Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00143)

Hallo all of you,

My views are:

Blavatsky wrote in the "Key to Theosophy" - Section 2 - the following, which
I think carries it weight even today, when we talk about the wisdom
tradition:


ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.

ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so
prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or
more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a philanthropic
and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on
practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be Christians or
Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a
philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other old
literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in
the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme. Otherwise
he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the
exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. [An
"attached member" means one who has joined some particular branch of the T.
S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, has his
diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected with no
branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto.
Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; but the
latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the divine
fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own -- if the
expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as
handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
"Theosophist is, who Theosophy does."

Now when Theosophy is divided into Esoteric and Exoteric Sections, how can
we then just dismiss Alice A. Bailey's teachings, when viewed as a special
kind of exoteric theosophy ?
That is to me the question, which you don't quite answer Caldwell.
What do you have to say Caldwell ?

I agree, that we have to distinguish between more true level of theosophical
teaching and - the more exoteric versions hereof written about by Alice A.
Bailey.
Even if Bailey in her (+ D.K.'s) books do mention the importance of the 7
keys and that her texts aught to be read in a non-dead-letter manner, - she
do not do that very often. And this is the flaw as I see it.
What are the readers views ?



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:26 PM
Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"


> Alice Bailey's teaching on the Christ is what I would consider
> a "CRUDE literalism" or what HPB characterizes as "a dead
> letter belief."
>
> Consider the following two passages from Bailey:
>
> "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."
>
> "His reappearance and His consequent work cannot be confined to one
> small locality or domain, unheard of by the great majority, as was
> the case when He was here before. The radio, the press, and the
> dissemination of news, will make His coming different to that of any
> previous Messenger; the swift modes of transportation will make Him
> available to countless millions, and by boat, rail and plane they can
> reach Him: through television, His face can be made familiar to all,
> and verily 'every eye shall see Him."
>
> This is the kind of literalism that I often encountered when I used
> to study such religious movements as the Worldwide Church of God
> (founded by Herbert W. Armstrong). The second passage by Bailey is
> very similar to what Garner Ted Armstrong (Herbert's son) used to say
> on his slick TV program the "World Tomorrow."
>
> Compare the above with H.P. Blavatsky's comments below.
>
> HPB's words point toward a true mystical Christianity, a universal
> religion. . . .
>
> ". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I allude to
those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy. . . . By
pandering to the prejudices of people, and
> especially by adopting the FALSE IDEAS of a personal God and A PERSONAL,
CARNALIZED SAVIOUR, as the groundwork of their teaching, the leaders of this
'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to draw men to them and in
particular to turn Theosophists from the true path." Caps added.
>
> "It [genuine Theosophy] hushes the 'Lo here! and lo there!' and declares
the Christ, like
> the kingdom of heaven, to be within."
>
> ". . . 'the coming of Christ,' means the presence of CHRISTOS in a
> regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body
> of 'Christ' Jesus; . . . for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--
> is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being."
>
> "Whether it be Krishna, Buddha, Sosiosh, Horus or Christos, it is a
> universal PRINCIPLE....the Christians, by localizing and isolating
> this great Principle, and denying it to any other man except Jesus of
> Nazareth (or the Nazar), CARNALIZE the Christos of the Gnostics; that
> alone prevents them having any point in common with the disciples of
> the Archaic Wisdom. . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a
> Christ made Flesh. . . ."
>
> "So what kind of Theosophist was Bailey?" one might ask.
>
> See also:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10619
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10662
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "...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. 2
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> You can always access our main site by
> simply typing into the URL address
> bar the following 6 characters:
>
> hpb.cc
>
> See also THEOSOPHY: FROM LONG-SEALED ANCIENT FOUNTAINS
> http://www.theosophy.info/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>