Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00429)

Phillip,

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 
pseudo-Theosophy?

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-
way clear.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http:hpb.cc