Notice: I have written in other languages, many interesting articles that you
can read translated in English
in these links:
Part 1 and Part 2.


RESPONSE TO AN ALICE BAILEY DEFENDER



(The following text is the answer that Richard Robb, who is the founder of the world's most important theosophical bookstore "The Wizards Bookshelf", gave to a follower of Alice Bailey.)


Hello Dick,

To comment on the Stan Treloar letter in which he writes:

-       I have yet to see a valid, let alone intelligent reason why Bailey should be deemed so foul by our ultra conservative, fundamentalist theosophists.”

Its unlikely that Mr. Treloar will ever concede any reason at variance with his bias, but let us show why the writings of Alice Bailey, are not theosophy.

In labeling adherents of original teachings as “ultra conservative and fundamentalist”, we see the familiar pattern of the revisionist, who alters facts for current agendas.

The real problem is the claim by Bailey’s followers, that theirs teachings are somehow theosophical.

Infatuated by Leadbeater, the Bailey’s writings are so biased towards Churchianity that it’s hardly possible to find a page without Church overtones, and the word “God” used in extension.

And in concert with Leadbeater, principles in nature are anthropomorphized as in “the Third Logos issued a ray from His throat chakra...etc”.

The spook pretending to be Djwal Khul is no different than the one who hoodwinked Sinnett after he hypnotized Laura Holloway.


BUT WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THEOSOPHY?


Here is the response:

« Christianity may be the official religion of the dominant races, its profession the easy road to respectability and fortune; but it has no rewards that we court, and the Theosophical Society is meant to be a platform of true brotherhood, a bond of amicable tolerance, a fulcrum by which the lever of Progress may move the mass of Ignorance.

It has no religion propagate, no one creed to endorse: it stands for truth alone, and nothing can make us deviate from this which we consider the path of our Duty and for which we have sacrificed everything.

Our motto will stand forever:

“there is no Religion higher than TRUTH”
»
(Theosophist, Vol. IV, Supplement to NÂș11, August 1883, p.2)


The success of Bailey (a hapless medium) and her mentor Leadbeater (an untrained psychic) is due to the gullibility of mystically inclined church people, a barrage of glamorous assertions and grandiose pronouncements, and the availability of a vast theosophical literature to play with.

Thus, their spurious writings have misguided the public for 75 years as to what theosophy really is.

They are the inventors of Christian or rather “churchian Theosophy” which is, in itself, a contradiction of terms and has nothing to do with either the true teachings of Jehoshua of Pantera, nor of the Ancient Wisdom of Orient.

Defenders of Leadbeater or Bailey are free to believe what they will; but when they claim it is Theosophy, they exercise a consummate deceit and a ludicrous falsehood, which a simple comparison will prove.

And the following excerpts will help to indicate the position of basic theosophy:

« I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. Hume.

He makes of us agnostics!

We do not believe in God because, so far, we have no proof etc.

This is preposterously ridiculous; if he published what I read, I will have Blavatsky or Djwal Khul deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured.

He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humor them with a hope that there may be a “loving Father and Creator of ALL in heaven” our philosophy will be rejected a priori.

In such a case the less such these ignorant men hear our doctrine, the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us (at any rate) compromising with and pandering to public prejudices. »
(Mahatma Letter 54, p.304-305)


Indeed, the whole purpose of Theosophy is to lift men’s minds out of the superstition of revealed religion, with its debased concepts of universal deity made into an interfering anthropomorphic personal god, of dead letter ritualism, blind faith, the “second coming”, remission of sins (and thus implied lack of personal responsibility), and all the rest that tend to externalize the light that is to be found within man’s own conscience.

And that's why Master Kuthumi also wrote:

« And now, after making due allowance for evils that are natural and cannot be avoided—and so few are they that I challenge the whole host of Western metaphysicians to call them evils or to trace them to an independent cause—I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power.

It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind.

Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity.

Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods. »
(Mahatma Letter 10, p.58)


Blavatsky makes an unequivocal statement regarding “improvising” to accommodate the masses, and revisions designed to be “popular,” which Theosophy can never be, in this era:

« Ready to lay down our life any day for THEOSOPHY—that great cause of the Universal Brotherhood for which we live and breathe - and willing to shield, if need be, every true theosophist with our own body, we yet denounce as openly and as virulently the distortion of the original lines upon which the Theosophical Society was primarily built, and the gradual loosening and undermining of the original system by the sophistry of many of its highest officers. ... The wise horticulturist uproots the parasitic herbs, and will hardly lose time in using his garden shears to cut off the heads of poisonous weeds. »
(Is Denunciation a Duty? Lucifer, Vol. III, Decembre 1888; B.C.W., Vol. X, p.198-199)


In other words, ferret out wrong ideas, not individuals. And the “new dispensation” which claims to be “in tune with the times” is precisely that.

The defenders of Leadbeater and Bailey says it has superseded the “out of date fundamentalist theosophy,” with a modern enlightened system.

But in fact, that new wave of pseudo-theosophy focuses on psychism instead of spirituality, since it accepts hatha and kundalini yoga (radically imbalanced toward the physical) with its emphasis on chakras of the body, hypnotism, survival of the personality after death (rendering reincarnation absurd), channeling (mediumship), prayer, past life recalls, and terminology borrowed heavily from the church pulpit.

In short, everything that stands in direct opposition to the Ancient Wisdom. And instead they make little emphasis on altruism, brotherhood, or Buddhist philosophy.

Only the hollow glamour of psychic tots, permissiveness, and external observances. They are definitely in tune with these times as physical technology runs rampant, bereft of philosophy.

The psychic and intellectual ego is satiated ad infinitum, while the spirit is left to starve.

No. Theosophy changes not one iota with the cycles of time, or the fads that boil to the surface in the cauldron of society.

The first Law of Nature is equilibrium . . . balance . . . equity. We call it Karma.

The Middle Way is no sophistry, but a mirror of Nature, requisite for attunement.

Discretion, altruism, and learning through correspondences and deductive reasoning (from universals to particulars) are the measures of real Theosophy. Instead revelations and assertions of pseudo-theosophy lead nowhere.



For further reading:

  • The Elder Brother, by Gregory Tillett, RKP, London, 1983, 349 pages. (biog of CWL)
  • Theosophy Versus Neo-Theosophy, by Margaret Thomas, 1990. Isis Books, M-793, Road 7, Napoleon, Ohio. 140 pages.
  • The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey, by Cleather & Crump, Manila, 1929; 1980. 34 pages.
  • Misleading Mayavic Ideations: The Neo-Theosophy of C.W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant, by Ray Morgan, Tucson, AZ 1976. 34 pages. 8 1/2x11.
  • A Study of the Arcane School of Alice E. Bailey, by Victor Endersby. Theosophical Notes, 1963. 45 pages. 8 1/2x11. (Theosophical Notes was issued monthly from 1950-1978, Napa, California.)

(Source: Magazine Hight Contry Theosophist, may, 1996, p.11-14)













8 comments:

  1. Bailey regarded Christ as an initiate - a product of evolution - just as did HPB, as well as an avatar, also just as HPB. Furthermore, AAB 's view of Christianity is completely unorthodox, esoteric, and corresponds to HPB's in the essentials (see: https://m.facebook.com/groups/392240587511690?view=permalink&id=1643111395757930&refid=18&__tn__=-R ). Bailey used the word "God" at times but she certainly didn't define it as does Christian theology. These accusations are clearly based on a very superficial reading and understanding of the Bailey teachings. A perusal of even a few of her definitions of "God" refutes these claims (see : https://m.facebook.com/groups/392240587511690?view=permalink&id=1336716486397424&refid=18&__tn__=-R ).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before repudiating, you should investigate more because what you say is false. Blavatsky never defined Christ as an initiate but as a cosmic Principle, see:

      https://blavatskytheosophy.com/christos-the-christ-principle/


      And when Alice Bailey talks about "Christ" she is referring to the fictional character invented by Leadbeater as I show in this other article:

      https://esoteric-guide.blogspot.com/2019/04/christ-alice-bailey.html


      Delete
  2. I have studied both HPB and Bailey for over 30 years. There are differences, but they have more in common than what sets them apart.

    Despite differences Bailey and theosophy are ALLIED, and together stand in contrast to mainstream Christian theology. Mainstream Christian groups (particularly Evangelical Christians - a large and growing movement) strongly object to "esoteric" Christianity, as well as Mysticism, Eastern religions and the New Age movement (basically anything other than traditional Christianity and their interpretation of it!). Here are the major ideas they most commonly identify as heretical or anti-Christian:

    (1) That there many paths to God; (2) that “God” is an impersonal life force, consciousness or energy; (3) that "all is God" or "God is in all"; (4) that humans have a divine essence of goodness; (5) that Jesus is like us though more developed spiritually; (6) that we can become just like Jesus in every way; (7) that there are beings in the universe equal to Jesus or even more spiritually advanced than him; (8) reincarnation and (9) the preexistence of the soul.

    These are the “dangerous” ideas both HPB and AAB teach, and they are in agreement that the fundamental doctrines of all religions are identical in their esoteric meaning. (Needless to say, they both teach the doctrines of ''karma'' and ''reincarnation,'' and believe Christianity can never be complete or rational until these are accepted.)

    Alice Bailey is attacked by Christian fundamentalists, Blavatsky students, the Anthroposophists, Agni Yoga students, and others. It is no surprise that Christian fundamentalists attack Bailey, as they do Blavatsky and basically ALL religions and philosophies outside their narrow view of ''the truth,'' but it is sad that esoteric groups attack each other too.

    When will they see that they have more in common than their differences; that they share the same essential aims, values and ideals, and that they should be mutually supporting each other and taking a united stand?

    “…Whether by phenomenon or miracle, by spirit-hook or bishop’s crook, Occultism must win the day, before the present era reaches ‘Sani’s (Saturn’s) triple septenary’ of the Western Cycle in Europe, in other words - before the end of the twenty-first century ‘A.D.’.” (H.P. Blavatsky)

    Religious beliefs should be evaluated according to their consequences in behavior and well-being, as William James proposed. Even if Bailey teaches inclusiveness, unity, love, brotherhood, selfless service, karma, reincarnation, Raja Yoga, immanent divinity, and the sevenfold occult constitution of man and the Universe, it’s not good enough for them.

    No matter what quotations you show them, or how balanced and inclusive followers of Bailey’s teachings are, they will still insist that her teachings are dangerous. It's "not theosophy." When it comes to Bailey they are myopic and seem to lose all objectivity. Manly P. Hall gave a great speech on egocentricity in the esoteric community:

    'We live a code of criticism and condemnation with small appreciation of the works of others. Sects and creeds build up walls about themselves, and only heroic souls in whom spiritual perceptions are truly awake can rise above these imaginary limitations. Think back over the books that you have read and recall how seldom it is that any writer speaks well of another. Each man, firm in his own opinions, gives scant courtesy to the opinions of others." ( http://rosicrucianzine.tripod.com/introductionhpb.htm )

    ReplyDelete
  3. These critics perceive AAB's work through a certain lens. An extremely critical one. I think we all agree that it is good and important to approach any spiritual teaching ''critically'' (to question, evaluate, compare, etc.) as HPB herself advised.

    I have no problem with disagreements or criticism of certain parts of Bailey’s work - of certain ideas in them ( I don’t agree with everything in them), but FOR ME there is so much of great value and truth in them that overwhelmingly outweighs the things I am critical of.

    The ‘’for me’’ statement is important, because what appeals to me, and what works for me will not necessarily work for everyone. Some concede that there is some truth and good in AAB’s writings, but it’s just not for them. That's fine! I have no compulsion to convince them otherwise. What matters to me is that they are open. They may criticize, but they do not attack (an important distinction). William Q. Judge wrote:

    'Dread no influence exerted by sect, faith, or society. Each and every one of them originated upon the same basis – Truth, or a portion of it at least. You may not assume that you have a greater share than they, it being needful only, that you find all the truth each one possesses. You are at war with none. It is peace you are seeking; therefore, it is better that the good in everything is found. For this brings peace.' (Musings on the True Theosophist's Path)

    I am still hopeful for the theosophical movement. For example, there is the work of ‘’Theosophy Forward’’ ( initiated by Jan Nicolaas Kind ) . Let us take to heart these words by HPB about religious tolerance:

    'Indeed, our “love of man” ought to be strong enough and sufficiently intuitional to stifle in us that spark of selfishness which is the chief motor in our desire to force upon our brother and neighbour our own religious opinions and views which we may “consider (for the time being) to be true... In my humble opinion, the only “Essentials” in the Religion of Humanity are—virtue, morality, brotherly love, and kind sympathy with every living creature, whether human or animal.

    This is the common platform that our Society offers to all to stand upon; the most fundamental differences between religions and sects sinking into insignificance before the mighty problem of reconciling humanity, of gathering all the various races into one family, and of bringing them all to a conviction of the utmost necessity in this world of sorrow to cultivate feelings of brotherly sympathy and tolerance, if not actually love.'

    If groups like TheosophyUK (ULT) cannot extend the spirit of brotherhood to followers of Bailey, dePurucker, Helena Roerich, etc., then they can begin to practice what they preach by at least refraining from attacking them and respecting their choices. The same goes for Bailey followers.

    ( Dogmatism In Theosophy : Response to Anti-Alice Bailey Theosophists https://m.facebook.com/groups/159370737527121?view=permalink&id=1222169471247237&__tn__=-R )

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not a theosophist, I am an independent researcher. Before I thought the same way as you until I started to study theosophy seriously and there I discovered that 80% of what Alice Bailey wrote are falsehoods, and that is INADMISSIBLE.

    And what gives me more anger is that I lost many years studying all those falsehoods that Alice Bailey invented only because her defenders assured me that she was a true messenger of the masters.

    And if you do not mind filling up your head with all those lies, just because Alice Bailey "talks nice", to me it bothers me a lot that this writer has cheated people into believing that she was a disciple of the masters when in reality she was only a charlatan like also: Charles Leadbeater, Annie Besant, Rudolf Steiner, Guy Baillard, Helena and Nicolas Roerich, Elizabeth and Mark Prophet, Geraldine Innocente, Samael Aun Weor, Benjamin Creme and many others.

    And that is why in the blog, I'm going to detail all the falsehoods that those liars said to show the readers that what I affirm is true.

    You are free to study who you want, but what interests me is the true teaching of the masters and not waste my time with all these impostors who earned a good living by posing as "guides", but whose teachings are bad because the little good that there is in them is overshadowed by the enormous amount of lies and falsehoods that they also said.


    Even the most destructive sects also speak of spirituality and others must respect them.

    And I ask you:

    Do not have to say anything just to not offend their followers?

    Let other unwary fall into the same trap just because one does not have to criticize?


    I do not think like that, and I'm going to point out all the charlatans there are in esotericism world so that sincere seekers do not make the same mistakes that I made.

    People are free to study Alice Bailey, but people also have the right to know that Bailey’s books are full of mistakes, falsehoods and lies (something that her defenders try hard to hide).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that the Urantia book in reality was written by humans who attributed a divine origin to give it more prestige and much of what it says are false inventions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In Answer to Anti-Alice Bailey Theosophists (Toward Inclusiveness Among Esoteric Groups) https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mMLmtmMdATH1WQT6qVq_9jR9OAnkFr2sS5wFgyNHdw/edit#

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous16.12.23

    I don't know how Bailey fans can support this kind of nonsense:

    “I would like at this time to touch upon the greatest spiritual event which has taken place since the fourth kingdom of nature, the human kingdom, appeared. I refer to the release of atomic energy, as related in the newspapers this week, August 6, 1945, in connection with the bombing of Japan.” (“The Externalisation of the Hierarchy” p. 491)

    “None of the men involved in the direction of the Axis effort in Europe is today normal psychologically; they are all suffering from some form of physical deterioration, and this has been a real factor in their defeat, though one that may be difficult for you to realise. It is not so in the case of the Japanese, whose psychological make-up is totally different, as are their nervous systems, which are of fourth root race quality. They will be and are being defeated by physical war measures and by the destruction physically of their war potential and the death of the form aspect. This destruction and the consequent release of their imprisoned souls, is a necessary happening; it is the justification of the use of the atomic bomb upon the Japanese population.” (“D.K.” via Alice Bailey, “The Externalisation of the Hierarchy” p. 495)

    “That atomic bomb (though used only twice destructively) ended the resistance of the powers of evil because its potency is predominantly etheric. … As the forerunner of that release of energy which will change the mode of human living and inaugurate the new age wherein we shall not have civilisations and their emerging cultures but a world culture and an emerging civilisation, thus demonstrating the true synthesis which underlies humanity. The atomic bomb emerged from a first ray Ashram, working in conjunction with a fifth ray group; from the long range point of view, its intent was and is purely beneficent.” (“D.K.” via Alice Bailey, “The Externalisation of the Hierarchy” p. 548)

    ReplyDelete