Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00445)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

Allright.
I did remember, that you wrote some emails on Bailey versus Blavatsky about
a year ago.
And a maybe few others.

I didn't mail anything in response to them then because I wanted to see if
it sparked debate from some members in the pro-Bailey camp.
And I see, that you are presenting my article as pro-Bailey. I find that
Interesting - although I disagree somewhat with you in that.
I can tell you, that one theosophical lecturer here in Denmark said that he
didn't like that I criticised Bailey that much which I did in the article.
And then He said that he accepted the article because it suggested, that the
pro-Bailey groups and the theosophical non-Bailey groups should and aught to
be each others friends despite their differences.

---
Your emails or articles in the footnote, which you have added have a few
flaws as I - a student of Alice A. Bailey - see it.

1.
The word "christ" or "Christ" can for obvious reasons be given more than one
interpetation.
The fact that Blavatsky problably didn't do that with this particular word -
doen't prevent other
authors - Bailey included - from giving it - more than one definition. This
is allowed.

This fact makes according to me your - Daniel Caldwell - emails less true.

2.
Another flaw as I see it is, that Alice A. Bailey do also agree upon, that
it is the comming of the Christ in man or humanity, which is of the greatest
importance, and not only whether Christ reappears - (The Kalki Avatar or the
'rescue-Avatar' which appears because rightousness disappears from the
planet - as written in the Bhagavad Gita.)
Try this link:
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/externalisation/exte1258.html ("The
Externalization of the Hierarchy")
A few excerpts:
" Thirdly, I told you that Christ might come in person and walk among men as
He did before. This has not yet taken place, but plans are being laid which
will enable Him to do so. Those plans do not involve the birth of some nice
child in some nice home on earth; they will not produce the wild claims and
the credulous recognition of the well-meaning and the unintelligent, as is
so frequently the case today, nor will someone appear and say: This is the
Christ. He is here or He is there. I would point out to you, however, that
the widespread appearance of such tales and claims, though undesirable,
misleading and wrong, nevertheless demonstrates human expectancy of the
imminence of His coming. Belief in His coming is basic in the human
consciousness. How He will come, in what manner, I may not and should not
say. The exact moment has not yet arrived, nor has the method of His
appearance been determined. The factual nature of the two earlier and
preparatory moves, already made by the Hierarchy under His direction, are
the guarantee that He will come and that - when He does - mankind will be
ready."

And http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/reappearance/reap1048.html ("The
Reappearence of the Christ")
"Therefore, another answer to the question posited is that Christ and the
spiritual Hierarchy never - no matter how great the need or important the
incentive - infringe upon the divine right of men to make their own
decisions, to exert their own free will and to achieve freedom by fighting
for freedom - individually, nationally and internationally. When true
freedom covers the earth, we shall see the end of tyranny - politically,
religiously and economically. I am not here referring to modern democracy as
a condition which meets the need, for democracy is at present a philosophy
of wishful thinking and an unachieved ideal. I refer to that period which
will surely come in which an enlightened people will rule; these people will
not tolerate authoritarianism in any church or totalitarianism in any
political system; they will not accept or permit the rule of any body of men
who undertake [165] to tell them what they must believe in order to be saved
or what government they must accept. When the people are told the truth and
when they can freely judge and decide for themselves, we shall then see a
much better world."
(This is important to me. Because some pro-Bailey's consider the present
democracies as adequate enough. I don't think so !)

Also important is this - the next page, which deserves to be read in its
entirety. This and some of the following pages are also printed in the book
The Externalization of the Hierarchy
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/reappearance/reap1049.html ("The
Reappearence of the Christ")

Also:
"People love to be saved, for it ignores their own immediate responsibility,
which teaching definitely emphasizes. It must be remembered that it is the
teaching given by the Christ which saves humanity - not any symbolic death
upon a cross. Men must save themselves by their reaction and their response
to the teaching given in its purity by the Christ; this is a point which
should be forcefully instilled by all of you; it is not man-made
interpretations which save a man, but his self-initiated application of his
own understanding of the teaching. This must be brought today to the
consciousness of as many human beings as the followers of the Christ can
reach."
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/externalisation/exte1273.html ("The
Externalization of the Hierarchy")

The word "he" in the texts could be a cover for another word, when read with
the use of the Mystery Language.
The word "Christ" should of course not be understood in any Orthodox literal
sense. But the esoterical newcomers who read the books, will of course have
a great tendency to do that if they have a Chrisitan background. The Coming
of the Christ is to be understood as the Avatar or even the birth of Christ
in the Heart of humanity - ie. the first initiation.
If asked, I have to admit that the writingstyle is special.

These facts in the above quotes makes according to me your - Daniel
Caldwell - emails less true.

---
Else I have to agree with some of what you say.
My view is today:
There is in the books of Alice A. Bailey a great tendency to support a
teaching, which is an strange exoteric-esoteric kind of christian-raja
yoga - with a tinge of Mantra Yoga.
Such a teaching, though, is quite suitable to attract -some - newcomers
(mostly western ones), who has a christian cultural background, into the
Blavatskian wisdom teachings, which you - Caldwell - also find to be
allright, - well as far as I understand you correctly.
The flaw is, that some of the pro-Bailey's create - a quite superficial
interpretation of this special kind of Chrisitian-Raja Yoga - and has formed
groups to that end - using the name Alice A. Bailey and her (+D.K) books.
Well only some of the pro-Bailey's do this.
They have often one of the problems which is mentioned on the following page
on cults and esoterical groups:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/SUFI2.HTM
(Others just do as Blavatsky says: "We cull the good we find in each." - The
Key to Theosophy, section 2).


If one uses the Bailey book the "Light of the Soul" the Bailey (+D.K)
version of Patanjali's Yoga-Sutras (Raja-Yoga) - as the fundament in ones
Bailey-Blavatsky teachings, then the risk of going astray on the path - seem
to me - to be extremely minimalized.
The problem is however, that the newcomer often has many difficulties with
the vocabulary in the Bailey books.
That is why I have suggested - that a greater number of students, who are
interested in theosophy in general and its many branches - and who wants to
learn the vocabulary fast and be given an overview of the various
branches, - could with advantage read the books by Arthur E. Powell as some
of the first books - although they contain mistakes - (because the authors
referred to in the books made mistakes - namely Annie Besant and C. W.
Leadbeater.)
This is just my view.

Another thing is, that we talk about different paths within
blavatskian-theosophy. Blavatsky talks about seven different paths of wisdom
in - The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1; p. 191.

When an aspirant or disciple is on one path - such a aspirant or disciple
sometimes do not understand the other paths - and considers them in fact as
being in opposition to real wisdom teachings. This is quite natural.
And an aspirant and a disciple do also from time to time consider himself or
herself as being more developed than he or she in fact truely is.
This deception goes far. Even some theosophical teachers whether they belong
to the camps pro-Bailey, only-blavatsky or not are infact suffering from
this illusion. Not true ?


The problem with the Bailey - teaching is, as I see it, that Blavatsky has
mentioned - that the aspirant should be given a
"Global outlook" upon the world. Blavatsky's teachings are clear evidences
on that view, as I see it.
The Bailey teachings - appears to me - to prevent the student from being
given such a Global outlook - simply because:
a) The books do not really use any sources but Bailey or D.K. - and a very
few others.
b) The books do not contain a teaching which gives the student a Global
outlook upon the world - and which contains a mulitcultural objective view.
c) The books is not a mulitcultural presentation of the Wisdom Teachings as
they were promoted by Blavataky.
d) Some groups add the psycological teaching's of Roberto Assagioli, (a
former student of C. G. Jung), - to the Bailey teachings. He was a
pro-Bailey.
The flaw is, that both of the initiated Sufi's - Ibn El-Arabi (known as the
Spanish alchemist Doctor Maximus , d. 1240) from Persia and El-Ghazali
(d.1111) from Turkey wrote full blown theories on a spiritual and esoterical
psychology, which covers both Freud's, C. G. Jung's and great parts of
Assagioli's teachings.


To proove this issue by comparing Bailey's books with Blavatsky's and so on
are quite somewhat difficult or energy-time-comsuming. But never the less
true. And again - this is my view. This view I have never received any clear
opposition on from any Pro-Bailey teacher or student.

There is however some positive issues raised in the content of these books.
Not that I so to speak agree with the content.
1. They put the finger on the importance of the United Nations and its role
in social altruism - an issue any Blavatskian thesoophist supports.
There has not been much writing - or even any web-presentations - coming
from later theosophists on the role the United Nations plays and will play
in the future.
I find this problematic. Even a person like Annie Besant would have raised
her voice upon the importance of the United Nations, no doubt in my mind
about this.

For instance this is interesting:
"Mankind is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the
unselfish and trained statesmen that such a government would require. As
yet, there are more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of
helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some day materialize,
after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men should
work and live together. [640]

The United Nations is still the hope of the world and can remain so; it is a
great field of experimentation, but is suffering today from an initial
error. That error was the admitting of a totalitarian Power into its
nations. For seven long and terrible years the Forces of Light had been
fighting totalitarianism. In the early days of the postwar period the
Nations compromised with principles and admitted Russia to the United
Nations. Had they proceeded to unite all the other nations of the world on
the sure ground of economic reform, of needed national reorganization and of
regional groups (a better term than "blocs"), Russia would have been forced
to conform, for her very existence would have been at stake. An initial
error can lead to much trouble, and it is this type of trouble which the
United Nations today faces."
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/externalisation/exte1275.html ("The
Externalization of the Hierarchy")


2. Another issue is that of Healing. Dora Van Gelder Kunz (who died a few
years ago - and was member of The Theosophical Society-Adyar) has according
to me developed a system, which Alice A. Bailey's books can support without
any problems - apart from some of the problematic issues mentioned earliere
in the above and other issues not mentioned in this email.
This was a quite innovative book Bailey made then - well apart from its
vocabulary, which are too western to my taste, today year 2004.

These are just my views, which are not that easy to proove.


Else I will refer the interested students to my article - the one you -
Caldwell calls "pro-Bailey" on your link in the below.
My article is at: http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/BLAVATSK.HTM
(I would call my article - an article in search of the promotion of wisdom
and unselfish behaviour.)



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World Manas and Blavatsky on the Christian Massmedia...


Hallo all,

My views are:


I could be of value to consider the following, when we talk about
Manas and its development.

It is an article by Blavatsky written in Bombay in 1879 - the year when the
Theosophical Society's headquarters was transferred
to India, - and the Seal of the Society changed. The AUM symbol was added to
it as well as the Motto: "There is no Religion higher than Truth".

The article are to me important because it is related to an issue, which is
even more important today.
It is the issue of the Massmedias and the various religious groups influence
upon them. Today some of them
acts in a less visible and more "intelligent" manner to promote a certain
cultural lifestyle supported by a Christian element,
no matter how poisoness such a dogmatic element is, - even if it be an
eternal hell.
Well that is my view. And Blavatsky shows a sort of similar view in her
article, although it is somewhat old.

"Not A Christian"!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before entering upon the main question that compels me to ask you
kindly to accord me space in your esteemed paper, will you inform me as to
the nature of that newly-born infant prodigy which calls itself The Bombay
Review? Is it a bigoted, sectarian organ of the Christians, or an impartial
journal, fair to all, and unprejudiced as every respectable paper styling
itself "Review" ought to be, especially in a place like Bombay, where such a
diversity of religious opinions is to be found? The two paragraphs in the
number of February 22nd, which so honour the Theosophical Society by a
double notice of its American members, would force me to incline toward the
former opinion. Both the editorial which attacks my esteemed friend, Miss
Bates, and the apocalyptic vision of the modern Ezekiel, alias
"Anthropologist," who shoots his rather blunt arrows at Col. Olcott, require
an answer, if it were but to show the advisability of using sharper darts
against Theosophists. Leaving the seer to his prophetic dream of langoutis
and cow-dung, I will simply review the editorial of this Review which tries
to be at the same time satirical and severe and succeeds only in being
nonsensical. Quoting from another paper a sentence relating to Miss Bates,
which describes her as "not a Christian," it remarks in that bitter and
selfish spirit of arrogance and would-be superiority, which so characterizes
Christian sectarianism:

The public might have been spared the sight of the italicized
personal explanations.

What "public" may I ask? The majority of the intelligent and
reading public - especially of native papers - in Bombay as throughout India
is, we believe, composed of non-Christians - of Parsīs, Hindūs, etc. And
this public instead of resenting such "wanton aggressiveness," as the writer
pleases to call it, can but rejoice to find at least one European lady, who,
at the same time that she is not a Christian, is quite ready, as a
Theosophist, to call any respectable "heathen" her brother, and regard him
with at least as much sympathy as she does a Christian. But this unfortunate
thrust at Theosophy is explained by what follows:

In the young lady's own interest the insult ought not to have
been flung into the teeth of the Christian public.

Without taking into consideration the old and wise axiom, that
honesty is the best policy, we can only regret for our Christian opponents
that they should so soon "unveil" their cunning policy. While in the eyes of
every honest "heathen" Theosophist, there can be no higher recommendation
for a person than to have the reputation of being truthful even at the
expense of his or her "interest," our Christian Review unwittingly exposes
the concealed rope of the mission machinery, by admitting that it is in the
interest of every person here, at least - to appear a Christian or a
possible convert, if he is not one de facto. We feel really very, very
grateful to the Review for such a timely and generous confession. The
writer's defence of the 'public" for which it speaks as one having authority
is no less vague and unsatisfactory, as we all know that among the
240,000,000 of native population in India, Christians count but as a drop in
an ocean. Or is it possible that no other public but the Christian is held
worthy of the name or even of consideration? Had converted Brāhmans arrived
here instead of Theosophists, and one of these announced his profession of
faith by italicizing the words, not a heathen, we doubt whether the fear of
hurting the feelings of many millions of Hindus would have ever entered the
mind of our caustic paragraphist!

Nor do we find the sentence, "India owes too much to
Christianity," anything but arrogant and presumptuous talk. India owes much
and everything to the British Government, which protects its heathen
subjects equally with those of English birth, and would no more allow the
one class to insult the other than it would revive the Inquisition. India
owes to Great Britain its educational system, its slow but sure progress,
and its security from the aggression of other nations; to Christianity it
owes nothing. And yet perhaps I am mistaken, and ought to have made one
exception. India owes to Christianity its mutiny of 1857, which threw it
back for a century. This we assert on the authority of general opinion and
of Sir John Kay, who declares, in his Sepoy War, that the mutiny resulted
from the intolerance of the crusading missions and the silly talk of the
Friend of India.

I have done; adding but one more word of advice to the Review. In
the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when the latest international
revision of the Bible - that infallible and revealed Word of God! - reveals
64,000 mistranslations and other mistakes, it is not the Theosophists - a
large number of whose members are English patriots and men of learning - but
rather the Christians who ought to beware of "wanton aggressiveness" against
people of other creeds. Their boomerangs may fly back from some unexpected
parabola and hit the throwers.


[From the Indian Spectator.]
Bombay, Feb. 25th, 1879
H. P. Blavatsky



The fact that Blavatsky considered the Newspapers important and that
she died when
in juridical dispute with one of them - aught not to be just ignored,
but rather taken to Heart !
And with our present year 2004 world situation, one should
underestimate the people behind different Newspapers and the newer tools
Television and including Web-TV and Web-papers are capeable of creating.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...














[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/