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.


ALICE BAILEY VERSUS BASIL CRUMP





Ralph Shirley, editor of the Occult Review magazine, in 1928 published an article in which the writer Herbert Adams praised the last book that Alice Bailey had published: The light of the soul.  And later Mr. Shirley received two letters, one from Alice Bailey and other from Basil Crump.

And below I transcribe them:



ALICE BAILEY’S LETTER

« Sir,

May I request the privilege of sufficient space in your valuable magazine in which to make clear my position with regard to the authorship of my latest book, Light of the Soul, which is commented upon by Mr. Herbert Adams in your issue of June 1928, American edition (page 377?).

The value of the study of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali is so great, and the need for elucidation of the truths which they contain has been felt so keenly, that it is with real pleasure that I have seen the book mentioned in your pages. I am deeply desirous of having this book made available for all who may profit by it, and I am grateful to my friend, Mr. Herbert Adams, for his article about the book.

Mr. Adams is evidently under the personal opinion that the Tibetan Brother with whom I have co-operated in producing A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Letters on Occult Meditation and Initiation Human and Solar, and who co-operated in the production of the present volume, is one of the Masters of the Wisdom connected with the Trans-Himalayan group of Masters. This is a matter purely of his personal opinion, an opinion to which he is as much entitled as any other opinion which any person may form on this or any other matter.

I am, however, reiterating publicly and in print, as I have previously done on several occasions, that I myself do not make and never have made any such claim.  It is the express wish of the Tibetan that his real name be withheld. It is his desire that the books be studied and valued on the basis of their own intrinsic worth and by their appeal or non-appeal to the intuition, and not because any person presumes to claim authority for them.

In February 1923, I wrote for publication in The Beacon, the following paragraph, which I wish very much you would do me the courtesy of reprinting at this time:


“In this particular period of the history of the Theosophical Movement it should be apparent to all careful students that much of the trouble has been brought about through two factors: the blind credulity of a certain group who accept any statement provided it is backed by an Hierarchical claim of some kind, and the narrow sectarianism which would make a prophet out of Blavatsky and a Bible out of the Secret Doctrine.

It is high time, therefore, that occult books should be put forth and judged because of their contents and not because of this, that and the other Master is supposed to be responsible for them or because they agree or disagree with the Secret Doctrine.

Only in this way will our people find their way out of the narrow rut of the credulous devotee or of the narrow sectarian follower, on to the broad road which leads a man to self-realization.”

Thanking you for your courtesy in this matter.
Yours very truly,
ALICE ANN BAILEY. »


(Later, Alice Bailey contradicted what she stated in this letter because she asserted that the Tibetan was Djwal Khul and that he was working closely with the Trans-Himalayan Masters, and also that he dictated the Secret Doctrine to Blavatsky.

But I can assure you that all these affirmations are false and it is very hypocritical that Alice Bailey criticizes "the blind credulity" imposed by the new theosophical instructors, when she did exactly the same thing with her students affirming many things that are false.

And when you study Alice Bailey's books for their content, as she demands it, you realize that these books are full of mistakes and lies.)






And now I transcribe the letter sent by Basil Crump, who was a very learned member of the Theosophical Society.



BASIL CRUMP’S LETTER

« Sir,

I am very much surprised to read the extravagant claims put forward for Mrs. Bailey’s works by Mr. Herbert Adams in your May issue, European Edition, p. 305.

He appears to accept without question her statement that her works are imparted to her psychically or inspirationally by a “Tibetan brother,” who has “dictated and paraphrased” the Sutras of Patanjali in her latest book and revised her commentary.

On p. 306 he quotes from her introduction to the effect that a “second Ray impulse” is coming, which “has no relation to the first Ray impulse which produced the work of Blavatsky.”

He calls this statement “authoritative,” and one would like to ask him on what evidence he bases his opinion.  In the Mahatma Letters we are warned of the “unprogressed Planetaries who delight in personating gods and sometimes well-known characters who have lived on earth” (p.462).

Where is one to draw the line in these cases, and who but a trained seer or initiate, like Blavatsky could distinguish between a personation and the real thing?


Mr. Adams goes on to assert that the book “emanates virtually from the Brotherhood,” who, “ignoring all the petty issues, or, rather, answering them most effectively by the voice of an accredited messenger, declares once again in clear and solid English the Science of the Spirit hidden in the Sutras.”

I have just been looking through Mrs. Bailey’s book “Cosmic Fire,” and find it simply full of pure, unsupported assertion, not at all on the lines of the masters’ teachings, but, on the other hand, containing most of the well-known terminology of the Neo-Theosophy and Adventism of the Besant-Leadbeater cult, such as “the World-Teacher the Christ,” ”the Master Jesus,” “Cosmic Rapture,” “Rhythmic Bliss," “Sevenfold Love of God,” “Coming of the Lord.”

As to the alleged “clear and solid English,” perhaps Mr. Adams will enlighten us concerning the following:

-      “The average man comes into incarnation through egoic impulse, based on desire, and on the relation of the second aspect to the third aspect of the Self to the Not-Self” (p.767).

And yet there are people who hail Cosmic Fire as a continuation and expansion of The Secret Doctrine!


Mr. Herbert Adams is in error when he says (p. 305) that book Light on the Path “was communicated to the world through a disciple of the Masters within the present century.”

The writer was Mrs. Keningale Cook, née Mabel Collins (only daughter of Mortimer Collins the poet and novelist, who was my father’s stepfather), and in an original copy before me is the autograph inscription:

« Work done under Sri: Hilarion. Light on the Path, begun October, 1884. Karma written, December 27, 1884. Mabel Cook. »





But because of an error in that book, Blavatsky when she wrote the Voice of the Silence in 1889, she included the following warning (p. 17):

-      “Do not believe that lust can ever be killed out if gratified or satiated, for this is an abomination inspired by Mara.  It is by feeding vice that it expands and waxes strong, like to the worm that fattens on the blossom’s heart.”

This was done in order to counteract the following advice in Light on the Path (verse 20):

-      “Seek it [the way] by testing all experience, by utilizing the senses in order to understand the growth and meaning of individuality. . . .”

“Mistrust thy senses, they are false,” says the Voice, and this is a cardinal doctrine of Raja Yoga (the Buddhist Dhydna).

Blavatsky said that Mabel Collins’ imperfectly controlled psychic organism had misinterpreted her teacher’s thought.

My late step-aunt was well known in the family as a strong spiritualistic medium, and her literary talent inherited from her father made her a useful instrument at that time. She began her occult training under Blavatsky, who placed her under the tutelage of Master Hilarion ("our semi-European Greek brother,” Mahatma Letters, p. 64).

In her Letters to Sinnett, Blavatsky spells the name “Illarion” and says (p.153) that on her way back from India (1870, after her initiation in Tibet) she “first went to Greece and saw Illarion, in what place I cannot and must not say.”

Blavatsky says of her own training that it was only after “a terrible struggle and a supreme effort of will, with the help of initiated friends” (her Teachers in Tibet), that she gained control of her psychic organism.

Mrs. Cook was not so fortunate, and very soon left the movement, subsequently denying that Hilarion had anything to do with her work.

I only mention these details because they show the necessity for great caution in similar cases of psychic “inspiration,” especially when there is no trained initiate like Blavatsky at hand who is competent to judge the merits of the claims made. Our only guide in such cases is the material offered, and that in Mrs. Bailey’s works, as I have indicated, is at least open to serious question.

I am, etc.
Peking, May 23.
BASIL CRUMP. »


(Basil Crump was a great connoisseur of Theosophy and Buddhism, and he was very involved with the Theosophical Society in Europe when Blavatsky was in charge, so it is worth paying attention to him since he knows very well what he is talking about. And my own research has led me to the same conclusions.)


(These two letters were published in the Occult Review, August 1928, p.117-119)














No comments:

Post a Comment