Theos-Talk Archives (September 2007 Message tt00059)

Dear Daniel

Thank you for an excellent and elaborate posting.

I can only agree with all that you say and imply.

It seems that many of us start with a particular book and if it 
appeals to our senses and sensibilities we consider it good. If it 
feels right and supports our perceived or desired worldview, it must 
be right. Its history, context, credibility and authenticity seem not 
to matter to many. 
If these latter considerations are raised in anything remotely 
resembling a matter for discussion we often receive an extraordinary 
response which has more to do with a blind programmed 
protective/defensive mindset than one genuinely interested in the 
search for the truths and mysteries of existence.

Bishop Leadbeater, Dr Besant, Alice A Bailey and many others you have 
listed, in large part did not represent Madame Blavatsky and her 
teachers' works despite what they themselves and their supporters 
claimed and continue to claim. There are very major contradictions, 
many of which bear no resemblance to the original teachings.
Does this mean we should treat Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' 
writings as infallible? As we've said many, many times, of course not 
and they were the first to insist this not be the case.
Does it mean that we must first study her and their teachings to 
determine whether what followed has any credibility when claiming 
relevance to theirs? As you state so obviously, of course it does.
How else can we determine "truth in reporting" by those claiming to 
represent or be "consistent" with the original teachings. This is 
such an obvious inference for it to be incredulous that so many do 
not understand or do not want to understand its rationale.

Moreover, as you rightly suggest, most of us have not read all the 
relevant works. However, simply reading is only the tiniest part of 
beginning to apprehend the Ageless Wisdom. 

It reminds me of one of the many discussions I had with Miss Joy 
Mills from the Adyar Society. When I first met and began studying 
with her in 1985 I believe it was, she had been studying and teaching 
the Secret Doctrine since 1942. As a teacher by profession, she left 
this at that time to receive a stipend from the American Section and 
so became a full-time student/teacher/administrator of that Section 
as well as spending time as International vice President. As a full-
time employee/teacher she had more time than most of us to study the 
Secret Doctrine intensively. During a Secret Doctrine study class, 
she uttered what was to me a memorable and sobering statement. When 
asked somewhat naively by a student how much she knew of the Secret 
Doctrine she replied, (and I quote), "Do you know, I think I'm just 
beginning to grasp some of its concepts." This, after 50 years of 
study.

On another occasion she mentioned a person who once came to her 
saying, I've read the Secret Doctrine, what's next." We all shared in 
her laughter.

This also reminds me of a statement by L.W.Rogers, "Theosophists 
should read a lot, but think more."

A cursory reading of Leon Maurer's attempt to explain just the 
cosmogonic process from a theoscientific perspective will leave most 
in no doubt of the utterly brilliant complexities contained within 
some of the Secret Doctrine's most fundamental propositions. But more 
importantly, all of this whilst looking mostly from an academic, 
intellectual mindset, leaving aside the literally innumerable and 
utterly profound, mind and heart-expanding occult and mystical 
implications.

The Secret Doctrine's words were never intended simply to be an end 
in themselves, however accurate, brilliantly stimulating and 
fascinating such as they are. They were intended to bring about a new 
way of thinking, a completely new way of perceiving life and its 
operations. 
As the Mahatma KH writes in letter number 44 from the chronology of 
George Linton and Virginia Hanson, "In our doctrine you will find 
necessary the synthetic method; you will have to embrace the whole ? 
that is to say to blend the macrocosm and microcosm together ? before 
you are enabled to study the parts separately or analyze them with 
profit to your understanding."

Daniel, you write so cogently, "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!"

Lifetimes perhaps!

Kind regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>