Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00321)

Inner resonance & intuition VERSUS the cunning rationalisations of 
the separative concrete mind

Dear Phillip:

Thanks for your various answers and statements posted on Theos-Talk.

But I've been pondering a few things and thought I would jot them 
down for interested readers on Theos-Talk.

Nicholas Weeks wrote in his article about Alice A. Bailey:

--------------------------------------------------------

Bailey asserted that her teachings are grounded in and do not oppose 
in any fundamental way Theosophy as lived and taught by HPB and her 
Gurus. This assertion is false. Her books are rooted in the pseudo-
theosophy pioneered by CW Leadbeater.

------------------------------------------------------

I assume Nicholas is using the term "pseudo-theosophy" the same way 
Blavatsky used the term in 1889. 

In your rebuttal on your website as well as in your postings on Theos-
Talk, you apparently try very hard to discount Nicholas' thesis that 
Bailey's "Theosophy" is in reality a "pseudo-Theosophy." 

For example, you reason:

-----------------------------------------------------------

In many cases no reasonable examination has been conducted by 
critics of AAB's teaching. When there has been more in depth 
examinations it has usually been from the angle of extreme prejudice 
or knee-jerk reaction, and therefore to discredit through cunning 
rationalisations and deep attachemnt to current beliefs.

NW's 'Theosophy's Shadow' article is an example of such sleight of 
hand. This is a classic case of projection IMHO, where 
undiscriminating and prejudiced minds within the entity of the TS, 
dare I say behemoth, attack the very teaching to which they claim to 
be devoted. There is a non- recognition of a new phase of the 
teaching which the Great Ones are well and truly behind. 

The irony is breathtaking,and the cloak of crystallised lower mental 
substance around such 'thinkers' is so thick it prevents any vision.

It is said by some occult commentators that the materialistic forces 
had much success creating divisiveness, strife and prejudice within 
the TS. They did not have much trouble in doing that, as they simply 
left it to some of the unredeemed aspects of many personalities 
within.

---------------------------------------------------

Phillip, are you trying to convey the impression to your readers 
that Nicholas conducted "no reasonable examination" of Bailey's 
teachings; or if he did conduct a "more in depth examination," he did 
it "from the angle of extreme prejudice or knee-jerk reaction" and 
with "cunning rationalisations"?

In any case, you characterize Week's article as "sleight of hand", 
etc. but in the extract quoted above you do not offer any detailed 
evidence or supporting documentation other than your mere assertions.

Now moving on to my next pondering.

It is clear from Weeks' article that he believes there are at least 
two "charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy":

(1) Bailey's pseudo-Theosophy and;
(2) Leadbeater's pseudo-Theosophy.

This got me thinking so a few days ago I thought it was important to 
ask you:

"Do you believe that there really are 'charlatanesque imitations of 
Occultism and Theosophy. . . .' "?

You replied:

"Loads of them! Clare Prophet and Summit Lighthouse,I Am Movement, 
and much other 'channelled' material. All make a travesty of the 
Masters and distort. Funny I have seen the likes of Faivre et al 
lump AAB in with them! Talk about ignorant prejudice!"

In order to clarify your position, I again asked you what reasoning 
or criteria you used to come to the conclusion that the Prophets' and 
the Ballards' teachings were "charlatanesque imitations of Occultism 
and Theosophy."

Your reply was certainly revealing (I almost wrote "breathtaking") to 
me. You said:

"Inner resonance and intuition! You know, that quality which renders 
the separative concrete mind redundant. Intuition may have its flaws 
working through the relatively unredeemed form, but it is more 
reliable than the form of lower mind per se."

Let's ponder on the implications of what you have written.

Phillip, are you trying to tell us that if Nicholas had not been a 
victim of the cunning rationalisations of his own separative concrete 
mind, that his intuition would have [or should have]told him that 
Bailey's teachings are GENUINE Theosophy?

And are you trying to convey to us that you are (unlike poor 
Nicholas?) free of "the cloak of crystallised lower mental 
substance"? 

But for all you and I know (unless you have access to something I 
know nothing about), Nicholas' intuition may have shown him that 
Bailey's teachings are clearly pseudo-Theosophy. Maybe he simply 
backed up his intuitive insights with some reasoned comments as given 
in his article and on this forum?

And I should point out that I know a number of students of the 
Prophets and Ballards teachings who would take great exception to 
your comments that the Prophets and Ballards made "a travesty of the 
Masters and distort." 

I have little doubt that these students would agree with your 
general statment that "the cloak of crystallised lower mental 
substance around such 'thinkers' is so thick it prevents any vision." 
But they might also apply that statement to your own "perceptions" of 
their teachers (Prophets, Ballards)!! 

In light of the above, a more troubling question comes to the 
forefront:

What is one to conclude when a certain person's "intuition" 
completely contradicts another person's "intuition"? 

Who's right and who's wrong?

Daniel H. Caldwell