Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00373)

Morten, 

You write many things and to properly respond I
would have to write much more than I can at the
present time.

But I will make a few comments:

You write:

"Yes but even if - such teachings as Bailey's (+ D.K.'s) they are
dangerous, they can also prove to be quite giving when viewed under 
certain angles !!!"

But you fail to tell us what you mean by "quite giving" and
you fail to illustrate what you mean by "when viewed under
certain angles." 

Therefore it is hard to know exactly what you mean or what
you are referring to. We have only your vague statement.
And it is impossible to judge whether what you say is correct
or not because we have no details.

So when HPB wrote

". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the 
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge." etc etc. 
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm#2

Are you telling us that if you had been a contemporary of 
HPB, you might have objected to her statements? That you would
have said, "Hold on HPB, 'they are dangerous, [but] they can also 
prove to be quite giving when viewed under certain angles !!!" "

HPB herself makes no qualifications as you seem inclined to do.

She simply writes:

". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the 
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . Nothing 
is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and distorted 
versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of men in 
general." 

You also write:

"I think without the Bailey teachings theosophy wouldn't have been 
known and recognized so much world wide and on such a high level as
The United Nations as they are now."

But WHAT KIND of Theosophy is "known and recognized"?

Exactly what is known of Theosophy "on such a high level as The 
United Nations"?

Again you fail to give us specifics. Without those specifics, 
I have no idea exactly what you are referring to. Most of 
your readers may also be in the same position.

If what I contend is true, ie. that Bailey's teachings are
a "garbled and distorted " version of what true Theosophy is,
(ie, "the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge"), then why
is it good that such a distorted version is known "worldwide"
and even "on such a high level as The United Nations"?

If anything, one could contend that Bailey's teachings being 
so well known and recognized worldwide, in fact, threatens
"the spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . ."

One could also contend that the Bailey's teachings have led readers, 
students and inquirers "far from the Truth" and that this 
has been done on worldwide scale!

Much more could be said about many of your other comments.

One last item.

You quote HPB:

H. P. B. says:

"I speak with 'absolute certainty' only so far as my own personal 
belief is concerned. Those who have not the same warrant for their 
belief as I have would be very credulous and foolish to accept it on 
blind faith... What I do believe in is:

1.. The unbroken oral tradition revealed by living divine men during 
the infancy of mankind to the elect among men.
2.. That it has reached us unaltered.
3.. That the Masters are thoroughly versed in the science based on 
such uninterrupted teaching." - Lucifer, Vol. V, p. 157.

"The Secret Doctrine is no 'authority' per se; but being full of 
quotations and texts from the Sacred Scriptures and philosophies of 
almost every great religion and school, those who belong to any of 
these axe sure to find support for their arguments on some page or 
another. There are, however, Theosophists, and of the best and most 
devoted, who do suffer from such weakness for authority." - Lucifer, 
Vol. III, p. 157.

Morton, you give this last quote starting with "The Secret Doctrine 
is no 'authority' per se . . . " as from Lucifer, Vol. III, p. 157.

Looking on page 157 of Lucifer, Vol. III, I do NOT find this 
quotation. Where is it?

Did you take this quote directly from the Lucifer volume??

Daniel















--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hallo Daniel and all,
> 
> My views are:
> 
> First. I agree.
> Second. Yes but even if - such teachings as Bailey's (+ D.K.'s) 
they are
> dangerous,
> they can also prove to be quite giving when viewed under certain 
angles !!!
> This is important.
> I think without the Bailey teachings theosophy wouldn't have been 
known
> and recognized so much world wide and on such a high level as
> The United Nations as they are now.
> 
> Both pro-Bailey's and the more ordinary Blavatsky-core theosophists 
agree
> upon certain
> important fundamental issues.
> 
> Here they are as they are presented in the book "A Treatise on 
Cosmic Fire"
> by Alice A. Bailey
> in what I will call a quite important footnote:
> 
> "The difficulty of giving one the Wisdom Religion is dealt with by 
H. P. B.
> in the Secret Doctrine as follows:
> 
> 1.. Opinion must be reserved because:
> 1.. Complete explanation for initiates only.
> b.. Only a fragmentary portion of the esoteric meaning given.
> c.. Only adepts can speak with authority. - S. D., I, 188, 190. 
II, 55,
> 90.
> d.. The teachings are offered as a hypothesis. - II, 469.
> b.. We must lose sight entirely of:
> 1.. Personalities.
> b.. Dogmatic beliefs.
> c.. Special religions. - S. D., I, 3, 4.
> c.. We must be free from prejudice. - S. D., III, 1. We must also:
> 1.. Be free from conceit.
> 2.. Free from selfishness.
> 3.. Ready to accept demonstrated truth.
> 4.. We must find the highest meaning possible. S. D., III, 487.
> 5.. We must be also non-sectarian. - S. D., III, 110.
> 6.. We must remember the handicap of language. - S. D., I, 197, 
290, 293.
> 7.. We must aim to become a disciple. - S. D., I, 188. II, 246. 
III, 129.
> 8.. We must eventually develop powers. - S. D., I, 518. II, 85.
> 9.. We must lead the life of Brotherhood. S. D., I, 190.
> 10.. We must remember that H. P. B . makes no claim to 
infallibility. S.
> D., II, 25 note, 273. I, 293.
> H. P. B. says:
> 
> "I speak with 'absolute certainty' only so far as my own personal 
belief is
> concerned. Those who have not the same warrant for their belief as 
I have
> would be very credulous and foolish to accept it on blind faith... 
What I do
> believe in is:
> 
> 1.. The unbroken oral tradition revealed by living divine men 
during the
> infancy of mankind to the elect among men.
> 2.. That it has reached us unaltered.
> 3.. That the Masters are thoroughly versed in the science based 
on such
> uninterrupted teaching." - Lucifer, Vol. V, p. 157.
> "The Secret Doctrine is no 'authority' per se; but being full of 
quotations
> and texts from the Sacred Scriptures and philosophies of almost 
every great
> religion and school, those who belong to any of these axe sure to 
find
> support for their arguments on some page or another. There are, 
however,
> Theosophists, and of the best and most devoted, who do suffer from 
such
> weakness for authority." - Lucifer, Vol. III, p. 157.
> 
> 59 See Preface and Introduction, Secret Doctrine, Vol. I."
> 
> 
> 
> It is true, that most of Bailey's (+ D.K.'s) books do not mention 
these
> important issue much in the different books and their contents.
> And - THAT is one reason why I find that Alice A. Bailey often are
> misunderstood by even experienced Theosophical readers.
> They forget, that they themselves have a limited outlook upon the 
world.
> 
> Again and again --- I withness, that Language and the 7 keys plays 
a way to
> important role when we talk about were Bailey
> went wrong in the presentation of her books.
> 
> --- If anyone has found any faults with the book "The Light of the 
Soul",
> then please let me know. ---
> 
> As far as I am concerned the Bailey books was - partly - written to 
confront
> certain Western groups of Seekers after Wisdom and Truth, so that 
they would
> get rid of what Blavatsky in the above mentions as "There are, 
however,
> Theosophists, and of the best and most devoted, who do suffer from 
such
> weakness for authority."
> 
> 
> 
> Did this help ?
> 
> 
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> To: "Theos-Talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:10 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Was Alice Bailey "the New Torch-Bearer of 
Truth"?
> 
> 
> > Was Alice Bailey "the New Torch-Bearer of Truth"?
> >
> > See http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm#five
> >
> > The three passages taken together indicate that HPB was referring
> > to an emissary of the Masters coming in 1975 or later. These 
statements
> > by HPB would seem to rule out the messenger being Alice Bailey.
> >
> > HPB wrote in 1889:
> >
> > "Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled
> > and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and
> > tastes of men in general."
> >
> > Unfortunately the teachings to be found in Alice Bailey's book
> > are "garbled and distorted versions" of what HPB original taught.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >