[Re: from facebook] Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme

[David Melik]

This site has a facebook.com group. Someone asked what people think of Alice Bailey (AAB) and Benjamin Creme.

I read some of their books years ago. At first I thought Bailey had some new ideas based on Leadebeater & Besant. I only agree 49% with L&B's idea of the monad as a higher human consciousness, because I think consciousness monistically connects us and the Logos. Whether we have individual monads on the 3rd plane rather than 4th as HPB says is another matter. I do not think so, though I think L&B's idea is just an allegory (metaphor, etc.) for how the Logos can have a viewpoint about reality within it from any viewpoint--even ours--and our reality depends on the Logos. This is also because I have studied Siddha Yoga, which is Kashmir Shaivist Tantra from a rather Advaita Vedanta viewpoint ultimately.

There were a lot of interesting ideas in AAB's texts, but people have called her (and even HPB) anti-Semitic. I think she said beforehand she is not, but she may be overly critical of the Jews and Judaism. There is also the problem that she took dictation from a disembodied voice. HPB only did--or used visions--after she met the speakers in person. Some people think AAB's texts are too Anthroposophical (i.e. Christian Theosophy.) I do not know if it is just because she said 'The Master Jesus,' which is not far-fetched, but I do not see it that way: it has plenty of Hinduism. I would call it more of 'focusing less on the paganism and leaving the so-called "great religions" in Theosophy.' One can only, as AAB or maybe DK said, judge the Arcane School on its merits and what it does not focus on: or other flaws it directly implied one should judge whether it has, so I do not see dogmatism as a problem. If it is not derived from DK then that is a problem, or if it is somewhat derived from him with what people call flaws AAB has, then that is a problem that is common today and much of the corpus could be ignored.

As for Creme, his central idea, a Mahayana Buddhist one, that Maitreya will come is excellent. People say he is not interesting either because he has personal ideas (e.g. smoking and Arcane School) they disagree with, but the Dharma says anyone that expounds it gets good karma. That is even reasonable to a Theraveda person who thinks (s)he is an arhat and needs something to do (if the word for 'karma of a Buddha' is used in that tradition, or just in a sense of purifying others karma while the arhat remains here.)

The Arcane School texts are just too much for me to really give an opinion on and they sound too advanced. If I meditated once/month to DK as they say and then started doing the other things : 'White Magic rules' or whatever I thought he told me, then maybe I could give an opinion, but I am unlikely to do so. If there is another 2nd ray teacher or if Athena, Hermes (Trismegistus,) Apollo & Sibyls, Yeshua or the Marys/etc., Buddha, Krishna, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Sokrates & Plato, Amonnius & Plotinus, Akhenaton, Kung-fu-tzu & Lao-tzu, Patanjali, HPB, Bodhidharma/etc., J Krishnamurti, Mani, Vyasa, Christian Rosenkreuz, Zarathustra, Krishnamacharya, G dePurucker, Paramhamsa, Padmasambhava, Ayya Vaikundar, Abdul Baha, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, any Maharishi or Mahatma or Golden Dawn ego, the gods of my own culture, and maybe a few others accept my request to learn, then that is another matter. Then I would have to listen, and of course I must if HPB wants me to listen to DK. I do not really know much about the Mahatmas, but I guess he is one and I would automatically listen to them and make a judgement about truth. I can only learn from so many though... I suppose they are somewhat merged consciousness, but obeying all different sorts of rules is hard: but it is practically impossible enlightened egos say conflicting rules. LIstening to AAB's rules is just too much for me. Now I will comment on one I have read about.

AAB 'channled DK' saying 'meditate on me on each full moon.' Well unless he just recommended regular meditation, I think it is a pre-Mastery teaching of his or not his teaching. The moon and sun affect the tides and also our blood, etc., but the new moon apparently has similar (or maybe sometimes opposite) effects, and it is sounds more complicated than there is just some monthly cycle... maybe women's one is partly coincidence. If the new and full moon really have a similar sort of effect because it happens cyclically in different places. then there is not much special about lunar cycle especially because the sun also affects tides. Actually what happens at new and full moon is that the tide range is maximum, so I suppose so is where there is slightly more blood in the body. I just see no relation between maybe a little more in the head and full moon--it is lunar fortnightly if anything, but I do not know so much about the sun.

I think AAB, the I AM movement, and Creme all had some interesting and maybe original ideas. Some of the ideas are sort of like after Krishna, Buddha, or Yeshua died and there was much Philosophical discourse with some great ideas we lost. There was also a lot of bunk and intolerance that remains today, and bunk happened with Theosophy.

I think AAB's focus on both 'Brahman' (or Trimurtis) and 'Christos' (the same really,) the I AM movement's theoretical focus on ideas from adepts rather than aspirants, and Creme's focus on Maitreya are all better than what I have read about Theosophy's relation to WWII. Of course HPB predicted it, but Theosophy-derived 'occultism' may have been on both sides. That is what AAB implied, but she also said the term 'German accomplishment' (of WWII,) which is really pushing it for me. Some people compared Allied economics to Axis, but still.... I guess the aforementioned ideas are about all I think is reasonable in these schools of thought. Most of what AAB said and the I AM movement said was already said by HPB and even L&B. I do not think Creme is to Maitreya as the prophet speaking to Buddha's father is to Buddha, because Buddha is as to Maitreya that way. That does not mean Creme is worse as a person, and it is good he is trying to be a Bodhisattva and getting people to meditate, but after they are successful at that--even if they get enlightened and Maitreya does not come yet--they need to stop doing those vigils and start doing practical Philosophy to solve human suffering even in small instances.

I used to read Creme's site (soon after reading AAB, often,) but its news is rare. I guess I will check back in case there is some proclamation, though I think Maitreya Buddha (prophesied by Buddha Siddhartha) proclaimed by a non-Asian would be humourous... it could happen. I have only skimmed vol. 2 or 3 of Creme's main book. It is nice if he said Yeshua is incarnate, but who knows? I do not know what else is relevant... I hope it has a lot of ethics but I did not get the time to get into that book much. What do others think of him?

[Monad]

I'm very much into the Alice Bailey teaching.Also Blavatsky and the Agni Yoga teaching.I've read all of Benjamin Creme's books and I must say that to me he comes across as a credible guy.I also went to one of his meetings in London a couple of years ago and witnessed what Creme claims to be a partial overshadowing of himself by Maitreya the Christ.What I experienced during this so-called overshadowing makes Mr Creme's message even more valid to me.

[Daniel Noga]

I'm nowhere near as seasoned a student of any of the writers mentioned in this discussion as others who have chimed in so far. Just want to get that out there on the table. But there's a reason for that, too, which is relevant to what I'm about to contribute:

I can in no way verify for certain the existence of the Masters--certainly it can't be proven in a scientific way, and on a personal level, I have never had an experience that seems to verify their existence to me. This is probably true for most people studying these materials, and others in this same position are left with three options when interpreting these texts:

1. Reject the notion that Masters exist, due to lack of sufficient supporting evidence.
2. Believe in the existence of the Masters, making it largely a matter of faith.
3. Provisionally accept the existence of the Masters and develop a working theory about them, open to adjustment, revision, or even eventual dismissal.

I start from this point because the existence of the Masters is crucial to everything else that may follow and it doesn't look like many who have taken part in this discussion have any doubt about the matter. If they don't really exist, then it doesn't much matter if AAB's take on their message contradicts Blavatsky's, does it? Then there's no need for the bulk of the debate that has taken place here.

I personally fall into the third category--I'm kind of fascinated by the idea of them, and while I haven't had any experiences that verify their existence specifically, I have had experiences that suggest to me that there are realms of Being beyond the physical and that those realms are inhabited by conscious entities. Coming from that viewpoint, though, the Masters could in actuality be just about anything. There's too much interesting stuff going on in the world to be certain. For just one example, I look to UFO phenomena and wonder where that all fits into the picture. What do the Masters think or know about that? What if the Masters are really some manifestation of that? Even if they do exist, how do we know they're really human like they say they are? How can we, from our limited point of reference, know anything for sure about them?

Maybe some of my ideas sound wacky, that's okay, I can take the heat--and I can see by how touchy everyone in this discussion is getting about the minutest details of which Master said what, that the suggestion that they could be aliens might be seen as ridiculous at best and downright offensive at worst. So be it, and if people are so entrenched in their beliefs about the Masters, they can have the whole thing all to themselves as far as I'm concerned.

I just think that getting so invested in the details, in the particulars about these issues can easily cause one to miss the big picture, and prevent one from absorbing what are probably the most important points contained in all those books--the points that are true regardless of whether it was Koot Hoomi or DK or Alice Bailey's personality projected upon DK's impressions, etc.....

Look at the messages, assimilate what rings true to you, and most importantly, take from them all that which can be used to actually make this world a better place, and then move on in life and use it to help keep humanity from killing itself off along with half the biosphere. That seems more relevant in this age than getting so tied up in who said what and whether or not it agreed with the others.

[Ferran Sanz Orriols]

 Hi, Daniel!

 I liked your comment. :-) Yes, both HPB and AAB wrote that the big picture is much more important than the details and yes!!! practical use is the key issue. Practice is what offers a chance to verify or to prove false.