Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00018)

    Bailey _Has_ to say positive things about Blavatsky because she/they/it is attempting to ride on on her coat-tails.  She gets any bonafides she has by claiming to come from Blavatsky's school.

        Do you have any idea how many Bailey type channelers there are with big bunches of books? - dozens, maybe hundreds considering all that didn't "catch on" and disappeared into the past.  'All their followers mesmerized and thinking they are following something really great.  None of them, however, come close to comparing to Blavatsky.  For one thing, none of them seem to be able to continuous quote and refer to other sources - which Blavatsky does thousands of times (see the 1000 book bibliography in the back of TPH's "Isis Unveiled," for instance - and this just for Isis, let alone all her other books.)  Quoting and doing references is just too much work for the channellers (who usually can't even manage to keep making sense).  The few Quotes Bailey uses, according to Cleather - are phoney quotes ("different editions" does not hold water" ) - so Good Lord! - how can somebody not be alerted to malfeisance as outrageous and "in your face as this?"  Maybe the Bailey entity got a few quotes right too, I don't know.

        If Bailey is right for you - then by all means stick with Bailey.  I think you should!

           As for the SD being incomplete - well of course it is.  


-------------
>2a. Re: the Masonic Germain, Rakoczi question
    Posted by: "Jeremy Condick" jpcondick2011@G-uzDXFFbZubGFUdC1HLs7v0_s7LkWP3Pq-85i7Bno0TxhhtN6u6LGhfE3aQkBEPvQuIuHvFiZkt0dgXnyWe.yahoo.invalid logos_endless_summers
    Date: Fri Feb 3, 2012 2:28 pm ((PST))

--- 7
>NOTES ON A TREATISE ON COSMIC FIRE
- By Basil Crump
>Introductory Postulates
>These are stated to be "extensions of the three fundamentals to be found in the
Proem in the first volume of The Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky." But in reality Mrs.
Bailey develops whole cosmic scheme of her own, which includes a new set of so-called
Stanzas of Dzyan, a Solar Logos also called "God," a Triple Solar System consisting of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a Triple Human Being, and a triple Atom. Also Seven centres
of Logoic Force, and Seven Rays which include those of "Love -Wisdom," "Harmony,"
"Beauty and Art," and "Devotion and Abstract Idealism." 
 
>The reader is constantly referred
to passages in the Secret Doctrine, but very few of the terms used, e.g., "Love-Wisdom,"
"Abstract Idealism," "Logoic," etc. ,etc., will be found there. (1) My impression is that this
>is done to mislead the student into thinking that this work is on H.P. Blavatsky's lines,
whereas even a cursory examination shows that it is entirely different and is really
designed very cleverly to lead the student away from the real teaching and confuse his
mind with an imposing mass of apparently very learned information which really means
little or nothing and leads nowhere. The method is somewhat similar to, but less obvious
and more clever than, that of C. W. Leadbeater, but I think that the power behind is the
same, working with the same object on a different line for a more intellectual type of mind.
>It is of considerable significance that Leadbeater and Mrs. Besant are frequently quoted,
and their Christ and World Teacher doctrines taken for granted.
Victor Endersby. Special Paper, September 1963. 
A-Critique-of-Alice-Bailey-Endersby. Made available here by jake j.
 
>JPC: 7. On the three fundamentals of the SD AAB writes... "Students are recommended to study them carefully; in this way their understanding of the Treatise will be greatly aided.TCF3." The Tibetan Master states..."These postulates are simply extensions of the three fundamentals to be found in the Proem in the first volume of the Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky (S.D., I, 42-44)". The postulates spoken of are the "Introductory postulates" of 'A Treatise on Cosmic Fire'. I strongly advise all students to read them and not to condemn them. 
 
>This is because HPB herself advises that her two volume books on the 'Secret Doctrine' do not "complete the scheme" or "treat exhaustively of the subjects dealt with in them" for they were a "PROLOGUE" to "prepare the readers mind" and this is due to predicted further work from her which largely didnt come and due to her personal prediction of final proof of the existence of the Gupta Veda per the twentieth century disciple to come . As the work of AAB was predicted by HPB to come in century the twentieth and that that disciple would be "far better fitted" it is only natural and logical that accordingly the "postulates are simply extensions of the three fundamentals to be found in the Proem in the first volume of the Secret Doctrine." These were predicted to come by HPB' own words. 
 
>Again, she stated that her work was not "the Secret Doctrine in its entirety, but a select number of fragments of its fundamental tenets." HPB even emphasises the fact that this is "needless to explain". One must then wonder why Basil Crump states in his and Cleathers defamation of trans himalayan teachings that "Mrs. Bailey develops whole cosmic scheme of her own". Had he or they read HPB' work correctly Crump and Cleather would understand what HPB wrote and possibly why she wrote it. They would conclude that AAB' work was the predicted second phase second key dissemination of the secret doctrine from a "disciple far better fitted" according to her own referenced words. 
 
>HPB predicted in that coming work that the second psychological key will be turned just as she turned the first key "and no more". Crump and Cleather do not understand this but rather condemn the trans himalayan work to the red caps and left hand path, "the power behind" saying it "means little or nothing and leads nowhere." This is copied and replicated by later students of theosophy to this day. HPB said that the work was "to gigantic for one persone to accomplish" and that she "prepared the soil" for a later predicted disciple to come with a further installment, a karmic installment both in service to humanity.   
 
>"Even the two volumes now issued do not complete the scheme, and these do not treat exhaustively of the subjects dealt with in them." SD1 vii. 
 
>"It is needless to explain that this book is not the Secret Doctrine in its entirety, but a select number of fragments of its fundamental tenets, special attention being paid to some facts which have been seized upon by various writers, and distorted out of all resemblance to the truth." SD1 viii.
 
>"It is almost unnecessary to state that only portions of the seven Stanzas are here given. Were they published complete they would remain incomprehensible to all save the few higher occultists." SD1 23. 
 
>"One turn of the key, and no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is explained in these volumes. In those days the writer hardly knew the language in which the work was written, and the disclosure of many things, freely spoken about now, was forbidden. In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya." SD1 xxxviii INTRODUCTORY. HPB. 
 
>"But these two volumes had to serve as a PROLOGUE, and prepare the reader's mind for those which shall now follow. In treating of Cosmogony and then of the Anthropogenesis of mankind..." SD2 797. 
 
>"The work is too gigantic for any one person to undertake, far more to accomplish. Our main concern was simply to prepare the
soil. This, we trust we have done." SD2 797.

>"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right
value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can
hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist,
July, 1881, p. 218.

>JPC. 
---------------------------- 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > From: jpcondick2011@G-uzDXFFbZubGFUdC1HLs7v0_s7LkWP3Pq-85i7Bno0TxhhtN6u6LGhfE3aQkBEPvQuIuHvFiZkt0dgXnyWe.yahoo.invalid
> > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:10:59 +0000
> > Subject: RE: theos-talk Re: the Masonic Germain, Rakoczi question
> > 
> > 
> > > Yes, I do have contempt for Bailey. In my view it is all the effusions of the lower left-hand path type with _some_ knowledge and _some_ power to get a following, and wreck real Theosophy. Many write and quote about "brothers of the shadow," left-hand path, et. al., but sit right in the middle of it unawares (or perhaps not.) The "Left-handers" mostly are like mesmerizing used-car salesmen on the basic level, and not Darth-vadar types wearing a sign.
> > 
> > > In case you missed it from a few weeks back, here is a link to Endersby's (a friend of Carrithers) and Cleather's critique on Bailey. There's little else I could or want to say that isn't in there.
> > > 
> > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/37333476/A-Critique-of-Alice-Bailey-Endersby
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - jake j.
----------------------



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