Highlights: Tuesday, Aug. 24
- There was lots of discussion about the Theosophical writer Alice Baily,
here are some snippets;
At the beginning of each book Dwjal Khul states; neither he
nor Alice Bailey are interested in having them acclaimed as
inspired writings and that in time the information will be
transcended. Suffice to say the work awoke concepts in me
that were required before I could move beyond the need for
any concepts at all and awoke a love that I am always ready
to share with my 6 billion brothers and sisters. We must
stop mankind taking everything with him if he goes.
I discovered Alice Bailey probably fifteen years ago. A
friend had all her books. So I borrowed one after the
other which interested me. I admit there were quite a
few that I didn't read. But never once did I ever see
anything racist. I was very surprised when Jerry jumped
on a quote of hers which I posted. Jerry of all people.
I was really surprised. When I read her works something
clicks inside. I see a bigger picture. My framework gets
expanded. I am not saying whether she is right or wrong
but the result is that I think bigger. And yes it helps me
see myself other than as the center of the universe.
...Did Bailey know she was playing
a game, working in a dream? She pretends to have knowledge.
She convinces people they are seeing the inner workings of
the world dream, when in reality they're seeing nothing more
or less than McDonald's arches out in the distance on the
My effort is to show that there's a need to change the
portion of her work which is most manipulative of those who
take Bailey literally and even symbolically. She is
unnecessarily arousing people's emotions. Her work is
amazing, beautiful and complex enough without introjection
of real races, religions and nationalities. It's a fictional
work, a molding of dream material, and it needs to see
itself in that way and to regularly advise the reader of
such. She needs to say, "Everything I've told you is a lie,
now get lost." Instead of freeing her readers, I hear her
manipulating them to stay and go deeper and deeper into her
Theosophy is organized, institutionalized nondualism. Are you really
puzzled? It's a miracle they've done as well as they have... J.
Krishnamurti was either a lucky shot in the dark or a miracle.
The story and writings of Alice Baily are valuable as history,
revising them to remove what is incorrect would be revising history.
Like the Japanese Zen masters who supported the slaughter of the Chinese
in the 1930's and 40's she was a person of her time and culture.
These people stand as a valuable lesson about the arrogant assumption
of enlightenment and the danger inherent in creating a mystical
mantle of infallibility, the danger that comes with losing one's
doubt, the value of skepticism. The New Age needs skeptics!!!
Doubt is the immune system, the scalpel, the pruning saw, winter,
the bonfire, the wolf, doubt culls the weak and the sickly.
To doubt is true kindness, essential to life.
There are people here who feel they know the deepest insight
of Jesus or Ramana and they feel liberated to speak in their
own unique way. Why isn't it so for Bailey?
I could make a nice statement about the Self and maybe throw
in a couple of words I made up, like Standing Free or Umba,
and people might think I've had an insight or two.
But if I speak about forces and rays that drive the
evolution of consciousness, and should I declare that
Siamese twins are superior beings from another planet, you
guys would laugh at me. Yet there is really no difference. I
mean, why is Alice Bailey right? It's bad enough she's
making herself seem like an authority on the occult; I ain't
letting her get away with being an authority on the fate of
Let's see Alice Bailey for who she is: a genius perceiver of
the occult; one person with one perception; a white
The written word has power. However, I feel that her
writings are better left to stand as they are, and a
prominent disclaimer could be presented. I'll do a webpage
which will serve as such a disclaimer. It will consist of
our conversations and be indexed on the web. So we
accomplished something here. If anyone feels such a
disclaimer is unnecessary or has any other comment, we'll
put that on the web page as well.
The issue went a little deeper than A.B. The issue is that a
sophisticated ego will fall into a primitive trap. Promise a
few ego-tickling gadgets and introduce some "ugliness" through
the backdoor: It worked for Hitler, it worked for Milosovice,
it worked for Mao; the list is long. Promise instant
enlightenment or make it "doable"; through the back door
introduce a hefty sum and no doubt that works too. It worked
for... (your guess). So it isn't a surprise that sages like
Ramana, advocating to cut the ego at its root, are far less
"popular" than the sellers of OOB, astral travel, channeling,
work groups, visit the aliens, and other goodies to further
sophistication of this wonderful ego. How deeply ingrained
this is, was shown (indirectly) by C.G. Jung, commenting on
Ramana, in finishing the book "Der Weg zum Selbst", left by
his suddenly deceased friend Heinrich Zimmer. Jung said, it
was impossible to see a saint in Ramana, with neglected body,
untidy hair and nails, being mostly in samadhi. For him, God
was beauty and a saint had to radiate that. As an archetype,
nicely represented by Jesus, hanging at the cross,
well-groomed - of course.
With all the discussion that's been going on here lately about
what's-her-name I am reminded of a frequently observed paradox, namely,
great teachers who have a decidedly "dark" side to them. Not just human
foibles, but serious aberrations that make some call into question the
teachers' actual attainment. Greater teachers than what's-her-face have
tended to possess serious personality contradictions too.
For instance, Adi Da (Franklin Jones) has often been accused of abusive
tendencies and misogyny toward his female followers. He was sued by a
of disaffected members back in the '80s.
Joseph Smith, in the 1830s, taught that black skin was a curse put upon
people for disobedience in premortality. (It wasn't until 1978 that the
Mormon church permitted Negro males to receive priesthood blessings,
which membership in the church mushroomed in places like Brazil.)
L. Ron Hubbard was known to be addicted to various stimulants and
painkillers, as well as being called (by the less extreme critics) a
paranoic and wife-beater.
How do we learn to deal with teachers who, on the one hand, have great
spiritual lessons to impart, and on the other hand, seem simultaneously
possessed of the most banal human stupidities?
> Dear Gene:Hi Kristi.
> OK, I'm asking....don't know a thing about Alice Bailey except what I've
> read here...so I'm counting on your comments not being a "she said, but
> meant..." sort of thing....tell me about hypotheticals and boundaries....
> Love, Kristi
Here is the answer: One who sees others as hypotheticals, is projecting
their 'own' 'hypothetical nature' upon those others. One who is puzzled
to the nature of one's own nature, has no knowing of the _reality_ of
themself. One who has no knowing of the reality of themself, is
to 'teachings' which _tell_ the reality of self. This 'reality of self'
of course, hypothetical. Such a 'student' of teachings 'about self' is
susceptible to ideas of racial hierarchies, 'channeled' entities, etc.
The knowing of self is self-realization; self-realization obviates
'hypothetical' information, and thus conveys immunity from all
All teachings are thus seen as noise, regressive, and symptomatic of the
common ignorance which is the fertile soil of 'growth'. Within that
ignorance, 'truth' is debated; the most dangerous debates vie for
of the supreme definition of 'what is a valid human Being'. Once that
definition is owned, the owner of that definition (who assumes that
is actually such a point to debate) becomes the arbiter of the fate of
"Deciding" is vastly different than realization. "Deciding" or
is a consequence of observation and thinking, and the product is
"Believers" are the most dangerous of all humans.
The value of "Nonduality" is the abolition of all belief; thus, the
catagory of 'believer' is shown to be bogus. Consequently, there are NO
hypotheticals, and no realization; there is instead, only the Living
The play of concepts is endless. Concepts about the body, the mind,
etc. It is the quicksand which entangles one more and more. It is the
of religion, philosophy, spirituality, great writers, great thinkers,
teachers, great leaders, etc. The presumption to teach and help others
improve themselves reveals the unrelenting grip of the ego. The wise
that, "I am the doer" notion is bondage. To go to the root of the ego,
should bring the awareness upon its own essence and thus stare at the
originating point of thoughts and feelings. It is the essence of
Spiritual practitioners seek complex and glamorous practices leading to
experiences. That is alright. Ultimately one must come to face with the
directness of one's own awareness.
...and the inahability to do so, the endless flight from the fear of
nothing, makes one discuss about others thoughts, ideias, clothing,
...etc...Anything will do.....just don�t let me be with this what
is....Maybe we can
find a good teacher in Bussunda.....yes...i think there is one good over
...LOL...LOL...i don�t know, but the friend of a friend told me
he is a cannibal.....but that doesn�t matter...we can always discuss
the grace of life, of our interactions with life, is that our beliefs,
our conclusions, those vessels in which we place meaning are broken- we
become upset, we become angry, we become fearfull- these challenges show
where energy was being trapped, where it was hiding from us, where it
was being tucked away from honesty
with the breaking of these notions, of these concepts, of these
dependences- now honesty can be more open, now we catch where the energy
of Will was previous tucked away and it is now part of a wider and
deeper gathering together, a wider and deeper surrender, a wider and
deeper dissolution and merger at the source
the breaking of these vessels of meaning is the sacrifice,the burning-
the emptying of meaning/energy back to source is the surrender
>From: Guitgo@...Maybe because at our core, we are God... something of an explanation,
>how do we ever survive all this stuff--good bad and inbetween-- that life
>throws at us here in this one moment!? :)
>it could be a death or a birthNo, not gone. Gone on to other lives, or to Source.
>that throws us --
>40,000 possibly dead in turkey?
>that many forms of *iam* -- gone.
>*suffering is a part of life* sounds/is trite, butSuffering doesn't have to be a part of life. Pain, yes. Suffering, no.
>it's "true" -- yet hard to see that
>no event is more or less painful than any other.
Suffering is a choice - a choice where most of us unfortunately decide
suffering is inevitable.
>i stand for the dead and the unborn.If there were either of the above, they would be good things to stand
>i stand for nothing but love.Stand for truth as well... it's equal to love in its potency.
>silent blessing to us allWith Love,