Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00178)

>Frank wrote:
>For Benjamin Creme also such guys as Hitler and Stalin are high initiates,
>so how trustful is he?

>>I don't see how that automatically makes him "untrustworthy"?? A Hitler
>>or a Stalin would *have* to have some degree of inner power in order to
sway

Benjamin Creme gives Hitler in his "occult charts" 2.0 points, but Gottfried
de Purucker, who is in my humble opinion after ten years studying him, gains
only 1.6 points. That means, Creme believes that Hitler was more initiated
than Purucker, but he was tuahgt by the same teachers as HPB and taught the
same doctrine as she and was her follower as Teacher and Messenger of the
Masters. Therefore I call Creme untrustworthy, besides other things like the
Maitraya-Christ poppycock which is really black magic and has not 1% to do
with Theosophy.

>Frank wrote:
>One should bear in mind that such a kind of Hierarchy which is described
>here and was taught by AB/AAB/CWL and the like is NOT supported by the
>original Theosophy by HPB. And HPB taught further and in contradiction to
>the later claims of AB/AAB/CWL that Christ was no person and will NOT
>return.

>Well, I believe that H.P.B. was long dead before Bailey wrote any of her
>works. H.P.B. could not have *directly* denied anything that Bailey said,
>although, some of her writings may have "appeared" to disagree with/ or not
>fully align with the claims of Bailey. I suspect that much of the
>*denials* come from later Theosophists and their own interpretations. Be

Many students on this list are tired to fight over and over again the same
old battles. OK, here are only two out of the many paragraphs of HPB about
the return of Christ:

"Judge for yourself. I write in every letter that a divine Christ (or
Christos) has never existed under a human form outside the imagination of
blasphemers who have carnalized a universal and entirely impersonal
principle."
Blavatsky:Collected Writings, Vol. IX:223

"'The coming of Christ', means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated
world, and not at all the actual coming in body of 'Christ' Jesus."
Blavatsky:Collected Writings, Vol. VIII:174

So, Todd, you have here a direct word from HPB herself, insofar as you a
sceptic about later Theosophists. Had the neo-theosophists would have take
care to study and understand the texts of HPB in its real sense and not only
from dead letter reading perhaps they would have been not so fast to make
false claims and terrorize the people with they twisted stuff. Besides, all
the pseudo-Theosophists, which aim it was and still is to destroy HPB's work
and turn the Theosophical Movement into the ranks of the Jesuits (Rome),
claimed to have higher and much more advanved and "ascended" (to where?)
Masters as HPB had.


>that as it may, I am reaching over and pulling out the first book in my
>vicinity ("The Key to Theosophy"), open it to page 288 and the following
>chapter, to read all about an *absolute* affirmation of the existence of
>Mahatmas and Adepts, all belonging to a "White Lodge", a Brotherhood if you
>will, and references made to different grades of individuals such as
>Adepts, Chelas, Chohans, Mahatmas, Initiates and Masters. In this sense,
>Blavatsky has *entirely* established the existence of the Hierarchy. The

That is your interpretation, Theosophists have another one. In nature there
exists no hierarchy as claimed by AB/AAB/CWL. And HPB is supported in this
view by her successors. So, why do you want me to believe the false claims
of Bailey and Creme that there is such kind as an occult officers
bureaucracy.


>fact that Bailey comes later and fills in the role of some members within
>that Hierarchy serves as no contradiction to H.P.B. The fact that H.P.B.

It does. HPB was the first one. If another one comes later and claims to
have the same teachers or even higher teachers as HPB has had, we have the
right to ask to explain the contradictions. And if I get no good answer
which is sound and which satisfies my mind and my heart as well and if I see
that these contradictions results in exoteric misunderstanding of the
esoteric truths HPB brought I am forced to believe that the claims of Bailey
and Creme are false and a spiritual theft and crime.

> Furthermore, you state that "HPB taught further and in contradiction to
>the later claims of AB/AAB/CWL that Christ was no person and will NOT
>return." Respectfully, I doubt that Blavatsky was privy to the entire Plan
>as known by the Hierarchy and was given only that which was her duty to
>reveal. The Plan is a dynamic evolving thing, subject to change given the

That does not alter the fact that Bailey do not know details of the plan
which HPB and her successors knew. And the fact that she revealed not all
she knew si no excuse that people like Bailey which claimed to have the same
or higher knowledge as HPB are trying to confirm on the dead letter plane
but fail to grasp the esoteric meaning. And Bailey is purely exoteric. She
did not add one sententce tothe work of HPB which is true, and that what
Bailey wrote true, is not new and was simply copied from HPB.


>response (quicker or slower) of humanity, etc. Remember that the world
>wars followed after Blavatsky had already passed on and a tremendous change
>was occuring in the world. Bailey states that the Plan evolved and that
>the Christ made the decision to return in the physical in 1945. Maybe she

As Benjamin Creme has three times false announced the return of Christ (or
what he believes it is) in the last years I conclude that the return of
Christ in 1945 was a failure? This poppycock smacks as the same black magic
as Bailey's "Invocation". You are you and your background powers that you
try to blow out the real spiritual light out of humanity and try to force
them to believe in the outer imaginations of the astral powers? Is Share
indirectly paid by Rome?

>Yes, and this holds true for many who would claim not to be a theosophist.
>But she is not necessarily the *only* messenger. History has proven that
>great teachers come time and time again. We are in a profound period of
>time. There are many amazing things occurring in the world that clearly
>reach beyond the limits of what Blavatsky had to say. What about Sai Baba?
>Premananda? Paramahansa Yogananda? Mother Meera? Maitreya? Bailey?
>Krishnamurti? Muktananda? Blah, Blah, Blah. Blavatsky laid powerful
>foundations for the New Age, I don't think that is in dispute. But surely

You can believe in any person you like and regard him/her as messenger. But
when a Theosophist uses the term he/she means it in its technical sense and
that is one who was taught and trained and ordered in the same ashram as HPB
was the same doctrines with the same message, not otherwise. A Theosophist
does not use the term for self appointed people or such people who may have
some insight of any degree. That is another reason for me to be sceptical
about the claims of Bailey and Creme: How is it possible that they have
inner knowledge and that they have knowledge about the same doctrines as HPB
had if they even do not know what for HPB was a messenger?
Frank