Theos-Talk Archives (September 2007 Message tt00051)

Daniel,

I agree with everything you say. I'm certainly an imperfect specimen :) but I did read IU and SD first, then various AB and GdP and GB, and the SD Reference Series. So my head was pretty well swimming when I went into AAB. I was into astrology by that time so I jumped into her Esoteric Astrology, and hardly understood a word of it! Then Cosmic Fire, ditto. I liked Bethlehem to Calvary, but by then I thought Jesus was an esoteric metaphor and not a real person so that was confusing and it seemed to me a direct contradiction with earlier studies. So I felt I should make a choice (this was years before I saw your tabulation of the various Theosophical "lines") and I sort of went with HPB's works, but by then they seemed kind of dated--that is the language--and Jane Roberts' Seth came to my attention and as that was the late 1970s I was hoping that was the "next" teacher or revelator. I devoured all the Seth material for the next few years and then I had a *fourth* authority (guess what, I'd gotten into Edgar Cayce and had even gone to the ARE HQ in Virginia Beach one vacation). What impressed me on one hand was the fact that it seemed I was on the right track in my research because these various authorities did not seem to contradict each other, except on the issue of whether or not Jesus was real, as I mentioned before, also in your reference to a tabulation of the differences between AAB and HPB some of those things I noticed also. But, generally, and let's include astrology, I was at the point where it seemed I had 5 sources of information about more or less the same esoteric subjects. HPB (and her immediate followers), AAB, Cayce, Seth, and tropical and sidereal astrology. I have quite a library and when I retire from my daily work around midnight I've been at random picking out books to reread for an hour or so. As I said previously, my picks have been AAB (because I'd again re-gone through Besant, HPB, Barborka and GdP's books) and I must have picked up something doing all that because now I could get into her work more deeply. I was totally surprised--and gratified--with her book "Telepathy"--I'd thought it was going to be ho-hum but I'm finding I'm thinking it's a real gem and a powerhouse! She shows where Telepathy is where humankind and the planet is going, and explains how that is the basis for most all further development, that was kind of a relelation to me and I'm still thinking about it. I'd have to give that one a genuine "theosophic" rating. In closing, I feel AAB's books are authentic, but they come from a different angle than I'm used to with HPB, sort of like Seth, which seems to be talking about the same occult topics but from a different angle, a different lexicon. I think AAB's books are a continuation of HPB in the manner I described but somehow I feel *there's a step missing*. In other words, there doesn't seem to be a "bridge" that I can get a handle on from HPB to AAB. For that reason I'd almost take Seth over AAB because his comments and teaching are more contemporary colloquial. That said, have any of you read "Emmanuel's Book[s]"? Those books seem to encapsulate the meaning and goodness of all the books I've just been talking about and they leave you feeling wonderful. And no Sanskrit or any foreign or dead terms... Do you think his was the message for the last century?

Still trying to figure it all out,
Scribe

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: danielhcaldwell 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:49 PM
  Subject: Theos-World One of Konstantin's Statements & Larger Issues


  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



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]