Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00230)

> From: Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca>
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Theos-World re Alice Bailey and Theosophy
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:14:44 -0500
>
> According to a recent post on Theos
> Talk, apparently Alice Bailey wrote, at
> some point: <<"They will prepare and
> work for conditions in the world in
> which Christ can move freely among men,
> in bodily Presence; He need not
> then remain in His present retreat in
> Central Asia."
> >
> "His reappearance and His consequent
> work cannot be confined to one
> > small locality or domain, unheard of
> by the great majority, as was
> > the case when He was here before. The
> radio, the press, and the
> > dissemination of news, will make His
> coming different to that of any
> > previous Messenger; the swift modes
> of transportation will make Him
> > available to countless millions, and
> by boat, rail and plane they can
> > reach Him: through television, His
> face can be made familiar to all,
> > and verily 'every eye shall see Him.">>
>
> I'm not particularly familiar with her
> writings, but seems to me that those
> kinds of statements could, or might,
> alternatively, be interpreted in a
> symbolic sense. What if her "Christ"
> and "Messenger" were interpreted as
> "Higher Self," for example, interpreting
> such as "aspects of s/Self relevance" by
> way of possibilitites and potentials,
> eg, or something ilke that ...
> Or does the general reader (or some
> general readers ...) find such
> alternatives and interpretations too
> troubling, or too far out, or too
> abstract, or too something, maybe, or ...
>
> I wonder if anybody out there might know
> more about whether she intended some or
> all of her statements/books to be
> interpreted literally or symbolically
> ... I tend to be under the impression
> that HPB, for one, did not intend her
> writings to be interpreted literally, so
> ... Not that there might not be plenty
> of perceived ("real enough" or "apparent
> enough" ...) "other hands" (or
> "apparently relevant-enough
> considerations") in relation to AB's
> writing's, I'm tending to guess, as per
> whoever, in relation to what might be
> seen (by some ...) as possibly, (or
> "really enbough"...), over-riding, or
> transcending, (per whatever apparent-
> enough reasons or intuitive promptings,
> or both ...), considerations re such as
> what might be "sensibly enough" seen to
> fit one or the other (literal or
> symbolic) camp or mix of ... whatever ...
>
> ^:-/ ...
> Mauri
Tough call, what to interpret literally vs. symbolically. I guess that's 
always been the downfall of "inspired revelations", hasn't it?
I take the above quote with a grain of salt for a few reasons- first, we 
physically-clad tend to think in terms of physicality, and that quote is 
anything but clear. It implies the Lord as being in a physical vehicle in 
Central Asia at the time it was written, which I don't think is true. that 
Central Asia location/retreat would be the etheric Shamballa, which Bailey 
describes parallel to HPB's depiction; perhaps with more detail. At least, 
I'm pretty sure HPB mentions it? I'm no expert on either of their works, 
btw. However, trains, boats, TV's and planes seem to be about as literal as 
one can get, no?

I think it refers to etheric physicality at the time of writing, which, to 
such beings, all but implies earthly incarnation. Iow, a paraphrase, more or 
less of "Lo, I am with you".
Bailey elsewhere says, rather literally, I might add, that that final 
incarnation of the Lord Christ she names Maitreya, will be an overshadowing 
of a physical incarnation of Master Jesus, similar to the one in Judea 2000 
years ago.
She says that that particular incarnation/overshadowing then by the Being 
called the Christ was only for the period of 3 years of Jesus' ministry. She 
makes a distinct differentiation.
So, as far as I can see, from a literal standpoint, the Master Jesus would ( 
most likely) have to take a physical incarnation, grow that body up from 
scratch, prepare it for the eventual 'overshadowing'.



Keep in mind that there is a vocal group of AAB "students" on the Internet 
who follow the 'dictates and revelations' of a fellow in Britain, I think, 
who is issuing "proclamations" and "manifestations" of that Incarnation- 
imo, this fellow is worse than a crackpot, and that group are deluded 
followers of his...none of which have a connection to the teachings of AAB.
I would hope that the bleatings of these folks are not the reason Daniel and 
others are "turned off" by AAB's work, and be able to judge it on its own 
merit- rather than a case of baby with bathwater, imo.

regards-

Ali

_________________________________________________________________
Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. 
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx