Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00091)

PL: It seems that Weeks and others such as Clump and Cleather, have taken great exception to the Christian terminology in the Great Invocation, rejecting it solely on this basis. 

Evidence for "rejecting it solely on this basis" from the article, please. My rejection of the Great Invocation would exist even if "Christ" were replaced with "Maitreya" (as some AAB groups did do). As the article said:

Bailey recommended chanting the Great Invocation to supplicate and vacuum forth from their high plane, our saviors, the Christ and his Masters. As if Masters and avatars are too nonchalant, ignorant of mankind's trials or powerless to come forth and help us, without millions first imploring them... As for the Occult Brotherhood encouraging humanity to pray for (and even supplying the invocation for) avatars and Masters to come forth and usher in the New Age, real Theosophy says: "work is prayer." While entreaty by the suffering masses for divine aid (with or without the Great Invocation) is an understandable, ancient attitude, it has no invocative pull on avatars or Adepts, as Bailey suggests. The Occult Brotherhood knows the karmic cycles of mankind and is constantly helping us; even supplying avatars when karma permits, not just when we want them. Many people are eager to have a constant presence of godly elder brothers guiding their lives and civilization; which happens to be just what Bailey and Leadbeater and much of the New Age promises, thus its popularity. Spiritual evolution, says Theosophy, takes place because of our "self-induced and self-devised efforts," not from our prayers and invocations for Christ and his Hierarchy to govern civilization.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]