Blavatsky's explanations of Christ are very different
from Alice Bailey's explanations of Christ (as I show you in this other article: link).
And when the theosophist Daniel H. Caldwell commented
on this in a community of Alice Bailey followers, he was astonished to find
that they did not care, and that despite the fact that Alice Bailey claimed to
have the same teachers as Blavatsky.
So later in a forum
he commented the following:
I am
somewhat surprised that there have been so few comments from Bailey students on
what Blavatsky said about "Christ" as compared to what Bailey wrote
about "Christ".
Alice
Bailey's version is what I would consider a "crude literalism." What Blavatsky
characterizes as "a dead letter belief."
Consider the
following two passages from Bailey:
« They will prepare and work for
conditions in the world in which Christ can move freely among men, in bodily
Presence; He need not then remain in His present retreat in Central Asia. »
« His reappearance and His
consequent work cannot be confined to one small locality or domain, unheard of
by the great majority, as was the case when He was here before. The radio, the
press, and the dissemination of news, will make His coming different to that of
any previous Messenger; the swift modes of transportation will make Him available
to countless millions, and by boat, rail and plane they can reach Him: through
television, His face can be made familiar to all, and verily 'every eye shall
see Him. »
This is the
kind of literalism that I often encountered when I used to study such religious
movements as the Worldwide Church of God (founded by Herbert W. Armstrong). The
second passage by Bailey is very similar to what Garner Ted Armstrong
(Herbert's son) used to say on his slick TV program the "World
Tomorrow."
Compare the
above with H.P. Blavatsky's comments below.
« “The coming of Christ,” means
the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual
coming in body of “Christ” Jesus; ... for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR—is
no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. »
« Whether it be Krishna, Buddha,
Sosiosh, Horus or Christos, it is a universal PRINCIPLE. ... the Christians, by
localizing and isolating this great Principle, and denying it to any other man
except Jesus of Nazareth (or the Nazar), CARNALIZE the Christos of the
Gnostics; that alone prevents them having any point in common with the
disciples of the Archaic Wisdom. ... true Theosophists will never accept a Christ
made Flesh. »
HPB's words
point toward a true mystical Christianity, a universal religion.
~ * ~
So what kind of Theosophist was Bailey? One might ask.
(https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/theos-talk/conversations/topics/10703)
No comments:
Post a Comment