Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00394)

Hallo Pedro;
Here you make right points into my eyes.
Annie Besant was already before Alice Baily; as I could see somewhere 
else they? misuse the work of Annie Besant.
Also I saw on a side of ( I think wikipeadia) that they suggest that 
Alice Bailey was the second president of the Theosofical society, so 
the same mistake was published.
That AB = ANNIE BESANT is not standing for ALICE BAILEY.

greetings Christina











-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@y...> 
wrote:
> Hallow Morten,
> 
> Thank you for your comments. Please find below a few
> replies to some of them. 
> 
> > So what the possible Master KH might have meant when
> > talking to Besant,
> > could have been something else - namely the
> > tendencies to
> > over-emphasise the Masters importance as being
> > almost Gods.
> > That tendency certainly had a peek at that time- 
> > year 1900 - (and maybe
> > also even today in Adyar).
> 
> No, I think he meant "stop talking about it", plain
> and simple. Historical records show that this tendency
> peaked not in 1900 but in August 1925, at the Ommen
> Star Camp, when several personal statements were made
> regarding intiations, Hierarchy, and so on. It was
> from February 1953 onwards, when N. Sri Ram became the
> President (of the Adyar TS), that all personal
> references to the Masters completely stopped. And it
> was very much due to his own personal example. As for
> the present, if you look at her 'On the Watch Tower'
> notes in "The Theosophist", the international journal
> of the Adyar TS, you will not find absolutely any
> personal references to the Masters. Such personal
> references have ceased to be part of the culture of
> the Adyar Society for the past 50 years. 
> 
> > 2. The following was taken from the Bailey
> > Autobiography :
> > 
> > "Then followed A Treatise on White Magic. It is the
> > first book ever given out upon the training and
> control
> > of
> > > the astral or emotional body."
> > - is clearly not true.
> > 
> > Annie Besant made some books sort of covering the
> > subject before Bailey (+
> > D.K.) did.
> > So I do not know, what Bailey (or D.K.) talks about
> > here.
> > I was also baffled the first time I read those
> > sentences.
> > Some of Annie Besants books are: Anicent Wisdom
> > 1911, The Seven Principles
> > in Man 1909
> > Arthur E. Powell got his third book on the subject
> > "The Mental Body"
> > published as early as 1927 !
> > But maybe D.K.'s book was earlier than A. E.
> > Powell's or even Besants ?
> > At least A. E. Powell's books was published before
> > Bailey's.
> > "A Treatise on White Magic" officially was. This
> > book was later in the
> > Bailey book "Esoteric Healing"
> > (to some readers surprisingly) given some remarks
> > about that it contains
> > some faults on the use of magic !
> > Look at the quote here from the book Esoteric
> > Healing:
> > "I may surprise you here if I tell you that A
> > Treatise on White Magic is
> > also true as far as it goes, but it is necessarily
> > limited, and because of
> > these limitations it is also partially incorrect.
> > Does the above statement
> > astonish you? Remember, how can it be entirely true
> > when we consider the
> > limitations of your power to comprehend? It is
> > impossible for me to convey
> > to you the truth, because there exist neither the
> > terminology nor an
> > adequate groundwork of knowledge on your part. This
> > makes my task
> > difficult."
> >
> http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/healing/heal1012.html
> > 
> > So using the Arab numbers 2+2 is not always 4 within
> > the wisdom tradition.
> > Maybe it is "four" which is the answer.
> > (smile...)
> > 
> > I will not call the books Bhagavad Gita, the
> > Dhammapada, the Lamrin Chenmo,
> > the
> > Tao-te-ching, the Cloud of Unknowing --- treatises
> > --- on the emotional and
> > mental body in
> > a (ordinary) theosophical sense.
> > But Bhagavad Gita are really about the issue - as it
> > is the essens of the
> > Upanishads !
> > Then again - you of course will have to read beyond
> > the dead-letter.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 3. Oliviera wrote:
> > "(Is it not surprising that a "Master of Wisdom"
> > would
> > > submit himself to conditions determined by a
> > disciple?"
> > 
> > Perhaps not, if the disciple has taken the 4th
> > initiation OR is
> > working under another Master - not named in the
> > presentation of the issue.
> > The ray or typ of Path the individual disciple
> > follows could have something
> > to do with that.
> > HPB was (or is) on a different Path than Bailey no
> > doubt.
> > The sentences do not say, that Bailey would run the
> > School on her own !
> > 
> > The idea was perhaps to create flexibility in the
> > views and a more down to
> > earth approach
> > around the Arcane School - so to avoid the
> > Krishnamurti atmosphere,
> > which was so prevalent in theosophical circles at
> > the time !
> > 
> > And let us remember that HPB had the high Master
> > Morya as her teacher !
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 4. HPB on the comming book with the "Psychological
> > Key" and the Bailey claim
> > !!!:
> > Oliveira asked where the HPB quote were...Here it is
> > and with the Bailey
> > views added...
> > 
> > a)
> > --- The Secret Doctrine - vol 1., page xxxviii ---
> > 
> > "About 1820, Prof. Max Muller tells us, the sacred
> > books of the Brahmans, of
> > the Magians, and of the Buddhists, "were all but
> > unknown, their very
> > existence was doubted, and there was not a single
> > scholar who could have
> > translated a line of the Veda . . . of the Zend
> > Avesta, or . . . of the
> > Buddhist Tripitaka, and now the Vedas are proved to
> > be the work of the
> > highest antiquity whose 'preservation amounts almost
> > to a marvel' (Lecture
> > on the Vedas).
> > The same will be said of the Secret Archaic
> > Doctrine, when proofs are given
> > of its undeniable existence and records. But it will
> > take centuries before
> > much more is given from it. Speaking of the keys to
> > the Zodiacal mysteries
> > as being almost lost to the world, it was remarked
> > by the writer in "Isis
> > Unveiled" some ten years ago that: "The said key
> > must be turned seven times
> > before the whole system is divulged. We will give it
> > but one turn, and
> > thereby allow the profane one glimpse into the
> > mystery. Happy he, who
> > understands the whole!"
> > 
> > The same may be said of the whole Esoteric system.
> > One turn of the key, and
> > no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is explained
> > in these volumes. In
> > those days the writer hardly knew the language in
> > which the work was
> > written, and the disclosure of many things, freely
> > spoken about now, was
> > forbidden. In Century the Twentieth some disciple
> > more informed, and far
> > better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom
> > to give final and
> > irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science
> > called Gupta-Vidya; and that,
> > like the once-mysterious sources of the Nile, the
> > source of all religions
> > and philosophies now known to the world has been for
> > many ages forgotten and
> > lost to men, but is at last found.
> > 
> > Such a work as this has to be introduced with no
> > simple Preface, but with a
> > volume rather; one that would give facts, not mere
> > disquisitions, since the
> > SECRET DOCTRINE is not a treatise, or a series of
> > vague 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
> http://mail.yahoo.com