[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"....

Sep 04, 2007 08:16 AM
by Scribe

Yes, thank you, Konstantin,
I value highly all of T. Subba Row's writings. I will look for "Some thoughts" and Chatterji, thanks for the pointer. I do recall those references to Christ you mention and at present my opinion is that a person by that name did exist and was very devout and allowed his body to be overshadowed by a Master so that the drama could be played out according to the esoteric script. I'm not so sure, though, because there really is scant history of him. It seems to me--finally, after contemplating all this for several years--that Christianity is made up essentially of an esoteric myth. I'm not being clear here I fear, but I mean that I am of the mind *it doesn't really matter if He existed or not* as the symbolism is the meaning. However, I don't see how the average person can glean the meaning or import of this symbolism of the life of Christ unless they also study Buddhism, or Theosophy, where HPB and others interpret it all for you. I mean, I can look at practically every passage in the Bible and see its occult meaning; but I couldn't before HPB, so she was indeed my Lucifer, my "light bringer." I have to add that AAB, although making Christ clearly a personage, nevertheless also clearly lays out the five initiations of the Christ[os in each of us] in her "From Bethlehem to Calvary." So, yes, in my theosophical studies I have been going back and forth with an esoteric and an historic Christ. Also, Edgar Cayce makes Jesus very human; whereas Seth says flat out there was no historical Jesus. I think is comes down to whether one wants to think of it symbolically and esoterically, or historically (for which there is precious little evidence). But I come down on the symbolical and occult side, which is the exact meaning and import desired anyway. imho


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:49 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"....

  Dear Scribe,

  --- In, "Scribe" wrote:

  > I had no guidance from anyone; I just was impelled to make them
  > my reading matter when I had time, generally late at night.

  I think it's good. Very often the "guidance" in theosophical groups 
  makes one too narrow-minded, he is made to believe that all that 
  Blavatsky wrote is true and Bailey is wrong, or the reverse - it's 
  doesn't matter.

  For bringing these two interpretations of "ageless wisdom" together it 
  would be wery well to study lectures on Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row.
  Another good book is anonymous "Some thoughts on Gita" (was very rare 
  but recently reprinted first since 1893, as I heard). Also see the 
  last section of "Man: fragments of forgotten history" by Chatterji 
  where some views about hierarchy close to those of Bailey were 
  published for 2 years before "Secret Doctrine"

  As for quotations which were presented to you they are rather 
  selective; there are interpretations of Christ as principle in Bailey 
  books, as you probably know, and there are hints in "Secret of Buddha" 
  section in the Secret Doctrine vol.3 that Jesus as a person really 
  existed (though not in 1-33 A.D.) and was overshadowed by some higher 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application