By Nicholas Weeks
"Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." [1]
This article is intended mainly for those attracted to the New Age books
of Alice A. Bailey. Her claim that her teachings came from the same Occult
Brotherhood that taught HP Blavatsky, the founder of the modern Theosophical
Movement, is not valid.
This short piece is not about whether Bailey's writings are inspiring,
wonderful or contain any truth; but simply whether Blavatsky and Alice Bailey had the same
mentors, as claimed by Bailey. Bailey's guide professed to be the same Djwal
Khool that was one of Blavatsky's
teachers. Bailey also declared that her guru was the same Master Kuthumi that
Blavatsky knew.
This paper will propose that the so-called Tibetan and the Hierarchy of
Masters portrayed in Bailey's books were not Djwal Khool and the Adept
Brotherhood known to Blavatsky.
ALICE BAILEY BASED ON THE PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY INVENTED BY
LEADBEATER AND NOT ON THE REAL THEOSOPHY
Bailey asserted that her teachings are grounded in and do not oppose in
any fundamental way Theosophy as lived and taught by Blavatsky and her Gurus.
This assertion is false. Her books are rooted in the pseudo-theosophy pioneered
by CW Leadbeater. For example, one of CW Leadbeater's favorite revelations was
the return to earth of "Maitreya" the Christ. Bailey accepted this
fantasy.
She placed an immense spiritual value on the Great Invocation [2] which is supposed to induce Christ
and his Masters to leave their hidden ashrams, enter into major cities and
begin to dictate the redemption of Aquarian society. Contrariwise, the
Theosophy of Blavatsky and her Gurus emphasizes reliance on the Christos
principle within each person.
As Blavatsky explained:
« [Christian theology] enforces belief in the
Descent of the Spiritual Ego into the Lower Self; [Theosophy] inculcates the
necessity of endeavouring to elevate oneself to the Christos... state. » [3]
The discovery and altruistic expression of our innate divinity uplifts
each individual and thus, very slowly, all of humanity.
WHO HEARD ALICE BAILEY?
Channels such as Bailey are sincere and convinced that their inner
voices and visions are real Masters. Unhappily, sincerity is no protection from
delusion.
In 1884 Master Kuthumi wrote to a psychic of that time, giving an
explanation for the befuddling of a channel or seer:
« Since you have scarcely learned the elements of
self-control, in psychism, you must suffer bad consequences. You draw to
yourself the nearest and strongest influences "often evil" and absorb
them, and are psychically stifled or narcotized by them. The airs become
peopled with resuscitated phantoms. They give you false tokens, misleading
revelations, deceptive images. Your vivid creative fancy evokes illusive Gurus
and chelas [disciples], and puts into their mouths words coined the instant
before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself. The false appear as real,
as the true, and you have no exact method of detection since you are yet prone
to force your communications to agree with your preconceptions. » [4]
Efforts to discern reality from illusion must not be confined to our
study and meditation times, but should also pervade our ordinary daily life.
Should devotees of Bailey wish to compare closely the main principles of real
Theosophy with their present faith, they might consider using some of the three
methods mentioned in this article.
Hopefully, followers of Bailey will not rely exclusively on her own
explanations. Surely, if she really teaches the same basic Theosophy as Blavatsky,
one could resolve any conflicts between their teachings without acceding to Alice
Bailey's every proclamation. The template of basic Theosophy is in the original
writings of Blavatsky and her Gurus. Bailey's key teachings must match this
template or they cannot be from the same sources that taught Blavatsky.
1)
CONTRAST PRIMARY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A) GOD
One such purpose of the real Brotherhood was expressed by Kuthumi, the
actual Guru of Djwal Khool and supposed mentor of Bailey's Tibetan guide.
« The God of the Theologians is simply an
imaginary power... Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to
teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself
instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the
direct cause of nearly all human misery... The best Adepts have searched the
Universe during millenniums and found nowhere the slightest trace of [God], but
throughout, the same immutable, inexorable law. » [5]
Bailey's Tibetan theologian (the supposed disciple of Kuthumi, the
author of the passage above) gives his view of deity and law.
« A law presupposes a superior being who, gifted
with purpose, and aided by intelligence, is so coordinating his forces that a
plan is being... matured... A law is but the spiritual impulse, incentive and
life manifestation of that Being in which [a person] lives and moves. [A law]
which is sweeping him and all God's creatures on to a glorious consummation. » [6]
This superior being is gifted and aided from the Supreme Being with
purpose and intelligence, no self-induced evolution needed for him. This deity
is certainly a law unto himself, which is just what the Church has preached for
hundreds of years.
God's law will simply sweep all of us up and away to some sublime end.
One just needs to "pass... through himself as much of that [Being's]
spiritual life impulse" [7] as one can.
This New Age theology sounds familiar. Her Tibetan has just replaced
that old, prosaic God and His angelic cloud of witnesses with the Solar Logos
and his devas. Jesus and his disciples are supplanted by Christ-Maitreya and
his disciples.
But does the problem of personal God
or impersonal Principle really matter?
The Master Kuthumi answered a similar query long ago:
« You say it matters nothing whether these laws
are the expression of the will of an intelligent conscious God, as you think,
or constitute the inevitable attributes of an unintelligent, unconscious
"God," as I hold. I say, it matters everything... Immutable laws
cannot arise, since they are eternal and uncreated; propelled in the Eternity
and... God himself, if such a thing existed, could never have the power of
stopping them. » [8]
Kuthumi also wrote that:
« The very ABC of what I know and the rock upon
which the secrets of the occult universe are encrusted is the certainty of
there being no personal God, only the infinite mind's regular unconscious
throbbings of the eternal and universal pulse of Nature. » [9]
Bailey's view that the Theosophical
Movement revolves around humanity invoking an avatar and his hierarchy is
foreign and opposed to Theosophy as taught by Blavatsky and the Adepts.
B) THE USE OF PRAYER
Theosophists "try to replace fruitless and useless prayer by
meritorious and good-producing actions." [10]
Bailey recommended chanting the Great Invocation to supplicate and
vacuum forth from their high plane, our saviors, the Christ and his Masters. As
if Masters and avatars are too nonchalant, ignorant of mankind's trials or
powerless to come forth and help us, without millions first imploring them.
C) THE AVATARS
Granted, the question of why and how avatars descend is profound. Blavatsky's
teachings mention causes and conditions such as a divine seed for all avatars, certain
time cycles and the Spiritual Sun being a source. [11]
Bhavani Shankar, a disciple of Kuthumi, wrote that the Divine Principle
sometimes responds to someone attaining high Adeptship by sending forth an
avatar. [12]
As for the Occult Brotherhood encouraging humanity to pray for (and even
supplying the invocation for) avatars and Masters to come forth and usher in
the New Age, real Theosophy says:
"Work is prayer." [13]
While entreaty by the suffering masses for divine aid (with or without
the Great Invocation) is an understandable, ancient attitude, it has no invocative
pull on avatars or Adepts, as Bailey suggests.
The Occult Brotherhood knows the karmic cycles of mankind and is
constantly helping us; even supplying avatars when karma permits, not just when
we want them. Many people are eager to have a constant presence of godly elder
brothers guiding their lives and civilization; which happens to be just what
Bailey and Leadbeater and much of the New Age promises, thus its popularity.
Spiritual evolution, says Theosophy, takes place because of our
"self-induced and self-devised efforts," [14] not from our prayers and
invocations for Christ and his Hierarchy to govern civilization.
Unlike a traditional view of avatars, such as found in the Bhagavad
Gita (4, 6-8) which says the Lord comes when virtue is almost extinct,
Bailey's advisor teaches that the Christ will come only after humanity has
shown good faith by refining itself psychically and socially.
Much of Bailey's writings revolve around preparing the reader for this
advent by urging purificatory study and meditation on, and proclamation of, the
reappearing Christ and his Masters. This preparation requires extensive reading
and pondering on the occult technology of this world's political and social
relations, plus initiation, psychology, telepathy, astrology, healing, the
seven rays, etc.
D) THE HIERARCHY
Her books inform us about the Hierarchy, (of this planet, of the solar
system, of Sirius and beyond) its constitution, work, goals, principal members
and their projects. The Brotherhood known to Blavatsky was not called
"Occult" for nothing; very little was given out about them.
Nor were comprehensive, detailed volumes on occult subjects furnished by
Blavatsky; unlike Bailey's artificial esoteric treatises.
Why?
Because pondering on descriptions of superior beings and the occult side
of the universe will be of very little help spiritually. Furthermore, if the
teachings are patently spurious, as Bailey's are, our imagination is stimulated
and overfilled with images and concepts that lead us far away from the real
Adepts and our rightful spiritual destiny.
E) THE RETOUR OF CHRIST
This trumpeting of Christ's arrival with his Hierarchy has been going on
for many decades. Surely when a genuine avatar descends he is not announced by
thousands of promoters wailing and hailing for years beforehand. Blavatsky
wrote that to draw near the Masters "can only be done by rising to the
spiritual plane where the Masters are, and not by attempting to draw them down
to ours." [15]
Consider another Blavatsky quote and note the spiritual self-reliance
and impersonal nature of divinity advanced.
« Each human being is an incarnation of his God
[Higher Self]... As many men on earth, so many Gods in Heaven; and yet these
Gods are in reality One, for at the end of every period of activity, they are
withdrawn like the rays of the setting sun into the Parent Luminary, the
Non-Manifested Logos, which in its turn is merged into the One Absolute... Our
prayers and supplications are vain, unless to potential words we add potent
acts, and make the aura which surrounds each one of us so pure and divine that
the God within us may act outwardly... [A] prayer, unless pronounced mentally
and addressed to one's "Father" in the silence and solitude of one's
"closet," must have more frequently disastrous than beneficial
results. » [16]
The fact that for thousands of years most people have not worshipped
their own inner divinity as suggested above, is one reason why the Theosophical
Movement was reborn a century ago, to try to counter this separative tendency
to invoke an external, personal deity.
Since Bailey's Great Invocation is to be droned by the masses in this
conventional way, it opposes the self-reliant, philosophically atheistic
attitude (and silent practice) suggested by the Brotherhood. This is another
point in favor of Bailey's guide not being Djwal Khool.
So what should a follower of
Theosophy rely on (and recommend to others) to subdue their passions and
selfishness and thus foster planetary redemption?
Blavatsky answers:
-
"His Higher Self, the divine spirit, or the God
in him, and...his Karma." [17]
Karma means altruism in thought, word and deed now. It means practicing
"virtue for its own sake," not in order to speed the descent of
Christ and the Hierarchy.
F) DO WE HAVE TO REVERE THE MASTERS?
While Alice Bailey promotes it, the True Theosophy rejects il. And then I give you some examples of it.
One of the Masters wrote to Olcott in the 1870s:
« Act as though we had no existence. Do your duty
as you see it and leave the results to take care of themselves. Expect nothing
from us, yet be ready for anything. » [18]
A letter from an Adept to Annie Besant warned her about the worshipful
attitude towards the Masters developing in her Theosophical Society. Bailey was
critical of the TS and yet the jargon and gush she wrote about the Hierarchy
over 30 years (1919- 49) was as bad, if not worse, than that in the TS of the
same period. The Adept wrote:
« Is the worship of a new Trinity made up of the
Blessed Morya, Upasika [Blavatsky] and yourself [Besant] to take the place of
exploded creeds?
We ask not for the worship of ourselves... The cant about
"Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and
service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part.
Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to ourselves and
the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. » [19]
This Trinity of Blavatsky, Morya and Annie Besant was (thankfully) never
put forward by Bailey. Instead she chose the fantastic Triune God of Manu,
Mahachohan and the Bodhisattva, another revelation from CW Leadbeater. If the
Adepts' work was being hindered by the "confused aura" exuded by the
references to themselves in 1900, ponder how much their work, up to the present
time, must have been thwarted by Bailey's books, Great Invocation, Arcane
School etc.
2)
CONTRAST KEY TERMS OR THEMES
A) THE PURPOSE OF AN ESOTERIC SCHOOL
One of the most pervasive themes in Alice Bailey's work and writing is
the feverish pursuit of spiritual status. Her Tibetan's first two books [20] were dedicated to initiation and
occult meditation.
Several other books focused exclusively on her variant of discipleship
and the spiritual path. Nearly every text she channeled is strongly colored by
an advocacy of discipleship. After less than five years of being the medium for
her Tibetan, she formed the Arcane School. This school is just the sort of
nursery for occultists Blavatsky's Gurus would have nothing to do with.
Bailey's book on occult meditation even gives the floor plan and curriculum for
a prophesied occult college. Master Kuthumi wrote that one "who is not as
pure as a young child had better leave chelaship alone." [21]
Blavatsky told the American theosophists:
« The [Theosophical] Society was not founded as a
nursery for forcing a supply of Occultists - as a factory for the manufacture
of Adepts. It was intended to stem the current of materialism... By
"materialism" is meant not only an anti-philosophical negation of
pure spirit, and, even more, materialism in conduct and action... but also the
fruits of a disbelief in all but material things... A disbelief which has led
many... into a blind belief in the materialization of Spirit. » [22]
The Secret Doctrine mentions the "depraved tastes" of humanity
that craves "the materialization of the ever-immaterial and Unknowable
Principle." [23] Alice Bailey's writings cater to the human
weakness for having divinity and divine fields made understandable to our
personal mind. Rather than uplift our personal awareness to our actual
spiritual nature and know Spirit in truth, most of us prefer the comfortable
fiction.
B) THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HIERARCHY WITH MEN
Another key theme is the nature and relationship to humanity, of the
Occult Brotherhood. According to Bailey one of the prime aims of the Hierarchy
was to prepare humanity for the reappearance of the Christ [24]. In addition to Christ's Second Coming there
will be an externalization of the Hierarchy. Part of this advent involves
several of the Masters descending from the etheric plane and taking up lodgings
in various cities around the globe.
An entire book, [25] plus many passages in her other
tomes, expound on this theme. The Masters, as dutiful planetary civil servants,
will apportion tasks concerning economics, religion, education, etc. amongst
themselves. At that point they will proceed with the task of directing the
planned new world order.
On the other hand, Blavatsky and her Gurus present the Brotherhood as
quite aloof from society's affairs. Which is not surprising since they are
liberated from self-centered, worldly concerns and have no interest in greasing
the wheels of our banal, materialistic civilization. As Bodhisattvas They do
help, but being creatures of the immutable Law of Karma, "can not stop the
world from going in its destined direction." [26]
Blavatsky wrote:
« The more spiritual the Adept becomes, the less
can he meddle with mundane, gross affairs and the more he has to confine
himself to a spiritual work... The very high Adepts, therefore, do help
humanity, but only spiritually: they are constitutionally incapable of meddling
with worldly affairs... It is only the chelas that can live in the world, until
they rise to a certain degree. » [27]
3)
CONTRAST METHODS OF TEACHING
this is not a new debate. With respect to Bailey's insular teaching
method, which uses constant declaration with little or no supporting evidence,
here is what Alice Cleather, a member of Blavatsky's Inner Group, wrote in
1929:
« Boiled down, what does it all amount to? Simply
Mrs. Bailey's calm, unchecked (and uncheckable) assertions, for the validity of
which she claims the equally unchecked (and uncheckable) "authority"
of her "Tibetan". » [28]
The late Victor Endersby pointed out:
« There is a gulf as wide as the world between the
presentation by Blavatsky and that of Bailey, in the matter of mode alone. Blavatsky's
was accompanied by voluminous evidence from many sources... Nothing of this
appears in the Bailey output... the entire structure rests on her ipse dixit [29] alone. One thing is certain:
whatever her "Kuthumi" and "Djwal Khool" may have been, they
were not the mentors of Blavatsky. That much is surely proven by the texts as
anything could be. » [30]
In 1882 Blavatsky's Master Morya wrote:
« A constant sense of abject dependence upon a
Deity which he regards as the sole source of power makes a man lose all
self-reliance and the spurs to activity and initiative. Having begun by
creating a father and guide unto himself, he becomes like a boy and remains so
to his old age, expecting to be led by the hand on the smallest as well as the
greatest events of life...
The Founders [31] prayed to no Deity in beginning the Theosophical
Society, nor asked his help since. Are we expected to become ... nursing
mothers...? Did we help the Founders? No; they were helped by the inspiration
of self-reliance, and sustained by their reverence for the rights of man, and
their love for a country [India]...
Your sins? The greatest of them is your fathering upon your God the task
of purging you of them. This is no creditable piety, but an indolent and
selfish weakness. Though vanity would whisper to the contrary, heed only
your common sense. » [32]
Although the "sinners" mentioned by Morya were some Hindus of
a century ago, Alice Bailey, her Tibetan and their followers share the same
habit, fathering upon their Hierarchy and Planetary Logos, their indolent and
selfish wish that Sanat Kumara, Christ and the Masters will purge humanity of
sin.
~ *
~
These are just a few of the topics
(barely touched on) that must be studied closely by those who wish to
understand how inimical Theosophy and pseudo-theosophy are.
NOTES
- Blavatsky Collected Writings v. 11,Theosophical Publishing House, p.49
- It can be found in any of Bailey's books.
- The Key to Theosophy, Theosophical University Press, 155.
- From an unpublished portion of a KH letter to Laura Holloway; written in the summer of 1884.
- The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett 2nd. ed., TUP, 53, 142- 43.
- A Treatise on White Magic, Lucis Publishing 10-11.
- Op. Cit.
- The Mahatma Letters, 143, 141.
- Ibid 143, 138.
- The Key to Theosophy, 70.
- See Blavatsky: Collected Writings, vol. 14 and The Secret Doctrine.
- See The Doctrine of the Bhagavad Gita, Concord Grove Press, chapter III.
- Blavatsky: Collected Writings, vol. 9, 69.
- The Secret Doctrine, TUP, vol. 1, 17.
- Blavatsky: Collected Writings, vol. 12, 492.
- Ibid, 533-35.
- The Key to Theosophy, 73.
- "Address of the President-Founder," The Theosophist, Aug. 1906, 829-30.
- The Eclectic Theosophist, Sep./Oct. 1987.
- Initiation Human and Solar and Letters on Occult Meditation.
- Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, TPH, 1948, 34.
- Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 9, 244.
- Volume II, 503.
- As witness her book The Reappearance of the Christ, Lucis Publishing, 1948.
- See her The Externalization of the Hierarchy.
- The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett in Chronlogical Sequence, TPH, 1993, 474.
- Blavatsky: Collected Writings, vol. 6, 247.
- Quoted in Theosophical Notes Special Paper, Sept. 1963, 14.
- Latin -- he himself said it: an assertion made but not proved.
- Theosophical Notes Special Paper, Sept. 1963, 40.
- HP Blavatsky, WQ Judge and HS Olcott.
- Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, 107.
(Source: Fohat, Summer 1997; www.blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm)
REMARK.
The Alice Bailey defenders wrote
an article in which they attempt to discredit Nicholas Weeks by saying that he
misrepresented the facts and cherry-picking parts of quotes to distort the
truth (see link).
But if you read this blog, you
will confirm that Nicholas Weeks is right, and even his accusations are small,
because I affirm and
demonstrate that:
1) 80% Alice Bailey wrote is false.
2) The Tibetan does not exist, he was an invention of Alice Bailey
3) She did not have contact with the Transhimalayic Masters, her declaration was only a lie for she give herself more prestige
No comments:
Post a Comment