Theos-Talk Archives (September 2007 Message tt00047)

Konstantin wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------
Very often the "guidance" in theosophical groups
makes one too narrow-minded, he is made to believe that all that
Blavatsky wrote is true and Bailey is wrong, or the reverse - it's
doesn't matter.
------------------------------------------------------------

For the present post, we will ignore the point made about
making "one too narrow-minded" or exactly what is meant by the 
assertion that "it's doesn't matter" and instead focus on the issue 
that "all that Blavatsky wrote is true and Bailey is wrong."

This assertion in itself seems to consider only one "position" and an 
extreme one at that!! 

But in considering this assertion one should keep in mind that 
Blavatsky came first, Blavatsky made the claim first that she was in 
contact with the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi, Blavatsky was the first 
to write more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy and related subjects...all 
of this done prior to 1892.

Bailey came later and put forth claims and teachings which supposdedly 
built on what Blavatsky first gave out.

So a student might first want to study Blavatsky, what did she 
ORIGINALLY claim, what did she ORIGINALLY teach. Without first knowing 
what Blavatsky wrote, how can one judge or even understand the 
relevance of Bailey's later claims and teachings.  If in fact Bailey 
and her teachings are a continuance of what Blavatsky started and 
taught then it would seem to me important to know exactly what 
Blavatsky claimed and taught.

Yet most Bailey students are for the most part not well versed in 
Blavatky's claims and teachings.  They are instead students of Bailey's 
writings, not HPB's.  They just assume that Bailey is right in her 
claims, etc.  They just assume that the teachings are consistent.

One such student was Nicholas Weeks.  He was a devoted serious student 
of Bailey's writings.  It was only LATER when he came into direct 
contact with Blavatsky's writings that he started having doubts that 
the two systems were consistent and that Bailey was actually following 
in the footsteps of Blavatsky.

It took him a number of years to come to the "uncomfortable" position 
that Bailey's teachings were NOT consistent with Blavatsky's.

See his article at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

See also:

The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey 
by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPBvsAB.html

Alice Bailey Teachings Examined
http://www.hctheosophist.com/archives/pdf/hc200104.pdf

Now to larger issues....

I've had a good number of Bailey students tell me that I was 
very "narrow minded" for rejecting Bailey's claims and teachings. That 
if I had any intuition at all I would see how Bailey consistently 
continues Blavatsky's work and writings.  But not one of them has ever 
tried to explain in detail how Bailey did this.  The generalization is 
simply made but the details are not provided.  And for the most part, 
the issues brought up by Weeks, Cleather and Crump are never directly 
dealt with by Bailey students.  The issues are simply glossed over.

But when I have brought up the larger issue that after HPB's death, 
many other persons OTHER THAN BAILEY have also claimed to be in contact 
with the Masters, etc., and furthermore when I have asked "do you 
consider these OTHER CLAIMS valid", they will sometimes say, "no, such 
and such claims are not valid."  

When I have asked about Leadbeater, some Bailey students will say, "oh 
no, he was misguided and deluded.  Didn't you know that he plagiarized 
material from DK's books," etc?

In replying, several times I have said, "It is strange to me that you 
get upset when I criticize Bailey's claims, etc. but you yourself have 
just criticized these other people for example Leadbeater and his 
claims!.....And it would appear that your criticism of Leadbeater 
plagiarizing from DK is totally unfounded.  If anything, it was 'DK' 
who plagiarized from Leadbeater."

At this point, most of these students are no longer interested in 
calmly discussing the issues and looking at the evidence pro and 
con.....

But on to the larger issue....

With so many claims and counterclaims... [see my list of the people 
making them at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/41847 ]

years ago I myself found it a very wise and smart move to go to the 
first claims and first teachings of Blavatsky and actually read and 
study them.

And that is what I advise new students and inquirers to do.....

Who knows if any of the later claimants are real messengers or not, who 
knows if some of the later teachings are actually genuine expansions of 
Blavatsky's original teachings?

For to try to access all these later claims and teachings is a 
monumental task that I doubt anyone person has ever done.

First of all one would have to be very informed on what Blavatsky 
claimed and taught and then would have to study literally hundreds and 
hundreds of books written by these later claimants and try to compare 
and contrast.  I dare say that few if any persons would be able to do 
this....  Most students are lazy thinkers....etc. etc.

I find that far too many students even of Blavatsky can't even get 
historical "facts" correct, etc. etc.  So I doubt that such a 
monumental task as the one I outlined in the last paragraph could be 
done by most of these students.

Therefore I advise new students and inquirers to go to Blavatsky's 
writings.

Surely here is enough material for at least several years of reading 
and studying!!!

Of course, some would suggest that this approach is way "too narrow 
minded".  But again I ask those persons, so have you plumbed the depths 
of HPB's own writings?  Have you mastered all the teachings contained 
even in the "Mahatma Letters"?  If you have, then good for you.  But 
others have not and surely they have a right to study that which you 
claim you have mastered....etc. etc.

Now when writing the above, I am not suggesting that the student should 
not read some of the writings of these later claimants.  Even I have 
read at least one or two books written by all of the authors mentioned 
at:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/41847 

Heavens I have even found interesting material to ponder in every one 
of these books.  I guess "truth" can be found anywhere!

But I cannot endorse just one or two of these later writers based upon 
what I said in the last two paragraphs.

Instead I would say go to Blavatsky's writings and the Mahatma 
Letters.  You will have enough there to do you for a very long time!

Daniel
http://hpb.cc