Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00041)

My good friend...

It is unwise of me to engage in a discussion of the thinking "dis-
similars" of these two magnificent souls, HPB and AAB, and the One's 
of the inner world that supported them.

There are many many Universal concepts, ideas and partial truths to 
be gleaned from both HPB and AAB. To be burden by the detail is the 
down fall of using the intellect as oppose to the all-synthesizing 
intuitiion. To which, my good friend, is unspeakable without 
judgement here.

These two ladys, their great teachers and many others have openned up 
great "vistas" of the inner world.... they have lit the way... it is 
up to the individual to use this light to find there own way.

The Tibetan, "Do not let the words or the influence of anyone lead 
you. May the light of your soul lead you from strength to strength, 
and reeveal to you a purity of motive which will flood your life with 
love" and wisdom.

Wishing you all a beautiful glorious Sunday afternoon.
Most sincerely,
Suzanne


--- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hi all of you,
> 
> I would like to expand a little on my previous answer to Suzanne.
> Daniel Caldwell recently made a interesting email with a link to 
his website we will come back to that later.
> 
> The following are from p. 481-3 in "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" 
could be helpfull to some --- "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" by Alice A. 
Bailey; 1925:
> 
> *******
> "The difficulty of giving one the Wisdom Religion is dealt with by 
H. P. B. in the Secret Doctrine as follows:
> 
> Opinion must be reserved because:
> Complete explanation for initiates only. 
> Only a fragmentary portion of the esoteric meaning given. 
> Only adepts can speak with authority. - S. D., I, 188, 190. II, 55, 
90. 
> The teachings are offered as a hypothesis. - II, 469. 
> We must lose sight entirely of:
> Personalities. 
> Dogmatic beliefs. 
> Special religions. - S. D., I, 3, 4. 
> We must be free from prejudice. - S. D., III, 1. We must also:
> Be free from conceit. 
> Free from selfishness. 
> Ready to accept demonstrated truth. 
> We must find the highest meaning possible. S. D., III, 487. 
> We must be also non-sectarian. - S. D., III, 110. 
> We must remember the handicap of language. - S. D., I, 197, 290, 
293. 
> We must aim to become a disciple. - S. D., I, 188. II, 246. III, 
129. 
> We must eventually develop powers. - S. D., I, 518. II, 85. 
> We must lead the life of Brotherhood. S. D., I, 190. 
> We must remember that H. P. B . makes no claim to infallibility. S. 
D., II, 25 note, 273. I, 293. 
> H. P. B. says:
> 
> "I speak with 'absolute certainty' only so far as my own personal 
belief is concerned. Those who have not the same warrant for their 
belief as I have would be very credulous and foolish to accept it on 
blind faith... What I do believe in is:
> 
> The unbroken oral tradition revealed by living divine men during 
the infancy of mankind to the elect among men. 
> That it has reached us unaltered. 
> That the Masters are thoroughly versed in the science based on such 
uninterrupted teaching." - Lucifer, Vol. V, p. 157. 
> "The Secret Doctrine is no 'authority' per se; but being full of 
quotations and texts from the Sacred Scriptures and philosophies of 
almost every great religion and school, those who belong to any of 
these axe sure to find support for their arguments on some page or 
another. There are, however, Theosophists, and of the best and most 
devoted, who do suffer from such weakness for authority." - Lucifer, 
Vol. III, p. 157."
> 
> *******
> Alllright, that most give - some - afterthought in the wise 
spiritualists mind. (Rethink the quotes if you feel for it.)
> 
> Furhter we read in the same book on page ***, that it is ONLY an 
interpretation on the Secret Doctrine and nothing else. That most 
come as a surprise to someone, I think. 
> Now, this "interpretation" will of course because it is just an 
interpretation run certain risks of being misunderstood.
> 
> I have made cuts in the following. One could with advantage read 
the relatively long passage of the referred part on Daniel Caldwells 
website at
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm 
(at Part 5: Was Alice Bailey "the new torch-bearer of Truth"?)
> 
> As Daniel Caldwell very interestingly pointed out at his website:
> 1.
> "Several Alice Bailey students have quoted the following passage 
from H.P.B.'s pen in supporting their claim that Alice Bailey was the 
expected new messenger of the Masters in the 20th century: " (cut by 
Sufilight)
> 2.
> "In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far
> better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final
> and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-
> Vidya; and that . . . the source of all religions and philosophies
> . . . has been for many ages forgotten and lost to men, but is at
> last found." S.D., 1888, Vol I, p. xxxviii (orig ed) 
> (cut by Sufilight)
> 
> 3.
> "Students should compare this 1888 statement with the following two 
passages from HPB's pen. The first extract was written in December 
1888 and the second one dates from the middle of 1889. " (cut by 
Sufilight)
> 
> The first passage reads: HPB's Collected Writings, Vol XII, pp. 491-
492 
> The second passage is as follows: The Key to Theosophy, pp. 306-7 
> 
> Written by Caldwell:
> "The three passages taken together indicate that HPB was referring 
to an emissary of the Masters coming in 1975 or later. These 
statements by HPB would seem to rule out the messenger being Alice 
Bailey or the other claimants listed in Part 6 of this paper. " (cut 
by Sufilight)
> 
> And it is exactly bacuse of such giving interpretations by Caldwell 
and others we have this conflict between Alice A. Bailey groupings 
and H. P. Blavatsky groupings.
> 
> And a little surprise: I hold it today (and i.e. maybe not 
tomorrow) more likely than not, that Daniel Caldwell have got it 
right this time on THIS issue. I said on THIS isssue. But I honestly 
don't know ! (Am I honest or what !)
> 
> That uncertain view doesn't make me think that one should reject 
the books of Alice A. Bailey just like that.
> I would rather like to deal with them like H. P. Blavatsky dealt 
with the author Ralston Skinner, pointing out his faults, - in her 
very good book "The Secret Doctrine" !
> 
> My question is now : Why is it so difficcult for a great number of 
intelligent and wise or halfwise theosophists to do the same as H. P. 
Blavatsky did while dealing with other writers on Theosophy and the 
ancient wisdom teaching even if the year is 2002 ??? That really 
baffles me !
> To me it is clear that there are both 'hardliners' and 'moderates' 
on the issue. So who is right ?
> Those who keep spliting everything apart, or those who say like HPB 
in her book "The Key to Theosophy", Section 2, question 2):
> "ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, 
besides Buddhistic ethics? 
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no 
philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, 
again, it must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, 
Theosophy is divided into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. "
> 
> 
> 
> If you have reach this far on both emails - I would suggest, that 
you compare all this with my (humble and bruced english) article on 
Bailey versus Blavatsky at: 
http://www.esotericastrologer.org/AABHPBHR.htm
> 
> What are your conclusions then ?
> Are Bailey that BAD ?
> Should we consider Bailey to be Blavatskys equal on theosophy ? ( 
No I think not !)
> 
> 
> 
> End of the second round.
> 
> 
> 
> from
> Sufilight with light and love...and a weird look in the head...
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]