Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00075)

On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote:

> Maxim writes on Bailey's predictions of Maitreya's imminent
> arrival and HPB's contradictions that this wasn't possible in
> this cycle:
>
> > 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
> > dissapears.
>
> 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.

OK, I'll investigate it.  I thought the idea of Maitreya the
Bodhisatva becoming a Buddha (under the same name, i.e.  Maitreya
the Buddha) is a commonplace in Buddhism.

> 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
> Tibetan lama.)

The above may imply that I claimed Master D.K.  aka the Tibetan
was a teacher of HPB; I never did that.

If you mean by "teacher" HPB's guru, then it should be Morya.
HPB refers to M.  as her guru (e.g.  "Mah.  Morya--my Boss," see
her letters to Sinnett (1973, facsimile reprint of 1923 ed.),
p.84).  D.K.  just instructed her (letters, p.72, 130, etc.), so
in this sense he can be called HPB's teacher if you prefer to do
so.

As to D.K.  being or not being a Tibetan lama, it's quite
possible HPB never mentioned it.  So what? Do you think that the
things HPB never mentioned do not exist or are not true? Did she
mention D.K is NOT a lama? In letters (p.130) she wrote about
receiving from D.K.  certain diagrams carrying captures in
Tibetan she needed to translate herself into English--so it
implies that D.K.'s native language was probably Tibetan.

Please do not attach too much importance to the alleged fact that
D.K.  was (and still is?) a Tibetan lama.  It's of no importance
at all.  D.K.  used the self-designation "the Tibetan" (and not
"the Tibetan lama") to conceal his identity as Master
D.K.--that's all.

> 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,

Your reconstruction is incorrect.  I never equated "Saviors" and
"avatars." My thinking about avatars is shaped by what AAB wrote
about it.  She wrote about several kinds of avatars, from cosmic
ones (higher than Christ) to national avatars (e.d.  Abraham
Lincoln), so in this sense Christ in his second coming is (was,
will be) definitely an avatar, although not a Savior this time.

> 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 like it.

The Great Invocation is NOT a prayer contrary to what you elect
to believe.  In AAB's books a clear distinction is made between
prayers (mystical means) and invocations (occult technique).
(Please refer to AAB's "Rays and Initiations," p.493-5 for a
technical definition of invocation and evocation.) I need to see
what HPB meant by prayers (I do not have right now "Key to
Theosophy"); it she meant prayers about personal or group
wellbeing and like, it's not OK with AAB, too.  The Great
Invocation is about the fulfillment of God's plan rather than
thanking God for something or asking for something.

> > 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.

In addition to some statements about AB and CWL, you stated
something about AAB, too (please see below your item # (2)).
This is what I responded to.

> Let me make a syllogism:
>
> (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

Your syllogism fails as you never proved (2).  You made certain
claims and requested specifics.  You got it (my post of Dec 22),
but you prefered to ignore such "details" as new Stanzas of
Dzyan, astrology of soul, a system of esoteric psychology, and so
on, and went on to advance your own sampling.  It's OK with me,
but do not say that your item #(2) has been proved.

If you will still insist that what AAB added is just details, I
will not argue anymore.  If you feel so it's fine to me.  No
problem.

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
> question.
>
> 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
> agree with.
>
> A few quotes from the S.D. will make this clear:>

OK, I'll investigate it.

> Rich quotes
>
> > > "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.
>
>
> Maxim responds:
>
> > 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 ...

It's not funny.  I believe AB and CWL were in contact with
Masters; I believe them also to be initiated into secret
knowledge, (though initiates of a lesser degree than HPB) which,
however, did not prevent them from making serious mistakes.  It
happens.  St.  Paul, although an initiate, too, somewhat
distorted the Christ's message (please do not use this as a
starting point for another heated discussion--I know this issue
is hot for some people).  Another example is Rudolf Steiner--a
high initiate, probably of higher rank than HPB.

> 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.

Of course she did not refer to a "Messenger," this is my own
expression.

So you insist on your interpretation and think you better
understand what HPB meant when she wrote about someone to be
"sent" by Masters, right? It's fine to me.  Let's not continue
this subthread.

> 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."

If she really said that then she should be wrong.  I would like
to know what Masters said about it.  The only relevant reference
I found is from HPB's letters to Sinnett, p.225:

> ...he [D.K.] told me that Master sent in a word for you,
> [Sinnett] and me to tell you: "<...> all that can be given out in
> *this* century is there [in S.D.] ..."

(emphasis is HPB's).  It sounds more favorably for AAB as makes
allowance for her books to have been written in the next century.

> 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
> contradicts HPB.

Not me. I wouldn't say she didn't give much more.

> Maxim writes,
>
> > 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
> moment.

It's very strange.  I wonder if you know anything at all about
the Arcane (not "Arcana") School.  It's structured in such a way
that no schisms are possible.  Many people believe it's a
membership organization like TS in America; it's not.  It's a
correspondence school.  I repeat it, it is a SCHOOL.  I am a
student of the Arcane School, but I neither elect the Board
members nor influence the School policy in any way.

I received some time ago promotional materials from the School
for E.S.; it looks like some people started it on their own.
They distribute AAB materials (in addition to their own
pamphlets) with the Lucis Trust's consent.  Lucis trust or Arcane
School could not either approve or disaaprove their activities
(the only thing they could do is to deny permission to use AAB
material).  It's a policy of the Arcane School not to endorse any
other study group or organization.  So I wonder where your
information came from.  If it was a guess it was wrong.

> > 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
> expectations.

Thanks for the information.  It was not a tongue-in-the-cheek
question -- I just was wondering.

The third sentence is again wrong--Creme does not represent the
Arcane School, and the Arcane School is in no way responsible for
what he has to say.  I attended his lecture--it's very nice but a
little bit strange.

Sara McKechnie, the President of Lucis Trust (an umbrella
organization for Arcane School and a few other organizations
founded by AAB) was in October 1996 as a part of her
North-American tour.  Of course she was asked about Creme.  She
said that the Lucis Trust did not issue any official opinion
about Creme's alleged Maitreya (it seemed they were confused and
prefered to stay aside), and that it definitely did not endorse
the affair.

MO