Re:Bailey, Wheat and chaff
Dec 26, 1996 06:42 PM
by Richard Taylor
Maxim writes on Bailey's predictions of Maitreya's imminent
arrival and HPB's contradictions that this wasn't possible in
> Very good. This is something more tangible than your previous
> eneral 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
Of course I don't accept that interpretation -- it seems the very
definition of POST FACTO rationalization. Does HPB make such a
distinction between a Christ and a Buddha? No. Does anything
else in the Master's literature, especially the Mahatma Letters?
No. One and only one "Maitreya" is spoken of by HPB, and that
quote has been given by me already.
Certainly there are distinctions in grades of Adepthood, but the
Masters have ever declined to discuss the exact qualities of
these distinctions with plebes like us (except in the case of
Leadbeater and Bailey, which is simply more disqualifying
evidence against them). There is no benefit in telling mere
beginners like ourselves how advanced grades differ, since we
have no reference to understand such things. Rather, an empty
Hierarchy is erected -- which becomes yet another pious means of
oppression -- as various things are ascribed to various shadowy
figures, none of whom have ever been seen by anyone. (Side note:
At least nine different people are in writing as having seen one
of more of HPB's teachers, and a great number of people received
letters from them. Only AAB had any contact with the alleged
In any case, whether advanced grades of Adepts and their various
cycles should or would be given out or not, HPB seems clear,
"...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." If the definition of "Savior" is
"avatar," as Maxim wants, given that he wrote the Great
Invocation is to call the next Avatar, then HPB would never
sanction the Great Invocation, (1) because it calls an Avatar
long before such could come (2) because it teaches reliance on
another rather than self and (3) because she was against prayer
(see KEY TO THEOSOPHY) and the Great Invocation is merely a New
Age version of the old Christian prayer "Come Jesu" and others
> 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).
Maxim -- this is the whole burden of this round of exchanges, and
if you wish not to participate, okay. But that is explicitly
what I intended to communicate last time. Let me make a
(1) Leadbeater and Besant had distorted Theosophical teachings
(2) Bailey bases her teachings on Leadbeater and Besant's
Theosophical teachings in fundamental ways, with or without
additions from an alleged Tibetan lama
(3) Therefore insofar as Bailey is based on Leadbeater's and
Besant's work, she will have the same distortions
> 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).
No, I believe BAILEY has confused this and you follow her in it.
Referring to the "above chart" is of no avail, neither is the
fundamentalist Christians' plea that we seek in the Bible God's
affirmation that the Bible is the word of God. This is, in the
language of basic logic, "circular reasoning" because it begs the
The central point being made is that Bailey is FUNDAMETALLY
INCOMPATIBLE with HPB's teachings. If one were to change the
defition of "Monad" and make "Atma-Buddhi" "aspects" of such a
"monad" fine, but that is not something HPB or her Masters could
A few quotes from the S.D. will make this clear:
Vol. 1 p. 227 "Spirit (Atman) is one -- and indiscrete."
p. 119 "The Sixth principle in Man (Buddhi, the Divine Soul)
though a mere breath, in our conceptions, is still something
material when comapred with divine "Spirit" (Atma) of which it is
the carrier or vehicle. Fohat, in his capacity of DIVINE LOVE
(Eros), the electric Power of affinity and sympathy, is shown
allegorically as trying to bring the pure Spirit, the Ray
inseparable from the ONE absolute, into union with the Soul, the
two constituting in Man the MONAD, and in Nature the first link
between the ever unconditioned and the manifested."
p. 265 "The Watcher, or the divine prototype, is at the upper
rung of the ladder of being; the shadow, at the lower. Withal,
the MONAD of every living being, unless his moral turpitude
breaks that connection and runs loose and "astray into the lunar
path" ... IS AN INDIVIDUAL DHYAN CHOHAN, DISTINCT FROM OTHERS, A
KIND OF SPIRITUAL INDIVIDUALITY OF ITS OWN, during one special
Manvantara. Its PRIMARY [i.e. "source], the Spirit (Atman) is
one, of course, with PARAMATMA (the one Universal Spirit), but
the vehicle (Vahan) it is enshrined in, the BUDDHI, is part and
parcel of that UBIQUITY, which was discussed a few pages back."
(CAPITALS are used for italics in original).
p. 193 "A Dhyani has to be an Atma-Buddhi; once the Buddhi-Manas
breaks loose for its immortal Atma of which it (Buddhi) is the
vehicle, Atman passes into NON-BEING, which is absolute Being."
In other words, the monads of beings are INDIVIDUALS, while the
Atma is that ABSOLUTE universal SPIRIT which pervades all, and
forms the highest aspect of the monad. "Atma" is synonymous with
the highest unmanifest deity. Bailey simply has atma and monad
Nevertheless, there is certainly a correct use of "MONAD" to mean
the great Cosmic Unity, the Pythagorean "Monad." From this,
truly, Atma proceeds, but this is an entirely different matter.
This "Monad" belongs to no "plane," certainly not an alleged
manifest, "etheric" or "second" plane, because it is the All
behind All, the singular ONE (Plotinus goes at great lengths to
So do the Masters, S.D. vol. 1 p. 614:
"Those unable to seize the difference between the monad -- the
Universal Unit--and the MONADS or the manifested Unity, as also
between the ever-hidden and the revealed Logos or the WORD, ought
never to meddle in philosophy, let alone the Esoteric Sciences
... The Monad [is] only the emanation and reflection of the
Point (Logos) in the phenomenal World ... "
But by putting "monad" on a plane above "atma," with each plane
itself called "monadic" (2nd) and "atmic" (3rd), Bailey
demonstrates her misunderstanding of BOTH the word monad (in its
dual usage) AND atma and disqulaifies herself as an authentic
interpreter of HPB, however many gratuitous citations Bailey may
give to the S.D.
> "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.
> 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.
Funny that Maxim will bring up CWL's and Besant's claims here,
but wants to be distant from their teachings above ... In any
case, HPB is not referring specfically to a "Messenger." I refer
you to the quote: "No Master of Wisdom from the East will himself
appear or send anyone to Europe or America ... until the year
1975." This is categorical.
Whether one calls AAB a "messenger," a "reporter," or a
"channeler," her teachings from the Masters claim to be just that
-- which claim HPB specifically headed off in one of her last
writings. Further, HPB says of her Secret Doctrine, "It contains
all that can be given to the world at present. It will be
centuries before much more is given."
Again, Bailey students may dodge this by saying "Well, Bailey
DIDN'T give 'much more'." This is a specious argument, in light
of the fact that Bailey has written what, some 30 volumes? If
that isn't "Much more" I don't know what it is, and it certainly
> 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.
Yes, the Arcana School DOES exist, but not as a "coherent
entity." It has had numerous schisms, including the "School for
Esoteric Studies" in New York City and "The New Acropolis." There
are other schisms but I don't have those papers before me at the
> 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.
Yes, yes, and agreed.
> BTW, do you know what happened to the guy allegedly having been
> sent to Europe or America after 1975?
No sign. Several claimants have been disqualified by their
behavior and arrogance (including the Rhagavan Iyer of the ULT in
Santa Barbara) whilst Benjamin Creme still wanders about claiming
he represents the Christ, who is alive and well and living in
London, preparing to "externalize." Creme is a Bailey student and
an example of the incoherence that may result from Messianic
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application