Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00238)

Patrick, the more you write the more you prove my concerns have some
foundation. Here's the latest:

Rich: But I perceive a definite move among many students of Theosophy to
formalize, "develop" and systematize the
teachings ...

Patrick: There is nothing wrong with doing this as long as
open-mindedness to new revelations is maintained.
******************

Revelations? That's a religious terms if I ever heard one, implying
systematic, hierarchical, formal developments of Theosophy.

What does H.P. B. say about "revelation" in the S.D.? From the Preface, she
writes "These truths are in no sense put forward as a REVELATION; nor does
the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore ... The
publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered necessary by
the wild and fanciful speculations in which many Theosophists and students of
mysticism have indulged, during the last few years, in their endeavor to, as
they imagined, work out a complete system of thought from the few facts
previously communicated to them."

So HPB is clearly concerned about this working out of a complete system of
thought, and we see that this systematization goes on even to the present
day. The Bailey teachings may be many things, and they may indeed be
enjoyable and even useful for large numbers of people, but one thing they
most assuredly are not -- is a continuation of the Theosophical teachings.
 They are rather a personal, and quite Christian, take on the originals.

It is surely a fact that there are many Initiates who have taught in the
past, continue to teach today, and will teach in the future. What is the
evidence that we should regard the Christian Alice Bailey in such a light, or
the Tibetan whom we are told is "D.K." of the Mahatma Letters?

Rich