Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00046)

>TO: Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
> Thanks for your comments/interpretation of Brant Jackson's letter --
> I wish more people were concerned with logical fallacies.
>
>>JHE:
>> I have stated many times before on theos-l that the main
>> points of Bailey's teachings come from ES material extant between
>> 1912 and 1918. Almost none of this has ever been published
>> except some that is in CWL's books which some readers assume was
>> stolen from Bailey. This may seem like trivia but I think it
>> is very relevant to your question because ES members are in fact
>> warned about Bailey. But for the general membership who are not
>> in the ES the TS cannot dictate what they can or cannot study.
>> On the other hand ES members are responsible to keep Lodges on
>> the "right track." See how this makes for problems?
>
>"... the main parts of Bailey's teachings come from ES material extant
>between 1912 and 1918. Almost none of this has ever been published
>except some that is in CWL's books ..."
>
>That rather takes the thread into a conversational cul-de-sac does it not?
>Can you explain *why* ES members are "warned" about Bailey?
>
>About 18 months ago you had an interesting series of conversations with
>Arvind Kumar regarding the Bailey teachings but I don't recall reading
>anything "from the ES perspective." Most of the posts seemed to be focussed
>on the potential for cross-referencing the Bailey material with "standard"
>Theosophical texts rather than discussing the ideas themselves. note: my
>only access to theos-l at that time was by Compu$erve and the list server
>charges quickly grew out of hand. I signed off shortly thereafter and
>subscribed again through a different channel only a short time ago. If you
>or someone could direct me to the archives section where you earlier
>posted re: Bailey and the ES I would appreciate it.
>
>Jim
>
>PS: I would post Bailey's seven "new ideas" for the benefit of those
>unfamiliar with the writings of Alice A. Bailey and the Tibetan Djwhal
>Khul but I'm afraid of being expelled from cyberspace. :
>
I am surprised by all this furore over Alice Bailey and always have been.
Why do Theosophists need protecting from her? Are we not urged to develop
our discrimination so that we can tell what is real and what isn't? I have
read some of her stuff and really enjoyed it and taken out of it what I felt
was relevant to myself. I also study SD and do the same there. As you all
know I am a de Purucker fan just now and when I have read him who will be
next? If I wander up a mental side road by reading queer things I have
every confidence I will return to the main path again wiser than before I
did a little detour. Detours can add to our knowledge of the landscape even
if we spend a whole lifetime in the bypass. When we have digested our detour
in devachan then we come back and continue on our path once more. If
Theosophy was not so protective of their right to be the only organization
who can decide who speaks on behalf of our Elder Brothers we all might live
in peace together and let all of us pursue our individual studies under
their umbrella. If we can develop our inner knowing I am sure guidance from
within will sooner or later put us back on the right road. Who is to say
that people who study A B will be less spiritual at the end of it than
someone who studies Besant and Leadbeater? From what I can see the majority
of branch members do not study the SD anyway because it is too hard for
them. Why not allow them to get their sustenance from sources they can
understand and if that turns out to be A B so what? Next incarnation they
may be ready to investigate the SD. Since trying to come to grips with our
cosmogony I have readjusted my time scales to a much wider framework and see
much of the disagreements and disputes being caused by a small timeframe of
this 'life time' only. From a wider perspective it doesn't matter because we
all get where we are going when we are ready to get there. We are still
coping with the 5th race ideas in the 4th round of globe D. There are eons
ahead to travel our paths on so why get hung up on such silly issues in
this little lifetime? I like to read what is around that pertains to my path
and if I don't agree with some of it I just leave it and get on with what I
can understand and that appeals to my present level of understanding. Maybe
next time around I might understand Quantum Physics properly because I am
intrigued by it but not having that sort of mind this time it is hard to do
more than skim the surface. I believe that what we set in motion this
lifetime will come to fruition in a later one so I am content to develop the
intense interest required and to build on that next time. >
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy International