Phillip, you asked me: "What exactly have you studied or read in depth of AAB?"
Jan 17, 2003 10:13 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Phillip, you asked me:
"May I ask what exactly have you studied or read in depth of AAB?"
"This is a pointless question. Leon had 20 years of in depth study
of AAB; I had about the same, studying all the Blue books; plus being
a member of her organization. It made no difference to you."
Phillip, I think Nicholas brings up a good point, don't you?
But also equally relevant questions for you would be:
What exactly have you studied or read in depth of Blavatsky? Have
you read all of HPB's writings and studied them in depth?
And this bring up another relevant line of thought.
When I 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
"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."
But what exactly have you studied or read in depth of the Prophets
and the Ballards? How many years have you studied their writings?
I ask the above questions because you seem to be saying (in an
indirect way) that it is important that one has "studied or read in
depth" AAB's writings before coming to any conclusion about whether
Bailey's writings are or are not a "charlatanesque imitation of
Occultism and Theosophy." If this is indeed your point, then it
seems the questions I ask you are of equal importance.
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application