Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00410)

Rich:

>Patrick, I really tire of arguing with you the Bailey viewpoint endlessly.
>We cannot meet, I fear, because you fail to recognize that you (I mean
>Bailey) are not teaching source THEOSOPHY, but instead quite a different
>system, with its own rules and ideas.

This is probably for the best. No one is going to give up a belief in the
Bailey materials simple upon being told that it is inconsistent with the
source teachings of Theosophy. As we discuss the various teachings, there
will be differences that come up, and we can deal with them on an idea-by-idea
basis. There will be points where we cannot agree with what Bailey has said,
and we'll present the best case for our contrary ideas, and leave it up to
everyone to judge for themselves the best ideas.

In our on-going theosophical class at our house, which has been studying
various books by Purucker for several years, there are people that come
that are into the Bailey materials. They say at times things that I would
consider as "off the wall," though the ideas seem to make sense to them.
Sometimes I can explain what we are studying in different words and it is
appreciated; other times we just let it pass and move on.

>So I give up. No more rebuttals from me, it's useless. You can argue with
>Blavatsky instead and leave me out of it.

It quickly tires us to be doing battle with the beliefs of others, when
we disagree with a favorite writer or teacher. A better approach is to
ignore the authority figures and speak from the compelling logic and
beauty of the Teachings themselves. Leave the rating and analysis of the
various personages to the historians among us.

>And so I quote, from Psychic and
>Noetic Action, p. 21 in "Theosophical Articles" Vol. 2 from Theosophy
>Company:

>"The 'Higher Ego' [noetic] cannot act directly on the body, as its
>consciousness pertains to quite another plane and planes of ideation: the
>'lower' SELF [psychic] does: and its action and behavior depend on its free
>will and choice as to whether it will gravitate more toward its parent ("the
>Father in Heaven") or the "animal" which it informs, the man of flesh. The
>'Higher Ego' x has to act solely through its ALTER EGO--the Personal Self."

This passage could be confusing without some explanation. We have the
dual concepts of the seven principles of consciousness intertwined with
the concept of the centers of consciousness within us (the spiritual ego,
human ego, animal-nature, etc.) There is both a center of consciousness in
us that personifies the noetic aspect, functioning on its own plane, as there
is the noetic aspect of consciousness which is part of the seven principles
that we have -- on this or on any plane that we come into existence on.

Things like the princples and the centers of consciousness are related,
sometimes spoken of as though they were the same thing -- which they are not --
and defined in differing manners depending upon the discussion. (Sometimes,
for instance, the seven principles are Atman to Sthula-Sharira, others they
are Auric Egg to Linga-Shirara.) The intermingling of the ideas is partly
due to a lack of evolving the expression of the ideas. When first spoken of,
there is not a clear, ready manner of talking about the teachings, and a
terminology needs to be evolved. The ideas may be intermingled to not make
it too easy for the student to learn them, as a teaching technique. And the
intermingling may be somewhat of a blind, to keep the deeper truths from
eyes not ready to see what is there before one.

-- Eldon