Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on May 21, 2009 at 7:20am

Dear Duane and friends

My views are:

Nice to see you here Duane.

I find some of your words not to be in accordance with what I have learned about theosophical teachings.
I am here only answering and asking questions on parts of your above post, which I find to contain a number of assumption and conclusion, which I cannot support.
I do not deny that the various parts of the teachings given by Alice A. Bailey can be helpful to some Seekers. And I will like to emphasize this. But why did Alice A. Bailey so badly almost at all cost NEED to forward what she calls theosophical teachings in a manner, which terribly omits the non-dualistic teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters of the Himalayan Range?



Duane wrote:
"This brief comparison and overview of the teachings and works of HPB and AAB is not meant to be a correlated thesis but a simple commentary of their different works on a practical level. I have found that one of the key differences between HPB and Alice A. Bailey is that Bailey gives a graded series of meditation techniques that can be practiced by the disciple in training along with her metaphysical and psychological information."


M. Sufilight says:
There is no doubt in my mind, that Alice A. Bailey wrote more openly and more systematic about meditation, and what it is than H. P. Blavatsky did. And there is no doubt in my mind, that meditation was viewed as important by both. Yet, H. P. Blavatsky never recommended occult meditation without a clear understanding of the methaphysics of Atma-Vidya, Atma=Brahman, and Brahman as Neti, Neti beyond time and thought. The Divine within each humans self. H. P. Blavatsky said: "Meditation is silent and unuttered prayer" and not the Great Invocation given by Alice A. Bailey so to force a - male - Saviour to arrive in the Flesh.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Key to Theosophy:
"ENQUIRER. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?

THEOSOPHIST. To "our Father in heaven" — in its esoteric meaning.

ENQUIRER. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?

THEOSOPHIST. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer to his Father which is in secret (read, and try to understand, ch. vi. v. 6, Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that "Father" is in man himself. " (The Key to Theosophy, 2. edition, 1890, p. 67)


Duane wrote:
"Did HPB advise her student to avoid any special meditation or breathing techniques unless guided by the presence of a Master.? We know she no doubt gave techniques privately."


M. Sufilight says:
H. P. Blavatsky recommended meditation as it was mentioned in the Upanishads. And there it was performed by the - it is said - the fasted developed Seeker until today: King Janaka. And she recommended the meditation given in the Bhagavad Gita, if one reads it in the non-dead-letter version. Meditation without any guidance seems to be ruled out by H. P. Blavatsky in her articles "Chelas" and "Chelas And Lay Chelas". And the Eastern teachings requires, that one study first and prepare one self for occult training.

And the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras was not easily obtainable to everyone in any part of their own country in H. P. Blavatsky's time. There were not much published in European languages about Buddha's teachings in H. P. Blavatsky's time. In Alice A. Bailey's time the picture were different.


"IS THE PRACTICE OF CONCENTRATION BENEFICENT?
Such is another question asked by members of the E.S.T. I answer: Genuine concentration and meditation, conscious and cautious, upon one's lower self in the light of the inner divine man and the Paramitas, is an excellent thing. But to "sit for Yoga," with only a superficial and often distorted knowledge of the real practice, is almost invariably fatal; for ten to one the student will either develop mediumistic powers in himself or lose time and get disgusted both with practice and theory. Before one rushes into such a dangerous experiment and seeks to go beyond a minute examination of one's lower self and its walk in life, or that which is called in our phraseology, "The Chela's Daily Life Ledger," he would do well to learn at least the difference between the two aspects of "Magic," the White or Divine, and the Black or Devilish, and assure himself that by "sitting for Yoga," with no experience, as well as with no guide to show him the dangers, he does not cross daily and hourly the boundaries of the Divine to fall into the Satanic. Nevertheless, the way to learn the difference is very easy; one has only to remember that no esoteric truths entirely unveiled will ever be given in public print, in book or magazine. " (And more words in this link on Occultism. Rama Prasads lectures and the dangers of performing Occult Meditation without a safety-net.) http://www.katinkahesselink.net/esinstr3.htm

Therefore I and others suggest, that the theosophical Seekers, first study hard, and learn the required knowledge about the methaphysics of Atma-Vidya. That is Atma=Brahman, and non-dualistic about the Divine within each human self. Teachings which is hardly mentioned in Alice A. Bailey many pages. And that the Seekers only Seek to perform action with the aim of helping the Universe, and understands that this is not established by Selfish Meditations or by Meditations desiring a Saviour in the Flesh to arrive and to by Grace remove their own Karma. Becuase such an activity will never be justified, and selfishness aught to be avoided. Each Seekers duty is towards the universe and the Planet and by emphasizing a western teaching and audience as in Alice A. Bailey's books.
Let us not drag the Divine down to Earth, but instead Seek to lift each other into the Light of Wisdom and Compassion. Heartflow is non-dualistic and not dualistic in nature. And not the dualistic "Great Invocation" by Alice A. Bailey. The "Great Invocation" given by Alice A. Bailey in fact almost contains a Jesuitic odour. Because the Alice A. Bailey's "God" is by most Bailey followers not considered to be the "God" or Divine within themselves, by an external God, which will arrive in the flesh and "walk about men".

Alice A. Bailey wrote in her book "From Bethlehem to Calvary", 1937:
"Most heartily do I endorse the words of Arthur Weigall when he says:

"Yet the Jesus of History as distinct from the Jesus of Theology, remains 'the way, the truth, and the
life'; and I am convinced that concentration upon the historic figure of our Lord and upon His teaching can alone inspire in this Twentieth Century that fervent adherence and service which in former ages could be obtained from the average layman by the expounding of theological dogmas, the threat of hell, and the performance of elaborate rites and ceremonies."
- The Paganism in Our Christianity, by Arthur Weigall, p. 16"

"The development of humanity guarantees the recognition of Christ and His work and its participation, consciously, in the kingdom of God. "

And by this Alice A. Bailey have succeded in turning Jesus into a "God" and Christ a gigantic male by calling Christ a "He". And this is not the only place where Alice A. Bailey seeks to do this. And H. P. Blavatsky's teachings entirely rejects such a view. I am however aware of that Alice A. Bailey for instancein her "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" and "Glamour a World Problem" are forwarding another view about the Divine. But she extremely seldom mentions, that the Divine resides within each human beings Self, within their "I", as a non-egoistical I.

And the Jesus of history is not really visible in the above book written by Alice A. Bailey, which title tells us to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Lydda as mentioned by HPB.
Jesus in the New Testament is at his highest an allegory in the New Testament Gospels. H. P. Blavatsky clearly mentioned this more than one time. Why write such a book like "From Bethlehem to Calvary" and not also a book like "From Mohammad to Mecca"? - By Christianizing the theosophical teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters K. H. and Morya, (not D.K. as mentioned by Alice A. Bailey) and omitting any talk about the Middle Eastern doctrines and NOT the global oriented doctrine of the Torchbearer of Truth mention by HPB - Alice A. Bailey and her D. K. deliberately has taken a clear stance, which I and other theosophist find no reason to support. Why do you Duane?


Alice A. Bailey writes:
"The Western races must move forward into spiritual supremacy, without obliterating the Eastern contribution, and the functioning of the Law of Rebirth holds the clue to this and demonstrates this necessity. The [180] tide of life moves from East to West as moves the sun, and those who in past centuries struck the note of Eastern mysticism must strike and are now striking the note of Western occultism." (p.179-180 )

But why not seek to do as H. P. Blavatsky, the Masters and Ammonious Saccas sought to do?

H. P. Blavatksky wrote in The Key to Theosophy, p. 2-3:
""ENQUIRER. What was the object of this system?

THEOSOPHIST. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its
disciples, and all those who were "lovers of the truth." Hence the motto adopted
by the Theosophical Society: "There is no religion higher than truth."† The
chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the
three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to
reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics,
based on eternal verities."

So why seek to promote a "SUPREMACY" for western occultism? Why?
I find that it is here that our views differs. If This "supremacy" aught to happen, it aught certainly NOT to happen through a promotion of Alice A. Bailey followers all of them Hailing their pseudo-Christian Saviour in the FLESH using a DUALISTIC invocation "breakning in" the Jesus principle - and calling it a "He" and a gigantic male. - And at the previous page Alice A. Bailey refers to that the meditation-techniques used are to be found in the Raja Yoga teachings. These are also supported by H. P. Blavatsky in their esoteric versions.

Rudolf Steiner wrote something wise about "breaking in" the Jesus principle. There is a more in-depth lecture from Rudolf Steiner about the issue: "From Jesus to Christ" by Rudolf Steiner,

"From Jesus to Christ" October 1911. Here are a few important excerpts by R. Steiner:

"The movement which interests us in connection with our spiritual-scientific point of view, and which we may call an extraordinarily dangerous error in a certain sense, is the movement known in the external world as Jesuitism. In Jesuitism we encounter a dangerous exaggeration of the Jesus-Principle. In the other movement, which for centuries has existed in Europe as Rosicrucianism, we have an inward Christ-movement which above all seeks carefully for the ways of truth."
.......
"In reaction against many other spiritual streams in Europe, the opposite way was taken by those who are usually called Jesuits. The radical, fundamental difference between what we justifiably call the Christian way of the Spirit and the Jesuit way of the Spirit, which gives a one-sided exaggeration to the Jesus-Principle, is that the intention of the Jesuit way is to work directly, at all times, upon the Will. The difference is clearly shown in the method by which the pupil of Jesuitism is educated. Jesuitism is not to be taken lightly, or merely exoterically, but also esoterically, for it is rooted in esotericism. It is not, however, rooted in the spiritual life that is poured out through the symbol of Pentecost, but it seeks to root itself directly in the Jesus-element of the Son, which means in the Will; and thereby it exaggerates the Jesus-element of the Will."
.......
"This will be seen when we now enquire into the esoteric part of Jesuitism, its various spiritual exercises. How were these exercises arranged? The essential point is that every single pupil of Jesuitism goes through exercises which lead into the occult life, but into the Will, and within the field of occultism they hold the Will in severe discipline; they ‘break it in’, one might say. And the significant fact is that this discipline of the Will does not arise merely from the surface of life, but from something deeper, because the pupil has been led into the occult, in the way just indicated."
.......
"These ideas, gathered up into a single resolution of the Will, can certainly give the Will immense strength. But we must ask: what is it in the soul-life that has been directly attacked? The element that ought to be regarded as intrinsically holy, the element that ought not to be touched — the Will-element. In so far as this Jesuit training lays hold of the Will-element, while the Jesus-idea seizes the Will-element completely, in so far is the concept of the dominion of Jesus exaggerated in the most dangerous way — dangerous because through it the Will becomes so strong that it can work directly upon the Will of another. For where the Will becomes so strong through Imaginations, which means by occult methods, it acquires the capacity for working directly upon the Will of another, and hence also along all the other occult paths to which such a Will can have recourse."

So why on Earth promote such meditation-techniques as the Great Invocation given by Alice A. Bailey?
And especially, when those using it has not studied and understood the teachings on Atma-Vidya?

Yet I would clearly recommend that a Seeker who is already on the Path of Occult Meditation to consider some of the words by Alice A. Bailey about the Dark Brothers: (Occult Meditaiton, 1922, p. 131-140)

So the last question in this my answer will be whether Alice A. Bailey fell victim of the mental illusions, which she herself mentioned in the above quote in Occult Meditation?

---

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Key to Theosophy:
"ENQUIRER. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?

THEOSOPHIST. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he will fail."
(The Key to Theosophy, 2nd edition, 1890, p. 21)




M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on May 21, 2009 at 8:12am

Sorry about the spelling errors.

"Each Seekers duty is towards the universe and the Planet and by emphasizing a western teaching and audience as in Alice A. Bailey's books."

aught have been

"Each Seekers duty is towards the universe and the Planet and NOT by emphasizing a western teaching and audience as in Alice A. Bailey's books."

M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on May 22, 2009 at 4:11am

Dear Duane

My views are:


Duane wrote:
"What a myopic statement you make about AABs works."

M. Sufilight asks:
First I ask you some to me important questions, which are at my heart.
Your reaction to this must be understood to be rather impolite.

You really aught to consider, why you did'nt answer my questions and instead start to shout at me calling me "myopic".


When people start to shout at me, I get the feeling, that I am on to something true and right.
So please Duane, would you care to explain why my views are "myopic" instead of just shouting at me?

---

I hold it to be true, that it really do matter what we do!

And I know, that you, Duane, me and great many others find spiritual development important and that it is good. - And it is good, when people are helping to promote this instead of orthpdox biblical dogmas where one daily out-loud are saying Christian-like prayers to make the Christ arrive in the flesh in a new form. We theosophists act and do not promote lip-prayers to an external and personal God. Do you not agree?

So to "break-in" the Jesus principle and promote Western Occultism, without caring about the existence of the Middle Eastern culture is not helpful, when one as an organisation tries to wear ones fashion-hat at the "lawmaking" United Nations as a counsellor. I can not find anything "myopic" in seeking to avoid to only promote Western occultism or Saviour-in-the-flesh teachings, while avoiding the Atma-Vidya doctrine about the Divine within each human is being almost thrown away by various AAB-followers.

Can you?


The theosophical teachings are aimed at Seeking the Truth and not the opposite.
No two persons are in agreement. People learn through communication.

M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on May 22, 2009 at 4:45pm

Dear David and friends

My views are:

Seeking to be helpful.

About the planes and H. P. Blavatsky.

We know, that Secret Doctrine vol. III was not entirely written by H. P. Blavatsky, and that Annie Besant edited it. The following diagram taken from the Secret Doctrine vol. III, p. 444a - might be helpful.
http://hpb.narod.ru/SecDoctrine3C.htm

I consider this diagram to be in accordance with what H. P. Blavatsky wrote in her Secret Doctrine vol. I + II. And this might explain why Annie Besant in this case not really deviated from the teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky, that is, with regard to the three upper planes - apart from using other words about them in diagrams.

Atman in the diagram are viewed as having 3 aspects. And I agree, and was happy to see that this diagram fitted with my own inner formulated model. Maybe this could explain something to the readers.

- - -
Through my acquaintances inside the Bailey - Lucis Trust leadership, I am informed, that they really do not support Benjamin Creme. Maybe someone could put more light on this? Maybe Duane Carpenter knows?

- - -
As I see it:
When anyone claim himself or herself to be the Maitreya of the Age, there will always be doubt in the minds of those who are not sufficiently developed, to actually know the truth - whether false or true. The consequence of this will be divisions among various groups, just like when Jesus (Joshoua Pandira) lived. Not even Chelas know who the Maitreya actually is.

It is much better for the Seekers to rely on that within their own "I" is the solution to spiritual transformation.
Because it is the view on the "I" that has to change. Killing self-reliance in people is actually not theosophical teaching. But there are of course other views,

- - -
The following from a friend of mine might be helpful when talking about this issue.

Truth:
"Truth is the same regardless of the book that presents it or the teacher who proclaims it."
"If we would find Truth, we must rise above our own weakness and dare to face the Truth wherever it may be found or whatever its discovery may do to the narrow confines of our own beliefs and speculations."

Accomplishment:
"Everything is accomplished under a defintive law. Every individual works with that law if they accomplish anything, even to walking or breathing. There is no doubt about that."
"You can not accomplish a thing unless you stand one with it."

The Ideal of Christ:
"There is but one Christ of all mankind. If we stand one with Christ, we are that very thing. Jesus presented the Christ to the world, which all men may present if they will."
"Always, man's divinity is man's higher attitude. It can be proved in every instance."
"You are perfectly free to make the ascension at any instant, and you are always living to a higher level because you are presenting that ideal."


M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by william bradley crawford on June 16, 2009 at 1:21pm

David says AAB's school is "too advanced",but then attempts to summarize her vast body of work by saying she may
have been able to produce "maybe original ideas". If all that was gathered by such research is the idea of
meditating on D.K. perhaps he should've turned the page once or twice.WOW! Perhaps a look through "Glamour: A
World Problem" seems to me a valuable work referring to todays problems. Also,meditations during the full moon is
mentioned because this is the time when many are linked together in common meditation every month.

I agree her work tends toward a more western-school approach. I believe that is why she declined joining the T.S.
A bit of the Rosicrucian feel about it,but theres nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned ( I think HPB greatly
admired thier work).

Other so-called theosophists seem fond of calling A.A.B. a dugpa,but never justify such nonsense. All smacks of DOGMAtic nonsense to me.

in L.V.X.
BC

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on June 16, 2009 at 4:13pm

Dear friends

My views are:


1.
Alice A. Bailey wrote:
"They will prepare and work for conditions in the world in which Christ can move freely among men, in bodily Presence; He need not then remain in His present retreat in Central Asia. "
(Alice A. Bailey in "The Externalization of the Hierarchy", p. 590)


A comment by M. Sufilight:
AAB calls Christ a "He" and a gigantic male.


2.
Alice A. Bailey wrote:
"There are three books which should be in the hands of every student, the Bhagavad Gita, the New Testament, and the Yoga Sutras, for in these three is contained a complete picture of the soul and its unfoldment."..."In the New Testament there is depicted for us the life of a Son of God in full manifestation, wherein, freed from every veil, the soul in its true nature walks the earth. It becomes apparent to us, as we study the life of Christ, what it means to develop the powers of the soul, to attain liberation, and become, in full glory, a God walking on earth."
(Alice A. Bailey in "The Light of the Soul", p. x-xi)


A comment by M. Sufilight:
The Christian dogma of the Word in the flesh is promoted by AAB.
And AAB emphasises The New Testament and not the Quran. Why it is so is not explained. This despite the views given by HPB.


3.
Alice A. Bailey wrote:
"There is life and truth and vitality in the Gospel story yet to be reapplied by us. There is dynamic and divinity in the message of Jesus.
Christianity is, for us today, a culminating religion. It is the greatest of the later divine revelations. Much of it, since its inception two thousand years ago, has come to be regarded as myth, and the clear outlines of the story have dimmed and have come frequently to be regarded as symbolic in their nature. Yet behind symbol and myth stands reality - an essential, dramatic and practical truth."
(Alice A. Bailey in "From Bethlehem to Golgatha", p. 8)

A comment by M. Sufilight:
And AAB emphasises The New Testament and not the Quran. Why it is so is not explained. This despite the views given by HPB in the below for instance.

Try this one...

In the Theosophist we find this article by Harte and HPB:
"We are accustomed to say to the Buddhist, the Mohammedan, the Hindoo, or the Parsee: "The road to Theosophy lies, for you, through your own religion." We say this because those creeds possess a deeply philosophical and esoteric meaning, explanatory of the allegories under which they are presented to the people; but we cannot say the same thing to Christians. The successors of the Apostles never recorded the secret doctrine of Jesus—the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"—which it was given to them (his apostles) alone to know.* These have been suppressed, made away with, destroyed. What have come down upon the stream of time are the maxims, the parables, the allegories and the fables which Jesus expressly intended for the spiritually deaf and blind to be revealed later to the world, and which modern Christianity either takes all literally, or interprets according to the fancies of the Fathers of the secular church. In both cases they are like cut flowers: they are severed from the plant on which they grew, and from the root whence that plant drew its life. Were we, therefore, to encourage Christians, as we do the votaries of other creeds, to study their own religion for themselves, the consequence would be, not a knowledge of the meaning of its mysteries, but either the revival of mediaeval superstition and intolerance, accompanied by a formidable outbreak of mere lip-prayer and preaching—such as resulted in the formation of the 239 Protestant sects of England alone—or else a great increase of scepticism, for Christianity has no esoteric foundation known to those who profess it."
(H.P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, Volume 8, Page 268-283 )




4.
THE GREAT INVOCATION?
"Many religions believe in a World Teacher or Saviour, knowing him under such names as the Christ, the Lord Maitreya, the Imam Mahdi, the Bodhisattva, and the Messiah, and these terms are used in some of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish versions of the Great Invocation.

Men and women of goodwill throughout the world are using this Invocation in their own language. Will you join them in using the Invocation every day - with thought and dedication?

By using the Invocation and encouraging others to use it, no particular group or organisation is sponsored. It belongs to all humanity.

The Great Invocation audio-original
Great_Invocation-original.mp3 633.56 kB

The Great Invocation audio-adapted
Great_Invocation-adapted.mp3 511.26 kB"
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/the_great_invocatio...


H. P. Blavatsky said:
So I will have to disagree with your views.
In the beginners book the Key to Theosophy by H. P. Blavatsky (66-71), she for
instance says:
"IS IT NECESSARY TO PRAY?

ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?

THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We act, instead of talking."
.......

"ENQUIRER. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?

THEOSOPHIST. To "our Father in heaven" — in its esoteric meaning.

ENQUIRER. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?

THEOSOPHIST. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer to
his Father which is in secret (read, and try to understand, ch. vi. v. 6,
Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that "Father" is
in man himself."
.......

"ENQUIRER. Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about
physical results?

THEOSOPHIST. I do. Will-Power becomes a living power. But woe unto those
Occultists and Theosophists, who, instead of crushing out the desires of the
lower personal ego or physical man, and saying, addressing their Higher
Spiritual EGO immersed in Atma-Buddhic light, "Thy will be done, not mine,"
etc., send up waves of will-power for selfish or unholy purposes! For this is
black magic, abomination, and spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all this is the
favourite occupation of our Christian statesmen and generals, especially when
the latter are sending two armies to murder each other. Both indulge before
action in a bit of such sorcery, by offering respectively prayers to the same
God of Hosts, each entreating his help to cut its enemies' throats."

- - -

And about occult training and the dangers of not avoiding sexual intercourse:
Try (BCW 12:702 -
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_059.htm) and (SD
2:458 - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm)

These dangers I do not find referred to by Alice A. Bailey. Do you?


- - -

5.
H. P. Blavatsky wrote in a letter to A. P: Sinnett (p. 230):
". . . . . It would be well perhaps, if the Jesuits contented themselves with making dupes of Freemasons and opposing the Theosophists and Occultists using for it the Protestant clergy as “cat’s paw.” But their plottings have a much wider scope, and embrace a minuteness of detail and care of which the world in general has no idea. Everything is done by them to bring the mass of mankind again to the state of passive ignorance which they well know is the only one which can help them to the consummation of their purpose of Universal Despotism."
http://theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Letters%20of%20H.%20P.%20Blavatsky%2...


I wonder if the use of The Great?Invocation given by Alice A. Bailey and her claimed Master D. K. so to persude the "God" to walk about men in the physical are not perfectly in accordance with the Jesuit teachings about killing self-reliance in the individual and any thought about Prayer to the Divine within our own selves?

(Try "Occultism and Occult Arts" by H. P. Blavatsky. - Theosophy says: First learn Atma-Vidya, then perform Mantras in silence. Atma=Brahman.)


6
And with a whole book by Alice A. Bailey named "The Reappearence of Christ" emphasizing the arrival of Christ in the physical we can HARDLY conclude that Alice A. Bailey did not emphasise a Christ in the physical and did not call Christ a he and a gigantic male, - And that "God" was not heavily anthromorphized or Christianized.


H. P. Blavatsky wrote in feb. 1879 - in The Indian Spectator:
"In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when the latest international revision of the Bible – that infallible and revealed Word of God! – reveals 64,000 mistranslations and other mistakes, it is not the Theosophists – a large number of whose members are English patriots and men of learning – but rather the Christians who ought to beware of "wanton aggressiveness" against people of other creeds. Their boomerangs may fly back from some unexpected parabola and hit the throwers."
http://theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Articles/NotAChristian.htm

CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (dec. 1890) we have:
"The objects of the Theosophical Society are: First. - To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. Second. - To promote the study of Aryan and other Eastern literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and to demonstrate their importance to Humanity. Third. - To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the psychic powers latent in man. "


Now Alice A. Bailey and her claimed Master D. K. writes:
"The Western races must move forward into spiritual supremacy, without obliterating the Eastern contribution, and the functioning of the Law of Rebirth holds the clue to this and demonstrates this necessity. The [180] tide of life moves from East to West as moves the sun, and those who in past centuries struck the note of Eastern mysticism must strike and are now striking the note of Western occultism. "
(Alice A. Bailey in "Glamour a World Problem", p. 179-180)


And we will have to disagree with Alice A. Bailey's emphasis upon the Western supremacy.
The western languages and terminology are as they stand simply too inadequate to describe theosophical teachings and wisdom teachings. Therefore the eastern teachings will continue to regin on a higher level. Some languages are simply less entangled with phallic vocabulary and more esoteric in nature. Remember Chinese and Sanskrit are branches of Senzar.


Idries Shah said about a possible Reappearnce of the Christ:
"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. "
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi-shah.html


Now I would like any Alice A. Bailey seeker to tell me that Alice A. Bailey is in agreement with H. P. Blavatsky in the above quotes given by both as a contrast.

Immature atavism?
Are the above nonsense dear William?


M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by Charles Cosimano on June 16, 2009 at 9:28pm

I think the reason why AB's material is very similar to the Besant/Leadbeater version of Theosophy is very simple. She was in the inner circle and not only absorbed those ideas, she utimately took them for her own. I remember quite vividly back in the 1980s an elderly lady Theosophist coming to stay at Olcott for a time and, after looking in the library one day, became very incensed at the collection of Bailey material. Her reason for being annoyed was not the content of the material, but that, in her claim, the material had been stolen from the ES materials of Bailey's time and republished.

It is a statement I have yet to hear refuted.

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on June 17, 2009 at 12:39pm

Dear friends and Joe

My views are:

Thanks Joe.
The following can be said to be related to the events that lead Alice A. Bailey to abandon TS Adyar.

1.
Joe wrote:
"The Objects are still considered primary by most in the movement today."

I ask:
Yes but how can this be so, when the TS and ES are entangled with each other like they were when Annie Besant changed them after Olcott died in 1907-1908 and like they are today?


H. P. Blavatsky wrote in april 1888:
"But let no man set up a popery instead of Theosophy, as this would be suicidal and has ever ended most fatally. We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher—one who has no right to dogmatize."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_035.htm

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in august1889:
"1st. That the E.S. had never any pretensions to “boss the T.S.” stands to reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the Esoteric Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, its Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the exoteric body, and independent of it, H.P.B. alone being responsible for its members, as shown in the official announcement over the signature of the President-Founder himself.* It follows, therefore, that the E. S., as a body, owes no allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, as a society, least of all to Adyar.
2nd. It is pure nonsense to say that “H.P.B. . . . is loyal to the Theosophical Society and to Adyar” (!?) . H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder and Builder of the Society which was and is meant to represent that CAUSE"
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_049.htm


2.
The following can be said to be related to the events that lead Alice A. Bailey to abandon TS Adyar. And I find it important to keep in mind what Alice A. Bailey said, and whether she was right or wrong in her view.



Alice A. Bailey said:
"The society was founded for the establishing of universal brotherhood but it was degenerating into a sectarian group more interested in founding and sustaining lodges and increasing the membership than in reaching the general public with the truths of the Ageless Wisdom. Their policy of admitting nobody into the E.S. for spiritual teaching [158] unless they had been for two years a member of the T.S. is proof of this. Why should spiritual teaching be withheld until a person had demonstrated for two years their loyalty to an organization? Why should people be required to sever their connection with other groups and organizations and pledge their loyalty to what is called the "Outer Head" of the E.S. when the only loyalties which should be required are those dedicated to the service of one's fellowmen, the spiritual Hierarchy and, above all, one's own soul? No personality has the right to ask spiritual pledges from other personalities. The only pledge that any human being should give is, first of all, to his own inner divinity, the Soul, and later, to the Master under Whose guidance he can more efficiently serve his fellowmen."
. . .
"We discovered then that the E.S. completely dominated the T.S. Members were good members if, and only if, they [159] accepted the authority of the E.S. If they agreed with all the pronouncements of the Outer Head and if they gave their loyalty to the people that the heads of the E.S. in every country endorsed. Some of their pronouncements seemed ridiculous. Many of the people endorsed were mediocre to the nth degree. A number who were looked up to as initiates were not particularly intelligent or loving, and love and intelligence, in full measure, are the hallmark of the initiate. Amongst the advanced membership there was competition and claim making and, therefore, constant fighting between personalities - fighting that was not confined just to oral battles but which found its expression in magazine articles." ("The Unfinished Autobiography", p. 157-160)

J. Krishnamurti appearntly thought the same. And HPB's words in the below seem to agree.
Now what did TS Adyar have to say to the above if they ever have said anything?
And today, we can ask if anything has changed, "competition" "claim making" etc.?



As we say: A Tree is Known on its Fruits; - also TS Adyar.

In 1907 there was published an article over Mrs. Besant's signature in which
the statement is made : " The Theosophical Society has no moral code."



H. P. Blavatsky wrote in 1889:
"ENQUIRER. What was the object of this system?

THEOSOPHIST. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its disciples, and all those who were "lovers of the truth." Hence the motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: "There is no religion higher than truth." † The chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. "

"To prove this was the aim of Ammonius, who endeavoured to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and Idolaters, to lay aside their contentions and strifes, remembering only that they were all in possession of the same truth under various vestments, and were all the children of a common mother. * This is the aim of Theosophy likewise. "
. . .
"The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life. "
(The Key to Theosophy, 2.ed. 1890, p. 2-6, 16)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

- - -
Now neither Annie Besant and Alice A. Bailey sought to follow any of all the above quotes by Blavatsky on basic teachings as the MAIN teachings. And this is as far as I know one of the core problems in those groups today.


And some of us say:
Contrast alone will enable us to appreciate the true value of things.


M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by william bradley crawford on June 17, 2009 at 12:13am

I am glad finally to see in your post some serious reasons for criticism of the Bailey teachings. I
have for years heard only ambiguous statements about dugpas,etc. regarding her. I bought some of
her books to study for myself,but was unable to clearly find great discrepancies with theosophy
except in her christian-leaning views.You have pointed out some striking diferences. I thank you for
being so explicit Sufilight.
William

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on June 17, 2009 at 1:17pm

Dear William

My views are:

There are more.

There is also the view about political activity.
The TS was formed so to never be involved with politics. Lucis Trust claims that it is not involved with politics. Yet Alice A. Bailey wrote:

Alice A. Bailey wrote the following very political words:
"For the first time in human history, the lines of demarcation between that which is right from the angle of the spiritual values (the essential freedom of the human spirit) and that which is wrong (the imprisonment of the human spirit by materialistic conditions) are clearly perceived by the majority of the nations of the planet. Within the United Nations is the germ and the 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."
(Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol.II, p.220.)


- - -

LETTER FROM H. P. BLAVATSKY TO THE SECOND AMERICAN CONVENTION:
"I am confident that, when the real nature of Theosophy is understood, the prejudice against it, now so unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the conditions of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in politics. We are the friends of those who exercise practical charity, who seek to lift a little of the tremendous weight of misery that is crushing down the poor. But, in our quality of Theosophists, we cannot engage in any one of these great works in particular. As individuals we may do so, but as Theosophists we have a larger, more important, and much more difficult work to do."
( H. P. Blavatsky,
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_035.htm

"Therefore one may repeat in full confidence the remark made by Cardinal Ventura on the devil—only applying it to black magic.“The greatest victory of Satan was gained on that day when he succeeded in making himself denied.”

- - -

Now contrast the below with Annie Besants and Alice A. Bailey's teachings.


H. P. Blavatsky wrote (Posthumously published in 1896) :
It may be said further, that “Black magic reigns over Europe as an all-powerful, though unrecognized, autocrat,” its chief conscious adherents and practical servants being found in the Roman Church, and its unconscious practitioners in the Protestant. The whole body of the so-called “privileged” classes of society in Europe and America is honeycombed with unconscious black magic, or sorcery of the vilest character."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v13/ph_010.htm


The High Mass of the Christians is sorcery pure and simple according to the theosophical teachings!
Today it is being performed on the TS Adyar compound at the Christian Shrine, although they would like you to believe something else. We do not - need - bishop Mitras, strange robes, and bloody cup ceremonies in any place were teachings are performed. But of course those who are involved have a tendency to disagree and defend, their own ignorance and pride. - But the truth aught to be told.



M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by william bradley crawford on June 17, 2009 at 10:49pm

Sufilight, If you might pardon my ignorance could you say how the High Mass is
"sorcery,pure and simple"? I have not been around such christian activities since
my youth. I would very much appriciate elucidation.
Will

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on June 19, 2009 at 12:40pm

Dear William and friends

My views are:
Eucharist (i. e. High Mass)
("A very special act of consecration is that of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, which according to Catholic belief involves their change into the body and blood of Christ, a changed referred to as transsubstantiation." - Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

Transubstantiation
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3


Now, when the Christian Priest performs what he calls a "Blessing" of the Chalice and its wine and also the bread, and is doing it thining that he is given powers by his dualistic Male God to do so and after that gives the wine to dring and the bread to eat to the churchgoers - he performs what I would call Sorecery. He performs a magical activity seeking the aid from a Personal Male God. This performance is sorcery according to theosophical teachings, either conscious or unconscious, because the bread and the wine are officially sought in front of the churchgoers to be given magical energy by a dualistic Male God. Of course sometimes the Preist is merely a greedy miser, who performs his ritual almost without any force, and who seeks his wages and a social life in a male dominated world view. This is my view.



The LCC view is different, but clearly involved in phallic and other problematic views:
(C. W. Leadbeater "The Science of the Sacraments", Oblation of the Elements - http://leadbeater.info)

- - -
Try also some theosophical views:
ISIS UNVEILED, vol. 2, p. 6
The Key to Theosophy, p. 68 ("unholy purposes"?)
BCW, vol. 8, p. 271-273
BCW, vol. VII, p. 93
BCW, vol. XIII, p. 257
BCW, vol. XIV, p. 30-31
BCW, vol. XIV, p. 341
BCW, vol. XIV, p. 27
BCW, vol. XIII, p. 67
BCW, vol. VII, p. 214
BCW, vol. IX, p. 291-307
BCW, vol. XIV, p. 106 (Extra link: On the Tarot)

- - -
Pope (Benedict XVI) and his friends are now eargly seeking to get the Catholic Church Christian values written into the European Union Treaty. They almost succeeded when the present Lisabon Agreement was drawn. Are we to suspect that they have changed their minds? - Benedict XVI has appointed several Jesuits at prominent positions within the Vatican since he became Pope. The chair of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (former Holy Office of the Inquisition) is today a Jesuit. - A fitting Priest for such a position. The chair of the Vatican Press is a Jesuit as well. - We can only wonder what their plots are these days. - Are they perhaps still seeking what H. P. Blavatsky called "Universal Despotism" (BCW, vol. 14, p. 266-267)?


These were just my views.


M. Sufilight

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page