Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00043)

Original:

> >But, Patrick, most of the serious Blavatsky students I personally know, do
> >not accept the claims and teachings of Bailey, the teachings of the Temple
> and
> >some of the writings of Helena Roerich.
>

Patrick responds:

> 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.
>
> >And HPB herself admits that there is such a thing as PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY.
>
> Indeed so -- and its quality is easily discernable (sectarianism,
> self-importance, caustic personal criticims, authoritarian control, etc.)

It seems a little disingenuous to say that statements to the effect that
Bailey's work is not in line with HPB are "easily dispensed with." Again, we
see the pseudo-Theosophy is "easily discernable."

If all of this is so easy, why do we have such masses of pseudo-literature?
 Why do that mass of Theosophists find Bailey's work unconvincing? It
doesn't sound so easy to me.

Perhaps, Patrick, you could expound on your position. Could you name some
typical examples of "Pseudo-Theosophy" and show where they demonstrate
"sectarianism, self-importance, caustic personal criticims, authoritarian
control, etc."

I am also curious where you get the list of 4 criteria "sectarianism, etc."
 Is this in Bailey's writing somewhere, or a list of criteria you developed?

Rich