Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00411)

Daniel, 
Thanks for your erudite clarifications. I hesitate to take up 
the dialogue again knowing that it might seem a futile exercise for 
you and everyone else on this list, but...

> ". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials 
> largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings. . . [and] 
distorted and falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as 
revelations 

Yes, I have seen this trotted out several times now, and as 
mentioned earlier, this was well before AAB's time. Yet you and 
others I think mistakenly connect the CWL/AB (or Steiner?) 'pseudo 
theosophy lineage to Bailey. I sense that DK was testing the waters 
with CWL and AB with similar material impressed upon them before he 
abandoned it as a bad idea, and waited for AAB later. That may 
explain the similarity and the erroneous lineage connection.

> (1) from the "inner resonance and intuition" perspective, I am 
> convinced that AAB's teachings are NOT derived from the real DK or 
> KH. I perceive a very unique "vibration" in HPB's and the 
Mahatmas' writings but it is totally missing from AAB's writings. 

Just as the pro Bailey-ites are 'convinced' of their perceptions, 
and the prophets and ballards etc. 

> I am open to the possibility that my "intuitive sense" is somehow 
off but my intellectual study of both HPB's and AAB's writings only 
> confirms my "intuition."

OK.May I ask what exactly have you studied or read in depth of AAB?

> (2) From a "comparative study" perspective, I totally agree with 
> Leon's assessment which reads:

> "My 20 year comparative study of both the Secret Doctrine and the 
> Treatise on White Magic have never shown any reasonable 
relationship between the two teachings. In fact the contradictions 
stand out in 
> more places that I was ever be able to count."

Do you 'totally agree' with Leon's assessment because you and he 
have a close agreement on HPB and thats good enough for you? Or have 
you actually studied the books (as you say above), and made a 
comparative study? If so, may I ask what have you studied?

> (3) In addition, it is clear that much of Bailey's teachings 
derive from Leadbeater and Besant. 

Disagree for reasons stated above.

> Notice what Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote recently here on Theos-Talk:
> "I read it [Bailey's Initiation Human and Solar]some years ago, 
and found it very faithful to the ES teachings [of Leadbeater and 
Besant] as they were presented from 1910-1918."

Ditto on my theory stated above. 1919 was the year that DK contacted 
AAB. He may well have given up on the others by then.

> Concerning the deviations of the Leadbeater-Besant teachings from 
> HPB's original presentation, see:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm#(3)

> (5) I would suggest that these words of KH apply not only to Laura 
C. Holloway but also to Alice A. Bailey:

> "Your vivid creative fancy [imagination] evokes illusive Gurus and 
> chelas, and puts into their mouths words coined the instant before 
in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself." 

I think that is an unfair assessment to project onto Bailey, it is 
just tarring her with the same brush.
If you compare the accusation of a 'vivid creative fancy..illusive 
gurus' to this statement by AAB from her Autobiography (p.163):

It was in November 1919 that I made my first contact with The 
Tibetan. I had sent the children off to school and thought I would 
snatch a few minutes to myself and went out on to the hill close to 
the house. I sat down and began thinking and then suddenly I sat 
startled and attentive. I heard what I thought was a clear note of 
music which sounded from the sky, through the hill and in me. Then 
I heard a voice which said, "There are some books [Page 163] which 
it is desired should be written for the public. You can write 
them. Will you do so?" Without a moment's notice I 
said, "Certainly not. I'm not a darned psychic and I don't want to 
be drawn into anything like that." I was startled to hear myself 
speaking out loud. The voice went on to say that wise people did 
not make snap judgments, that I had a peculiar gift for the higher 
telepathy and that what I was being asked to do embodied no aspect 
of the lower psychism. I replied that I didn't care, that I wasn't 
interested in any work of a psychic nature at all. The unseen 
person who was speaking so clearly and directly to me then said that 
he would give me time for consideration; that he would not take my 
answer then and that he would come back in three weeks' time 
exactly, to find out what I intended to do.

This work of the Tibetan has greatly intrigued people and 
psychologists everywhere. They dispute as to what is the cause of 
the phenomenon, and argue that what I write probably comes from my 
subconscious. I have been told that Jung takes the position that 
the Tibetan is my personified higher self and Alice A. Bailey is the 
lower self. Some of these days (if I ever have the pleasure of 
meeting him) I will ask him how my personified higher self can send 
me parcels all the way from India, for that is what He has done."

There is no way that AAB could understand or have a grasp of much of 
the material in these books. Cosmic Fire could not have come from 
her 'vivid creative fancy [imagination]'. It is quite rigorous and 
demanding. She said the same herself.

> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm

I will check it out.

>> "Thou shalt not separate thy being from BEING, and the rest, but 
> merge the Ocean in the drop, the drop within the Ocean." 
> 
> "So shalt thou be in full accord with all that lives; bear love to 
> men as though they were thy brother-pupils, disciples of one 
Teacher, 
> the sons of one sweet mother." 

Indeed,see you in the big drop,
P.