Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00039)

Paul Johnson

     I appreciate your differentiation between HPB and AAB--that
the former spent over twenty years traveling the world, and wrote
from her experiences, while the latter only began her inquiry
into Theosophical teachings after visiting the Pacific Grove
Lodge, near Monteray. As you indicated, this suggests that
H.P.B.'s writings are available for scholastic inquiry--we can
examine her statements against the sources she cites and make our
own evaluations.

     Bailey's writings, on the other hand, appear to be either
drawn from Blavatsky's writings, or from DK.--or at least, these
seem to be the only two sources that she acknowledges, therefore
they cannot be verified, only taken on faith. As I understand it
from Bailey's Autobiography, she was taking some kind of
dictation from DK. Bailey students who I have talked to, have
all been very careful to point out that this dictation is not the
same as channeling, but that Bailey was a Tulku, the same as what
Blavatsky was supposed to have been via her special training in
Tibet.

     Yet, I question just how much of Blavatsky's writings were
written by "dictation."  Considering the evidence of her mss
drafts, her own self reports, and those who had observed her, I
think it is pretty clear that Blavatsky's writings came out of
her own head, based upon what she had learned from her teachers,
not from any dictation. Even the stories of her reading
documents or seeing events in the astral light does not
constitute dictation, or anything like what Bailey claims for
herself. If we are to believe Wachtmeister's account, the S.D.
mss was full of corrections in red and blue ink, which the
Countess believes were in the handwritings of M. and K.H., then
this is further evidence that H.P.B. wrote from her own
knowledge, which was checked and corrected by her teachers.

     This raises further questions that you already alluded to:
Why did H.P.B., under the influence of her teachers, go through
all of the trouble to cite references to source philosophical,
religious and scientific writings of her time, where A.A.B.'s
writings seem to be based upon her own, H.P.B.'s or DK's
authority?  If both sets of writings are from the same source,
why the change of method?

     I have only one guess as to why, and this one is rather
unsatisfactory in my mind: The Blavatsky material as most
students will say, was written for the purpose of "arresting the
attention of great minds" as the Mahatma Letters puts it, in
order to counter the wave of materialism of the time etc.
Bailey's material, on the other hand, was written for the use of
a faithful few, whom through some esoteric processes are to bring
about a spiritual change.

     In my mind, the goals between the two writers are
essentially the same--to bring about spiritual change--but that
begs my original question: why the change of method?  A.A.B.'s
credibility is ultimately based upon faith, because D.K.'s
authority cannot be verified. H.P.B.'s authority is based upon
religious, philosophical and scientific writings, not her
teachers. Therefore H.P.B., has the potential of influencing the
intelligencia who actually bring changes in this world, where
A.A.B. is only influencing those who are willing to operate on
the very kind of faith H.P.B. warns against.

     Perhaps Arvind will clarify this confusion for us.

     Your (or Smoley's) ideas that mediums pick up thoughts and
feelings generated by a collective belief, sounds close to Jung's
idea of the collective unconscious. There is probably something
to this. At least it is a good argument for the Barbie channel.
Bailey, however chose DK. Why not M or KH?  They would make a
much larger "reservoir of thought" than DK, would they not?

Jerry Hejka-Ekins