Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00874)

Dear Old Sy in Miami writes,

> What do you make of the additional Stanzas of Dzyan given in T.C.F.?
> see Stanzas I to XIII (pp. 11-33) and 7 Esoteric Stanzas in Appendix C?

For my part, I regard it as an almost entirely new starnd in Theosophy,
basing itself, as JHE can document, mostly on the ES material produced by
Annie Besant and CWL.  The Stanzas in TCF do not help in the understanding of
the earlier ones, and seem to be quite different material altogether.  I
think it was a mistake to try and present them as "more" Stanzas, they
probably should have been given out under their own authority and if there
were any merit to them, they would have survived and been studied.

I think the Bailey students should continue to do their thing (without
harassment) but for my part I find the Bailey teachings are not consistent
with HPB's work (I can produce quotes and examples if anyone wants them) and
actually lead the student of both HPB and AAB into a great deal of confusion.

Rarely is a Bailey student as well-read in Blavatsky as s/he is in Bailey.
 When this occasionally occurs, as with Nicholas Weeks after 20 years or so
with Bailey, it seems that often the Bailey student leaves off Bailey and
sticks to HPB.

This doesn't mean that "straight" Blavatskyites should start throwing sticks
and stones at the Bailey students, but rather recognize them as pursuing a
"sister system" with a lot in common with original Theosophy.  I think
excommunicating them is atrocious, even though I myself don't have any
interest in studying what they're studying, and find it a distraction from
the lines laid down.

Then again, THEY wouldn't want to study what I study.  Which is fine.  All
told, I think the systems are quite similar, and both leave ample room for
personal exploration and thought.