[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re:Bailey, Wheat and chaff

Dec 24, 1996 02:26 PM
by Maxim Osinovsky

Richard Taylor:

> That being said, I will submit that Bailey agrees with nearly all
> the principles Leadbeater taught, and a great many details, her
> distinction being that while she rarely contradicts Leadbeater,
> she goes somewhat beyond him.  However, if Leadbeater's system
> can be shown to be FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with HPB's
> teachings and that of the Mahatma Letters, students must admit
> that both systems cannot be right, and will be forced to choose
> one or the other (or of course neither or a bit of both, "a la
> carte").  But I submit that Leadbeater and HPB teach quite
> irreconcilable ideas, and insofar as Bailey follows CWL's
> thinking (and she does 95% of the time) her system diverges from
> HPB's also.  A few quotes:
> Leadbeater writes (The Inner Life vol.  1, p.  114), soon to be
> echoed by Bailey :
> > The great purpose of this drawing together is to prepare the
> > way for the coming of the new Messiah, or, as we should say in
> > Theosophical circles, the next advent of the Lord Maitreya, as
> > a great spiritual teacher, bringing a new religion.  The time
> > is rapidly approaching when this shall be launched -- a
> > teaching which shall unify the other religions ...
> Bailey also agrees that the next great Savior is coming soon, and
> the more we chant the Great Invocation, the sooner it will be.
> Would that this were so.  HPB has remarkably other ideas on the
> subject of Maitreya, a.k.a.  the Kalki Avatar.  HPB writes (S.D.
> vol.  1, p.  470):
> > He will appear as Maitreya Buddha, the last of the Avatars and
> > Buddhas, in the seventh Race.  Only it is not in the Kali Yug,
> > our present terrifically materialistic age of Darkness, the
> > "Black Age," that a new Savior of Humanity can ever appear.
> As students of HPB know, a great period of time separates each
> Root Race -- thus the seventh is a long way off.  As for the Kali
> Yuga, it lasts (roughly) 432,000 years, and HPB states repeatedly
> that the first five thousand years expired between Nov.  1897 and
> Feb.  1898.  Since she writes here that the next Avatar cannot
> come during the Kali Yuga, his appearance is AT LEAST 427,000
> years off.  So much for the imminent return of the Avatar ...

Very good.  This is something more tangible than your previous
general statements.

IMO, you are confusing two appearances:

1) the coming of Christ-Maitreya at the end of this century while
still a Bodhisattva or more exactly a World Teacher (Alice A.
Bailey (AAB) did not fail to repeatedly emphasize that "coming"
here means "coming closer to humanity" as the Christ has never
left us), and

2) his emergence as a Buddha, the Maitreya Buddha (this is
probably what HPB was talking about).

If you accept this interpretation then the contradiction

> On the subject of man's inner principles, HPB and Mr.  Judge
> agree in their many printed books on the seven principles of the
> human constitution.  In the S.D.  vol.  1 p.  153 HPB lists them,
> as she does in the Key to Theosophy (pp.  91-92) and as Mr.
> Judge does in the Ocean of Theosophy (p.  31):
> 1. Atma
> 2. Buddhi
> 3. Manas
> 4. Kama
> 5. Prana
> 6. Linga Sharira (Astral Body)
> 7. Sthula Sharira (Physical body)
> Annie Besant lists them differently in different books and never
> explains why.  In "A Study in Consciousness," p.  64 we have:
> 1. Adi
> 2. Anupadaka
> 3. Atma
> 4. Buddhi
> 5. Manas
> 6. Kama
> 7. Sthula
> Leadbeater agrees, but he and Besant want to leave off the old
> Sanskrit words (A Textbook of Theosophy, 3rd ed.  p.  41):
> New Names Old Names
> 1. Divine World 1. Adi Plane
> 2. Monadic World 2. Anupadaka plane
> 3. Spiritual World 3. Atmic or Nirvanic
> 4. Intuitional World 4. Buddhic plane
> 5. Mental World (?) 5. Mental Plane (?)
> 6. Emotional or Astral 6. Astral Plane
> 7. Physical 7. Physical
> (Note in particular that Besant/Leadbeater/Bailey have *changed*
> the definition of astral from "subtle material" to "emotional."
> This is significant, because then they were forced to introduce
> something called the "etheric" levels of matter to fill the void.
> This "etheric" model, upon which Bailey leans heavily, has been
> demolished in a recent paper called "The Etheric Double: The
> History of a False Assumption" by Geoffrey Farthing in Great
> Britain)
> This new scheme of principles with Atma as 3rd is quite
> ridiculous because Atma is DEFINED (in all traditional Hindu
> thought as well as Theosophical) as a ray of the ABSOLUTE.
> Nothing can be higher -- if something were, THAT would be called
> Atma.
> Besant goes further in her materialization of Atma ("A Study in
> Consciousness," p.  177):
> > These vehicles, being composed of matter modified by the action
> > of the Planetary Logos of the Chain to which they belong,
> > cannot respond to the vibrations of matter differently
> > modified; and the student must be able to use his atmic body
> > [!?!?!] before he can contact the Universal Memory beyond the
> > limits of his own Chain.
> Whatever an "atmic body" may be (who/what would inhabit such a
> body??), Bailey follows Besant and Leadbeater here, and teaches
> the same principles (Adi, Anupadaka, Atma, in that order) in
> "Treatise on Cosmic Fire." In that book she also places Monad
> ABOVE Atma in several classification schemes.
> HPB however, is clear that the Monad is a LESSER entity, being
> composed of Atma-Buddhi (S.D.  vol.  1 pp.  69, 119, 178, etc.).

I am not willing to discuss what A.Besant (AB) and CWL had to say
as I believe their vision was distorted.  So let's stick to
A.A.Bailey (AAB).  AAB did address the issue of various listings
of principles in "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" (TCF), p.260-7.  She
gives nine different listings, and explains that those are
different ways to view the same thing from different perspectives
-- Monadic, subjective, objective, etc.  In footnotes she also
makes abundant references to HPB's classification as given in
"The Secret Doctrine."

AAB proceeds to say,

> In these various enumerations of the principles we are dealing
> with them (as H.P.B.  has pointed out they must be dealt with)*
> ** from differing standpoints, depending upon the stage reached
> and the enagle of vision.
> Footnote *:
> "H.P.Blavatsky says in the *Secret Doctrine* in connection with
> the Principles.
>  a. That mistakes in the classification are very possible. --
>  S.D., II,677.
>  b. That we must seek the occult meaning.--S.D.,II,652
>  That there are really six not seven principles.
>  c. That there are several classifications.--S.D.,III,374,446.
>  d. That the esoteric enumeration cannot be made
>  to correspond with the exoteric.--S.D.,III,476.
>  e. That the numbering of the principles is a question
>  spiritual progress.--S.D.,III,456,460.
> Footnote **: "S.D.,III,456."
> (Just to remind, AAB used for references the 3rd edition.)

So AAB was aware of HPB's classification, and did not pretend her
own classifications were to replace HPB's one.

Re: Adi, anupadaka, etc., versus the principles.  I guess this is
a confusion--you seem to be confusing planes and principles.
It's quite possible AB and CWL committed such an error, but not
AAB as she distributes the principles over the planes in such a
way as the difference between these two sevenfold divisions is
clearly seen:

PLANE (synonimous descriptions): PRINCIPLES:
 - - -
Adi (no human principles
Logoic plane up here)
First cosmic ether
Mahaparanirvanic plane
 - - -
Monadic              O
Anupadaka           / \
Secong cosmic ether / \ Monad
Paranirvanic plane  / \
                    / \
 - - -
Spiritual            O Atma
Atmic plane         / \
Thirs cosmic ether  / \
Nirvanic plane      / \
Intuitional        / O Buddhi
Buddhic plane       / /
Fourth cosmic ether / /
Mental Manas         O
Manasic plane
                     O Ego, causal body
                     X Mental unit
Emotional            !
Astral plane         !
                     X Astral perm.
                     ! atom
Physical plane       X Physical perm. atom

Re: Monad being composed of Atma-Buddhi.

I believe you may be confusing Atma-Buddhi as human principles
and Atma-Buddhi as aspects of the Monad (please refer to the
above chart--it shows that the Monad has the three aspects being
the higher prototypes of Atma, Buddhi, and Manas).

> As for Bailey's mid-20th century appearance as occult teacher, or
> her representing the occult teaching of the "Tibetan," many
> Baileyites will have us believe that she directly continued HPB's
> & her Masters' work in the West, providing "keys".  But HPB
> writes, in very definite terms (BCW vol.  12, p.  492):
> "No Master of Wisdom from the East will himself appear or send
> anyone to Europe or America ...  until the year 1975" (which is
> the return of the centenary cycle HPB talks about regularly, for
> another example see last page of "Key To Theosophy").
> So Bailey cannot have been working with the same Masters HPB did,
> if she violated their cyclic efforts with the West.  Now Bailey
> students are fond of saying that things change (rapidly!) and
> that all things are possible with Masters.  I question the value
> of such Masters' teachings, like giving specific cycles and
> dates, if they don't hold up.  These "Masters" who change their
> cyclic plans must not be able to predict very far in the future.
> I fail to see how They can know the duration of vast Races, even
> planetary Manvantaras, if they can't predict when the next
> representative of their Lodge will be sent Westward.

So what does the above quote from HPB mean? I do not think it
should be applied to AAB as AAB never claimed to be a messenger
of the Masters in the same sense as HPB was.  AAB did claim she
was in contact with certain Masters, but some other people were
in contact with them, too, like Olcott, CWL, AB, and perhaps many
others, without claiming to be a next messenger.

The only thing AAB claimed is that she gave out a next portion of
the teaching.  She did it reluctantly, and she just channeled the
Tibetan's teachings without modifying them.  A few books she
wrote on her own (like "The Consciousness of the Atom") clearly
show she was a gifted interpreter of the Ageless Wisdom but not
an initiate of the same caliber as HPB.

Her own project was establishing and running the Arcane School,
and she did an admirable job as the School still exists as a
coherent body 47 years after she passed.  This is what she's
responsible for, and not the Tibetan's books.

Same applies to the founders of the Temple of the People.

Nicholas and Helen Roerichs come much closer to the definition of
Masters' messengers (in fact they DID claim something like that),
but you probably dismiss their mission and their Agni Yoga as
another brand of pseudo-Theosophy so let's drop it.

BTW, do you know what happened to the guy allegedly having been
sent to Europe or America after 1975?

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application