Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00395)

Hallo Leon and all,

My views are given in the below using ***.

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Was Alice Bailey "the New Torch-Bearer of Truth"?


>
> In a message dated 03/18/04 12:12:55 PM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk
writes:
>
> >As far as I am concerned the Bailey books was - partly - written to
confront
> >certain Western groups of Seekers after Wisdom and Truth, so that they
would
> >get rid of what Blavatsky in the above mentions as "There are, however,
> >Theosophists, and of the best and most devoted, who do suffer from such
> >weakness for authority."
> >
> >Did this help ?
>
> Maybe some of what came before. But, not really this last observation (f
I
> understand it correctly)... Because Bailey went to great efforts to
establish
> her "authority" by creating a possibly fictitious "Tibetan" as her mentor.
> Most Bailey followers I know counter any disagreement with the pseudo
occult
> teachings in AAB's books, by referring to the authority of the Hierarchy
and the
> infallibility of DK, and sometimes go on to cite DK's statement that HPB's
> theosophy was "kindergarten stuff" and AAB's is "graduate level." They
then go
> on to say that the reason anyone can disagree with AAB is that they are
not yet
> ready to comprehend and accept the arcane meaning behind the teaching of
the
> rays, authority of the Hierarchy, etc., etc. Of course, I have no counter
> argument for that sort of bias -- other than citing HPB's warnings.

***
Yes. Some has because of the Bailey groups existence learned an important
lesson, which wouldn't have happened without their existence.
And - others - would as you say fall prey to the Bailey cult.
That was what I meant.
We do not disagree.

***
>
> However, my in depth comparison of the two teachings after more than 40
years
> of eclectic study of Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, Leadbeater, Gurdjieff,
> Crowley, Ouspensky, etc., and occultism in general, leads me to believe
that
> Bailey's version of theosophy is a greatly distorted mishmash, cleverly
designed to
> appeal to those mystical and magical mentalities that need to play with
> psychism and to worship and follow an infallible authority figure -- such
as a
> returning Christ in the flesh that reflects the biblical Jesus accepted by
> Christians.

***
A very good picture you give of what I to a certain degree have expereinced
in Denmark.
But there really also are those who just read the Bailey books and cull the
good they find in them
And they often do the same with the other authors you mention in the above
and their writings .

Because there can hardly be said to have been any author among the above,
who hasn't
made mistakes when they lived OR mistakes in their writings.
To say different would be a lie.

And I find, that is important that we do understand this.

It is often so, that writings from the past do not quite relate to the
present or the future
without some modification.

A fellow once said:
No members I have talked to have even read or studied to a
reasonable depth the works of AAB, let alone HPB's key work, the
Secret Doctrine. Most of them I find are into peripheral
interpretors of HPB or lightweight channelled material.

We may ask why ?
And does the Bailey cult then serve a purpose ?
Or has it - already served - its purpose and is crystsallizing ?
A certain amount of Wisdom is required to answer these questions fully.

***
>
> In general, I agree with much of the the assessment of AAB's teachings vs.
> the theosophy of HPB made by Cleather and Crump See:
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPBvsAB.html
>
> LHM
>
***
I don't know if you remember it, but me and you had an exchange on
the Cleather and Crump view here at Theos-Talk
--- Oct 06, 2002 12:30 PM by leonmaurer ---
a) Your mail, which was quite similar to this one
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00043.html
b) My answer http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html
c) Frank Reitemeyers answer to my above email:
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00057.html

I have the hope, that you will realise if you not already do so, that the
Cleather and Crump views are allright as far as they goes.
But they are limited - and as my answering email
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html
sort of says - that view is frozen in time.
--- 
Today it is a misrable view, because it is so old, and do not deal with all
of the Bailey books.
More so we live in the year 2004, and things have indeed changed.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
****
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>