Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00689)

Morten,

Thank you for your latest 2 postings. They help to
clarify your view on the "similarities".

When I have the time in the next day or so, I will post 
a few more comments on what you have written.

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> 
> 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@y...>
> 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