Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00425)

Phillip, you asked me:

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

Nicholas commented:

"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 
reply was:

"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
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc