Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10703Comments?: Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"

Expand Messages
  • D. H. Caldwell <info@blavatskyarchives.c
    Jan 22, 2003
      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 HPB 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.

      HPB's words point toward a true mystical Christianity, a universal
      religion. . . .

      "It hushes the 'Lo here! and lo there!' and declares the Christ, like
      the kingdom of heaven, to be within."

      ". . . '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. . . ."

      "So what kind of Theosophist was Bailey?" one might ask.

      For more comparisions, see:

      ". . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a Christ made
      Flesh. . . "

      Blavatsky and Bailey on the Christ: COMPARE & CONTRAST

      Daniel H. Caldwell
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic