Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00167)

Dear Compiler,

>This link that I recently found may or 
>may not be disturbing or helpful to you
>and others on this list -- that is up to 
>each for him or herself. But searching for 
>the true nature of reality requires an open 
>mind and nerves of steel when our personal 
>beliefs and our likes and dislikes are presented 
>with conflicting material. 

I welcome all kinds of information that provide as many perpectives
as possible to my studies. I would encourage anyone to include in their
reading the article that you have so graciously brought to our attention. 
<http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPBvsAB.html>
However, I would also caution that it is not the final word by any
stretch of the imagination. A great deal has occurred since this article
has been written. In particular, about 90% of the Alice Bailey volumes
have been written *after* this article. The article was written in the
spring of 1929 and much of Alice Bailey's work followed after that. In
addition to that, they have chosen to critique a work ("Treatise on Cosmic
Fire") containing about 1350 pages of extremely dense esoteric information
utilizing some new terms and concepts from what Theosophists were familiar
to with H.P.B. This is only *one* volume of 24 and the situation evolved a
great deal in the teachings throughout the period stretching to 1950. It
took me about a year to give a *serious* reading to the "Treatise on Cosmic
Fire" the first time, and even more information reveals itself on
subsequent readings. That these authors were able to sum up *so easily*
their *final* conclusions is rather suspect and I would recommend that
seekers study the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire" on their own instead of making
any serious conclusions based on this article. 
To add further doubt to my mind, I am struck by the admission of these
authors that they were merely gave a "cursory examination" of this most
difficult text before writing their polemic against Bailey's work. In the
end, their conclusion may be right.....but it is obvious that they haven't
done the work to prove it in any way. It is also obvious that they have
slightly misconstrued, nay mis-interpreted, some of the concepts. Be that
as it may, here are some of their opening remarks to think about: 

"We have never met Mrs. Bailey, and not having previously read any of her
books, we were unaware how closely their general scheme and phraseology
resemble that of the BesantLeadbeater "Neo-Theosophy, which includes the
Liberal Catholic Church and World-Teacher propaganda. ..."

The bias is already obvious. There is no open minded search occuring in
this article. And further they state:

"Even such a cursory examination as we have had time to give, however, has
convinced us that there is little or nothing in common between them (i.e.,
Bailey's and H.P.B.'s works). The impression left on the mind is that of a
subtle attempt to substitute a specifically Christian system for the
universal one of the secret Doctrine, rather than 'confirming and
amplifying' that marvelous work, as admirers of Cosmic Fire have stated."

As anyone who has thoroughly studied "Cosmic Fire" could attest, there is
no veiled attempt or otherwise to "substitute a specifically Christian
system for...the Secret Doctrine." It is pure Ageless Wisdom teachings. 


I am by no means at the end of my studies or my journey and the only thing
that I can recomend here in the face of this sarticle is for the reader to
study "Cosmic Fire" and then decide for themselves. While it did not have
the ring of truth for you, it did for me. Each finds their own way through
the darkness.

Love and Light,
Todd