Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00291)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

I tend to agree with you on the below remarks.
But we have to understand that the Bailey books was created to make an
impact upon a certain spiritually minded audience.
I think due to the vocabulary Mainly a western audience.
Now this attempt was made by an initiate of a certain level. There cannot be
any doubt about that.

Was the attempt deliberately false or did it happen due to a illusorical
trick, - with Maya plying upon the mind of the Initiated Seeker and writer
(Bailey) ?
This is the question as I see it.

And below and at your own webpage I think you have made some important
remarks to put light on a possible answer to that.
And it is clear to me, that it was not so much delusions and a Maya at play
situation.

It was to me (reading your webpages and the Bailey books carefully) much
more a DELIBERATE attempt to create
a spiritual impact upon a certain audience, so to make that audience be -
either - in Doubt about the Bailey books , Against the Bailey books or
taking them to Heart (often a culturally Christian dependent one :-)).

This has happened. Theosophical groups has been created belonging the either
of the camps.
Interestingly is it also, that Today there are in the western countries more
pro-Bailey's than any other kinds of so-called Theosophists.
This I find to be of importance, - huge importance.

Because of this - there is and has been created a Karmic circle - around the
Bailey books and how the "followers" of these relate to them.
This karmic circle has now been growing to such (culturally biased or
culturally narrowminded) proportions, that they will due to Karma have to be
broken before further development - to many pro-Baileys (and perhaps also
anti-Baileys) can happen on a more global scale - and taking the importance
of theosophical teachings on a more World Wide cultural scale into account.
--- Do you not agree uppon that ? ---

A new teaching, which breaks this Karmic circle:
- Such a teaching will not be using a vocabulary, which are culturally
biased like the Bailey books.
- Such a teaching will be directed at all the (major) cultures on this
Planet.
- Such a teaching will be relating to the importance of The seven Keys and
the downall of dogmatic dead-letter teachings - and the downfall of ANY
cultural Bible-Study - be it a pro-Bailey one or not.
- Such teachings will create a global outlook upon the world in the
Newcomers and aspirants mind. And NOT like now with the Bailey books a
westenized one.
- Such teachings will understand that many books has and will continue to
have a great importance within Theosophical teachings.- And that many old
books has a hidden content about the future and even the present situation
we face today. (http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm ).
--- And it is here in the above words that the Bailey books show some of
their flaws. ---


*******
You ask...

1. On "a certain sense":
I will not tell you that, becuase it will not be helpful to you are the
readers at this place.
You will have to think or meditate that one out - so that you learn.

2. Yes Bailey could have been deluded. But I hardly think so, when you read
her Autobiography and the first pages of the Book "A Treatise of Cosmic
Fire", I think that you will understand, why I have arrived to that
conclusion.
SHE knew about the Seven Keys or at least some of them !

3. I think You with advantage aught to see past that "EUreka" idea of
yours.
Bailey was more clever than that. Just read the books and her autobiography.

4. Yes. Bailey was indeed deluded by Maya from time to time.
I say this: She knew very well, that she was maybe deluded to write certain
words, which wasn't quite ESOTERICAL, (because they were quite physical
words on paper, - and of a cultural biased kind).

Just read her Autobiography and the Bailey books carefully.

5. No New and Newer doesn't necessarily mean "better".
It just might have the meaning: A new Design to a new audience.
A new audience is maybe no a very global one, but maybe a rather important
one. A sort of 'dangerous' one, which need(ed) some food to Ponder on.

6. Yes I agree. I will take "centuries" before that happens. Now we are past
the year 1975.

Bailey is NOT telling the truth when she writes that a "The Treatise on
Cosmic Fire" is the Psychological Key to The Secret Doctrine, which HPB
talked about.
We agree upon that !
(Deluded ? Or deliberately a white lie ? I think the "deliberately a white
lie" is the truth. The reason being her own words in her Autobiography - as
well as the Bailey books and their content.)

If anyone has anything which make such a conclusion non-valid, then please
let me know. And I think you Daniel also would like to know about that.




7. "Master KH wrote Colonel Olcott".

A - possible - Masters words - aught not to be read in a literal dead-letter
sense - alone.
They - the words were directed at the more public - readers (you and me and
others), so to keep the importance of Theosophy in mind and the book as a
base in mind.( A base which many pro-Baileys are not against, although some
are deliberately ignoring this book by HPB way too much - as I see it. Often
claiming it to be too difficulkt to read.)
And the words was given by The possible Master to attract followers and
readers which were and are suited to the theosophical cause in its many
variations.
Variations which the Master - CLEARLY knew would arrive sooner or later.

The words are in FACT a "little white lie" - so to attract - somewhat
emotional students.
There has been written books on a level which are just as cunning as HPB's
book The Secret Doctrine (which ONLY used Three or Four of the Seven
Keys --- vol2. p. 797).
Not many are aware of these other books. And this is the truth.
(http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm ).


The Seekers after Truth and Wisdom are being lead to read certain books at a
certain time and at a certain place in their lives.

People in general often think, that a spiritual book like the Secret
Doctrine, just can be read at anytime or at any place. It is not so !
And even that it can have an impact on the readers mind no matter what the
circumstance are at the time of reading it.
The place, the time, the surroundings, the student - with his or hers own
past, present and future situation will have to be taken into account.
Some read this book the first time - while they still are very new to the
wisdom teachings. Other read it the first time, when they already have
travelled some steps on the path.

Let us not forget this.


Did I miss something ?

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



















----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Theos-World More on Morten's Comments


Morten:

You write:

"Maybe the Hierarchy really had decided that christ -
in a certain sense- would come at Bailey's time of writing ?"

Maybe what you write is true, but then again....

I like your phrase "in a certain sense" but exactly what
do you have in mind when you use that phrase?

Morten, it is also possible that the Hierarchy had nothing to do
with it. That Bailey was a deluded person who thought she
was in contact with the Hierarchy, who sincerely believed
she was in contact with KH and DK but in reality was not
in contact with them.

Remember what KH wrote to A.P. Sinnett:

"Vainly do your modern seers and their prophetesses, creep into every
cleft and crevice without outlet or continuity they chance to see;
and still more vainly, when once within do they lift up their voices
and loudly cry: 'Eureka! We have gotten a revelation from the Lord!'
- for verily have they nothing of the kind. They have disturbed
but bats, less blind their intruders; who, feeling them flying about,
mistake them as often for angels - as they too have wings! . . . "

Alice Bailey may have sincerely believed: "Eureka! I have gotten a
revelation from DK!!" but was simply deluded by some elemental "bat."

Do the following words of KH describe Mrs. Bailey's
condition?

"Your vivid creative fancy [imagination] evokes illusive Gurus and
chelas, and puts into their mouths words coined the instant before in
the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself."

I am simply suggesting that seekers of truth should at least
SERIOUSLY consider this possibility.

Morten, you also comment:

"But Daniel is it not also true, that NEW times and a new audience
requires new books of Wisdom - with no dead letter writing on whether
Christ will arrive or not ?"

My answer: Maybe it's true but not necessarily.

But "new" or "newer" doesn't necessarily mean "better" or "truer".

Remember what H.P. Blavatsky wrote:

". . . But it will take centuries before much more is given from it
[the Secret Archaic Doctrine]. . . . " The Secret Doctrine, 1888, Vol
I, p. xxxviii (original edition)

And Master KH wrote Colonel Olcott:

"[The Secret Doctrine is] an epitome of occult truths that will make
it a source of information and instruction for the earnest student
for LONG YEARS TO COME. . . ."

Yet it would appear that far too many students have only a
superifical acquaintance with this "source of information and
instruction" preferring instead so-called newer and more uptodate
[??] "books of wisdom".

Daniel









Yahoo! Groups Links