CONVERSATION WITH AN ALICE BAILEY STUDENT

(The following text is the conversation that had an esoteric researcher more experienced with a young man who had been studying Alice Bailey's books.)

Instructor: So I hear you are interested in Theosophy?

Student: Yes, mainly in the Alice Bailey teachings.

Instructor: Haven’t you ever read or heard the opinion that the Alice Bailey teachings are not representative at all of genuine Theosophy?

Student: Who says such a thing?

Instructor: I say it myself but so do thousands of others around the world who have carefully or studiously compared the teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters with those of Alice Bailey.

Student: But Alice Bailey’s books were dictated to her by the Tibetan, the Master Djwal Khul.

Instructor: So she said but how do you know this to be true?

Student: Erm…well…it’s obvious that the contents come from a Master of the Great White Lodge. And besides, how do you know it to be true that Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters?

Instructor: Blavatsky’s direct connection with the Masters is unquestionable. Certain of the Masters appeared in their astral form in Blavatsky’s presence in front of numerous witnesses on numerous occasions in various different places.

When she was believed to be in Tibet as a young woman and her family back in Russia were fearing for her safety, her aunt was visited at her door by a man of Eastern appearance who handed her a letter assuring her that her niece was safe and well in Tibet by the grace of the Lord Buddha and that she would be back home within a certain period of time.

The messenger then suddenly vanished before the aunt’s eyes but the letter has remained solid ever since. It was unsigned but was written in the same handwriting used by the Master Kuthumi in the later “Mahatma Letters”.

A number of Blavatsky’s associates in the Theosophical Society and others in different parts of the world who she hadn’t even met received direct letters during her lifetime from some of the Masters, mainly the Master Kuthumi and Master Morya.

The letters were often received in very unusual and mysterious ways, sometimes even materializing out of apparent thin air.

The book “The Mahatma Letters” contains over 400 pages of these letters. Besides all that, the Masters were present in their actual physical bodies on a number of occasions. And there is much more besides.

Student: OK, well, I never doubted that Blavatsky was an agent of the Masters anyway. She knew the Tibetan Djwal Khul and he also dictated “The Secret Doctrine” to her. Then later, after Blavatsky died, Alice Bailey was chosen by the Masters to give out further esoteric teachings.

Instructor: Yes, she knew Djwal Khul. But do you realize that Morya and Kuthumi asserted on several occasions in writing that they were the co-authors and inspirers of “The Secret Doctrine” with Blavatsky?

Djwal Khul certainly didn’t dictate it and no-one ever claimed that he did until Alice Bailey said so. Such an idea goes entirely against what the Master Kuthumi and Master Morya said about the matter.

Student: Really? I’d never heard that before. Why would Alice Bailey say that then?

Instructor: She claimed to be the amanuensis for Djwal Khul so presumably by making people believe that her Djwal Khul was also the inspirer of “The Secret Doctrine” they would then believe whatever she said about the teachings in “The Secret Doctrine” and wouldn’t question the gross distorting, twisting, and misquoting of those teachings in her own books.

Student: But the Tibetan...

Instructor: What makes you think that Alice Bailey’s inspirer was actually a Tibetan?

Anyone can claim anything but it doesn’t necessarily make it true. Several experts on Tibet have analyzed the Bailey books and assert that there is absolutely nothing Tibetan-like in any of them but that they have more of a sort of semi-gnostic Christian tone if anything.

The real Djwal Khul was an esoteric Tibetan Buddhist, belonging to the Gelugpas or “yellow hats” (the Panchen Lama and Dalai Lama are the leaders of the Gelugpas) of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism and apparently a monk at Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse, Tibet.

Student: Wait! Where are you getting all this information? I’ve never heard any of this before.

Instructor: This is all common knowledge to anyone who takes the time to read “The Mahatma Letters” and various biographies of Blavatsky and the books of original Theosophy.

Djwal Khul was being initiated into the doctrines and philosophy of the Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School, connected with Tashilhunpo Monastery, and founded in the 14th century by Tsong Kha-pa, who also founded the Gelugpas.

Djwal Khul was a chela or disciple of the Master Kuthumi and the Masters teach that Tsong Kha-pa was (in a certain sense) a reincarnation of Gautama Buddha. Thus they say that Buddha himself is the great patron of the Trans-Himalayan School and that they are strictly Buddhist in their views and teachings.

They have definite views about the nature, role, and great importance of Buddha but Alice Bailey’s so-called Tibetan hardly ever mentions Buddha and when he does it is in a very different and extremely contradictory way to “The Mahatma Letters”, “The Secret Doctrine”, and other actual teachings of the actual Masters.

Student: This is all new to me but I’ll admit that it does seem a bit strange that the Alice Bailey books never mention any of this. I don’t think the Tibetan ever even calls himself a Buddhist. But then again, the emphasis is on the Christ because the Christ is the World Teacher for the Aquarian Age.

Instructor: Do you know who the first person was to declare the Christ or the “Christ-Maitreya” as the coming World Teacher?

Student: Erm…I assumed it was Blavatsky?

Instructor: Absolutely not! Blavatsky taught that the Christ is not a person or being of any kind. She even went as far as to say that “no true Theosophist” will ever accept such a notion.

Student: Really? Well, those were just her personal views. If it wasn’t Blavatsky then I’m guessing it was Alice Bailey herself who was told by the Masters to proclaim the Christ as the World Teacher and to start setting things in motion for the Second Coming of the Christ.

Instructor: They weren’t just her personal views at all. She never expressed any views other than those held by the Masters.

The Master Kuthumi stressed that Blavatsky was their “direct agent” and that there was no-one better or more reliable for the job. He also wrote that the Theosophists of the future should remember this and always bear it in mind…presumably so they wouldn’t fall prey to deception at the hands of such later self-proclaimed “messengers” as Alice Bailey.

No truly esoteric teaching in history has ever upheld the idea of a personal bodily Christ. You can look into this for yourself if you don’t believe me. The idea is firmly denounced and denied by Blavatsky on more than one occasion.

No, this “Christ-Maitreya World Teacher” idea was started in 1909 by the English Theosophist C.W. Leadbeater who was an influential leader in the Adyar section of the Theosophical Society.

Student: OK. It doesn’t really matter who the first person was to teach it, if it’s true.

Instructor: Yes, IF it’s true. But bear in mind that Leadbeater is most remembered by history not for spiritual matters but for being a pedophile, child abuser, chronic liar, spiritual fraud, and repeatedly a “person of interest” to the police in different countries of the world.

Student: I don’t know what to say to all that. How come I’ve never heard any of this before?

Instructor: Perhaps you’ve never actually looked into the history of the Theosophical Movement as a whole before. It’s all common knowledge although there are many people who would like to suppress such facts or dismiss them all as unsupported or unproven.

Yet Leadbeater himself stated under oath in 1906 at a “theosophical trial” that he had indeed performed masturbatory acts on young boys in his care. He was expelled from the Theosophical Society but later shockingly readmitted and raised to a place of prominence by Annie Besant.

His actions and lies are all well documented and there have even been lengthy and fully researched books written about him. And it is this man – who, even in his old age in the 1930s, was regularly leading secret ritual masturbation circles for his boy pupils in which they were instructed to direct their thoughts to the Solar Logos upon ejaculation! – whose teachings, ideas, and supposed clairvoyant revelations are the source of the Alice Bailey teachings which you study.

Student: This is horrible! What makes you say that the Alice Bailey teachings are all derived from C.W. Leadbeater? The Tibetan, who you don’t believe to have been a Tibetan, implies that they are all based on the Blavatsky teachings.

Instructor: I agree, it is vile and sickening. If you have ever met or spoken with many other Alice Bailey students, you’ve probably noticed that the vast majority of them have never read Blavatsky’s teachings, especially not “The Secret Doctrine”, and usually not “The Mahatma Letters” either.

Many of them believe that they don’t need to because they blindly believe Alice Bailey’s insinuation that her work more or less supersedes Blavatsky’s work. I’ve actually written an article outlining 31 of the most important differences between what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas taught and what Alice Bailey taught.

Almost all of those differences and alterations were first brought about by Leadbeater and then just carried on and perpetuated later by Bailey.

Student: 31 ???

I can’t even begin to imagine what those 31 differences could consist of!

You’re right, I’ve never properly read and definitely never studied Blavatsky myself apart from once reading “The Voice of the Silence”.

I suppose that’s why I’m so surprised to hear you say that there are so many major or important differences between the two. I would never have suspected it…but I’m still not quite convinced…

What exactly are some of these differences you’re talking about?

Instructor: Original Theosophy and what has been called neo-Theosophy or pseudo-Theosophy are two entirely different and incompatible systems of teaching.

There are major and important differences and discrepancies between the two regarding what the Monad is, what Atma is, what Buddhi is, what the Higher Self is, what the causal body is, what the mental body is, what the Kama Rupa is, what the astral body is, the etheric body (Blavatsky and the Masters don’t believe in an etheric body), the Seven Principles of our inner constitution, the seven planes, the seven rays, the nature of God, the path of initiation, the after-death process, the Masters, Maitreya, Buddha, Sanat Kumara, the Manu, the value and efficacy of prayer, and so many other things.

The 31 that I mention are just the major differences but there are many other differences and contradictions too.gs.

You can see these 31 differences here.

Student: I’m quite speechless now. Those are the main aspects and concepts of the teaching!

Instructor: Which is precisely why I and thousands of others maintain that the Alice Bailey teachings are not representative at all of the actual and genuine teachings of the Masters.

The Alice Bailey teachings represent neo-Theosophy, pseudo-Theosophy, what could be called “Leadbeaterosophy”, since it all originates with him. Leadbeater was actually secretly an avid reader and student of the Bailey books although he never said so publicly. But they do not represent genuine Theosophy, which is the Esoteric Philosophy of the Mystic East.

Student: But hang on a moment. Blavatsky said that after her death another disciple of the Masters was going to come and give a new teaching which would provide the psychological key to the Secret Doctrine. So why couldn’t that have been Alice Bailey?

Instructor: Please excuse me for saying so but what you just said is filled with errors and most of those errors were purposely started in the first place by Alice Bailey.

Blavatsky never said anywhere that someone would come to give the “psychological” key to the Secret Doctrine. Once again you are just unquestioningly accepting the unsupported and unsupportable claims of Alice Bailey.

What Blavatsky did say was that in the 20th century “some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya”-

Notice the use of the word “may”. And it was stated on many occasions in the Masters’ own words and also by Blavatsky that the last 25 years of the 19th century would be the maximum possible duration of the Masters’ involvement with humanity at large and that after that point no new aspect of the Teaching (the Esoteric Doctrine) would or could be given out until the closing quarter of the next century, i.e. from 1975-2000.

And they said that even this next effort (1975) was provisional, based on how humanity, spiritual people, and Theosophists themselves would react to and deal with the Teaching given out from 1875 onward.

The Masters are servants to Cyclic Law, the Law of Cycles, and cannot be otherwise. But Alice Bailey wrote her books between 1919 and 1949, not from 1975 onwards.

When Blavatsky states in “The Secret Doctrine” that that book contains all the teaching that can be given out to the world in “this century,” she is referring to the century 1875-1975 and not merely to the 12 years that remained of the 19th century at her time of writing.

She also wrote there that it may take many centuries (plural) more before very much more is given from the secret teachings. The messenger of the Masters who was supposed to come in 1975 was due to build upon the mass of teachings given out by Blavatsky.

The Bailey teachings don’t do that. They often subtly depreciate Blavatsky, contradict her at every turn, push her and her writings into the background, have nothing in the way of a solid philosophical basis, and present a distinctly Western and Christian message, whereas the Secret Doctrine, the Esoteric Philosophy taught in Theosophy, is (according to the Masters) “the Secret Doctrine of the Aryan [i.e. Indian] East.”

Student: You’ve really shaken my confidence now in what I’ve been studying and believing for years.

Instructor: I hope you don’t feel too upset but all I’ve done is just stated certain facts which are readily available to anyone. You see, Blavatsky’s teachings weren’t simply “introductory” at all. They weren’t written as a means of preparing and paving the way for the later teachings of Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey et al, although those three certainly wanted their followers to believe that!

Student: But I once heard someone say that Blavatsky hardly taught anything; only a few bare basics.

Instructor: Whoever said that was either ignorant or purposely deceptive. All of her teachings and writings, including the huge “Collected Writings” series, come to about 12’000 pages in total.

All the Alice Bailey writings come to around the same total length. Yet there is far more teaching, far deeper and far more esoteric, in Madame Blavatsky’s writings than in anything Alice Bailey ever wrote…not to mention its being far more reliable and trustworthy!

Student: But they are so difficult to understand!

Instructor: The main reason that many Theosophists and other similar esoteric students have difficulty understanding Blavatsky’s teachings is because they try to read them through the lens of the system of teaching they have learnt from Alice Bailey or Leadbeater or whoever.

Someone has truly said that in order to learn from Blavatsky you first have to unlearn the teachings of Leadbeater, Besant, and Bailey.

I readily admit that many of the things Blavatsky wrote are very complex but they swiftly become comprehensible if we first read some explanatory and preliminary books such as:

• “The Ocean of Theosophy” by William Judge (link)
• “Deity, Cosmos and Man” by Geoffrey Farthing (link)
• “The Key to Theosophy”, by Blavatsky’s own (link)

If you can read and grasp the contents of those three introductory books then you should have little trouble with:

• “The Secret Doctrine” (link) and 
• “The Mahatma Letters” (link).

Student: I’m quite concerned now by many of the things we’ve discussed today. If what you’re saying is true then it would seem that to be pro-Bailey is to be anti-Blavatsky and to be pro-Blavatsky inevitably means to be anti-Bailey.

If I mention some of these issues to my friends who are also students of the “blue books” then they will probably tell me to just ignore what you’ve said and give me a list of reasons and quotations to show why I can trust the Alice Bailey teachings.

I’m not saying that I will go along with your line of thought but if I did then I would quite possibly find myself socially excluded or alienated from the people who are now my spiritual friends.

Instructor: That’s exactly what happened to me. I lost several valued friendships when I looked into and properly researched these matters for myself, ending up discarding pseudo-Theosophy for original and genuine Theosophy.

Student: “Pseudo-Theosophy” doesn’t seem a very nice phrase.

Instructor: Maybe not but it was Blavatsky herself who first used that term. She also said something very prophetic but which was also applicable even in her time, which I’ll quote for you:

« If the false prophets of Theosophy are to be left untouched, the true prophets will be very soon (as they have been already) confused with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. »

Who were and are the true representatives of Theosophy and who the “false prophets” of Theosophy?

Each one of us has to answer that question for ourselves. But the fact is that there have been “false prophets” of Theosophy. And if not people like Bailey and Leadbeater, then who?

Blavatsky reminded her followers that such individuals should not “be left untouched” but must be challenged and exposed, just as she did with a number of pretenders of her own day.

The great cause of TRUTH is too important for Theosophists to just take a lazy backseat attitude.

Student: I feel like I’m stuck in the middle now between what you call “original Theosophy” on the one side and what you’ve called “pseudo-Theosophy” on the other side. I do genuinely care about Truth but I don’t know which direction to go in now. The teachings in the Alice Bailey books have been the centre and foundation of my spiritual life for a number of years.

Instructor: All I can say is – follow your heart but don’t forget at the same time to use your intelligence and to fearlessly face the facts.