BLAVATSKY VS BAILEY ABOUT CHRIST

 

Blavatsky's explanations of Christ are very different from Alice Bailey's explanations of Christ (as I show you in this other article: link).

 

And when the theosophist Daniel H. Caldwell commented on this in a community of Alice Bailey followers, he was astonished to find that they did not care, and that despite the fact that Alice Bailey claimed to have the same teachers as Blavatsky.

 

So later in a forum he commented the following:

 

 

I am somewhat surprised that there have been so few comments from Bailey students on what Blavatsky said about "Christ" as compared to what Bailey wrote about "Christ".

 

Alice Bailey's version is what I would consider a "crude literalism." What Blavatsky characterizes as "a dead letter belief."

 

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.

 

« “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. »

 

HPB's words point toward a true mystical Christianity, a universal religion.

 

 

~ * ~

 

So what kind of Theosophist was Bailey? One might ask.

 

 

 

(https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/theos-talk/conversations/topics/10703)