Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00682)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

1. I do not quite understand why my earliere reply wasn't enough.

2. I will shortly explain in the below and seek to answer your questions.
I will use *******.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:44 PM
Subject: Theos-World Morten and his "explanation" about the Similarities


Morten,

In my posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15526

I asked you:

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

How do YOU account for those SIMILARITIES between
Bailey's "Initiation - Human and Solar" and
Leadbeater's "The Masters and the Path."

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

Apparently in the following posting, you answered
my question:

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

The mentioned similarities between this Bailey book
and the CWL book "The Masters and the Path" are due to . . . :

..."that each Wisdom Teaching of a certain quality is
connected with
a) Time, place people and circumstances
b) promoting a teaching in accordance with the following view as the
above link said:
"So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not
to support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is
one way in which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the
perpetuations of ideas and movements. This seems important to
understand and know about."

The same can be said of Bailey's book, and why there were any
similarities. With other words - it is my view that this was the an
important part of the background for Bailey (and D.K.) writing the
first Bailey book. The similarities was made deliberately.
This was what my previous email should have lead the reader to
understand.

Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15551

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


Morten, in order to clarify your remarks,
I ask you the following:

In your answer above, are you in fact AGREEING OR DISAGREEING
with what Jerry HE has written????

*******
I disagree in Jerry's use of words. I thought that was obvious.
(I hope you don't mind Jerry.)

I agree on that there is what I will call many "SIMLARITIES" between
Baileys book Initiation Human and Solar and CWL's book "The Masters and the
Path".
As far as the ES papers go - I only have the online books and a few others
to look at 'physically' - while we remember that Jerry in an earliere email
said, that most of them
(the ES papers) today have been published as Books and the like...

I am not aware of anything being "DIRECTLY DRAWN" by Bailey and at least not
when Jerry seem to talk about MANY of her books.
I am aware of a lot of "SIMILARITIES" and also a lot of - DIFFERENCES
between
the CWL and Besant writings on the one hand and the Bailey writings on the
other hand.
--- The writing style is clearly one of the more important differences. ---


The fact that Arthur Avalon wrote his book "The Serpent Power" before
Leadbeater did
write his book "The Chakras" is also an issue worth noting.

*******

I quote his words again to refresh your memory:

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

"From my earlier perusal of AAB's writings, I found that many
of her teachings were DRAWN DIRECTLY from Besant and Leadbeater's
E.S. writings."

"She [Bailey]moved to Krotona Hollywood a year or two
thereafter where she joined the ES, and GAINED
ACCESS to the [Besant/Leadbeater] material concerning
the inner government and initiations, which was
only circulated through the ES at that time. . . ."

". . . [Bailey's] Initiation Human and Solar was published
in 1922-her first book-I think. I read it some years ago,
and found it VERY FAITHFUL to the [Besant/Leadbeater]ES
teachings as they were presented from 1910-1918."


"Yes the parallels between Masters on the Path and Initiation Human
and Solar are striking, aren't they? Actually, the originator of the
material was CWL, but not in 1925." Caps added.


*******
- The first quote I think I have answred.

- Yes she gained access to the ES papers no doubt about that.

-No. I would certainly NOT call har "VERY FAITHFUL" towards the Krishnamurti
teaching.
There is NOT MUCH in her teachings which are in accordance with his
teaching.
Bailey's book "The Soul and Its Mechanism" 1930 shows this.
Also "The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" 1927 shows this.
It is not similar to Krishnamurtis teaching.

- The last quote I agree upon.

I do - in general - not quite like Jerry's use of words in the above.
I think he twists the Bailey teachings too much.
Jerry has his background and I have mine.
Mine is a background in the Brunton and pro-Bailey camp.
Today I am past Bailey and Besant/CWL/Krishnamurti.
I think we aught to live in the year 2004 watching the future - and not live
in the past.

A question.
Is this page from "Initiation - Human and Solar" (read the link) a part of
the CWL and Besant teaching at that time 1919-1922 ? :
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/initiation/init1018.html

Or this one also from "Initiation - Human and Solar" ?:
"He occupies himself with various pupils of different Masters who can profit
by his instruction, and within the last ten years has relieved both the
Master M. and the Master K. H. of a good deal of their teaching work, taking
over from them for certain stated times some of their pupils and disciples.
He works largely, too, with certain groups of the devas of the ethers, who
are the healing devas, and who thus collaborate with him in the work of
healing some of the physical ills of humanity. He it was who dictated a
large part of that momentous book The Secret Doctrine, and who showed to H.
P. Blavatsky many of the pictures, and gave her much of the data that is to
be found in that book."
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/initiation/init1023.html

If you ask me:
It was Morya - HPB's Master - who had the greatest hand in the book The
Secret Doctrine.


These are some of the reasons, why I think I disagree with Jerry's use of
words.


M. Sufilight
*******


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

Morten, do you agree or disagree with Jerry HE that Bailey
gained access to the Besant/Leadbeater E.S. material when she
became a member of the E.S.?

*******
I agree on the she at least after a while did so.
*******

Do your agree or disagree with Jerry HE that therefore with
this access, it is not surprising that "many of her teachings
were DRAWN DIRECTLY from Besant and Leadbeater's E.S. writings"??

*******
No I do not.
I think you have to question yourselves whether Bailey wasn't more cunning
than that.
I think so, and with good reason. Read her books and her autobiography
carefully and I think you will understand.
She was so clever about theosophical teachings, that she - didn't need - to
copy the Besant and CWL teachings.
But she (+ D.K.) had to relate to the Besant and CWL teachings if her
(their) motive with the writings had to have any success.
And they had success.
The Krishnamurti scheme failed. Krishnamurti resigned from office.
Membership at the TS declined much and rapidly.

Was it due to Bailey (+D.K.) being a Dugpa-s - following the Negative Path ?
Or something else ?
Or was it due to karma surrounding Krishnamurti and/or Besant/CWL ?

The last option seems clearly to be the answer although other issues also
was at play.
Try to compare the emotional cult around Krishnamurti with the later
emotional cult around Hitler.
Blind devotion is not really what the Masters like to promote whether it is
of the sweet or bad kind.
*******

I think Jerry's explanation is quite reasonable and explains very
well why there are such marked similarities between the Bailey
and Leadbeater books.

*******
You may think so.
But it won't make it the truth about the matter.
Bailey was just simply not on that low a level of consciousness.
Read her Autobiography.
*******

Bailey became a member of the E.S., gained access to the
Besant/Leadbeater E.S. teachings and later decided for whatever
reasons to embody those Besant/Leadbeater teachings in her first
book, if not also in later works of hers. Do you agree or disagree
with this?

*******
Not quite as I have stated in the above.

Again as I stated days ago now.
Bailey could be viewed as either a "second Teacher" or what we call a
"spiritual decoy" or a "test", -
all of it depending on who you talk to.
I will again refer to this website
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html
and my earlier emails on this issue.
(One of them was this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15407).


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
*******

If you do not agree with these various contentions, then I would like
to know why you disagree?

Daniel







Yahoo! Groups Links