Re: Theos-World One of Konstantin's Statements & Larger Issues
Sep 04, 2007 01:42 PM
I agree with everything you say. I'm certainly an imperfect specimen :) but I did read IU and SD first, then various AB and GdP and GB, and the SD Reference Series. So my head was pretty well swimming when I went into AAB. I was into astrology by that time so I jumped into her Esoteric Astrology, and hardly understood a word of it! Then Cosmic Fire, ditto. I liked Bethlehem to Calvary, but by then I thought Jesus was an esoteric metaphor and not a real person so that was confusing and it seemed to me a direct contradiction with earlier studies. So I felt I should make a choice (this was years before I saw your tabulation of the various Theosophical "lines") and I sort of went with HPB's works, but by then they seemed kind of dated--that is the language--and Jane Roberts' Seth came to my attention and as that was the late 1970s I was hoping that was the "next" teacher or revelator. I devoured all the Seth material for the next few years and then I had a *fourth* authority (guess what, I'd gotten into Edgar Cayce and had even gone to the ARE HQ in Virginia Beach one vacation). What impressed me on one hand was the fact that it seemed I was on the right track in my research because these various authorities did not seem to contradict each other, except on the issue of whether or not Jesus was real, as I mentioned before, also in your reference to a tabulation of the differences between AAB and HPB some of those things I noticed also. But, generally, and let's include astrology, I was at the point where it seemed I had 5 sources of information about more or less the same esoteric subjects. HPB (and her immediate followers), AAB, Cayce, Seth, and tropical and sidereal astrology. I have quite a library and when I retire from my daily work around midnight I've been at random picking out books to reread for an hour or so. As I said previously, my picks have been AAB (because I'd again re-gone through Besant, HPB, Barborka and GdP's books) and I must have picked up something doing all that because now I could get into her work more deeply. I was totally surprised--and gratified--with her book "Telepathy"--I'd thought it was going to be ho-hum but I'm finding I'm thinking it's a real gem and a powerhouse! She shows where Telepathy is where humankind and the planet is going, and explains how that is the basis for most all further development, that was kind of a relelation to me and I'm still thinking about it. I'd have to give that one a genuine "theosophic" rating. In closing, I feel AAB's books are authentic, but they come from a different angle than I'm used to with HPB, sort of like Seth, which seems to be talking about the same occult topics but from a different angle, a different lexicon. I think AAB's books are a continuation of HPB in the manner I described but somehow I feel *there's a step missing*. In other words, there doesn't seem to be a "bridge" that I can get a handle on from HPB to AAB. For that reason I'd almost take Seth over AAB because his comments and teaching are more contemporary colloquial. That said, have any of you read "Emmanuel's Book[s]"? Those books seem to encapsulate the meaning and goodness of all the books I've just been talking about and they leave you feeling wonderful. And no Sanskrit or any foreign or dead terms... Do you think his was the message for the last century?
Still trying to figure it all out,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Theos-World One of Konstantin's Statements & Larger Issues
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
For the present post, we will ignore the point made about
making "one too narrow-minded" or exactly what is meant by the
assertion that "it's doesn't matter" and instead focus on the issue
that "all that Blavatsky wrote is true and Bailey is wrong."
This assertion in itself seems to consider only one "position" and an
extreme one at that!!
But in considering this assertion one should keep in mind that
Blavatsky came first, Blavatsky made the claim first that she was in
contact with the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi, Blavatsky was the first
to write more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy and related subjects...all
of this done prior to 1892.
Bailey came later and put forth claims and teachings which supposdedly
built on what Blavatsky first gave out.
So a student might first want to study Blavatsky, what did she
ORIGINALLY claim, what did she ORIGINALLY teach. Without first knowing
what Blavatsky wrote, how can one judge or even understand the
relevance of Bailey's later claims and teachings. If in fact Bailey
and her teachings are a continuance of what Blavatsky started and
taught then it would seem to me important to know exactly what
Blavatsky claimed and taught.
Yet most Bailey students are for the most part not well versed in
Blavatky's claims and teachings. They are instead students of Bailey's
writings, not HPB's. They just assume that Bailey is right in her
claims, etc. They just assume that the teachings are consistent.
One such student was Nicholas Weeks. He was a devoted serious student
of Bailey's writings. It was only LATER when he came into direct
contact with Blavatsky's writings that he started having doubts that
the two systems were consistent and that Bailey was actually following
in the footsteps of Blavatsky.
It took him a number of years to come to the "uncomfortable" position
that Bailey's teachings were NOT consistent with Blavatsky's.
See his article at:
The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey
by Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump
Alice Bailey Teachings Examined
Now to larger issues....
I've had a good number of Bailey students tell me that I was
very "narrow minded" for rejecting Bailey's claims and teachings. That
if I had any intuition at all I would see how Bailey consistently
continues Blavatsky's work and writings. But not one of them has ever
tried to explain in detail how Bailey did this. The generalization is
simply made but the details are not provided. And for the most part,
the issues brought up by Weeks, Cleather and Crump are never directly
dealt with by Bailey students. The issues are simply glossed over.
But when I have brought up the larger issue that after HPB's death,
many other persons OTHER THAN BAILEY have also claimed to be in contact
with the Masters, etc., and furthermore when I have asked "do you
consider these OTHER CLAIMS valid", they will sometimes say, "no, such
and such claims are not valid."
When I have asked about Leadbeater, some Bailey students will say, "oh
no, he was misguided and deluded. Didn't you know that he plagiarized
material from DK's books," etc?
In replying, several times I have said, "It is strange to me that you
get upset when I criticize Bailey's claims, etc. but you yourself have
just criticized these other people for example Leadbeater and his
claims!.....And it would appear that your criticism of Leadbeater
plagiarizing from DK is totally unfounded. If anything, it was 'DK'
who plagiarized from Leadbeater."
At this point, most of these students are no longer interested in
calmly discussing the issues and looking at the evidence pro and
But on to the larger issue....
With so many claims and counterclaims... [see my list of the people
making them at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/41847 ]
years ago I myself found it a very wise and smart move to go to the
first claims and first teachings of Blavatsky and actually read and
And that is what I advise new students and inquirers to do.....
Who knows if any of the later claimants are real messengers or not, who
knows if some of the later teachings are actually genuine expansions of
Blavatsky's original teachings?
For to try to access all these later claims and teachings is a
monumental task that I doubt anyone person has ever done.
First of all one would have to be very informed on what Blavatsky
claimed and taught and then would have to study literally hundreds and
hundreds of books written by these later claimants and try to compare
and contrast. I dare say that few if any persons would be able to do
this.... Most students are lazy thinkers....etc. etc.
I find that far too many students even of Blavatsky can't even get
historical "facts" correct, etc. etc. So I doubt that such a
monumental task as the one I outlined in the last paragraph could be
done by most of these students.
Therefore I advise new students and inquirers to go to Blavatsky's
Surely here is enough material for at least several years of reading
Of course, some would suggest that this approach is way "too narrow
minded". But again I ask those persons, so have you plumbed the depths
of HPB's own writings? Have you mastered all the teachings contained
even in the "Mahatma Letters"? If you have, then good for you. But
others have not and surely they have a right to study that which you
claim you have mastered....etc. etc.
Now when writing the above, I am not suggesting that the student should
not read some of the writings of these later claimants. Even I have
read at least one or two books written by all of the authors mentioned
Heavens I have even found interesting material to ponder in every one
of these books. I guess "truth" can be found anywhere!
But I cannot endorse just one or two of these later writers based upon
what I said in the last two paragraphs.
Instead I would say go to Blavatsky's writings and the Mahatma
Letters. You will have enough there to do you for a very long time!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application