Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00023)

> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> From: hozro@-sOp431J_SaEJc7OcEdo83XKo81XAp8h9WHMAET7Lda1uzIWDtzEfw8DLfhzCqPdDtbfnone7szRJW0C.yahoo.invalid
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:18:49 -0500
> Subject: theos-talk Re: the Masonic Germain, Rakoczi question
> 
> 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.

JC: HPB stated... "The teaching is offered as it is understood; and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory, that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." SD2 22. 
 
"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. 
 
"In A Treatise on Cosmic Fire the Tibetan has given us what H. P. Blavatsky prophesied he would give, namely, the psychological key to the Cosmic Creation. H.P.B. stated that in the 20th century a disciple would come who would give the psychological key to her own monumental work The Secret Doctrine on which treatise the Tibetan worked with her; and Alice A. Bailey worked in complete recognition of her own task in this sequence." TCF viii. 

JC: There is no claim other than full recognition of this fact and in sequence the second phase or turning of the second psychological key was completed as prophesised by HPB for "Century the Twentieth". 
 
 
> 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.
 
JC: Your 'Cleather' reference, as a reliable source appears to be quite inadequate so far. I have aimed to show that where the claim of "phoney quotes" as you say appear, I will attempt to show that that it is a false claim. I gave one example in a previous letter. I gave another in my last letter, So far Crump has demonstrated his inability to substantiate that statement. But he and Cleather has highlighted the fact that they do not understand the works of HPB or AAB. The words of Crump on "Seven centres of Logoic Force" being "designed very cleverly to lead the student away from the real teaching and confuse his mind" is falsity and does not stand up to reality of "seven Dhyan-Chohanic centres of Force" SD2 739. Be it Logoic or Dhyan-Chohanic for both are the same, the distribution of solar fire through out the centres of the Solar logos and through the heavenly men throughout the system is a part of the teachings given us. It would be wise to study the occult teachings before you copy Cleather and Crump with your claim of "malfeisance". It is offered "as understood" and on a "hypothetical" basis in the least. 
 
> >"...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.

 
So the work of TCF explains the greater psychological meaning or revelation of the entities in the works of HPB. What is "phoney" according to you or your earlier detractors, about that. It is an expansion on previous work that complements it and references it and was a direct prediction recorded in the Secret Doctrine by HPB herself. Of course, the below from 'A Treatise on Cosmic Fire' is just a fraction and merely serves as a snippet of the expansive work on the psychological nature of the entities of the solar system and Universe. Immediately below we see a SD quote referenced by AAB. From the edition I have of SD it is wrongly numbered but appears on page 107 rather than 132. 
 
HPB informs she brought the first completely 'Physical or physiological key' and much historical information with the later deeper psychological elucidation coming via AAB that "disciple far better fitted" according to HPB. That second key expands on the psychological entities and seven rays throughout her books and "Treatise on the Seven rays". It is indication of prediction and occurance in factuality.   
 
To give an example reference quote in brief composition from TCF you claim phony. "12. They are all men, the product of other worlds. - S. D., I, 132." TCF 273. 
 
"The Mind-born Sons, the Rishis, the Builders, etc., were all men -- of whatever forms and shapes -- in other worlds and the preceding Manvantaras.
This subject, being so very mystical, is therefore the most difficult to explain in all its details and bearings; since the whole mystery of evolutionary creation is contained in it." SD1 107. 
 
 
"These three aspects of God, the solar Logos, and the Central Energy or Force (for the terms are occultly synonymous) demonstrate through seven centers of force, - three major centers and four minor. These seven centers of logoic Force are themselves so constituted that they form corporate Entities. They are known as 
* The seven planetary Logoi. 
* The seven Spirits before the Throne. 
* The seven Rays. 
* The seven Heavenly Men. 
The Seven Logoi embody seven types of differentiated force, and in this Treatise are known under the names of Lords of the Rays. The names of the Rays are
 
* Ray I - Ray of Will or Power - 1st Aspect 
* Ray II - Ray of Love-Wisdom - 2nd Aspect 
* Ray III - Ray of Active Intelligence - 3rd Aspect
 (These are the major Rays.) 
* Ray IV - Ray of Harmony, Beauty and Art. 
* Ray V - Ray of Concrete Knowledge or Science. 
* Ray VI - Ray of Devotion or of Abstract Idealism. 
* Ray VII - Ray of Ceremonial Magic or Order." TCF 5. 
 
"seven Dhyan-Chohanic centres of Force" SD2 739. 

"seven Dhyan Chohans." SD2 765. 

"seven procreative rays or powers (the logoi or builders)." SD1 80. 
 
"* ...The center or Heavenly Man with Whom the Logos of their scheme is allied; 
* Which two schemes form, with their own, a triangle for logoic force at a certain stage of evolutionary development; 
* The secret of the cycles, or the periods of stimulation or obscuration; 
then will the body logoic begin to achieve its purpose; then will the Logos of our system begin to blend and merge and coordinate all His vehicles; then will the force flow through all the centers unimpeded; and then will the glory shine out, and each cell in every body - logoic, planetary, deva and human, blaze forth with perfected glory, vibrate with adjusted accuracy, and a major cosmic initiation be taken." TCF 360. AAB. 

 

> 
> 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@EsDp5TJydJ6aMeGU_6cLmbM6431ENf_N7-cRKUHGyjn8BRY-qmdwJBa6sdz6wTOisr6b61VQrfjiENFHMQ7_16jC_g.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@EsDp5TJydJ6aMeGU_6cLmbM6431ENf_N7-cRKUHGyjn8BRY-qmdwJBa6sdz6wTOisr6b61VQrfjiENFHMQ7_16jC_g.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]