Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00271)

Ali,

You wrote:

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

Bailey asserts, and I agree that there is a being 
who holds the "office", if you will, of Christ. 
She names him Lord Maitreya, the future, and present
Buddha of our race, with but an incarnation left 
to manifest. What is so difficult about all of this 
that you can't grasp? Haven't you experience the
Christ consciousness at all to realize that it is 
at once universal and personal? Do you have a problem 
with 'imagining' that a human can be perfectly One with 
that Christ Mind, that they are nothing but Christ?

Having had this Being's darshan etherically years ago, 
I have no way of validating it for you or anyone, nor 
any need to. If this being takes a single body, that 
is great. If, as Bailey asserts elsewhere, this Being 
'descends' collectively on the many advanced disciples
to bring in the next dispensation, then that is wonderful 
too. And if this Being wishes to do both, or to manifest 
as Ante-Christ and Christ, that's wonderful too.

Ironically, Bailey states, or asserts that D.K. states 
that once Lord Maitreya moves up and on, the next 
officeholder of Christ will be the Master K.H. Perhaps 
that's why it's his portrait that traditional
Christianity displays everywhere?

So what have you to say of the man Jeshu? Of course 
he was a man like K.H., so what?

You've said nothing of consequence, Daniel. If you had 
made any such contact with your own inner Christ, 
you'd know how ridiculous your research is. Ask
sincerely within, and maybe you'll get some better 
answers.

regards-

Ali
------------------------------------------------

Ali, you ask:

"Haven't you experience the Christ consciousness at 
all to realize that it is at once universal and 
personal? Do you have a problem with 'imagining' 
that a human can be perfectly One with 
that Christ Mind, that they are nothing but Christ?"

And at the end of your email you write:

"If you had made any such contact with your 
own inner Christ, you'd know how ridiculous your 
research is. Ask sincerely within, and maybe 
you'll get some better answers."

Ali, thanks for your advice! Good to know my
research is "ridiculous". But have you considered
that possibly Bailey's teaching on the subject is
"ridiculous."

I have had inner experiences and I have no problem 
understanding "the Christ consciousness" as "at once
universal and personal." No problem either with 
imagining "a human can be perfectly One with 
that Christ Mind, that they are nothing but Christ."

But then you write also:

"Bailey asserts, and I agree that there is a being 
who holds the 'office', if you will, of Christ. 
She names him Lord Maitreya, the future, and present
Buddha of our race, with but an incarnation left 
to manifest."

And you also write:

"Having had this Being's darshan etherically years ago, 
I have no way of validating it for you or anyone, nor 
any need to. If this being takes a single body, that 
is great. If, as Bailey asserts elsewhere, this Being 
'descends' collectively on the many advanced disciples
to bring in the next dispensation, then that is wonderful 
too." 

What you write brings to mind the words of the "Christ"
as found in a song by Richard Harris:

"There Are Too Many Saviors on My Cross"

The words are:

"I am all mankind....."

Today we might phrase it:

"I am all humankind...."

And Master KH pens a very suggestive remark:

"Nature ALONE can INCARNATE the Spirit of limitless
contemplation."

As far as I'm concerned Bailey puts too much emphasis
on what you describe as "a being who holds the 'office', 
if you will, of Christ. She names him Lord Maitreya, 
the future, and present Buddha of our race, with 
but an incarnation left to manifest." 

You go on to say:

"If this being takes a single body, that is great."

"If, as Bailey asserts elsewhere, this Being 
'descends' collectively on the many advanced disciples
to bring in the next dispensation, then that is wonderful 
too."

But your attention and Bailey's also seems to be 
focused on this "being" instead of on the "Christ."

And when one considers Bailey's comments about the
Christ in Central Asia and about television, trains,
boats and planes, then the focus is on the external,
the outer, when all the time every human being
has a direct link WITHIN to the SOURCE. 

And speaking of the "ridiculous", Bailey's talk of 
television, etc. appears "corny" if not "ridiculous" to
many students of Blavatsky's writings.

You speak of Maitreya as the office holder and
of Koot Hoomi's future role. Whether this is true
or not, is it really relevant or needed?

This kind of "stuff" is not found, for example, in
the Voice.

As said in the Voice:

"Of teachers there are many; the MASTER-SOUL is one, Alaya, the 
Universal Soul. Live in that MASTER as ITS ray in thee. Live in thy 
fellows as they live in IT."

Notice the emphasis is not on the teachers but the Master-Soul, the
Universal Soul whose ray lives in each of us 6 billion human 
creatures, not to mention the countless billions of other "lives" 
inhabiting just this tiny portion of the cosmos. 

I prefer the approach of the VOICE rather than Bailey's approach
found in her turgid prose echoing material from Leadbeater's and 
Besant's esoteric school instructions. 

Daniel