Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00085)

RE: Alice A. Bailey following discussion of chapter expulsion:

>JHE
>Indeed it does take "the thread into a conversational cul-de-sac"
>when I make a statement that cannot be backed with evidence. But
>what evidence can I reasonably be expected to offer to back up
>this statement?

I can't think of any. To continue with your post no I am not a member
of the ES and so the citations are not necessary. That really wasn't my
point however -- whether or not the AAB writings are "based" in ES material
doesn't seem especially significant. Both Alice and Foster Bailey were TSA
members after all. What does seem significant to me is the validity or
lack thereof of the ideas presented.

JHE
>[re: Man Whence How and Whither] ... and I think you will
>discover all of the main characters in Bailey's hierarchy already
>outlined.

Fair enough and thanks for the reference. But this doesn't address the
question of rightness does it? I was never clear in your earlier
discussions with Arvin on your position with respect to AAB
"neo-theooosophy" Saraydarian etc. excepting CWL.

>JM
>>Can you explain *why* ES members are "warned" about Bailey?
>
>JHE
>I wish I could. Reasons are not given that I know of. My guess
>is that the Arcane school is regarded as a rival organization.

I wish someone could. : I supect you're right about the perceived
"rivaly." Most likely there's also a bit of resentment on the part of the
TS regarding the Tibetan's assertion that the TS had drifted from its
original intention to something of a personality cult ~1930 and a training
ground for probationary disciples. That seems like the sort of thing that
could ruffle feathers.

RE: Eldon's point on discussing ES material as recounted: that's a good
point. The Bailey texts are published materials however so it may be
possible to look for a "fit" within theosophy. On the other hand I can
remember some particularly pointed discussions on here regarding
CWLeadbeater and he was accepted within Theosophy sort of anyway by
most at least for a time. Would this be an improper forum for the discussion?

RE: JHE's discussion w/ Arvin:

>JM
>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.
>
>JHE
>Yes. That is as far as we were able to get. We agreed that
>HPB's writings predated AAB's and that AAB considered her
>writings to be extensions of HPB's. Therefore we agreed that it
>would be reasonable to compare AAB's ideas to HPB's and check for
>consistency. But before we got into the examination of the
>ideas Arvind admitted that his real agenda was to win disciples
>for AAB not to examine the writings..

Ah I remember that now. I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say Arvin
was looking "to win disciples for AAB" but I think I get your point.

RE: your offer to upload the 1.3Meg file -- thanks but I could probably
locate the original posts on a disk if necessary. You did jog my memory on
the ending of your discussion and besides you answered my earlier question
re: the ES position on AAB.

>JM
>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. :
>
>JHE
>I would be very interested in those ideas and would defend VERY
>LOUDLY your right to post them.

I did not expect anyone would question "the right" to post re: AAB but I'm
still wondering if this would be an improper forum. There is not a lot of
Saraydarian material posted on here for example though he is generally
regarded as a theosophical writer.

I was introduced to the AAB texts by friends in the Austin chapter of the TS
in my college days '70s. The Austin group was highly polarized along
generational lines and the younger set also accepted the Bailey texts. The
Austin group doesn't appear on the chapter list anymore but I do not know
when or why they faded. In one sense I suppose the Bailey influence has
been devisive since the TSA split in the early '20s.

Jim