Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00691)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:


> Allright then.
> Bailey's friend known as D.K. was as far as I and others understand 
it the
> same as the by Blavatsky mentioned Djual Khool.
> But, I will say this, that Bailey were not in contact with Djual 
Khool all
> the time when she was writing. Not all the books has been 100% 
dictaed by
> Djual Khool.
> There was a certain overlap between Bailey's D.K. and Blavatsky's 
version
> called Djual Khool.
> To what extend this happended is irrelevant to know in a physical 
email like
> this.
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/blavatskyletter83.htm
> 
> Did this help you - spiritually ?

Not spiritually, but it helps me to understand your point of view, 
which was all I was trying to do. Perhaps this is one of the reasons 
why Bailey's books have attracted the interest of many people: they 
are made to appear as a continuation of the Masters' teaching by 
claiming they originated with "a Tibetan disciple of a certain 
degree."

Pedro