Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00136)

JRC wrote:

> If I remember right, (correct me if I'm wrong) Bailey was
> alrready communicating with one of the Masters before she ever
> walked into a TS Lodge - she happened to see a picture of (KH or
> Morya) on the wall of a Lodge she had walked into, innocently
> said she recognized the man in the picture ...  and was not
> exactly well received (who was this woman claiming to know a
> Master ...  why she had hardly studied anything!)

I believe that she said she pointed out the Tibetan.  However,
since (and Paul may be able to confirm or deny this) there is no
recorded picture of any of the Mahatmas, except for some
"psychicly inspired" ones, I can't see how she could have even
seen a picture of the Tibetan, much less identified him.

> And I guess (IMO), that regardless of what the ES rules were ...
> that at any time a Master would certainly have the right to
> supersede them, no? According to Bailey (which people may or may
> not accept), she didn't publish communications intended to be
> kept quiet, but rather trained to receive communications that the
> Masters *intended* to be made public.  If this is true, Bailey
> should no more have been kicked out of anything than HPB - who
> made the initial rule about silence, and *herself* published
> communications from the Masters (in fact the Secret Doctrine is
> claimed by her to come from them).

Now here's where it gets interesting.  The idea of the E.S.  (no
secret; it can be found in the Collected Writings of HPB) was
that the titular head of the E.S.  would communicate with the
Mahatma who would be the true head of the E.S., and pass the
information on.  The E.S.  would be a necessity for those who
wished to practice advanced magickal practices.  That is clearly
not the E.S.  of today, and probably not the E.S.  of Besant's
time.  To treat it as if it were would be obvious folly.  That is
why I qualified my statement with the "if" clause.