Re: Intuition vs the cunning rationalisations of the separative concrete mind
Jan 15, 2003 02:17 AM
by Phillip Lindsay " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
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?
> 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)!!
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
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
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)
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application