Re: Essential Unity--and Bailey on Mohammedanism
Jan 20, 2003 06:36 PM
by James Davis
MNO> I have to say, that you didn't answer - d) - in the below. Was
MNO> this a coincidence ? (Maybe - and maybe not. Maybe the
MNO> uncounscious part of you got allergic. >:-))
I did answer.
MNO> My question is, - is it not so, that the Bailey books are not a
MNO> balanced multicultural presentation on Theosophy ? True ?
I answered this one with a counter question, which had you answered,
would have rendered a longer answer unnecessary.
MNO> .... whereas they have never heard of "Kidhr or Allah". ) Do you
MNO> understand me ? But this is just my humble view. Maybe you can
MNO> prove me wrong.
I don't want to prove you wrong. I just lay a few of my thoughts
along side yours.
MNO> Alice A. Bailey: Esoteric Psychology vol1. p. 167: The Muslim
MNO> faith is here declared as being a hybrid offshot of Christianity.
MNO> ) Bailey is no good, when we talk about this quote. That is the
MNO> truth. What is your view?
For any who might be interested in the full context, I will append the
complete set of Bailey's Mohammedanism quotes at the end of this
MNO> Maybe you and other pro-Baileys like crass materialism comming
MNO> true at The United Nations. But certainly 1.000.000.000 muslims
MNO> will think quite differently - about your own and some
MNO> pro-Baileys version of and emphasis on "Christ" and also the use
MNO> of very same word - in the present information society. What is
MNO> your view ?
Bailey emphasizes "Christ." I don't emphasize "Christ." Blavatsky
and others had their emphasis; I glean what I can from all sides, but
have my own center. I do wish to emphasize love and brotherhood. I
present some thoughts in the current context because they provide what
may be a useful contrast. What you see of me is, in part, what you
have made me. I become in the process of responding to you. I
explore with you. I know virtually nothing of you, nor you of I.
MNO> I hold it to be true, that the PR of yours and the pro-Bailey
MNO> groups at United Nations are bad 'music' so to speak, when they
MNO> also support, the "hybrid offshot version". What is your view?
Oh, it is nothing; if I am but a small discord to rattle the ear, then
do not trouble yourself further about it.
MNO> d) : The books were NOT intended for a Middle Eastern audience.
MNO> Today communication is rapid - due to the Internet. The audience
MNO> is different today. Some people living in The Middle East and
MNO> have ties with The United Nations are also connected to the
MNO> Internet. True ? If not Why ?
I did answer.
MNO> e) : Yes yes. But isn't it true that the very same leading
MNO> figures at the pro-Bailey groups working at The United Nations
MNO> are given support and a certain kind of (well maybe unwanted and
MNO> maybe not unwanted) authority by the very same beginners among
MNO> their - sort of herd ? Do they not have more influence, than the
MNO> ordinary members. Are they not those who edit the websites on the
MNO> Internet, and decides, what the newcomers should read or not?
MNO> It is quite fake to say, that there are no leading figures and a
MNO> PR-agenda attached to these pro-Bailey groups at The United
MNO> Nations. True ?
Perhaps you mistake me for a representative of some organization you
have built in your mind.
MNO> Even so your version of the Christ dares to call the muslims
MNO> faith something like a "hybrid offshot of the Chrisitian faith".
MNO> That Christ-version I will not follow and support. Kidhr must be
MNO> better. >:-)
Personally, I find among hybrids some of the most beautiful of forms.
Everything is an offshoot of something. I do not fault the branching
of the tree against the sun, but rather consider it a high art.
MNO> Else allright. Maybe my use of words not always has been the
MNO> best. You should just know. I do care. And am at least not
MNO> without a heart...
MNO> It is sort of sad, when people communicate past each other, no?
"Each man wrappeth his thought within his own egotism and calleth the
brat a new name.:"
AAB quotes on Mohammedanism:
It would appear that the emphasis laid by the followers of Mohammed
upon the fact of God, the Supreme, the One and Only, was in the
nature of a balancing pronouncement, coming forth as it did in the
fifteenth century, in order to safeguard man from forgetfulness of
God, as he drew nearer to his own latent and essential divinity as a
son of the Father. The study of the relationships of these different
faiths, and the manner in which they prepare for and complement each
other, is of the deepest interest. This our Western theologians have
often forgotten. Christianity may and does preserve secret within
itself the sacred teaching, but it inherited that teaching from the
past. It may personalize itself through the instrumentality of the
greatest of the divine Messengers, but the way of that Messenger had
been prepared beforehand,  and He had been preceded by other
great Sons of God. His word may be the life-giving Word for our
Western civilization, and may embody the salvation which had to be
brought to us, but the East had its own teachers, and each of the
past civilizations upon our planet had had its divine Representative.
As we consider the message of Christianity and its unique
contribution, let us not forget the past, for if we do we shall never
understand our own faith.
He has been for two thousand years the supreme Head of the Church Invisible, the
spiritual Hierarchy, composed of disciples of all faiths. He recognizes and loves
those who are not Christian but who retain their allegiance to their Founders - the
Buddha, Mohammed, and others. He cares not what the faith is, if the objective is
love of God and of humanity. If men look for the Christ Who left His disciples centuries
ago they will fail to recognize the Christ Who is in process of returning. The Christ
has no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith
a man may call himself.
Some of the great names during the later periods are known to history, such as Shri
Sankaracharya, Vyasa,  Mohammed, Jesus of Nazareth, and Krishna, down to those
lesser initiates, Paul of Tarsus, Luther, and certain of the outstanding lights in
European history. Always have these men and women been agents for the carrying out
of race purpose, for the bringing about of group conditions, and for the furthering
of the evolution of humanity. Sometimes they have appeared as beneficent forces,
bringing peace and contentment with them. More often have they come as agents of
destruction, breaking up the old forms of religion and of government in order that
the life within the rapidly crystallizing form might be set free and build for itself
a newer and a better vehicle.
There are two major factors which are responsible for the failure of the churches:
1. Narrow theological interpretations of the Scriptures.
2. Material and political ambitions.
In every land down the ages men have sought to foist their personal,
religious interpretations of truth, of  the Scriptures and of
God upon the mass of men. They have taken the Bibles of the world and
have attempted to explain them, passing the ideas they find through
the filter of their own minds and brains and in the process inevitably
stepping down the meaning. Not content with this, their followers have
forced these man-evolved interpretations upon the unthinking and the
ignorant. Every religion - Buddhism, Hinduism in its many aspects,
Mohammedanism and Christianity - has produced a flock of outstanding
minds who have sought (usually quite sincerely) to understand what
God is supposed to have said, who have formulated doctrines and dogmas
on this basis of what they thought God meant and their words and
ideas have, therefore, become religious law and the irrefutable
truths of countless millions. In the last analysis, what have you?
The ideas of some human mind - interpreted in terms of his period,
tradition and background - about what God said in some Scripture which
has been subjected during the centuries to the difficulties and the
mistakes incident to constant translation - a translation often based
on oral teaching.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application