Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00062)

Dear Tom and all readers

My views are:

I will try again. The post did not appear easy to read.

Yes.I have read the Alice A. Bailey books and been a member of one such AAB-related organisation once som years back.One reason was: We do not have any theosophical group following the original Programe for the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891 - here where I live in Denmark, Scandinavia.

About the Great Invocation and the Lucis Teust and related "church-goers" of similar kind: 

People are always looking for leaders; that does not mean that
this is the time for a leader. The problems that a leader would be
able to resolve have not been identified. Nor does the clamor mean
that those who cry out are suitable followers. Most of the people who
demand a leader seem to have some baby's idea of what a leader
should do. The idea that a leader will walk in and we will all
recognize him and follow him and everybody will be happy strikes me
as a strangely immature atavism. Most of these people, I believe,
want not a leader but excitement. I doubt that those who cry the
loudest would obey a leader if there was one. Talk and especially small-talk is cheap, and a
lot of the talk comes from millions of people and even New Agers.
(Maybe the leaders at various theosophical groups would consider the above section.)


H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Theosophical Society:
"ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?

THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old. "
("The Key to Theosophy", 2ed., 1890 - p. 231)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm


So let us not be foolish. Do you not agree?
(Maybe our friend Duane read this.)

___________________

Did D.K. write the Secret Doctrine?

***** 1 *****
Alice A. Bailey writes:
"He occupies himself with various pupils of different Masters who can profit by
his instruction, and within the last ten years has relieved both the Master M.
and the Master K. H. of a good deal of their teaching work, taking over from
them for certain stated times some of their pupils and disciples. He works
largely, too, with certain groups of the devas of the ethers, who are the
healing devas, and who thus collaborate with him in the work of healing some of
the physical ills of humanity. He it was who dictated a large part of that
momentous book The Secret Doctrine, and who showed to H. P. Blavatsky many of
the pictures, and gave her much of the data that is to be found in that book."
(Alice A. Bailey - in Initiation Human and Solar - Chapter 5, p. 58 -
http://nimrodgroup.org/AAB )"
(Theos-talk, march 10th, 2008)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/43317

***** 2 *****
I ASK all Alice A. Bailey followers:
Why should we trust a man (the so-called D.K. or else Alice A. Bailey) who take most of the credit for dictating the Secret Doctrine to H. P. Blavatsky, when we find many letters opposing this view by Master KH, Master Morya, H. P. Blavatsky, Constance Watchmeister, Hubbe Schleiden and perhaps others?

Alice A. Bailey's guide named D.K. forwards his claims several times in the AAB books. Here are the books and pages where Alice A. Bailey's guide named D.K (or AAB her self) claims that he was behind the Secret Doctrine:
- Alice A. Bailey - "Initiation - Human and Solar", p. 58
- Alice A. Bailey - "The Rays and Initiations", page 255
- Alice A. Bailey - "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy", page 685
- Alice A. Bailey - "Esoteric Healing", p. 521, 536(?), og 565

And not a single word of credit to Morya and KH about their involvement wit=
h the book!
We can only wonder what agenda motivates such a promotion and why we aught =
to take such an author seriously at all?

HPB wrote: "For the true, the genuine "Masters", whose real names have, fortunately, never been given out, cannot be created and killed at the beck and call of the sweet will of any "opportunist," whether inside or outside of the T.S." (BCW, Vol. XI, p. 294 - year 1889)

Some words documenting that it was Blavatsky, Morya and KH who was behind the Secret Doctrine:
A.
The below link and its mahatma letters show me and others that it was not Alice A. Bailey's guide named D. K. who as claimed wrote large parts of the Secret Doctrine. It was Master KH and Morya. Blavatsky even write more than one time about it to Olcott, why should she be lying about this? And why should the Masters be lying about it? And why should Constance Watchmeister =
be telling an untruth about Blavatsky's words about her readings of the Aka sha and that her Master was guiding her?

The Writing of The Secret Doctrine (Remember: read the footnotes as well - and - the Mahatma Letters showing that Alice A. Bailey are wrong.)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/invit-sd/invsd-4.htm

B.
Reminiscences of H. P. Blavatsky by Constance Wachtmeister - (Chapter 5)
http://blavatskyarchives.com/wachtmeister/wachtmeisterrem32.htm";
..........and much more......
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/55046
http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/201010/tt00088.html

M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tom Robertson 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:01 PM
  Subject: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order


    
  The more I read of D. K.'s message to or through Alice Bailey about
  the new world order, the less I like it. 

  I find it very partisan, if not Communist propaganda. He criticizes
  Germany for aggressively seeking living space, but he doesn't say
  anything about British colonialism and hardly says anything about the
  Soviet Union. If, out of principle, he was so opposed to
  totalitarianism and aggression that he thought the people of the
  United States should fight over it, why didn't he advocate conquering
  the Soviet Union? Germany didn't start a war with Great Britain or
  France any more than the Soviet Union did and the Soviet Union did the
  same thing that Germany did that Great Britain and France regarded as
  a reason to declare war on Germany. Stalin had already killed
  millions of his own citizens before most people had heard of Hitler.

  I disagree with his characterization of most people as being of good
  will. Most people are selfish scumbags. As my father told me and I
  then learned the long, hard way, bordering on 100%, people don't pay
  loans back. Case closed. If he wants me to issue a Great Invocation,
  it will have to include a prayer that people pay their debts. I hope
  he means it when he says he has no conception of time. It's going to
  take a LONG time before people of good will trust the multitudes
  enough to make the new world order possible. To get back to the
  subject of Communist propaganda, his economic plan makes no provision
  for individual incentive except to tell everyone to be unselfish. The
  ideal global economy may require equal opportunity, but equal outcomes
  is never going to work.

  What does he mean by the virtue of not criticizing? His message is
  full of criticism.

  If physical death is so meaningless to him, why does he advocate
  peace? Why fight and die to get something that is only material? Why
  does he describe the enemy as the forces of materialism and not of
  evil?

  He says:

  "the soul is persistent and deathless; the form is changing and doomed
  to die."

  Isn't the soul also evolving, and therefore "changing and doomed to
  die?" Isn't it only atma, which H. P. B. called the individual
  property of no one, which is eternal rather than evolving?

  Where would he draw the line in advocating violence? Would he support
  terrorists, since they're just trying to defend Palestinians against
  aggression? Would he want all people of good will to fight for Iran
  if the United States aggresses against it?

  After saying that the Allies used more moral means in fighting the
  war, including inhibiting their war effort for the sake of not
  targeting enemy civilians, was he then embarrassed by how many
  millions of civilians they killed, many of them deliberately? What
  would he say about the United States torturing people?


  

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