2 Rules of Life Activity

DriftingByTheStorm

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

Prince Of Dorkness

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

Yeah, i'll agree.

I think what has alienated a few of us on the left is how he hasn't really been a cultural warrior smiting the Conservatards.

But in the end, I think the country is better for it.

zarocat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

This statement, though it has a positive message, is a huge contradiction. One would be better off reading the TAO. Same message without the contradictions & limitations.

A lesson worth learning?
If love is what you mean by stating the word God, then I agree. But once the 'temple' of the Lord is noted then this becomes a contradiction in itself because ideology is the root cause in most cases of defensiveness. You can't have restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment for it to be spiritual enlightenment. Stating 'temple' restricts and tells people to obey some 'thing' overhead of them.
God & Lord only share meaning because of ideology. They are not the same two things. God is love & the Lord is a man. Love exists with or without man. The Lord needs man just like the temple does, to exist.

'Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God'
Incorrect. Human beings are all brothers. Classing them no longer makes them brothers.

Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?
In his personal life, I don't know because I don't know the man.

During his work day as a representative for 'wall street', yes. Just like every other president before him, this message tells the people of the state to obey under God made for them.



Now let's try this again

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity. He must be set to building for the future towards laughter & love for himself and the ones around him. He must be warned not to waste time by walking & staying inside that which is undesirable, but must instead learn from his mistakes. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear from the now but will forever be present as a reminder of what can happen.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will therefore use the words anti this or pro that, to show evidence to such a truth. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings are brothers and love shall see us all with smiles and enjoying the continued development of our consciousness through love & selfishness.

DriftingByTheStorm

zarocat wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

This statement, though it has a positive message, is a huge contradiction. One would be better off reading the TAO. Same message without the contradictions & limitations.

A lesson worth learning?
If love is what you mean by stating the word God, then I agree. But once the 'temple' of the Lord is noted then this becomes a contradiction in itself because ideology is the root cause in most cases of defensiveness. You can't have restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment for it to be spiritual enlightenment. Stating 'temple' restricts and tells people to obey some 'thing' overhead of them.
God & Lord only share meaning because of ideology. They are not the same two things. God is love & the Lord is a man. Love exists with or without man. The Lord needs man just like the temple does, to exist.

'Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God'
Incorrect. Human beings are all brothers. Classing them no longer makes them brothers.

Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?
In his personal life, I don't know because I don't know the man.

During his work day as a representative for 'wall street', yes. Just like every other president before him, this message tells the people of the state to obey under God made for them.



Now let's try this again

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity. He must be set to building for the future towards laughter & love for himself and the ones around him. He must be warned not to waste time by walking & staying inside that which is undesirable, but must instead learn from his mistakes. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear from the now but will forever be present as a reminder of what can happen.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will therefore use the words anti this or pro that, to show evidence to such a truth. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings are brothers and love shall see us all with smiles and enjoying the continued development of our consciousness through love & selfishness.

I take your point, and I'm sure so does Alice Bailey (who "wrote" the passage). However you are using a post-modern occidental analysis of an early 20th century esoteric text. I can ASSURE you that Bailey uses "lord" to mean "the one god", "the god force", "the one spiritual source of all", etc ... and NOT "the lord jesus" ... if she wishes to refer to the spiritual being of jesus (whom it is not worth discussing here, her notion of him is so esoteric), she would use the term, "the christ". I'm sure we can both agree that the One Spiritual Source of All does NOT need man to exist.

"The New Temple of the Lord" is her reference to "The New Kingdom of God", often called by her by that name as well, and appears as best i can surmise to her to mean some form of new spiritual dominion on earth, which she would otherwise term "The New Age".

I promise you the farthest thing from her mind is any "restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment", as she directly states something to the effect of "there are many roads\paths back to the light, but all lead eventually to the same place". Her overly "divisive" statement reflecting creeds & races was simply meant to point out to the early 20th century man that he is one with his non-same-appearing-worshiping brother ... a notion that was entirely rare in that period of time.


On a side note, if you want to see what Bailey has to say about Jesus, which will probably just make you roll your eyes heavy:

Initiation: Human & Solar wrote:

The Master Jesus, Who is the focal point of the energy that flows through the various Christian churches, is at present living in a Syrian body, and dwells in a certain part of the Holy Land. He travels much and passes considerable time in various parts of Europe. He works specially with masses more than with individuals, though He has gathered around Him quite a numerous body of pupils. He is upon the sixth Ray of Devotion, or Abstract Idealism, and His pupils are frequently distinguished by that fanaticism and devotion which manifested in earlier Christian times amongst the martyrs. He Himself is rather a martial figure, a disciplinarian, and a man of iron rule and will. He is tall and spare with rather a long thin face, black hair, pale complexion and piercing blue eyes. His work at this time is exceedingly responsible, for to Him is given the problem of steering the thought of the occident out of its present state of unrest into the peaceful waters of certitude and knowledge, and of preparing the way in Europe and America for the eventual coming of the World Teacher. He is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation, as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story He is known for two great sacrifices, that in which He handed over His body for the use of the Christ, and for the great renunciation which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation. As Appollonius of Tyana, He took the fifth initiation and became a Master of the Wisdom. From that time on He has stayed and worked with the Christian Church, fostering the germ of true spiritual life which is to be found amongst members of all sects and divisions, and neutralizing as far as possible the mistakes and errors of the churchmen and the theologians. He is distinctively the Great Leader, the General, and the wise Executive, and in Church matters He co-operates closely with the Christ, thus saving Him much and acting as His intermediary wherever possible. No one so wisely knows as He the problems of the West, no one is so closely in touch with the people who stand for all that is best in Christian teachings, and no one is so well aware of the need of the present moment. Certain great prelates of the Anglican and Catholic Churches are wise agents of His.

Try to just take it all in and not judge it for the time being.

PS -- Remember that Obama claims to be attempting to REFORM wallstreet.
My mind is not entirely made up about ANY of this, but I'm cutting him some slack for now, because the more Bailey I read, the more I notice that Obama seems, more than any other president in recent memory, to reflect the values she expresses in her writings. He is non-critical, attempts non-partisan approaches, he is never negative, and only attempts to build not destroy. You can see in is method of speech how deliberate this attempt at a "positive only" message is, even when being bombarded with criticism himself. Like you said, he seldom if ever directs blatant condescension towards "the right". It remains to be seen just how far President Obama will, in fact, lead us in to "the new age", but from the tone of several of his speeches it seems clear (to me) that this is his intention.

zarocat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I take your point, and I'm sure so does Alice Bailey (who "wrote" the passage). However you are using a post-modern occidental analysis of an early 20th century esoteric text. I can ASSURE you that Bailey uses "lord" to mean "the one god", "the god force", "the one spiritual source of all", etc ... and NOT "the lord jesus" ... if she wishes to refer to the spiritual being of jesus (whom it is not worth discussing here, her notion of him is so esoteric), she would use the term, "the christ". I'm sure we can both agree that the One Spiritual Source of All does NOT need man to exist.

"The New Temple of the Lord" is her reference to "The New Kingdom of God", often called by her by that name as well, and appears as best i can surmise to her to mean some form of new spiritual dominion on earth, which she would otherwise term "The New Age".

I promise you the farthest thing from her mind is any "restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment", as she directly states something to the effect of "there are many roads\paths back to the light, but all lead eventually to the same place". Her overly "divisive" statement reflecting creeds & races was simply meant to point out to the early 20th century man that he is one with his non-same-appearing-worshiping brother ... a notion that was entirely rare in that period of time.


On a side note, if you want to see what Bailey has to say about Jesus, which will probably just make you roll your eyes heavy:

Initiation: Human & Solar wrote:

The Master Jesus, Who is the focal point of the energy that flows through the various Christian churches, is at present living in a Syrian body, and dwells in a certain part of the Holy Land. He travels much and passes considerable time in various parts of Europe. He works specially with masses more than with individuals, though He has gathered around Him quite a numerous body of pupils. He is upon the sixth Ray of Devotion, or Abstract Idealism, and His pupils are frequently distinguished by that fanaticism and devotion which manifested in earlier Christian times amongst the martyrs. He Himself is rather a martial figure, a disciplinarian, and a man of iron rule and will. He is tall and spare with rather a long thin face, black hair, pale complexion and piercing blue eyes. His work at this time is exceedingly responsible, for to Him is given the problem of steering the thought of the occident out of its present state of unrest into the peaceful waters of certitude and knowledge, and of preparing the way in Europe and America for the eventual coming of the World Teacher. He is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation, as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story He is known for two great sacrifices, that in which He handed over His body for the use of the Christ, and for the great renunciation which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation. As Appollonius of Tyana, He took the fifth initiation and became a Master of the Wisdom. From that time on He has stayed and worked with the Christian Church, fostering the germ of true spiritual life which is to be found amongst members of all sects and divisions, and neutralizing as far as possible the mistakes and errors of the churchmen and the theologians. He is distinctively the Great Leader, the General, and the wise Executive, and in Church matters He co-operates closely with the Christ, thus saving Him much and acting as His intermediary wherever possible. No one so wisely knows as He the problems of the West, no one is so closely in touch with the people who stand for all that is best in Christian teachings, and no one is so well aware of the need of the present moment. Certain great prelates of the Anglican and Catholic Churches are wise agents of His.

Try to just take it all in and not judge it for the time being.

PS -- Remember that Obama claims to be attempting to REFORM wallstreet.
My mind is not entirely made up about ANY of this, but I'm cutting him some slack for now, because the more Bailey I read, the more I notice that Obama seems, more than any other president in recent memory, to reflect the values she expresses in her writings. He is non-critical, attempts non-partisan approaches, he is never negative, and only attempts to build not destroy. You can see in is method of speech how deliberate this attempt at a "positive only" message is, even when being bombarded with criticism himself. Like you said, he seldom if ever directs blatant condescension towards "the right". It remains to be seen just how far President Obama will, in fact, lead us in to "the new age", but from the tone of several of his speeches it seems clear (to me) that this is his intention.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

"However you are using a post-modern occidental analysis of an early 20th century esoteric text."

True & should mention such an era of an esoteric text while placing such a quote. Do you not agree ?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

"I promise you the farthest thing from her mind is any "restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment", as she directly states something to the effect of "there are many roads\paths back to the light, but all lead eventually to the same place". Her overly "divisive" statement reflecting creeds & races was simply meant to point out to the early 20th century man that he is one with his non-same-appearing-worshiping brother ... a notion that was entirely rare in that period of time."

I agree if 'light' means love.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The master Jesus

I'll get back to you on that one.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

PS -- Remember that Obama claims to be attempting to REFORM wallstreet.

All part of the facade.

he still stands

This Alice Bailey person seems to be quite sure of herself. She uses the word "is" where I think she means "it seems to me" or "my opinion based on nothing but bias and beliefs." I think she's full of shit and that New Age literature is no better than any other religion. It is an ideology that turns one's though process into machinery.

I'm very cynical about Obama... and portraying him in almost a "savior" type of light is absolutely ridiculous. I would say the same thing about Bush or literally anyone with aspirations of being President.

One thing I definitely agree with is "God is love."

zarocat

he still stands wrote:

I think she's full of shit and that New Age literature is no better than any other religion. It is an ideology that turns one's though process into machinery.

Love it!

DriftingByTheStorm

he still stands wrote:

This Alice Bailey person seems to be quite sure of herself. She uses the word "is" where I think she means "it seems to me" or "my opinion based on nothing but bias and beliefs." I think she's full of shit and that New Age literature is no better than any other religion. It is an ideology that turns one's though process into machinery.

I'm very cynical about Obama... and portraying him in almost a "savior" type of light is absolutely ridiculous. I would say the same thing about Bush or literally anyone with aspirations of being President.

One thing I definitely agree with is "God is love."

Hey boss,
I'm with you. My rational brain wants to tell me Alice Bailey is full of ass-crap too.
However there are a few things I have come across by her at this point that lead me to believe she knows more than you would think. First and foremost (just look at my signature for a shorthand account) she mentions more than just a few things about "they mysteries" and "the masons" that coincide with and give expanded meaning to notions i've previously uncovered regarding both said entities. Secondly, per "The Electric Bridge" section of the Lucis Trust website (Bailey's institution, "Arcane School" tab, then "Electric Bridge") the understanding of the universe conveyed by her institution is (no pun intended) "light years" ahead of our "modern" understanding of the universe. The notion of an "electric universe" or a "plasma cosmology" makes a LOT of sense, and the Theosophical esotericists (Alice Bailey & Helena Blavatsky specifically) were touting this shit as far back as 1890!

When Alice Bailey starts talking about this:

The Reappearance of the Christ wrote:

The Mysteries contain, within their formulas and teachings, the key to the science which will unlock the mystery of electricity—the greatest spiritual science and area of divine knowledge in the world, the fringes of which have only just been touched”.

from the "ancient" year of 1948 ... I have to stop and give pause.

You have to respect the gigantic nature of what is being claimed, for starters. Then you have to look for clues that there is something BEHIND those claims. Does she sound over the top bat-shit? Sure. But the fundamental aspects of what she is claiming about the makeup and functionality of the universe MATCH our MODERN (like Post 1975) understanding of how plasma behaves ... and again, this was being touted from decades prior to this scientific revelation ... and when you start to see wild claims aligning with the vanguard of modern physics you then have to wonder
a. how these people (the esotericists) came across this knowledge
and then
b. what does it mean that they have come across this knowledge in this way
and then
c. what are the implications of this revelation?


I understand your hesitance to lend credence to the "New Age", especially since so many modern "new age" writers are hokey in the extreme ... but Blavatsky and Bailey represent what I would term the "core" of this phenomenon, and what they have to say (although at times whacky, yes) is, on the whole, something to give more of your attention to than less. I used to think this was all simply politics dressed up in religion and superstitious "magic" horseshit ... but I'm starting to get the eerie feeling that the way Bailey describes the world MAY actually be more right than wrong. I've encountered too many strange coincidences at this point for them to be merely just that.

Again, for example ... go check out Edward Leedskalnin. This guy never claimed to be a "new age" proponent. He DID claim to "know the secrets of the masons" and he wrote a book to REexplain electromagnetism to those who would listen, and he built a relatively large castle (Coral Castle) by himself, moving massive rocks to do so. Sound like the Egyptians? Do we know that the occult schools claim lineage back to Egypt (and beyond, really, to "atlantis") ... Eye in the Pyramid ... how did they get built? Leedskalnin claims some weird magnetic force was used, and that the masons know it.

Here you have Bailey, entirely unrelated to him, claiming the exact same thing.
It just gets too bizarre to be coincidence, if you ask me.
What's really going on?
I don't know.
But i think it behooves those who are concerned with the nature of reality to at least examine her claims and judge them based on their merits and faults.

Just my humble opinion.
dbts

mickeyrat

zarocat wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

This statement, though it has a positive message, is a huge contradiction. One would be better off reading the TAO. Same message without the contradictions & limitations.

A lesson worth learning?
If love is what you mean by stating the word God, then I agree. But once the 'temple' of the Lord is noted then this becomes a contradiction in itself because ideology is the root cause in most cases of defensiveness. You can't have restriction/barrier to spiritual enlightenment for it to be spiritual enlightenment. Stating 'temple' restricts and tells people to obey some 'thing' overhead of them.
God & Lord only share meaning because of ideology. They are not the same two things. God is love & the Lord is a man. Love exists with or without man. The Lord needs man just like the temple does, to exist.

'Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God'
Incorrect. Human beings are all brothers. Classing them no longer makes them brothers.

Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?
In his personal life, I don't know because I don't know the man.

During his work day as a representative for 'wall street', yes. Just like every other president before him, this message tells the people of the state to obey under God made for them.



Now let's try this again

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity. He must be set to building for the future towards laughter & love for himself and the ones around him. He must be warned not to waste time by walking & staying inside that which is undesirable, but must instead learn from his mistakes. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear from the now but will forever be present as a reminder of what can happen.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will therefore use the words anti this or pro that, to show evidence to such a truth. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings are brothers and love shall see us all with smiles and enjoying the continued development of our consciousness through love & selfishness.

think this was a typo.

zarocat

You're absolutely right

*Selflessness*

Jeanwah

zarocat wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity. He must be set to building for the future towards laughter & love for himself and the ones around him. He must be warned not to waste time by walking & staying inside that which is undesirable, but must instead learn from his mistakes. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear from the now but will forever be present as a reminder of what can happen.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will therefore use the words anti this or pro that, to show evidence to such a truth. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings are brothers and love shall see us all with smiles and enjoying the continued development of our consciousness through love & selflessness.

I love your revised interpretation, Zarocat.

mikepegg44

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

if you think Obama is a good representation of this I would disagree with you. I believe condescension and half truths to be negative attacks. He certainly is trying to push forward his vision of America through reform and you have to respect that, but I don't think he is doing things differently than every president before him. And since I wouldn't call every president before him a good representation of this philosophy I cannot include him in on it. to me this is something that is reserved to describe people like Dr. King Jr...
Interesting discussion you all are having ... keep it up :thumbup:

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A Treatise On White Magic wrote:

Two rules of life activity must be taught the young aspirant:

He must be taught to focus on constructive activity, and to refrain from pulling down the old order of living. He must be set to building for the future, and to thinking along the new lines. He must be warned not to waste time in attacking that which is undesirable, but must instead bend all his energies to creating the new temple of the Lord through which the glory may be manifested. In this way public attention will gradually be focussed upon the new and beautiful, and the old established creations will fall into decay for lack of attention, and so disappear.

He must be taught also that partisanship is in no way a sign of spiritual development. He will not therefore use the words anti this or pro that. Such terms automatically breed hatred and attack, and effort to resist change. They put the user on the defensive. Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals, and orientals, are all the songs of God.

A lesson worth learning?
Do you think Obama represents a good illustration of this philosophy?

Begrudgingly, me thinks, "yes & yes".

Discuss.

if you think Obama is a good representation of this I would disagree with you. I believe condescension and half truths to be negative attacks. He certainly is trying to push forward his vision of America through reform and you have to respect that, but I don't think he is doing things differently than every president before him. And since I wouldn't call every president before him a good representation of this philosophy I cannot include him in on it. to me this is something that is reserved to describe people like Dr. King Jr...
Interesting discussion you all are having ... keep it up :thumbup:

Yeah, I just don't know, MikePegg.
I don't have a TV (that is hooked up, anyhow) so i don't follow a lot of the speeches these days, but from what I do remember regarding the gestalt of Obama's addresses, he seems to refrain from petty jabs and partisan mockery much more often than not. If anyone here recalls any "off" comments that he has made in specific, I'd like to take a look at them -- not because i disbelieve -- but simply to reframe my own opinion. I do feel (and again, i say this with some loathing, because don't enjoy thinking of myself as a supporter of an establishment man) that Obama is a reasonable expression of this philosophy, in that he seems (from what i recall) to frame his speeches in terms of positive reforms, shared visions of a better future, and that he mostly refrains from negative speech, criticism, and mockery.

Maybe i've just missed out no the mean spirited stuff, but even if i am not agreeing with him on policy, i can never seem to find fault in the way he is expressing himself. To me, it seems he is more than just a "cunning", "witty" or "good orator" ... its not just "charisma" ... there seems to be some conscious effort on his part to "bite his tongue" on the bad and to take special effort to clarify things in a positive light.
Take it for what it is worth.

You know, MLK Jr. gave one of the most well phrased descriptions of the "New Temple of The Lord" (baileys words, not his) in a speech a year before his death, at the 1967 SCLC Convention, entitled "Where Do We Go From Here?" (title taken from the last chapter in his last book on largely the same topic) ... the speech was about the evils of war and capitalism-without-a-love-for-man, essentially ... and specifically it was about what he termed the "guaranteed income", which he took to mean paying everyone to stay home. This is a concept you will find repeated in the Zeitgeist line of thought, and one Buckminster Fuller expresses in his writings as well. The notion that paying people to go to work is more environmentally destructive than paying them to stay home, and that there are better ways to structure society than Compulsion-To-Work-For-Pay models ... I'm not sure if i agree, but this is the thrust of his speech ... now ... THE PART I REALLY LIKE is as follow:

I am going to include large sections before and after the one specific section I found to be so inspiring, because I feel that it adds clarity to his statement, and because the whole thing is generally so well worded as to raise the hairs on your spine (imho) ... I'll put the specific section i get a hardon for in RED:

MLK Speech Part wrote:

I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes) There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes) And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right) It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" (All right) These are words that must be said. (All right)

Now, don't think you have me in a bind today. I'm not talking about communism. What I'm talking about is far beyond communism. (Yeah) My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx (Speak); my inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago (Well), and I saw that maybe Marx didn't follow Hegel enough. (All right) He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called "dialectical materialism." (Speak) I have to reject that.

What I'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. (Yes) Capitalism forgets that life is social. (Yes, Go ahead) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. (Speak) [applause] It is found in a higher synthesis (Come on) that combines the truths of both. (Yes) Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. (All right) These are the triple evils that are interrelated.

And if you will let me be a preacher just a little bit. (Speak) One day [applause], one night, a juror came to Jesus (Yes sir) and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. (Yeah) Jesus didn't get bogged down on the kind of isolated approach of what you shouldn't do. Jesus didn't say, "Now Nicodemus, you must stop lying." (Oh yeah) He didn't say, "Nicodemus, now you must not commit adultery." He didn't say, "Now Nicodemus, you must stop cheating if you are doing that." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must stop drinking liquor if you are doing that excessively." He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic (Yes): that if a man will lie, he will steal. (Yes) And if a man will steal, he will kill. (Yes) So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again." [applause]

In other words, "Your whole structure (Yes) must be changed." [applause] A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will "thingify" them and make them things. (Speak) And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. (Yes) And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. (Yes) [applause]

What I'm saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"

Good lord i find this speech hair-raising. I encourage you all to click the link and read the full speech. There several other sections that just get me tingly -- like, no wonder the man was shot down by The Corrupt System of Man.

MLK Center - Transcript of Guilty Verdict Found In Civil Court -- US Government Guilty of Conspiracy To Assassinate MLK

Coretta Scott King wrote:

There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief.

he still stands

When coming up with a model of reality, I like to come back to a few points that are based on quantum physics and a bit of agreed-upon philosophy by the great-thinkers of the world.

First, all perception is gamble. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, and most of the time we don't even know we're making an interpretation. "What I perceive is reality." Philosophers call this "naive realism," which has been refuted by philosophers for the last 2,500 years, starting with Buddha and Plato.

Second, this leads most people to the thought, "well, my perceptions are an inaccurate and incredibly incomplete version of reality, but somewhere there is accuracy, the scientists have it with their instruments and experiments." But, quantum mechanics and relativity have demonstrated clearly that what you find with instruments is true relative only to the instrument you're using and where that instrument is located in space/time. So, there is NO vantage point where real reality can be seen... we're all looking from the point of view of our own reality tunnels.

So, no model is a complete representation of the universe or the "meaning of life" (insofar as a model that is written or spoken by talking monkeys). It is impossible and the focus should merely be on guidelines and suggestions for living life; the universe loves you, be a positive person, give to others, don't be an angry dumb person, educate yourself, love love love! etc etc etc!

remember... "the map is not the territory."

zarocat

he still stands wrote:

When coming up with a model of reality, I like to come back to a few points that are based on quantum physics and a bit of agreed-upon philosophy by the great-thinkers of the world.

First, all perception is gamble. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, and most of the time we don't even know we're making an interpretation. "What I perceive is reality." Philosophers call this "naive realism," which has been refuted by philosophers for the last 2,500 years, starting with Buddha and Plato.

Second, this leads most people to the thought, "well, my perceptions are an inaccurate and incredibly incomplete version of reality, but somewhere there is accuracy, the scientists have it with their instruments and experiments." But, quantum mechanics and relativity have demonstrated clearly that what you find with instruments is true relative only to the instrument you're using and where that instrument is located in space/time. So, there is NO vantage point where real reality can be seen... we're all looking from the point of view of our own reality tunnels.

So, no model is a complete representation of the universe or the "meaning of life" (insofar as a model that is written or spoken by talking monkeys). It is impossible and the focus should merely be on guidelines and suggestions for living life; the universe loves you, be a positive person, give to others, don't be an angry dumb person, educate yourself, love love love! etc etc etc!

remember... "the map is not the territory."

+ fuckin' 1

zarocat

he still stands wrote:

So, no model is a complete representation of the universe or the "meaning of life"

I was thinking & actually put myself in a mental position to comprehend that the universe itself looks at itself through us. That is what we are. We are all just eye balls of the universe watching itself behave. That we are within an entity, an all, an orgasm (I spelt 'orgasm' instead of 'organism' and I'm keeping it), and again, we are itself experiencing itself. Now, let's say this simplicity is the case, then, in my opinion there is only one logical explanation thus far from what we know. It's a brain and just like you close your eyes and go there, there is not & will not be an edge, and the swirl just continues.
See, if we end up meeting a god, what the fuck is going to be the wall he stands his back to ? A universe by another god ? Where is his table and what he sits on ? Impossible for the majority to comprehend without a firm man made structure mirroring what we experience as tangible. As of right now, for this day, I am leaning towards the fact that God is necessary in shape of a man for the sake of sanity. Is he not why we have lines on the road ? Have our homes 5 feet away from each other ?

he still stands

So, if you've ever been balls deep in a entheogenic experience (like lsd) you know that time is usually a central theme of the experience. On my yearly or bi-yearly hyperspatial voyages, I've come to the conclusion that time is not linear, it is cyclical, and we are all experience our version of the universe endlessly. This requires infinite time, which means that everything that you've ever done or experienced in your life has already happened an infinite amount of times. Deja vu is remembering that you've been here before, literally.

Fate is undeniable and unescapable in this universe. We are all trapped in this life, this body, these moments in time... for eternity.

Turns out Nietzsche agreed and so did ancient Egyptians and Indians among others; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

The crazy thing about eternal return.... THIS is either heaven, or hell, depending on the fate that you've chosen. I think that there are infinite possibilities, too... so you are living one of an infinite amount of "fates" and among those possibilities you've lived each one an infinite amount of times! It could also simply mean that this single life reoccurs infinitely, an idea Nietsche called, "horrifying and paralyzing."

Maybe... maybe not

mickeyrat

he still stands wrote:

So, if you've ever been balls deep in a entheogenic experience (like lsd) you know that time is usually a central theme of the experience. On my yearly or bi-yearly hyperspatial voyages, I've come to the conclusion that time is not linear, it is cyclical, and we are all experience our version of the universe endlessly. This requires infinite time, which means that everything that you've ever done or experienced in your life has already happened an infinite amount of times. Deja vu is remembering that you've been here before, literally.

Fate is undeniable and unescapable in this universe. We are all trapped in this life, this body, these moments in time... for eternity.

Turns out Nietzsche agreed and so did ancient Egyptians and Indians among others; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

The crazy thing about eternal return.... THIS is either heaven, or hell, depending on the fate that you've chosen. I think that there are infinite possibilities, too... so you are living one of an infinite amount of "fates" and among those possibilities you've lived each one an infinite amount of times! It could also simply mean that this single life reoccurs infinitely, an idea Nietsche called, "horrifying and paralyzing."

Maybe... maybe not

So, to follow this train of thought, you're saying I'll get to experience hearing PJ for the first time again?


I'm down for that.

DriftingByTheStorm

zarocat wrote:

I agree if 'light' means love.

"Your spiritual goal is the establishing of the Kingdom of God. One of the first steps towards this is to prepare men's minds to accept the fact that the reappearance of the Christ is imminent. You must tell men everywhere that the Masters and Their groups of disciples are actively working to bring order out of chaos. You must tell them that there IS a Plan, and that nothing can possibly arrest the working out of that Plan. You must tell them that the Hierarchy stands, and that It has stood for thousands of years, and is the expression of the accumulated wisdom of the ages. You must tell them above all else that God is love, that the Hierarchy is love, and that the Christ is coming because He loves humanity.

This is the message which you must give at this time. And with this responsibility I leave you. Work, my brothers."

a.a.b, The Externalization of the Hierarchy, pg. 701