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

Re:Bailey, Wheat and chaff

Dec 27, 1996 05:06 AM
by Richard Taylor

Maxim writes,

> 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.

Maitreya IS a commonplace in Mahayana Buddhism.  According to the
doctrine (of those Buddhists who accept the idea in the first
place) Maitreya is NOW a bodhisattva of the very highest order,
residing on a place called "Tushita," the highest of the heavens
in the Buddhist cosmology.  He will eventually appear for ONE
LAST INCARNATION, during which he will achieve full Buddhahood.

In East Asia there are significant cults of Maitreya Buddha,
although nothing approaching the worship of Kwan-Yin (a.k.a.
Avalokiteshvara in Sanskrit, Chen-resig in Tibetan) and Amitabha
(Amida in Japanese).  However, these are all popular cults, and
have lost touch with the original teachings on Maitreya which
originated during the tantric phase of Buddhism in India (3rd to
9th centuries A.D.)

Several important teachers of Buddhism in that period have
claimed to be INSPIRED by Maitreya, but no one I know of (in
Buddhism) has EVER claimed that Maitreya's arrival is imminent;
rather, as HPB said last century, he can only come during a
golden age, which is apparently a long way off.  If he came now
conditions are so tumultuous that a "critical mass" of students
could not be gathered to carry on the work, and the incarnation
will have been in vain.

Further, as HPB points out, every effort by the "white lodge"
opens the door to an equal and opposite opportunity by the "black
lodge." Our Masters are too wise to move at the wrong time in the
cycle, so they very assiduously study the timing of things and
teach EXACTLY what is needed at EXACTLY the right time.  This is
why HPB is so careful and so exact with the cycles she describes,
to prevent the horde of claimants (lo here! and lo there!) from
swaying the careful students of the Masters.


> 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.

Of course I don't think that if HPB didn't mention something, it
can't be true.  Did HPB mention personal computers? And yet here
I sit using one.  My point was not that D.K.  was or was not a
teacher of HPB, nor his ethnic heritage.  In fact, a CHELA (not a
Mahatma) named D.K.  is mentioned some 31 times in the Mahatma
Letters, as a student of K.H.  Whether AAB was in touch with this
D.K.  (regardless of his nationality) is the question.

My larger point was that HPB worked with several Adepts, two in
particular who are said to have helped her write the S.D.  (It is
called the "triple production" of HPB and these two Masters).
And about 9 or 10 people BESIDES HPB saw these Masters in person,
including Mr.  Olcott and Mr.  Judge.  Many more than this number
received letters from them.  To any serious student of Theosophy,
given the number of credible witnesses outside of HPB, these
Masters exist and worked with HPB.  On the other hand, we have
only AAB's word about the Tibetan, who claimed to be D.K.  No one
besides AAB (to my knowledge) ever saw this Adept, we have no
witnesses, no independent testimony.  Therefore, I am skeptical
that he exists.

> D.K.  used the self-designation "the Tibetan" (and not "the
> Tibetan lama") to conceal his identity as Master D.K.--that's
> all.

But his identity was NOT concealed.  Every AAB student knew and
knows that "the Tibetan" was allegedly D.K., and that he was
allegedly lama of several monasteries in Tibet.  Given that AAB's
system contradicts HPB's in many places, and given that there are
no independent witnesses that the Tibetan existed, I am rather
inclined to believe that AAB was channeling something else -- who
or what is a good question.  Possibly her subconscious, possibly
various discarnate entities, possibly her own intuition (she
makes many wise and good statements) colored by her 20 years with
Leadbeater/Besant studies and her fundamentalist Christian
background (read her autobiography).


> > 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");

You miss my point.  You wrote several days ago that the Great
Invocation was intended to call down the next great teacher.
When Nicholas objected and produced a quote that Masters were not
to be called down (in their own words) but that WE should rise to
THEIR level, you responded by saying in essense, this may be true
in general, but avatars are a separate class, and CAN be called

--To which I replied, HPB claimed the next Avatar couldn't come
until the end of the Kali Yuga.  Then you stated that there could
be different levels of avatar (Christ level and Buddha level).  I
fear you are not dealing directly with the evidence and quotes
which you have requested.  My attempt, and I've been quite blunt,
is to show that AAB, for whatever good she may have done, is
incompatible with HPB's teachings.

Whether the Great Invocation is a prayer or not (I assert it is
by HPB's definition in KEY TO THEOSOPHY), the point remains that
no avatar may be called or come for a long long time (according
to HPB), while AAB claims the "externalization of the Hierarchy"
is imminent, lead by the Avatar.  Many Bailey students expect
this to be WITHIN THEIR OWN LIFETIME.  I find such an idea
ludicrous, given that humanity has made such small incremental
progress over recorded history.  HPB herself wrote that ethically
and spiritually, humanity is as it ever has been, selfish and
greedy.  No huge change is possible any time soon, because we
simply aren't ready, en masse, for a planetary initiation as AAB

> > 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.

Whether or not I have proved #2 is certainly an open question,
but I selectively ignored the (numerous) details you provided in
order to focus on three points (for now -- we can do much more
seriatim, PARTICULARLY those new Stanzas and AAB's astrological
correspondences with principles/colors/races, exactly replicating

> Those three points were:
> (1) the supposedly imminent return of the avatar (Savior, World
> Teacher, Christ, Maitreya, etc.)
> (2) the order and significance of the occult human principles
> (3) the centenary cycle of the Masters in the West.  I feel I've
> established that AAB seriously contradicts HPB in all three of
> these areas, yet agrees with CWL and Besant.

I note however that you responded to my points about AAB (e.g.
placing the Monad ABOVE Atma) while you ignored the fact that the
first person to do this was Besant, followed by Leadbeater.
Purucker does no such thing, neither does Mr.  Judge or other
students of the alternative --shall we call it American (as
opposed to Indian)?-- line.  Bailey is BASING her teachings about
the principles, in ALL the various nine ways she has them in
"Cosmic Fire," on the very schemes that Leadbeater and Besant
taught, and none other.  Her presentation of these topics is not
original, but borrowed from her years in Leadbeater's and
Besant's Esoteric school.

Given this fact, I WILL state that I have proved premise #2 at
least on those three topics.

> Another example is Rudolf Steiner--a high initiate, probably of
> higher rank than HPB.

I won't touch this whole thread-topic except to say it's absurd.
Steiner may well have been an educated, good-hearted man with
much influence in Europe, but he stole HPB's teachings wholesale,
Christianized them, and then claimed he was initiated on his own,
separately from HPB.  Strange, though, all his publications
POSTDATE HPB's death.  If an historian had to trace out who
borrowed what from whom ...

> > 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.

Let me give the exact quote, which Gail had given in part in her
last post.  S.D.  p.  xxxviii:

"Prof.  Max Muller tells us ...  the Vedas are proved to be the
work of the highest antiquity, whose preservation 'amounts almost
to a marvel.' The same will be said of the Secret Archaic
Doctrine, when proofs are given of its undeniable existence and
FROM IT." [my emphasis]

HPB then goes on to discuss her S.D.  and that it contains all
that can be given out for the present.

Not only did AAB come well before 1975, and give "much more" than
HPB did on the S.D., what she DID offer, worthy as it may be in
many ways and for many students, is in FUNDAMENTAL contradiction
with HPB's system of principles, planes, etc.  However AAB agrees
with Leadbeater and Besant in all fundamentals and many details
(no, surely not ALL details).

> 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.

My calling it the "Arcana" school was merely a typo -- I write
these e-mails very quickly between other responsibilities and
can't always check spelling.  I've noticed a number of typos in
everyone's posts (including the last from Maxim where the word
"captures" appears for "captions" re: pictures from D.K.).  Typos
happen, alas.

My information comes from those who have been in both Arcane
School and School for Esoteric Studies.  BOTH are correspondence
courses, both claim to train one to be fitted later to become a
chela.  Schisms are ALWAYS possible because humans are humans.
When students of one group withdraw and set up a separate yet
similar group based on the same materials, I call that a
"schism." Perhaps others would call it something else ...

> > > 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.

I didn't take your question about the 1975 cycle teacher as
sarcastic.  I think all of us Theosophists are wondering.  Many
have stepped forward, none have seemed to pass muster.  I myself
suspect the teacher HAS come, to a field and a work quite outside
the scope of most Theosophists, and we have failed to recognize
such Teacher because we have not applied the teaching we were
given very well.  And while I lay the blame thus on all of us (me
too) I can't help but think that all the Theosophists who set up
"pseudo-Theosophical" teachings have distracted attention from
the actual teachings and thus diluted their power.

As far as Creme, I merely stated that he was a Bailey student,
which he is.  I did not state that he was associated with the
Arcane school, which he isn't.  A great many Bailey students do
NOT belong to Arcane School.  A number belong to Meditation Mount
in southern California, others have set up their own "triangle
groups" and "full moon meditation" groups quite apart from Arcane
School.  Baileyites are a large and diverse bunch, I think.

If people are tired of this thread we can quit, but I am prepared
to pick up new topics (astrology and Stanzas of Dzyan, for
starters) and show once again that AAB agrees with CWL and
Besant, while contradicting HPB.  Just say the word and we'll
launch ...


[Back to Top]

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