Theos-Talk Archives (October 1993 Message tl00131)

To Arvind Kumar

     As you may recall, I was the one who initially responded to
your request to dialogue with someone regarding Bailey and
Blavatsky.  Since I never indicated to you in my response that
"what Alice Bailey's books contained is inconsistent with what is
in HPB's books" it appears that I was not one of the "couple of
other persons" indicated in your response to Eldon.  But since
you exhibit an obvious interest in dialoging about Bailey and
Blavatsky, I can only speculate that you never saw my message to
you, so I will repeat it again, but in an expanded form:
     As I wrote, I have very closely read Alice Bailey's
Autobiography, and less closely some of her other books,
particularly ESOTERIC ASTROLOGY.  I'm much more familiar with the
writings of Blavatsky.  If you are familiar with Bailey's 24
volumes, I am deeply interested in having a comparative
discussion  with you.  My purpose would be to compare the
writings to see where they agree and/or don't agree.  I'm more
knowledgeable about Blavatsky than Bailey, but if your
familiarity with Bailey is comprehensive enough, I think we can
have a fruitful dialogue.  As I recall, you said that you like
both Blavatsky and Bailey. I responded that Blavatsky is more
appealing to me.  I had done some preliminary comparative
research on Bailey/Blavatsky about five or six years ago, but
other obligations left the work unfinished.  I'm very interested
in continuing this research, and if you are also interested, we
can accomplish much more in dialogue.
     In order to maximize the productiveness of this inquiry,
there would be a couple of ground rules that I would suggest: 1.
That information exchanged be backed up by evidence, and opinions
be supported by a rationale. 2. That the source of any quote be
cited, and care is taken that the quote is not used out of
context.
     I hope that others on the net will also feel free to make
input, and that they also respect the above.
     My only limitation is a personal one.  Though I have been
looking for years for someone to dialogue on this subject,
(therefore I'm very motivated to do it), I also have other
obligations that may slow down my responses.  I'm presently in a
graduate program, and my present reading load on far less
interesting subjects is from 8 to 16 hours a day.  I hope that
you will be forgiving for this handicap.
     Assuming you are interested in this type of exploration, I
will "kick the ball off" by responding to some of your statements
to Eldon:
     You expressed the opinion that Bailey "was the person that
HPB had predicted will appear in the 20th century to carry
further the work that she (HPB) had started in the 19th century."
You cannot be referring to H.P.B.'s statement that another effort
will be made in 1975, since Bailey died around 1948 or 49.
Therefore you must be referring to some prediction H.P.B. made
that I'm unfamiliar with.  Would you kindly direct me to where I
can find this prediction in H.P.B.'s writings?
     You said: "Can you Eldon (or anyone reading this), point to
any specific area in which AAB teachings differ from HPB's
teaching? It appears to me that both of them used mental
processes (telepathy) to transcribe the information that they
received from the Hierarchy."
     Your first question, is of course, the one I hope we will
explore.  Regarding your second point: I have never seen anywhere
in Blavatsky's writings or in the Mahatma letters, any mention of
H.P.B. communicating with a "Hierarchy."  She does claim, however
to be in communication with various people whom she referred to
as "Brothers;"  principally the Mahatmas M. and K.H.  But the
Mahatma letters show these people not as (though enlightened)
remote demigods, but rather very accessible human beings, whom
many people were in physical contact.  Among those who knew the
Mahatmas in the flesh were H.P.B., Olcott, Damodar, and Subba
Row.  The Mahatma's expressed themselves in very human ways and
expressed human needs.  For instance, at the end of letter 6,
K.H. says: "Meanwhile, being *human* I have to rest. I took no
sleep for over 60 hours."  K.H. also expresses negative emotions.
In letter 53, K.H., speaking of Hume, says: "I grow sometimes
very irritated at his petty feelings and spirit of
vindictiveness..."
     It is of course true that K.H., if he is still alive, would
be a different person now.  But the fact still remains that
H.P.B. was working with human beings with human weaknesses, and
that their is no reference (as far as I have been able to find),
to a "hierarchy" such as that outlined by A.A.B.  Would you show
me where H.P.B. describes this "Hierarchy?"
     In your discussion of James Stephenson's book, you say:
"Further, she [A.A.B.] believes the sender to be a Tibetan lama
named Djwal Khul who had worked in a similar manner with Mrs.
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky when she wrote The Secret Doctrine,
first published in 1888."  Does Stephenson give a source where
Djwal Khul "worked" with H.P.B. on THE SECRET DOCTRINE?  This is
the first I have ever heard of Djwal Khul's involvement in that
book.
     You close by saying: "What I particularly like about both
HPB and AAB is their emphasis on selfless service."  Yes I agree,
H.P.B. certainly tried to emphasize service.  So we on this point
we have agreement.  Would you please furnish a citation for your
quote?
          Jerry Hejka-Ekins