Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00085)

James writes,

> 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.

I have never made such a deep numerological study of the SD
Stanzas but I have to agree that any seasoned reader of HPB can
sense a distinct (Christian) difference in the stanzas presented
by Alice Bailey.  Again, I don't cast someone away because they
differ from HPB -- there is value in lots of things besides the
writings of our founder.  But I am deeply disturbed that someone
would try to pass off their own material as a continuation of
HPB's translations of Dzyan.  This strikes me as very confusing
for new students and divisive of the Theosophical community, as
we are swept into arguing about what's authentic, rather than
discussing the central issues and ideas presented by the
Theosophical material.

James also writes,

> HPB never refers to "Christ" as a Buddha (to my recollection) 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?

I agree with this wholeheatedly as well.  Christians are welcome
to their beliefs, but Christianizing Theosophy does a grave
disservice to HPB's work.  I have read just about everything HPB
ever wrote, most of it quite a number of times, and James is
right -- HPB deeply respects the historical figure known as the
Christ, and calls him an Initiate, but no special place is
reserved for him, nor for any other historical figure.  HPB
erects no Mahatmic "hierarchy," though we might assume one exists
since Nature appears structured this way.  But who makes up such
a "hierarchy" of Adepts, what their ranks and powers are, strike
me as completely useless speculations which cannot help us at
this stage of our journey.  Rather, if we work hard at Theosophy,
we will learn about the ranks of Adepts first hand soon enough.

What later writers do is erect a hard and fast (and inherently
unverifiable) "Hierarchy" with specific figures holding specific
offices, like a great bureaucracy, reminiscent of medieval
Chinese amalgamations of Taoist, Confucian and Buddhist
mythology.  For Alice Bailey and others, "Christ" is a specific
otherworldly figure who holds a certain "planetary office" and
governs this cycle while preparing to become a Buddha -- another
figure in this Hierarchy with his specific "office." These
hard-and-fast designations transform hisorical Initiates into
cosmic immortal figures in a shadowy world-government.  The
number of Adepts and offices held rival the calendar of saints in
the Catholic Church.

Thus on the one hand with Besant, Leadbeater and Bailey we have
an excess of Christian mythologization, while certain skeptical
Theosophical writers today go in the opposite direction, making
HPB's Teachers merely men, nothing more.

I believe HPB walked the middle line, presenting these Adepts as
historical figures, and yes, "fallible" men, but so far advanced
spiritually of ordinary humanity as to be practically faultless
in our eyes and possessed of enormous understanding of the
fundamental ways of the soul and the universe.  HPB never claims
They are omniscient, nor do They ever claim in Their letters to
be omnipotent, but to direct the "minor currents" of history,
while bound to the greater cycles like the rest of us.

But this can only be seen by comparing the writings of students
to the original works, and seeing if they are faithful
continuations or if they distort in various ways.

Rich