Theos-Talk Archives (December 2008 Message tt00408)

Dear friends and Joseph 

My views are:

Joseph wrote:
"There is a fundamental difference in the way that HPB and AAB 
wrote. The origin of the difference actually lies in the Objectives 
of the TS. "

M. Sufilight asks:
I cannot help wondering, what the difference in "objectives" actually is?

Are both groups not in search after the truth or are you saying that the Alice A. Bailey groups have decided already what the truth is? Or is it the other way around?




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 11:33 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Questions about ABailey group.


  There is a fundamental difference in the way that HPB and AAB 
  wrote. The origin of the difference actually lies in the Objectives 
  of the TS. Isis and the SD take the reader out to various ancient 
  writings, current scientific publications (for that day) and into 
  various philosophical traditions in order to make her points. This 
  has the effect of causing the reader to look up the sources on their 
  own (if available) or digging deeper into whatever tradition they 
  come from. There is not the blind assertion and dogmatism so often 
  relied upon in Bailey's writings.

  For a further examination of the issue, see: 

  http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

  One of the early hallmarks of the Theosophical movement was to take 
  all comers, regardless of belief. Rather than getting shunned or 
  kicked out of the TS, an Alice Bailey transported back into the early 
  1880's would have found herself having to defend her proclamations on 
  their own merits, not only to HPB, but also to the likes of Thomas 
  Edison, Dyanand Saraswati and T. Subba Row. She would have become 
  just another bhoot-dak (Olds, Maitland, Holloway, etc.) using names 
  and concepts foreign to the personages who she flaunted about so 
  freely and not the so-called "continuation" of the HPB/Mahatma 
  Letters tradition. Anyone who can read Letter #10, then reads Bailey 
  really has to ask themselves, "is this the same teaching?".

  Another angle, though not previously mentioned, is if Paul Johnson's 
  writings on the Masters is true, then all of Bailey's metaphysical 
  claims go out the window. The "Masters", from this point of view are 
  a couple of Indians who corresponded with HPB and, if true, then the 
  esoteric bogeymen cease to exist. Frankly, I'm much more inclined to 
  accept Johnson's interpretation than AAB's anytime. At least his 
  writings are based on historical evidence and not some mayavic psuedo-
  Christian/Eastern fantasy.

  I would have much more respect for the Bailey folk if they just stood 
  on the merit of what they are trying to do for world peace, and 
  chucked all of the metaphysical psychobabble.

  As a final thought, nobody in this movement ever took the 1900 Letter 
  to Besant very seriously, did they? If they did, Bailey wouldn't 
  even be an issue.

  Joe Fulton

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "christinaleestemaker" 
  <christinaleestemaker@...> wrote:
  >
  > Because HPB wrote for other public and used too much history.
  > Christina
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > -- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  > theosophy@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Dear Christina
  > > 
  > > My views are:
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Christina wrote:
  > > "Than I think Alice A Bailey has different way in teaching , more 
  > to 
  > > the point."
  > > 
  > > M. Sufilight:
  > > May I politely ask: - In what manner do you find H. P. Blavatsky 
  > not being to the point compared with Alice A. Bailey? 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > M. Sufilight
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > From: christinaleestemaker 
  > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 12:14 PM
  > > Subject: Theos-World Questions about ABailey group.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > They are political in this case : round 2000 they give all the 
  > books 
  > > free to download on internet and later in this millenium 
  totally 
  > not 
  > > one.
  > > While Theosophical literature was not able on internet during a 
  > lot 
  > > of years and now TS; especially America gives a lot for free.
  > > So who is better?
  > > There can be made enough money on lectures, seminars and 
  > courses.And 
  > > not to forget people stay buying the books.Especially in 
  > > courses.Nobody goes with his laptop into course.
  > > And I think it is very important to keep as much as books of 
  > > references online too.
  > > I have for example Collected writitng on CD, but easier if I 
  need 
  > > some references to look at the internet version.Also it is good 
  > to 
  > > have the CD near it, for what now is on-line can be away next 
  > year.
  > > 
  > > Than I think Alice A Bailey has different way in teaching , 
  more 
  > to 
  > > the point.Not whole stories round a subject,where people need 
  to 
  > fly 
  > > over.
  > > But that is my opinion and experiences.
  > > Christina
  > > 
  > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" 
  <global-
  > > theosophy@> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Dear friends
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > My vieus are:
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > Is the Alice A. Bailey groups and LUCIS TRUST really non-
  > political?
  > > > AND is this coinciding with H. P. Blavatsky's and H. S. 
  > Olcott's 
  > > teachings?
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 1.
  > > > At the front page on the LUCIS TRUST hompage - The Alice A. 
  > Bailey 
  > > groups main website if any we find that the claim to be a non-
  > > political group:
  > > > 
  > > > LUCIS TRUST
  > > > The worldwide activities of the Lucis Trust, founded by Alice 
  > and 
  > > Foster Bailey, are dedicated to establishing right human 
  > relations.
  > > > 
  > > > The activities of the Lucis Trust promote the education of 
  the 
  > > human mind towards recognition and practice of the spiritual 
  > > principles and values upon which a stable and interdependent 
  > world 
  > > society may be based. The Lucis Trust is non-political and non-
  > > sectarian. It sponsors no special creed or dogma. 
  > > > http://www.lucistrust.org/
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 2.
  > > > Seven years after the birth of the U.N., a book was published 
  > by 
  > > the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, 
  > > claiming that,
  > > > 
  > > > "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the 
  needed 
  > > receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be 
  seen 
  > in 
  > > the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the 
  > United 
  > > Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of 
  this 
  > un-
  > > foldment, three occult factors have governed the development of 
  > all 
  > > these plans".
  > > > 
  > > > [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 
  > > 1955), Vol.II, p.35.]
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 
  > > 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that,
  > > > 
  > > > "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great 
  > > international and meditating, reflective group - a group of 
  > thinking 
  > > and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of 
  > > humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray 
  > > disciples, if you could but realize it, and their point of 
  > meditative 
  > > focus is the intuitional or buddhic plane - the plane upon 
  which 
  > all 
  > > hierarchical activity is today to be found".
  > > > 
  > > > [Ibid., p.220.]
  > > > 
  > > > To this end, the Lucis Trust (formerly known as the Lucifer 
  > Trust), 
  > > under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a 
  group 
  > > called 'World Goodwill' - an official Non-Governmental 
  > Organization 
  > > within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to 
  > > cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of 
  the 
  > > Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, 
  > October/
  > > November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.] 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > - - - 
  > > > 
  > > > Now, I would really like to know, what your answer is?
  > > > If not, I ask why not?
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > M. Sufilight
  > > > 
  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > > >
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > >
  >



   

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