Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00324)

DC:> 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"?

PL: the latter.

> 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.

PL: I have given alot of information - pro and con, on my website - 
thats my documentation.

DC:> 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?

PL: yes perhaps.

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

PL: of course not, t'is the current shadow of the West in general. 

> 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?

PL: Conceded.

> 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." 

PL: Let them.

DC: But they might also apply that statement to your 
own "perceptions" of their teachers (Prophets, Ballards)!! 

PL: Granted.

DC: What is one to conclude when a certain person's "intuition" 
> completely contradicts another person's "intuition"? 
> 
> Who's right and who's wrong?

PL: A good question and one that obviously comes up alot in this 
area. The short answer is that everyone is right, and by the same 
token everyone is wrong. That is, its all relative to an 
individual's stage of unfolded consciousness. We all interpret 
through our filters that range from the very dense to the luminous. 
Therefore from this point of view, all forms of teaching are 
perfectly correct for each individual. They are just forms on our 
journey to the formles and the development of true discrimination 
and divine reason, or intuition. They are stepping stones that 
provide a temporary vehicle of understanding until it must be 
destroyed or discarded, and a new more suitable form is 
appropriated. Platitudinous perhaps to some of you.
So the intuition for someone polarised in the solar plexus or the 
astral body is going to be alot different for someone who is focused 
in the heart, or in the mental body. It is relative to their 
unfoldment.

My argument with this whole deal is that newcomer students to TS 
groups in various parts of the world, get steered away from, or 
discouraged outright from the AAB material and therefore are 
deprived of * making choices *. Leaders such as Burnier and Mills 
make irresponsbile statements and I believe incoming Algeo has the 
same adopted the same policy (correct me if I am wrong), as do many 
on this forum no doubt. That is what I call unreasonable prejudice 
and bias.

BTW Daniel, your questions sound like a prosecuting lawyer or judge, 
would that be strong Libra, with Saturn in Virgo? Did we meet in 
another life, perhaps the Spanish Inquisition? (grin)
P.