(The following text is
the conversation that had an esoteric researcher more experienced with a young man
who had been studying Alice Bailey's books.)
Instructor: So I hear you are
interested in Theosophy?
Student: Yes, mainly in the Alice
Bailey teachings.
Instructor: Haven’t you ever read
or heard the opinion that the Alice Bailey teachings are not representative at
all of genuine Theosophy?
Student: Who says such a thing?
Instructor: I say it myself but
so do thousands of others around the world who have carefully or studiously
compared the teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters with those of Alice
Bailey.
Student: But Alice Bailey’s books
were dictated to her by the Tibetan, the Master Djwal Khul.
Instructor: So she said but how
do you know this to be true?
Student: Erm…well…it’s obvious
that the contents come from a Master of the Great White Lodge. And besides, how
do you know it to be true that Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters?
Instructor: Blavatsky’s direct
connection with the Masters is unquestionable. Certain of the Masters appeared
in their astral form in Blavatsky’s presence in front of numerous witnesses on
numerous occasions in various different places.
When she was believed to be in
Tibet as a young woman and her family back in Russia were fearing for her
safety, her aunt was visited at her door by a man of Eastern appearance who
handed her a letter assuring her that her niece was safe and well in Tibet by
the grace of the Lord Buddha and that she would be back home within a certain
period of time.
The messenger then suddenly
vanished before the aunt’s eyes but the letter has remained solid ever since. It
was unsigned but was written in the same handwriting used by the Master Kuthumi
in the later “Mahatma Letters”.
A number of Blavatsky’s
associates in the Theosophical Society and others in different parts of the
world who she hadn’t even met received direct letters during her lifetime from
some of the Masters, mainly the Master Kuthumi and Master Morya.
The letters were often received
in very unusual and mysterious ways, sometimes even materializing out of
apparent thin air.
The book “The Mahatma Letters” contains over 400 pages of these letters. Besides
all that, the Masters were present in their actual physical bodies on a
number of occasions. And there is much more besides.
Student: OK, well, I never
doubted that Blavatsky was an agent of the Masters anyway. She knew the Tibetan
Djwal Khul and he also dictated “The
Secret Doctrine” to her. Then later, after Blavatsky died, Alice Bailey was
chosen by the Masters to give out further esoteric teachings.
Instructor: Yes, she knew Djwal
Khul. But do you realize that Morya and Kuthumi asserted on several occasions
in writing that they were the co-authors and inspirers of “The Secret Doctrine” with Blavatsky?
Djwal Khul certainly didn’t
dictate it and no-one ever claimed that he did until Alice Bailey said so. Such
an idea goes entirely against what the Master Kuthumi and Master Morya said about the
matter.
Student: Really? I’d never heard
that before. Why would Alice Bailey say that then?
Instructor: She claimed to be the
amanuensis for Djwal Khul so presumably by making people believe that her Djwal
Khul was also the inspirer of “The Secret
Doctrine” they would then believe whatever she said about the teachings in
“The Secret Doctrine” and wouldn’t
question the gross distorting, twisting, and misquoting of those teachings in
her own books.
Student: But the Tibetan...
Instructor: What makes you think
that Alice Bailey’s inspirer was actually a Tibetan?
Anyone can claim anything but it
doesn’t necessarily make it true. Several experts on Tibet have analyzed the
Bailey books and assert that there is absolutely nothing Tibetan-like in any of
them but that they have more of a sort of semi-gnostic Christian tone if
anything.
The real Djwal Khul was an esoteric Tibetan Buddhist, belonging to
the Gelugpas or “yellow hats” (the Panchen Lama and Dalai Lama are the leaders
of the Gelugpas) of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism and apparently a monk at
Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse, Tibet.
Student: Wait! Where are you
getting all this information? I’ve never heard any of this before.
Instructor: This is all common
knowledge to anyone who takes the time to read “The Mahatma Letters” and various biographies of Blavatsky and the books
of original Theosophy.
Djwal Khul was being initiated
into the doctrines and philosophy of the Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School,
connected with Tashilhunpo Monastery, and founded in the 14th century by Tsong
Kha-pa, who also founded the Gelugpas.
Djwal Khul was a chela or
disciple of the Master Kuthumi and the Masters teach that Tsong Kha-pa was (in
a certain sense) a reincarnation of Gautama Buddha. Thus they say that Buddha
himself is the great patron of the Trans-Himalayan School and that they are
strictly Buddhist in their views and teachings.
They have definite views about
the nature, role, and great importance of Buddha but Alice Bailey’s so-called
Tibetan hardly ever mentions Buddha and when he does it is in a very different
and extremely contradictory way to “The
Mahatma Letters”, “The Secret
Doctrine”, and other actual
teachings of the actual
Masters.
Student: This is all new to me
but I’ll admit that it does seem a bit strange that the Alice Bailey books
never mention any of this. I don’t think the Tibetan ever even calls himself a
Buddhist. But then again, the emphasis is on the Christ because the Christ is
the World Teacher for the Aquarian Age.
Instructor: Do you know who the
first person was to declare the Christ or the “Christ-Maitreya” as the coming
World Teacher?
Student: Erm…I assumed it was Blavatsky?
Instructor: Absolutely not! Blavatsky
taught that the Christ is not a person or being of any kind. She even went as
far as to say that “no true Theosophist” will ever accept such a notion.
Student: Really? Well, those were
just her personal views. If it wasn’t Blavatsky then I’m guessing it was Alice
Bailey herself who was told by the Masters to proclaim the Christ as the World
Teacher and to start setting things in motion for the Second Coming of the
Christ.
Instructor: They weren’t just her
personal views at all. She never expressed any views other than those held by
the Masters.
The Master Kuthumi stressed that Blavatsky
was their “direct agent” and that there was no-one better or more reliable for
the job. He also wrote that the Theosophists of the future should remember this
and always bear it in mind…presumably so they wouldn’t fall prey to deception
at the hands of such later self-proclaimed “messengers” as Alice Bailey.
No truly esoteric teaching in history has ever upheld the idea of a
personal bodily Christ. You can look into this for yourself if you don’t
believe me. The idea is firmly denounced and denied by Blavatsky on more than
one occasion.
No, this “Christ-Maitreya World
Teacher” idea was started in 1909 by the English Theosophist C.W. Leadbeater
who was an influential leader in the Adyar section of the Theosophical Society.
Student: OK. It doesn’t really
matter who the first person was to teach it, if it’s true.
Instructor: Yes, IF it’s true. But
bear in mind that Leadbeater is most remembered by history not for spiritual
matters but for being a pedophile, child abuser, chronic liar, spiritual fraud,
and repeatedly a “person of interest” to the police in different countries of
the world.
Student: I don’t know what to say
to all that. How come I’ve never heard any of this before?
Instructor: Perhaps you’ve never
actually looked into the history of the Theosophical Movement as a whole
before. It’s all common knowledge although there are many people who would like
to suppress such facts or dismiss them all as unsupported or unproven.
Yet Leadbeater himself stated
under oath in 1906 at a “theosophical trial” that he had indeed performed
masturbatory acts on young boys in his care. He was expelled from the
Theosophical Society but later shockingly readmitted and raised to a place of
prominence by Annie Besant.
His actions and lies are all well
documented and there have even been lengthy and fully researched books written
about him. And it is this man – who, even in his old age in the 1930s, was
regularly leading secret ritual masturbation circles for his boy pupils in
which they were instructed to direct their thoughts to the Solar Logos upon
ejaculation! – whose teachings, ideas, and supposed clairvoyant revelations are
the source of the Alice Bailey teachings which you study.
Student: This is horrible! What
makes you say that the Alice Bailey teachings are all derived from C.W.
Leadbeater? The Tibetan, who you don’t believe to have been a Tibetan, implies
that they are all based on the Blavatsky teachings.
Instructor: I agree, it is vile
and sickening. If you have ever met or spoken with many other Alice Bailey
students, you’ve probably noticed that the vast majority of them have never
read Blavatsky’s teachings, especially not “The
Secret Doctrine”, and usually not “The
Mahatma Letters” either.
Many of them believe that they
don’t need to because they blindly believe Alice Bailey’s insinuation that her
work more or less supersedes Blavatsky’s work. I’ve actually written an article
outlining 31 of the most important differences between what Blavatsky and the
Mahatmas taught and what Alice Bailey taught.
Almost all of those differences
and alterations were first brought about by Leadbeater and then just carried on
and perpetuated later by Bailey.
Student: 31 ???
I can’t even begin to imagine
what those 31 differences could consist of!
You’re right, I’ve never properly
read and definitely never studied Blavatsky myself apart from once reading “The
Voice of the Silence”.
I suppose that’s why I’m so
surprised to hear you say that there are so many major or important differences
between the two. I would never have suspected it…but I’m still not quite
convinced…
What exactly are some of these
differences you’re talking about?
Instructor: Original Theosophy
and what has been called neo-Theosophy or pseudo-Theosophy are two entirely
different and incompatible systems of teaching.
There are major and important
differences and discrepancies between the two regarding what the Monad is, what
Atma is, what Buddhi is, what the Higher Self is, what the causal body is, what
the mental body is, what the Kama Rupa is, what the astral body is, the etheric
body (Blavatsky and the Masters don’t believe in an etheric body), the Seven
Principles of our inner constitution, the seven planes, the seven rays, the
nature of God, the path of initiation, the after-death process, the Masters,
Maitreya, Buddha, Sanat Kumara, the Manu, the value and efficacy of prayer, and
so many other things.
The 31 that I mention are just
the major differences but there are many other differences and contradictions
too.gs.
Student: I’m quite speechless
now. Those are the main aspects and concepts of the teaching!
Instructor: Which is precisely
why I and thousands of others maintain that the Alice Bailey teachings are not
representative at all of the actual and genuine teachings of the Masters.
The Alice Bailey teachings
represent neo-Theosophy, pseudo-Theosophy, what could be called “Leadbeaterosophy”,
since it all originates with him. Leadbeater was actually secretly an avid
reader and student of the Bailey books although he never said so publicly. But
they do not represent genuine Theosophy, which is the Esoteric Philosophy of
the Mystic East.
Student: But hang on a moment. Blavatsky
said that after her death another disciple of the Masters was going to come and
give a new teaching which would provide the psychological key to the Secret
Doctrine. So why couldn’t that have been Alice Bailey?
Instructor: Please excuse me for
saying so but what you just said is filled with errors and most of those errors
were purposely started in the first place by Alice Bailey.
Blavatsky never said anywhere
that someone would come to give the “psychological” key to the Secret Doctrine.
Once again you are just unquestioningly accepting the unsupported and unsupportable
claims of Alice Bailey.
What Blavatsky did say was that
in the 20th century “some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be
sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there
exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya”-
Notice the use of the word “may”.
And it was stated on many occasions in the Masters’ own words and also by Blavatsky
that the last 25 years of the 19th century would be the maximum possible
duration of the Masters’ involvement with humanity at large and that after that
point no new aspect of the Teaching (the Esoteric Doctrine) would or could
be given out until the closing quarter of the next century, i.e. from
1975-2000.
And they said that even this next
effort (1975) was provisional, based on how humanity, spiritual people, and
Theosophists themselves would react to and deal with the Teaching given out
from 1875 onward.
The Masters are servants to
Cyclic Law, the Law of Cycles, and cannot be otherwise. But Alice Bailey wrote
her books between 1919 and 1949, not from 1975 onwards.
When Blavatsky states in “The Secret Doctrine” that that book
contains all the teaching that can be given out to the world in “this century,”
she is referring to the century 1875-1975 and not merely to the 12 years that
remained of the 19th century at her time of writing.
She also wrote there that it may
take many centuries (plural) more before very much more is given from the
secret teachings. The messenger of the Masters who was supposed to come in 1975
was due to build upon the mass of teachings given out by Blavatsky.
The Bailey teachings don’t do
that. They often subtly depreciate Blavatsky, contradict her at every turn,
push her and her writings into the background, have nothing in the way of a
solid philosophical basis, and present a distinctly Western and Christian
message, whereas the Secret Doctrine, the Esoteric Philosophy taught in
Theosophy, is (according to the Masters) “the Secret Doctrine of the Aryan
[i.e. Indian] East.”
Student: You’ve really shaken my
confidence now in what I’ve been studying and believing for years.
Instructor: I hope you don’t feel
too upset but all I’ve done is just stated certain facts which are readily
available to anyone. You see, Blavatsky’s teachings weren’t simply
“introductory” at all. They weren’t written as a means of preparing and paving
the way for the later teachings of Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey et al, although
those three certainly wanted their followers to believe that!
Student: But I once heard someone
say that Blavatsky hardly taught anything; only a few bare basics.
Instructor: Whoever said that was
either ignorant or purposely deceptive. All of her teachings and writings,
including the huge “Collected Writings” series, come to about 12’000 pages in
total.
All the Alice Bailey writings
come to around the same total length. Yet there is far more teaching, far
deeper and far more esoteric, in Madame Blavatsky’s writings than in anything
Alice Bailey ever wrote…not to mention its being far more reliable and
trustworthy!
Student: But they are so
difficult to understand!
Instructor: The main reason that
many Theosophists and other similar esoteric students have difficulty
understanding Blavatsky’s teachings is because they try to read them through
the lens of the system of teaching they have learnt from Alice Bailey or
Leadbeater or whoever.
Someone has truly said that in
order to learn from Blavatsky you first have to unlearn the teachings of Leadbeater,
Besant, and Bailey.
I readily admit that many of the
things Blavatsky wrote are very complex but they swiftly become comprehensible
if we first read some explanatory and preliminary books such as:
- “The Ocean of Theosophy” by William Judge (link)
- “Deity, Cosmos and Man” by Geoffrey Farthing (link)
- “The Key to Theosophy”, by Blavatsky’s own (link)
If you can read and grasp the
contents of those three introductory books then you should have little trouble
with:
Student: I’m quite concerned now
by many of the things we’ve discussed today. If what you’re saying is true then
it would seem that to be pro-Bailey is to be anti-Blavatsky and to be
pro-Blavatsky inevitably means to be anti-Bailey.
If I mention some of these issues
to my friends who are also students of the “blue books” then they will probably
tell me to just ignore what you’ve said and give me a list of reasons and
quotations to show why I can trust the Alice Bailey teachings.
I’m not saying that I will go
along with your line of thought but if I did then I would quite possibly
find myself socially excluded or alienated from the people who are now my
spiritual friends.
Instructor: That’s exactly what
happened to me. I lost several valued friendships when I looked into and
properly researched these matters for myself, ending up discarding
pseudo-Theosophy for original and genuine Theosophy.
Student: “Pseudo-Theosophy”
doesn’t seem a very nice phrase.
Instructor: Maybe not but it was Blavatsky
herself who first used that term. She also said something very prophetic but
which was also applicable even in her time, which I’ll quote for you:
« If the false prophets of Theosophy are to be
left untouched, the true
prophets will be very soon (as they have been already) confused with the false.
It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. »
Who were and are the true
representatives of Theosophy and who the “false prophets” of Theosophy?
Each one of us has to answer that
question for ourselves. But the fact is that there have been “false prophets”
of Theosophy. And if not people like Bailey and Leadbeater, then who?
Blavatsky reminded her followers
that such individuals should not “be left untouched” but must be challenged and
exposed, just as she did with a number of pretenders of her own day.
The great cause of TRUTH is too
important for Theosophists to just take a lazy backseat attitude.
Student: I feel like I’m stuck in
the middle now between what you call “original Theosophy” on the one side and
what you’ve called “pseudo-Theosophy” on the other side. I do genuinely care
about Truth but I don’t know which direction to go in now. The teachings in the
Alice Bailey books have been the centre and foundation of my spiritual life for
a number of years.
Instructor: All I can say is –
follow your heart but don’t forget at the same time to use your intelligence
and to fearlessly face the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment