Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00084)

I have to comment regarding seceral points discussed during this
dialogue.  For the record I have in my posession the complete
writing of HPB, Leadbeater, and Bailey (and Yes, it is a
considerable number of books!) and refer to them whenever the
posts provide references.

(Richard)
> 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

(Maxim)
> 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.

First, the 'New Stanzas of Dyzan" are not from the same 'Dyzan'
referenced by HPB.  For that matter neither are the stanzas
presented by the Halcyon group.  I have made a considerable study
of the stanzas and have found that HPB's are the only ones that
hold to a mathematical/numeric key that corresponds to the hebrew
'Genesis'.  This correlation is described in SD3 under the title
"The Zohar on Creation and the Elohim".  Further there's a cyclic
progression presented in HPB's stanzas in which "As Above, So
Below" constantly echos itself.  Both of these coorilations are
sadly absent in every other set of 'Stanzas' presented.  I can
elaborate on this in a future post if you desire.

Secondly, practically every other theosophical author who has
written material regarding "Christ" has come from a strong
"christian" background.  HPB never refers to "Christ" as a Buddha
(to my recolection) but as a "Chrestian" (or initiated one) which
would only place him on par with the Mahatmas.  I would like to
see references to HPB's material where she places a special
significance to the Nazarine's work.  Could someone provide these
references? By the way, even in HPB's time the Christianization
of occult knowedge was problemsome.  Her (HPB's) favorite example
was the work of Emanuel Sweedenborg, also on my reference shelf!

Please continue the dialogue! BTW I agree with Eldon when he
writes

> To the extent that we can learn from the knowledge and experience
> of others, it's valuable to study these things, to study the
> occult philosophy and join the dharma.  All of us have to take
> each step of the way on our own initiative.  No one can do it for
> us.  But training, tutoring, mentoring, and education from those
> that know more is valuable, even if but second-hand (by way of
> Blavatsky).  And if I found myself in unfamiliar territory, I
> wouldn't reject a roadmap from a seasoned traveller.

I consider both Bailey and Leadbeater to 'Seasoned Travelers' on
this road of occult truth.  Howwever, that doesn't mean I accept
the 'Roadmap' without question.  I think both authors present
considerable material, much of which was influenced by their own
Bias (what's new with that?), however much of their material is
of considerable value! Continue that good work.