Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00663)

Pedro,

In your posting titled "Who dictated Alice 
Bailey's books?" which can be read at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15287

you write:

"It is a fact that Alice Bailey's books have inspired
many people in the world. A reading of her 'Unfinished
Autobiography' shows that she was well read and
eclectic in her approach to spirituality. But many of
her claims contradict important principles of
Theosophy as presented by HPB and her Teachers. What
follows is a bird's eye view on the question: was the
source of her teaching the one known in early
theosophical literature as Djual Khool?"

And you conclude your "bird's eye view" with the
following statement:

"This last statement by Bailey is evidence enough 
for me that no real Master of the Wisdom and Compassion 
was associated with her writings."

Pedro, I think your conclusion finds further support
in the following two essays on Alice Bailey:

Theosophy's Shadow: A Critical Look at the Claims and Teachings of 
Alice A. Bailey 
by Nicholas Weeks

The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey 
by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump

I certainly agree with your statement that "many of
her claims contradict important principles of
Theosophy as presented by HPB and her Teachers."

Pedro, the comparisons that you give between Bailey and HPB/her 
Teachers is well done and a similar comparison could be made between
Leadbeater and HPB/her Teachers.

Would you also agree that many of C.W.Leadbeater's claims and 
teachings also contradict important principles of Theosophy as 
presented by HPB and her Teachers??

As Dr. A.B. Kuhn wrote:

"The differences [between HPB's and Leadbeater's teachings] concern 
such matters as the personality of God, the historicity of Jesus, his 
identity as an individual or a principle, the desirability of 
churches, priestcraft and religious ceremonial, the genuineness of an 
apostolic succession, and a vicarious atonement, the authority of 
Sacraments, the nature and nomenclature of the seven planes of man's 
constitution, the planetary chains, the monad, the course of 
evolution, and many other important phases of Theosophic doctrine."

Even Dr. Hugh Shearman has admitted:

". . . the accounts of after-death conditions in her [Blavatsky's] 
own direct writings and in the Mahatma Letters clash very 
emphatically not only with what Bishop Leadbeater and other members 
of the [Adyar Theosophical] Society later described, but also with 
descriptions given by psychics quite unconnected with the Society." 

Details of these differences can be found at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm 

http://blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm

http://blavatskyarchives.com/leadbeatermars.htm

Such studies and much other material besides has convinced many a 
Theosophical student that "no real Master of the Wisdom and 
Compassion [KH] was associated" with Leadbeater's writings.

Have you come to a similar conclusion? And if not, it would be 
interesting to know what led you to a differing conclusion about 
Leadbeater as compared to your conclusion about Bailey.

Daniel
http://blavatskystudycenter.com