Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00229)

Mauri, you write concerning the statements by
Alice Bailey on the Christ:

". . . seems to me that those kinds of statements 
could, or might, alternatively, be interpreted in a
symbolic sense. . . . "

Well, Mauri, it is always possible to try to 
interpret these statements as somehow 
symbolic. But why not take them at
face value? Why MUST they have some symbolic
meaning? I think if you carefully collate
these kind of statements by Bailey that
it is fairly obvious that she was writing
about what she believed was real physical 
and literal events. And it would appear
that most of her students have taken these
statements in that way. 

Following your lead, then one might suggest
that Bailey's Master DK was not really a 
physical Tibetan Master but was a symbolic 
representation of ...... blah, blah, blah.

One can very easily lose oneself in a morass
of such vague speculation and fuzzy thinking.
If one prefers to do that, fine.

Daniel







--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> According to a recent post on Theos
> Talk, apparently Alice Bailey wrote, at
> some point: <<"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.">>
> 
> I'm not particularly familiar with her
> writings, but seems to me that those
> kinds of statements could, or might,
> alternatively, be interpreted in a
> symbolic sense. What if her "Christ"
> and "Messenger" were interpreted as
> "Higher Self," for example, interpreting 
> such as "aspects of s/Self relevance" by 
> way of possibilitites and potentials, 
> eg, or something ilke that ...
> Or does the general reader (or some
> general readers ...) find such 
> alternatives and interpretations too 
> troubling, or too far out, or too 
> abstract, or too something, maybe, or ...
> 
> I wonder if anybody out there might know 
> more about whether she intended some or 
> all of her statements/books to be 
> interpreted literally or symbolically 
> ... I tend to be under the impression 
> that HPB, for one, did not intend her 
> writings to be interpreted literally, so 
> ... Not that there might not be plenty 
> of perceived ("real enough" or "apparent 
> enough" ...) "other hands" (or 
> "apparently relevant-enough 
> considerations") in relation to AB's 
> writing's, I'm tending to guess, as per 
> whoever, in relation to what might be 
> seen (by some ...) as possibly, (or 
> "really enbough"...), over-riding, or 
> transcending, (per whatever apparent- 
> enough reasons or intuitive promptings, 
> or both ...), considerations re such as 
> what might be "sensibly enough" seen to 
> fit one or the other (literal or 
> symbolic) camp or mix of ... whatever ...
> 
> ^:-/ ...
> Mauri