Inner resonance and intuition : Is that the Sole Standard that you use?
Jan 17, 2003 11:47 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks for all your responses and answers. I do appreciate them.
Is "inner resonance and intuition" the SOLE standard that you use to
determine whether Bailey's teachings are or are not genuine
Theosophy, that Bailey's teachings are or are not a true continuation
of the teachings of Blavatsky?
If your answer is yes, then how can you be so critical of Nicholas'
opinion about Bailey, if when all is said and done, Nicholas believes
his "inner resonance and intuition" tells him Bailey's teachings are
If "inner resonance and intuition" is your SOLE standard then how can
you argue (which is to descend to the mental realm) that Nicholas'
assessment is "wrong"?
This is partly why I previously asked you:
Why did you get so bent out of shape and write:
"NW's 'Theosophy's Shadow' article is an example of such
sleight of hand. This is a classic case of projection IMHO, where
undiscriminating and prejudiced minds within the entity of the TS,
dare I say behemoth, attack the very teaching to which they claim
to be devoted. There is a non- recognition of a new phase of the
teaching which the Great Ones are well and truly behind."
To my question, you recently answered:
"As I keep on repeating, NW's article SEEMS TO BE part of the
general TS propaganda, that does not allow members to have freedom
of choice, and is simply anti AAB." caps added
But Phillip this is a mental construct/projection of yours using a
historical argument about the supposed workings of the TS, etc.
In light of Nicholas' own personal history relating to Theosophy (and
I know a little about it as he has told me bits and pieces over the
years) your construct is based on nothing that can be called
evidential or reliable.
>From what I can see, his opinions about Bailey in his article are HIS
opinions based upon HIS study and HIS comparison of both the
Blavatsky and Bailey writings. The Theosophical Society (which
one??) had nothing to do with his study, his comparison or his
publication of the said article.
I hate to say this Phillip, but this argument of yours appears to be
of the ad hominem variety. Instead of discussing and debating the
issues Nicholas brought up in the article, you go out side the
article and try to question HIS motivations by referring vaguely
to "general TS propaganda, that does not allow members to have
freedom of choice."
Take this example and think about it:
If Nicholas had been first a Blavatsky student and then came over to
the Bailey school of thought and wrote an article defending Bailey,
would you think it fair if some one might object by suggesting that
his article SEEMS TO BE part of the general Arcane School propaganda?
Back to the "inner resonance and intuition" point.
In summary, if you believe your "intuition" tells you Alice Bailey's
teachings are GENUINE Theosophy, then why get bent out of shape and
protest against Nicholas' "intuition" that may tell him Bailey's
teachings are PSEUDO Theosophy?
Are you denying Nicholas his "freedom of choice"? Did you choose to
believe your "intuition"? Then doesn't Nicholas also have the
freedom of choice?
As I write this under a time constraint, I hope my points are half-
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application