Theos-Talk Archives (November 1993 Message tl00024)

Jerry S.,

Sorry it took me a little while to get back to your comment on the
Bailey books.I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts on the
various related authors; I myself had ordered all (or most) of Dion
Fortune's books as well but I have never had the time to read even a
single one of them so far! I guess I am just building my library at
this time! I never ordered anything by Steiner (and do not intend to
in the near future anyways). I have to admit that many people find the
Bailey writing style pompous or difficult to understand, but if you
persist in reading (day after day like I did when I was trying to get
entrance into the Arcane School four years ago), you may find that the
words that she has used are chosen with extreme care, to convey very
precise meaning. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading (but only a few
pages at a time) several of the Bailey books and I do believe that the
teaching that she has given is a continuation of what HPB started.

Best Regards and hope to keep in touch/Arvind >
>
> Arvind. I have never read Alice Bailey, and have never really
> had any desire to do so. For one thing, her writing style (a bit
> pompous)is very hard to follow (I tried once years ago, and gave
> up). For another, I feel that she simply took HPB's ideas and
> "elaborated" a bit on her own. I would rather read HPB. But I
> have heard many people tell me that her stuff is great (including
> a high muckty-muck in the Golden Dawn) so I certainly don't feel
> free to criticize. However, I have read several books by R.
> Steiner (Anthroposophy) and as far as I am concerned, he simply
> Christianized theosophy to the point of it being rather silly.
> But to give each their due, many people consider both of them
> (ie, Bailey and Steiner) to have been very developed psychically.
> Another that comes to my mind here is Dion Fortune whose 'The
> Cosmic Doctrine' is very theosophical. But Fortune is at least
> easy to read, and she doesn't make hash of Christianity.
>
> The problem with finding both HPB and Bailey "equally appealing"
> is that there are several differences in teachings and in
> emphasis. Which one is right?
>