Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"....
Sep 03, 2007 07:43 PM
Alice Bailey's teaching on the "Christ" is what I would consider
a "CRUDE literalism."
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. . . .
"It 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.
For more comparisons, see:
". . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a Christ made
Flesh. . . "
Blavatsky and Bailey on the Christ: COMPARE & CONTRAST
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application