucifer, or "Light-Bearer," is in us: it is our Mind -- our tempter
and Redeemer, our intelligent liberator and Saviour from pure
animalism. Without this principle -- the emanation of the very
essence of the pure divine principle Mahat (Intelligence), which
radiates direct from the Divine mind -- we would
be surely no better than animals. ........
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
The latter has collapsed under the too close analysis, and is --
drowned. Symbologists have discovered with dismay that their
adopted deity was only a mask for many other gods, an Euhemerized
extinct planet, at best, the genius of the Moon and Saturn with the
Jews, of the Sun and Jupiter, with early Christians; that the Trinity
was, in truth, only an astronomical triad -- unless they accepted the
more abstract and metaphysical meanings given to it by the Gentiles --
composed of the Sun (the Father), and the two planets Mercury (the
Son) and Venus (the Holy Ghost, Sophia, the Spirit of Wisdom, Love and
Truth, and Lucifer, as Christ, the bright and morning Star; vide
"Revelation," ch. xxii., 15). Because, if the Father is the Sun (the
elder Brother in the Eastern inner philosophy), the nearest planet to
it is Mercury (Hermes, Budha, Thot), the name of whose mother
on Earth was Maia; the planet which receives seven times more light
than any other: which fact led the Gnostics to call their Christos,
and the Kabalists their Hermes (in the astronomical meaning), the
"seven-fold light" (vide at end of this §). Finally, this God was Bel;
the Sun being "Bel," with the Gauls, "Helios" with the Greeks, "Baal,"
with the Phoenicians; "El" in Chaldean, hence "EL-ohim," "Emanu-EL,"
El, "god," in Hebrew.
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2
``````````````````````````````````
When the "sons of mind" -- manasaputras, Lucifer, Prometheus, or
whatever name we give these lightbringers -- found the karmic moment
to quicken the fires of our mental, emotional, and heart nature, this
opened up a marvelous opportunity for the human race. At that period
certain primal truths were given to early mankind, and it is these
truths that every people has reexpressed after its own manner.
Theosophy's Role Today
By Grace F. Knoche and Kirby Van Mater
``````````````````````````````````
Both the Serpent of Eden and Prometheus are the same as Lucifer, the
Light-Bringer, who has likewise been turned by theology into a devil.
Theosophy and Christianity By H. T. Edge
``````````````````````````````````
21. Bailey
---------------------------------
22. A Satanists view
Satanists view
Now, some of you are different too! Some dark, some light, some go
flap, flap, flap in the night, but what the Hell, right? Satan holds
us all in great esteem as we are his children, one and all-- even
Puffy. It is Lord Satan's wish and command that we all live in
harmony, together, each one adding his or her own personal spice and
delight to the mix, thus improving the First Church of Satan, Church
Lucifer and The Temple of Set--like Puffy, here. "The grass is green,
the sky is blue, I'm quite different, and so are you! Different, yet
we get along, and together, we'll sing Satan's Song."
-Priest Leved Copyright 1998
===================================
23. Satanist view
Duke Samael of Necrotia, Pandemonium Realm: The Lightbringer, of
Belial's Court Most radiant of all Hell's dukes, Samael the
Lightbringer rules the dark land of the dead: Necrotia. ....
Known as Lucifer's twin ego birthed in the Fall, Samael exhibits all
the angelic qualities that Lucifer now lacks. ... It is said that,
during the actual Fall, when Lucifer was cast out of Evinn, he in his
rage and despair (or in the Enemy's spite) tore from himself
everything angelic, and cast it away. The sheer force of the Will that
threw the angelic cast away from him activated a shadow of Lucifer
within that angelic construct. This became Samael: a servant of
Lucifer and a constant reminder of the beauty Lucifer had lost with
Evinn.
Everything about Samael's appearence are those things Lucifer lost, or
deemed unecessary, during the Fall. Samael's spirit is Lucifer's
darker, weaker shadow, cleaved from the whole during Lucifer's
ultimate rage and despair.
Samael perhaps compensates for his dependence on Lucifer's act and his
status as a shadow of the Prince of All Hell by decreeing that within
his own Duchy, no other light shall shine....only the light of Samael
himself.
=============================
24. Satanist views:
Different denominations of Satanism, as well as different people
within those denominations, use the title "Satanist" for different
reasons! Some denominations view "Satan" as a convenient name for an
ancient deity who they have decided to worship for whatever reason.
Some denominations view "Satan" as the Christian devil/fallen angel
who rebelled and now resides in Hell. (For your information, the
denominations which actually worship a being called Satan are
generally referred to as the Traditionalists.) Some groups (noteably
the LaVeyans) believe that "Satan" is a convenient name for a 'dark
force' in nature....a type of impersonal, powerful energy to be
respected and tapped, but not an anthropomorphic god to be worshipped
and obeyed. Still others are completely atheistic; they believe in
no god, good or evil, nor any spiritual realm. A few use the name
because they emphasize with the character of Lucifer, the noble hero,
the bringer of knowledge. The list goes on, and on, and on.... The one
thing all of these views have in common is that the character of Satan
(no matter how you define this entity/force/fictional character)
appeals to them. Perhaps it's the emphasis on "darkness." Perhaps the
emphasis on knowledge, or on carnality, or on materialism, or on
self-empowerment. Whatever Satan means to them, they like it.
All branches of Paganism that I'm aware of are theistic in nature;
that is, they believe in a type of spiritual "higher being," be it a
monolithic, universal godform, or a patheon of distinct entities with
names and faces. Branches of Satanism, on the other hand, may or may
not acknowledge a godform. The most obvious split is betwen the
Modernist denominations and the Traditionals. Paganism may also draw
from any of the pre-existing theistic traditions for their deities:
there are Celtic pagans, Greco-Roman pagans, the Asatru, the Kemetic
(Egyptian) pagans..... etc etc etc. Each may have a completely
different set of gods and values, but still be considered pagan. A
Satanist, however (in my view), must put primary emphasis on the
figure of Satan, however they may define it. For some, it's a god, for
some an angel, for some a psychological archetype á la Jung, for some
a primordial force of the universe. But whatever the definition, it is
named as Satan/Lucifer, and is the "primary force" of their morality
and/or religion.
===============================
ck...@mars.superlink.net
Thanks for all the work you have done on this research.
Casey
In article <kn8dgskmlfe471s5u...@4ax.com>,
watching kooks <ques...@si.com> wrote:
> ============================
> Part One
>
> Here are a few brief parts I promised casey discussing the
> Lucifer/Satan connection from various people and religions. I have
> tried to keep it as concise as possible because the some of the files
> are huge.