Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00032)

> I find this an interesting phenomena as the writings are geniune as part
>of the Mahatmas' work. All of the statements I have heard that purport to
>show that they are not so have been easily dispensed with. "Source"
>teachings would be all those by Mahatma's and Initiates.

I don't know Patrick. For me the effect the Bailey teachings have had on
my studies is indescribable, yet I am wary of saying that they should be
considered "source" teachings. Actually, I'm wary of anything being called
that, but if anything, Blavatsky's original works are the only ones I'd be
sure about, as far as that part of the "Ageless Wisdom" which is called
Theosophy goes. By saying the Bailey teachings are "source", you say that
"Well, everyone who calls themself a theosophist should read Alice Bailey
and agree with her." This is not the case, but I do think that anyone who
calls themself a theosophist should have a grasp of and agree somewhat with the
general principles that H.P.B. laid out. (I don't call myself a theosophist,
but I do groove with H.P.B.)

Every individual has their own way of approaching the truth, and this is an
eternal process. Books are simply a way of facilitating that. A business
person reading about a new management style might be in their own way expanding
their consciousness just as much as a theosophical student reading a
particularly
resonant part of the S.D. or T.C.F. I mean, we are still on such a low
level with
this stuff, that it would do us well to be humble and non-judgemental. We are
ASPIRANTS and have no way of really KNOWING what's what anyway!

Your companion on the Path,
Thom
Thom Nelson *The Plant Plant* >> Specializing in Herbs
thomn@bev.net *Christiansburg, VA* >> and Perennials