Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00291)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

The following link found on Caldwell's website is a very important and 
central article about the Alice A. Bailey teachings:
http://www.hctheosophist.com/archives/pdf/hc200104.pdf

I would in the interest of all parties suggest, that you, Daniel Caldwell,
if possible directly posted this article on Alice A. Bailey on your website.
I do have confidence in that the author behind it would allow you to do so.

A vital excerpt from the article:

"Suffice it to read the booklet by
Alice Leighton Cleather (10) or the paper
by Victor Endersby on the Arcane School
(11) to see that the Bailey exposition is a
very subtle way to distort the Secret
7
Doctrine.
The alleged Tibetan is probably a
Jesuit priest, or some one akin to it, who
preaches very freely about the coming of
the Christ, and so far, he has been able to
divert a great number of good students
into his clerical and anthropomorphic
views.
The thorough study of the Mahatma
Letters and the "Classical Theosophical
Literature" is enough to show unmistakably
that Alice Bailey is not a
development of H.P.B. but its antithesis
Djual Khool, the real disciple of
Mahatma K.H. would never talk and
teach something contrary to the philosophy
of his Master.
By the way, did you notice that
Djual Khool, although referred to as a
Tibetan, was in reality a tall Hindu in
race, like his master? [But about this
later.]
"

I will let the readers know, that I am myself
not in anyway in total agreement with this article.

What I withness very often among theosophists
are a division into to groups.
Those which have a Blavatskian view upon
the Christians as a false doctrine - of phallic content
and with dangerous jesuit tendencies to black magic and
sorcery.
And the other group - those of the pro-Baileys and/or pro-Leadbeaters
who seek to build a bridge between the Christian church and the theosophical
teachings. Or at least what is understood to be theosophical teachings.

The questions forming in my mind is:
Are both groups healthy, when other disagreements
are disregarded? Or is the pro-Blavatskians right?
Or did Blavatsky the co-founder of the Theosophical movement make a mistake 
in being
so tough upon the Christians?

And what about today and the theosophical cause and its relation to the 
Middle Eastern culture?

Something is not quite right.
Compassion and Truth is needed.

from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 6:49 PM
Subject: Theos-World The Fountain Source of Modern Theosophy


> See:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/moderntheosophy.htm
>
> See also:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/onpseudotheosophy.htm
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links