Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00247)

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

 It is as good a term as any for the discovery and or recognition truth.
 The assumption of such implications is false.

>"These truths are in no sense put forward as a REVELATION; nor does
>the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore

 In this H.P.B. is avoiding authoritative spiritual claim-making and the
statement says nothing about the use of the word in the context in which I
referred to it. Truth is "revealed" to those who uncover it through their
own hard won abilities.

>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.

 You are mixing concepts. Systemization of what we know is fine.
 Presuming it to be complete would be silly and no one I know is trying to do
this.

>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.

 Yes they are, and there are others, all part of the related work of the
Masters.
 Theosophy = "God's Wisdom."

>They are rather a personal, and quite Christian, take on the originals.

 Personal? No, they combine concepts from all religions. Particularly
"A Trestise on Cosmic Fire" gives somewhat of the psychological key to "The
Secret Doctrine" in mostly Tibetan/Hindu/Sanskrit phraseology.

>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?

 Read the books. Truth is its own authority.

Patrick