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

Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky

Jan 04, 2012 05:22 AM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Cass

My views are:

I intended a short post, but then more info came and here is the result....

Maybe you are right in a sense.
I would say, that what you - and - in fact also a great number spiritual inclined people in the New Age groups of spiritual development call "the way to eligthenment" --- that, I would rather call "the cessation of thought and the cessation of duality" - and better Absolute Negation of all and everything including dualistic terms like "something" and "nothing", or "existence" and "non-existence".
I find that quite a number of persons in New Age circles - and also theosophically branched off groups has a tendency to think that spiritual development goes on eternally - and in TIME - or in what they call the "present moment", and that there is no limits to the development of wisdom and higher sensing etc. etc. --- I think that this might be very true - but also - that this is a limitation - because wisdom and existence are limitations created by the mind. The human being and all the universe is much "more" than that. And in fact the Universe is much "more" than the so-called "immense wisdom" hatched in the New Agers mind og "cleaver"-intellect- and is in no need for being limited by thoughts about it.

In fact all those who are happy in their "present moment" and the "power of the Now", aught to go a step further like for instance Buddha did in Dhammapada - and say to themselves that even the "present moment" or "the Power of the Now" is a limitation.

Here are a few quotes on the issue....

Buddha said:
"Be free from the future; be free of the past; be free in the present; cross to the yonder shore. With a mind wholly free you will not fall into birth and death. "

So even the NOW is a limitation.......

See also Bhagavad Gita chapter 8, v. 16-22. Going beyond time and change.

And also Atharvan Zarathustra:
"These two Primordial Principles in One,
Of Light and Darkness, Good and Ill, that seem
Apart from one another, yet are bound
Inseparably together, each to each -
In Thought, in Word, in Action, everywhere
Are they in operation; and the wise
Walk on the side of Light, while the unwise
Follow the other until they grow wise.
These ancient Two, in mutual wrestle-play
Give birth to Twin-Desires, high and low,
That shape as Hate-Mentality in some,
In others as Better Mind of Love.
O Mighty Lord of Wisdom, Mazada !,
Supreme, Infinite, Universal mind !,
Ahura !, thou that givest Life to all !,
Grant me the power to control this mind,
This Lower Mind of mine, this egoism,
And put and end to all Duality,
And again the reign of One - as is desired.
Unconsciously, by e'en the graceless ones
The evil sinners in their heart of hearts."
(Taken from J. M. Chatterji's book on the gathas, 1932 with Sanskrit included.)
"The essential unity of all religions" by Bhagavan Das, p. 44 - on Zarathustra about the same.

Or here:
The Hymns of Atharvan Zarathustra by Jatindra Mohan Chatterji
(use the arrows to look at the pages. --- He is very much Vedic in his views.)

"Zorastrians do not believe in Abrahamic religions. They do believe that Abrahamic prophets where Ahrimani (Satanic). They also believe the followers of the main three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are followers of Ahriman (Satan). Zorastrians keep themselves away from followers of other religions in order to avoid devil's spirit.[citation needed] (based on an interview with Mr. Abramian, a zorastrian scholar, 2003)"
"Zoroaster was known as a sage, magician, and miracle-worker in post-Classical Western culture. Although almost nothing was known of his ideas until the late 18th century, his name was already associated with lost ancient wisdom."

Now we know that Buddhism and the BhagavadGita came from the esoteric Vedic and Upanishad teachings and that the Zoroasterians came like the Vedic teachings from the same original Universal Wisdom Religion. This is even today regarded as a truth by a number of scholars in science. And that the Jews teachings was influenced by the older Zoroastrian religion. And that the Christian religion was also influenced by it and Islam as well. And that Taoism originates from the old Universal Wisdom religion seems also not unlikely. --- Blavatsky wrote in the Secret Doctrine about a certain Zarathustra cave in the Pamir mountains. - The same mountains where the likely predeccessor to the Kwan-Yin (also a symbol on Sakti and Fohat, the Fiery Dragon (Naga)  in old days - in Blavatsky terms in the Secret Doctrine) goddess was said to be living nearby. This goddess was named Xi WangMu (the goddess of the Kun-Lun mountains and therefore the perhaps Pamir mountains), the goddess of the peaches and Dragons or perhaps the goddess of the apples? - The Garden of Eden all over again? - The so far most ancient place for growing Apples has by scientists been found to be in the nearby country Kazakhstan - dated to at least 6.000 BC. And growing peaches happened far back in time in Pakistan. Maybe the ancient site of Mehrgarh or nearby sites will yield an ever earlier date in the near future. And someone keep telling me that there is more to be found in the Talamankan Desert near the Urumchi Mummies. - Now in these times year 2012 - no doubt these countries long to be peaceful again. If we all would listen to the wisdom of psychology and non-sectarian communication a lot might be helped along. But these are just my views. Maybe other readers have more to add or even corrections to give.

A side-note:
Since this thread originally was about Alice Bailey and Blavatsky etc.
S. Subramania Iyer ( - a very political theosophist in his later years it seems ) was one of the old theosophists from the Blavatsky days in the 1880'ties and who knew a lot about the Zoroastrians. A number of his followers joined the Alice A. Bailey Arcane School when he died in 1924.
 Later when Alice A. Bailey died, it seems the Arcane School became more sectarian in its manner of operating - despite it today claims that it is non-sectarian. The Headquarters of Lucis Trust has told me that they do give emphasis to the Alice A. Bailey books despite they at the same time claim to be non-sectarian on the Lucis Trust website - a website saying today year 2012: "The Arcane School is nonpolitical and nonsectarian. All are served. Since 1923 tens of thousands of students have taken advantage of the training. " ( 

I have documentation to the fact that Lucis Trust are self-contradicting themselves or at least twisting the truth. So now each reader can calculate how they relate to that - and themselves ask the Lucis Trust like i did. When I questioned the Lucis Trust Headquarters about whether they were actually being non-Sectarian (referring to psychological exit-counsellors views on the definition of the term "non-sectarian") they have declined to answer for more than a month now. This despite they teach what they call Esoteric Psychology.) - Now somtimes I wonder whether it is the psychological scientists or the New Age teachers who are in the most need for esoteric psychological knowledge....I wonder....(smile.)

Here is what the headquarters of Lucis Trust wrote to me November 2011:
"Your first question concerns the relationship of the books of Alice A. Bailey to the training of the Arcane School.  Essentially, the discipleship of Alice Bailey was twofold:  her collaboration with the Tibetan Master Djwhal Khul, for whom she served as amanuensis in the writing of his books which are published over her name; and her soul-chosen task of establishing a new age esoteric school of discipleship.  Thus, the foundation of the Arcane School training does rest in large part on the books which Alice Bailey wrote in cooperation with the Tibetan; however, students are encouraged to read widely in other sound esoteric writings as well, in order to have as broad an understanding of the Ageless Wisdom as possible."
(Signed quite anonymously: Headquarters Group ARCANE SCHOOL. - The London Section did not give me an answer - and - seemed to have referred me to the Headquarters, who then answered me instead. As if they are not able to teach about such simple and basic issues as the above.)

 --- I will note the words in the above --- "rest in large part on the books which Alice Bailey" (!) - This is not a non-sectarian stance in my book and the definition of the term in various dictionaries amd among Exit-counsellors. Yet, the words sectarian ahs several definitions. But why be mor or less dishonest about it all and distort the truth? That baffles me.

Now I am not in any manner emotionally accusing the Lucis Trust. I just have the hope that they will cease to be unclear about the issue (sectarian versus non-sectarian) and be more honest about it.
I will await an answer. If any Alice A. Bailey follower and member of the Lucis Trust read this, then, I and I also think others at this forum would like to know what they actually are aiming at - when they forward the Alice A. Bailey books with emphasis (and with a webshop on their website only seeling Alice A. Bailey books - and not other quality books) and at the same time claim to be a non-sectarian operation?
This is, as I see it, simply too self-contradicting a promulgation of altruism - and cries to heaven for an honest and compassionate answer. Do you not think so?

And most off-shoot Alice A. Bailey groups seem to follow the same pattern these days - all of them not at all against the idea of painting a non-sectarian image - no matter if it NOT is in accordance with the actual honest (non-blurred) truth.

As Vivekananda said (listen to the MP3 sound of the speech):
"I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own little well and thinking that the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The Mohammedan sits in his little well and thinks that is the whole world. l have to thank you of America for the great attempt you are making to break down the barriers of this little world of ours, and hope that, in the future, the Lord will help you to accomplish your purpose." 
....---------- and we can add the TS Adyar well, the Alice A. Bailey well, the ULT Logde well, the Krishnamurti Foundation well,  the (non-liberal ?) Liberal Catholic well, the Pasadena Theosophist well, the various theosophical forums wells...etc. etc. ---- "That has been the difficulty all the while", says Vivekananda.

Now I am saying:
Unless one becomes ABSOLUTELY non-sectarian in ones organisational aim in this physical world - (forum administration) - there will always be a psychological problem lingering on - when a REAL honest promulgation of altruism and compassion - truly - are-sought taken wholeheartedly seriously. All religiously inclined persons aught to be invited on EQUAL footing in any activity honestly and sincere in its claim claim about promulgating Altruism and Compassion - and not (cunningly?) be thrown a sectarian stance in their honest face - claimed ot be non-sectarian.
Do you my dear reader not agree on this?
 If you do, I do hope that you every day will act honestly in accordance with your compassionate view. Also when you do like your own views so very much.

What do you think about it all?

All the above are of course just my views. Please let me know if you find me to be in error or not.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:17 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky

  I guess I took it as 'a path implies that others can take the same path, but he seems to be saying, as you say, the way to enlightenment (truth) is not via a path but rather a direction.  Who knows.

  > From: M. Sufilight <>
  >Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 9:24 PM
  >Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  >Me too.
  >I often wonder about what this expression actually - says.
  >Here is my own words on it shortly stated...
  >There is no Religion Highter than the Truth. (The motto of the Theosophical Society - adopted from the Maharajahs of Benares in India).
  >It is scientifically speaking known that truth or truths are relative. Blavatsky and other theosophists also agreed on this.
  >And in fact actual Truth as such is without form. The world is illusorical, yet the truth is always shown there.
  >To call Truth a The Pathless Land is in fact nonsense. Truth is not a "land" and will never be one.
  >So such a Truth must be without form else it cannot be "pathless". But when it is without form - it cannot be a "land" in any actual sense of the word. - The energy in the expression tend to omit that actual Truth cannot be a Pathless Land in any sense unless Duality is completely removed in core of the individuals consciousness. Yet we known that Krishnamurti who used the expression also meant that removal of a time-based consciousness, and thereby duality, was essential, to the required psychological change.
  >The esoteric Prasangika Buddhists and some Adwaita Vedantists would parhaps have instead go and say: 
  >There is no truth, there is no land, there is no path - there is only Absolute Negation.
  >But an esoteric theosophist will perhaps say - what you call Absolute Negation we call the TRUTH. All other truths are steppingstones towards this Absolute Negation. And this Absolute Negation is negation of all limitations and all thought.
  >But these are just my views...
  >Maybe those who know the Kirhsnamurti teachings better, have something to offer.
  >M. Sufilight
  >----- Original Message ----- 
  >From: Cass Silva 
  >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:21 AM
  >Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  >I have often wondered what "Truth is a pathless land' really means!
  >> From: MKR <>
  >>Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2012 5:16 AM
  >>Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  >>In the final analysis, IMHO, what is important is the conclusions each one
  >>of us come to. Truth is a pathless land.
  >>On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM, proto37 <> wrote:
  >>> **
  >>> On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  >>> Here is a link to a critical study on Alice Bailey's writings, or
  >>> mediumship, by Victor Endersby, and Why Bailey is NOT "the same as
  >>> Blavatsky," or the same as Theosophy. 'One of the "sects" sufilight refers
  >>> to. So many jumped on Blavatsky's shirt-tails, and now, in the Night-time
  >>> of the spiritual cycles, long after the "the last-quarter effort," they
  >>> become more predominant, like other night-creatures.
  >>> ><
  >>> "Ninety-nine percent of all spiritual communications are prima facie
  >>> false." Mahatma Letters (paraphrase)
  >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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


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

[Back to Top]

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