Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00058)

Nicholas Weeks:

> That Bailey's channellings produced some new teachings when
> compared *in detail* to CWL's is not denied.

I believe this is exactly what was denied by Rich.  (My email re
A.Bailey was a response to Rich's, not to yours.) Here are some
excerpts from his email of Dec 22 (emphasis is his, not mine):

[Quoting Richard Taylor:]

> I've read Alice Bailey, I know perfectly well she wrote about
> "seven rays." In what specific WAYS did she write about seven
> rays that Leadbeater didn't already (and incorrectly) cover?
>
> Esoteric astrology? Esoteric psychology? Blavatsky has scads to
> say on these topics.  So does Leadbeater.  The two of them
> disagree in almost everything from life on other planets to the
> entire scheme of evolution.  To the best of my (admittedly
> limited) knowledge, Bailey says nothing that was not said by
> Leadbeater on any of these topics.  If anyone has DETAILS or
> SPECIFICS, by all means let's discuss.

[Now back to Nicholas Weeks:]

> But "new" does not equal true,

Many (or even most) of HPB's statements are notoriously difficult
if not impossible to show to be true.  Do you need any examples?
How about the Book of Dzyan? or her history of human races?

So what's your point? Do you hint you know how to tell the
true from the false in Theosophical writings?

> especially when the principles & superstructure of her
> embellished system are identical with Chuck Leadbeater's.

Your "especially" is confusing to me.  One possible
interpretation is that A.Bailey's teachings are not true as they
are (supposedly) identical (as regards to the principles etc.) to
CWL's -- is that what you meant?

> Not having much confidence that devotees of AAB will wish to
> compare closely the main principles, themes or keynotes of real
> Theosophy with it shadow --

Please do come up with any comparative evaluations of real
Theosophy and its shadow.

> I will not write a great deal.  However, if one does want to see
> the contrast and polarity between the two, the following four
> methods will help.
>
> 1) Compare statements of purpose, goals & objectives.
> 2) Determine & compare apparent shared key themes; such as the
> nature and relationship to humanity, of the Occult Brotherhood.
> 3) Compare technical & doctrinal aspects.
> 4) Contrast the differing meanings of shared terminology.
>
> Based on the example from number two, the nature of the
> Brotherhood, here are a few remarks.
>
> Somewhere (I don't have AAB's books anymore) the "Tibetan" lists
> 5 or 6 functions he is pleased to have assisted the "Hierarchy"
> in fulfilling.  Number one on his list was his effort to prepare
> humanity for the reappearance of the Christ.  An extension of
> this notion (also of key importance to Besant, CWL et al) was the
> externalization of the Hierarchy.  Part of this appearance
> involves several of the Masters would descending from their
> hidden ashrams and taking up lodgings in various cities around
> the globe.  An entire book, plus scads of writings in her other
> books expands on this theme.  The Masters will approach much
> closer and be deeply involved, behind the scenes, in world
> events.  In short, she elaborates how the "Inner Government" of
> the world works.

This description is correct in the first approximation.  Much
depends, however, on what you mean by the Hierarchy working
behind the scenes.

> This idea of the Adepts as planetary civil servants also comes
> from Chuck.

Or maybe comes from the Adepts themselves via both CWL and AAB.
Not a bizarre idea as both were (are?) disciples of K.H.

> On the other hand, HPB & her Gurus present the Brotherhood as
> quite aloof from the affairs of men.

This statement wants clarification.  First of all you of course
mean the current state of affairs, as HPB wrote at length about
Dhyanis incarnating in the early humanity, etc.  Next, you may
wish to supply some references.  Third, please clarify what you
mean by "the affairs of men," keeping in mind that you earlier
correctly wrote about the INNER government of the world; this
qualifier may hold a key to the apparent confusion.

> Which is not surprising since many are liberated from samsara
> (worldly existence) and would have no interest in keeping the
> wheels of our suffering laden world running smoothly.  As
> Bodhisattvas They do help, but mainly by guiding and teaching
> those who *approach them* (and most often inwardly at that) and
> are qualified.

I assume the above is your own speculations, right? If so, I do
not need to comment upon it.

> In addition, the entire view that the Theosophical Movement
> revolves around humanity invoking an Avatar and his adept
> disciples is foreign and opposed to Theosophy as taught by HPB,
>              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Morya, Koot Hoomi and their Chohans.

Please supply some evidence.

> Yet the "Tibetan" (the supposed same individual who was a
> disciple of KH) writes much dealing with using the "Great
> Invocation" to supplicate and vacuum forth from their high plane,
> our saviors, the Christ and his Masters.  HPB wrote that to draw
> near & communicate with the Masters "CAN ONLY BE DONE BY RISING
> TO THE SPIRITUAL PLANE WHERE THE MASTERS ARE, AND NOT BY
> ATTEMPTING TO DRAW THEM DOWN TO OURS." (BCW 12, 492; those are
> HPB's capitals.)

In ordinary circumstances, yes.  AAB says the same somewhere (the
exact reference available upon request).

But the above quote surely does not apply to avatars as they do
come down to us even if we do not draw them down.  (Please refer
to the 3rd vol.  of "The Secret Doctrine" or the first part
thereof in the CW, re: the Buddha, and other historically known
adepts.)

The Great Invocation and the related techniques of evocation and
invocation have something to do with an avatar.  Avatar comes to
the entire humanity (or a significant part thereof) rather than
to an individual person.  As far as I know, neither HPB nor the
Masters wrote it's wrong to draw AVATARS down to us.  Probably in
the 19th century the timing just was not good for something like
the Great Invocation.  If you know any quotes from the primary
sources to the contrary, please supply.

Sometime in the 1870s Olcott received this note from one of the
Brothers:

> "Act as though we had no existence. Do your duty as you see it
> and leave the results to take care of themselves. Expect nothing
> from us, yet be ready for anything."

In LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS, #43 of Series 1, Morya writes:

> "A constant sense of abject dependence upon a Deity which he
> regards as the sole source of power makes a man lose all self-
> reliance and the spurs to activity and initiative. Having begun
> by creating a father and guide unto himself, he becomes like a
> boy and remains so to his old age, expecting to be led by the
> hand on the smallest as well as the greatest events of life...
> The Founders prayed to no Deity in beginning the Theosophical
> Society, nor asked his help since... Did we help the Founders?
> No; they were helped by the inspiration of self-reliance, and
> sustained by their reverence for the rights of man, and their
> love for a country [India]... Your sins? The greatest of them is
> your fathering upon your God the task of purging you of them.
> This is no creditable piety, but an indolent and selfish
> weakness. Though vanity would whisper to the contrary, heed
> only your common sense."

Please see above. Maybe I'd better give a relevant quote from AAB
(Esoteric Psychology, v.2, p.484-5):

> "...schools of esotericists, theosophists and rosicrusians
> (particularly in their inner schools) have also their own forms
> of this illusion of guidance.  ...  Frequently the heads of the
> organisation claim to be in direct contact with a Master or the
> entire Hierarchy of Masters, from Whom orders come.  These orders
> are passed on to the rank and file of the membership of the
> organisation and prompt unquestioning obedience is expected from
> them.  Under the system of training, imparted under the name of
> esoteric development, the goal of a similar relationship to the
> Master or the Hierarchy is held out as an inducement to work or
> to meditation practice, and some day the aspirant is led to
> believe that he will hear his Master's voice, giving him
> guidance, telling him what to do and outlining to him his
> participation in various roles.  ...I cannot too strongly
> re-iterate the following facts:
>
> 1.  That the goal of all teaching given in the real esoteric
> schools is to put man consciously in touch with his own soul and
> not with the Master.
>
> 2.  That the Master and the Hierarchy of Masters work only on the
> plane of the soul, as souls with souls," etc.

It seems to be identical to what you said.  The only unresolved
problem seems to be why avatars come down at all although we are
not supposed to rely on Masters; I leave it to you to reconcile
these seemingly contradictory ideas.

Please keep in mind that the avatar business did not become yet a
thing of the past, and that we still have some avatar(s) to come
down to us (see "The Secret Doctrine," v.1, p.376-8 [HPBlavatsky
Collected Writings edition] re: Kalki avatar).

> Although the "sinners" mentioned by M.  were some Hindus of a
> century ago, I think CWL, AAB and their followers share the same
> vice of fathering upon their Hierarchy and/or Logos, the pious
> wish that Sanat Kumara, Maitreya Christ and the Masters will
> purge humanity of all sin.

Your belief is wrong.

> This is just one small example of one theme (barely touched on)
> that must be studied closely by those who wish to understand just
> how inimical Theosophy and pseudo-theosophy are.

Your example is half-baked, as I tried to show.

Best,

MO