|Dr. Robert Puff||
The following is an attempt to present a balanced and intelligent look at the racial views of an extremely influential writer who is considered to be the initiator of the New Age Movement.
What is shown here is that a person can speak with great revelation, love, and power out of one side of their mouth and utter incredible stupidities and hatred out of the other. It is possible. We have to investigate whether there is a fraction of that kind of duality within each of us. We have to be careful about who we accept as teachers and what we assume to be true about people. Many spiritual teachers are surrounded by scandal and controversy, but Alice Bailey has to be the most hateful and stupid.
edited by Jerry M. Katz, September 25, 1999. New Material added November/December, 2001.
Also see Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings, by Yonassan Gershom, for a refutation of Bailey's statements and claims.
Does this web page offer a balanced look? A person named AD wrote and said:To merely "attempt to present a balanced and intelligent look at the racial views of an extremely influential writer" does not mean that you have presented them in this way, only attempted. In fact by quoting anti-semitic sentiment and then not adequately refuting it, or refuting hatred in a larger sense, I believe you are actually promoting anti-semitism. It would be responsible of you to rectify this page so it is not just an "attempt". Otherwise, by continuing to publish it, I believe you are doing your site visitors a disservice.If anyone has further comment, please submit it.
Regarding AD's comment above, a small discussion took place between AD and Bruce Morgen:
It is the following passage that bothers me:
"Today the law [karma] is working and the Jews are paying the
price, factually and symbolically, for all they have done in
the past. ... They have never faced candidly and honestly (as
a race) the problem of why the many nations, from the time of
the Egyptians, have neither liked nor wanted them. ... The
Jewish problem will be solved by the willingness of the Jew
to conform to the civilization, the cultural background and
the standards of living of the nation to which he is related
and with which he should assimilate. ... It [the solution to
the Jewish problem] will come when selfishness in business
relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the
Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest
forms of activity."
My belief is that these statements should not be published at
all, particularly the last 2 sentences. Thus it would be
'decent' of Jerry to have all or part of the paragraph
It would also be laundering Bailey to the effect that her
hugely prejudicial blind spot would not be available for all
to see. The sword of censorship, self-imposed or otherwise.
Additionally, Bruce's quotation of Bailey coming up with
"stupid, distasteful, and errant statements" could be either
placed at the top of the page, or, in the particularly
scurrilous sub-section I have just mentioned.
That's strictly Jerry's editorial call. I agree that the
passage contains some outrageously bigoted statements, but it
also reflects a common attitude among Euro-esotericists of
Bailey's time and place, and without it a reader might be
mislead about who and what Bailey and the influential
tradition from which she arose really were historically.
I would prefer not to become involved in a debate about why
this should be done. I just hope one of you can see the light
I think "the light" has been throughly seen from the gitgo,
the question is whether the proposed changes or something of
similar ilk is advisable. Once again I defer to Jerry, who
perhaps might want to bring the issue up on one or more of
the higher-traffic mailing lists associated with the site.
Note to AD:
The antisemitic statements of Alice Bailey need to be published. Lucis Trust, the publisher of Bailey's books, has already scrubbed her works clean of antisemitism. I'm sure they would love it if we did the same on this web page. Take a look at their web page and enter 'Jew', and 'Judaism' in the search engine. You'll see only positive references to Jewish people and the Jewish religion. They do not acknowledge Bailey's past statements. I have written them a letter (hard copy) asking for a statement regarding Bailey's comments on Jews. I'll let you know what response I receive, if any. --Jerry Katz
We begin with some quotes from Alice Bailey:
Forget not that the vision (of Heaven, of God, of any
-- or of any millennium) is based in the majority of cases upon the
dreams and aspirations of the mystics down the ages who have blazed the
mystical trail, who have used the same terminology and employed the same
symbols to express that which they sense, and to which they aspire and
for which they long so yearningly.
They all sense the same Reality, lying behind the glamor of the world
aspiration; they all couch their desire and longing in the same symbolic
forms -- marriage with the Beloved, life in the Holy City, participation
in some ecstatic vision of God, adoration of some deified and loved
Individuality, such as the Christ, the Buddha, or Shri Krishna, walking
with God in the garden of life, the garden of the Lord, the attainment
of the mountain top where God is to be found, and all stands revealed.
Such are a few of the forms in which their aspiration clothes itself and
their sense of duality finds satisfaction. These ideas exist as powerful
thought forms on the astral plane and they attract -- like magnets --
the aspiration of the devotee which follows century after century the
same path of yearning search, imaginative expression of a deep seated
spiritual "wish-life" and an emotional surging outward towards divinity,
described sometimes as "the lifting of the heart to God."
The true and valuable fruits of the mystical experience of the past are
never lost. The inner spiritual realization remains latent in the
content of the life, later to be resurrected to its true expression but
the vagueness and the sense of duality must eventually be transformed
into a realized mental clarity; dualism must give place to the
experience of the at-one-ment and the mists must roll away.
The mystic sees through a glass darkly but some day must Know, even as
he is known.
The passages do not indicate that A.B. was enlightened. It is
just a talent for writing
about it. As if someone were to write a glowing account of the Buddha and
go on to say that the Buddha was wonderful because he was "Aryan" and all
A.B.'s writing is talented as spiritual journalism but lacks the ring of
first-hand credibility. IMHO ...
Some introductory remarks to a book Glamour: A World Problem.
We shall now employ the word "glamor" to cover all the aspects of those
deceptions, illusions, misunderstandings and misinterpretations which
confront the aspirant at every step of his way until he achieves unity.
I would have you note that word "unity," for it holds the secret of
disillusionment, as this process of release from glamor has been
occultly called. It will be apparent to you (if you have studied these
instructions with care) that the cause of glamor is primarily based upon
the sense of duality.
If such a duality did not exist, there would be no glamor, and this
perception of the dual nature of all manifestation lies at the very root
of the trouble or troubles with which humanity is - in time and space -
This perception passes through various stages and constitutes the great
problem of the conscious entity. This condition is a difficulty in the
realm of consciousness itself and is not really inherent in the
substance or matter.
The dweller in the body perceives wrongly: he interprets incorrectly
that which is perceived; he proceeds to identify himself with that which
is not himself; he shifts his consciousness into a realm of phenomena
which engulfs him, deludes him and imprisons him until such time as he
becomes restless and unhappy under the sense that something is wrong.
Then he comes finally to the recognition that he is not what he seems to
be and that the phenomenal world of appearances is not identical with
reality as he had hitherto supposed it to be.
From that moment on he comes to the sense of duality, to the recognition
of "otherness" and to the perception that his sense of dualism should be
ended and that a process of unification and an attempt to achieve
at-one-ment should be undertaken.
From that moment, the troubles of the evolving man begin to be observed
by him and consciously encountered, and he faces a long period of
"extrication from glamor and the entering into that world wherein only
unity is known."
--contributed by Allen
I loved the Alice Bailey books with a passion. I felt as
though my heart fearlessly embraced a universe while I read
them. Group initiation and the unicity (love that word Ivan)
of all existence became real to me then and the 3 and 7 ray
structure gave me a scaffold to stand on and the courage to
begin dismantling many firmly held beliefs. They made me a
much better person (even if Judi doesn't think that's
happening) minus the self righteous saint. After reading
those works my appreciation for the energies of life, my
command of the english language and the ability to think
(see thought forms and beliefs),comprehend and express
myself clearly had grown 10 fold.
I haven't picked them up for years, but they hold pride of
place on my bookshelves in gratitude for those early years.
This is from Alice Bailey's Esoteric Healing, p.263. It was
written in the midst of the holocaust:
"Today the law [karma] is working and the Jews are paying
the price, factually and symbolically, for all they have
done in the past. ... They have never faced candidly and
honestly (as a race) the problem of why the many nations,
from the time of the Egyptians, have neither liked nor
wanted them. ... The Jewish problem will be solved by the
willingness of the Jew to conform to the civilization, the
cultural background and the standards of living of the
nation to which he is related and with which he should
assimilate. ... It [the solution to the Jewish problem] will
come when selfishness in business relations and the
pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are
exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity."
She is justifying the actions of Hitler while they were
being undertaken. With a few changes here and there, the
paragraph can apply to any marginalized group.
As to Jerry's passage from Alice A. Bailey's book " Esoteric Healing". It is a paraphrased, and misleading rendition of the paragraphs on pg. 263 What was left off of your passage is the following statement " "Their aggressive history as narrated in the Old Testament is on par with the present day German accomplishment: yet Christ was a Jew and it was the Hebrew race which produced Him. Let this never be forgotten."
To incorrectly paraphrase a prolific inspired writer such as Alice A Bailey is slanderous. She spent her life trying to teach, enlighten, and inspire the human race. I am saddened to read such alleged "anti-Semitic" labels attributed to her. Before you throw hurtful, remarks into the universe you should try writing 24 books, live a life of servitude, and dedication to Spiritual development of the human race.
Kenneth Norland [email protected]
The point could be made here as well. I have
read very little of Alice Bailey, but from what
I have, she doesn't seem to suggest 'she' is
enlightened, but rather that she is speaking
the words given to her from an ascended master.
Might one expect an "ascended master" to have better taste in spokepersons??
Alice Bailey takes final responsibility. I don't know if
it's her or Kut Hoomi or Dwjal Khul, but someone said: "The
difficulty with the Jew is that he remains satisfied with
the religion of nearly 5000 years ago and shows as yet
little desire to change." (The Reappearance of Christ, p81)
Okay, let's say Kut Hoomi said it. I guarantee you Alice
Bailey was not baking humintashin for the local Hadassah at
The list of more or less contemporary writers, with more or
less the same "sound of message" is probably rather long; two
names remembered are Max Heindel and Rudolf Steiner; against
the writings/teachings of Steiner there has been a protest in
Holland, several years ago. Another point to be reminded of is
the rather undisciplined way of handling the side-effects of
Kundalini. When visions are seen, voices are heard, unusual
experiences are taking place and the savikalpa samadhi is
mixed with a large dose of personality, one is inclined to
interpret the side-effects as "direct revelations from God or
the Master"and admirers unknowingly feed the process, so the
result is rather predictable.
Purohit Swami, commenting (I,18):
[...] "All know the havoc of earthly power, but that of
spiritual power is greater. If the yogi remembers his vow of
renunciation and renounces spiritual knowledge, he is safe; if
not, he travels the path over again. Worldly power is
intoxicating; spiritual power is more intoxicating; but when
the yogi refuses to be drawn into it, his mind refuses to
move, it refuses to love and hate, accepts what comes to it
without effort, as the result of past karma. There is no new
desire, no new fuel to feed the fire, the last embers are fast
dying out, reduced to cold ashes, the last impressions on the
mind die out, and the mind finds its rest in Self, dissolves
itself in Self, loses its identity, loses its personality,
becomes Self itself."
This comment is timeless; without the proper knowledge, a
miracle has to happen not to become enchanted by the
side-effects / powers of Kundalini: when the personality is
believing to possess these powers, one is lost (for the
remainder of the present life). Obviously, few Westerners
witnessed such a miracle :)
One of AB's books I saw in the Bodhi Tree tonight is called
Humanity," and there's a section there where she (or that Kuthumi guy or
whoever) discuss the problem of race hatred and conflict among nations.
There were some comments about selfishness among nations as being the cause
of the Great War (1914-18, just to show how dated this stuff is.) I think
AB was just "channelling" some common beliefs of the time held by the
lowbrow elements of the populace. Not a lot of insight really. Her books
fill a whole shelf practically, I can't imagine trying to read that stuff.
I was saddened to see the force of venom and lack of respect
for others points of view spat out here for those tiny
paragraphs she wrote completely dismissing the voluminous
passages of loving and inspiring words she channelled for
Dwjal Khul! but it was heartening, as usual, to see
Melody's, unwavering, nondual, nonjudgemental perspective.
Tuff lives build big hearts.
Dwjal Khul's words awoke a gentleness in me and began my
understanding of the value of nonjudgement and compassion
for humanity. I spent 6 months studying them deeply and
never came across her perspective on the Jews till a year
later in a Theosophy group when we discussed the book
"Destiny of Nations" (btw no country or race has been spared
the lash of the human condition) and understood it to be
that the Jews symbolise mans nature (not so???) and his
struggles *as a whole* and that peace will only become an
actuality in Jerusalem when there is peace on earth. I lost
no love at all, for her or mankind, by reading that.???
Bailey was not an anti-semite and neither am I.
Yet I follow her teachings as part of my spiritual path. If one is an
anti-anti-semite, one can get lost in attempting to see things in black
and white rather than infinite shades of grey.
"I have no anti-Jewish feeling; some of my most beloved friends such as
Dr. Assagioli, Regina Keller and Victor Fox I love devotedly, and they
know it. There are few people in the world as close to me as they are,
and I depend upon them for counsel and understanding and they do not
fail me. I have been officially on Hitler's "blacklist" because of my
defense of the Jews whilst lecturing up and down western Europe."
From her autobiography. Not particularly enlightened--even though this
was written in 1951, but not antisemitic either. One can pick and choose
snippets out of her many books all day long that amount to 'truisms'
that will lend 'proof' to a pre-conceived notion.
,,,when I read the
little I had of Alice Baileys work, and even
the quotes you included in your response, I
read them metaphorically. When she speaks of
Jews, or Negroes (as she called them) or even
the Hierarchy, I hear them as archetypes, and
not as historical or specific 'people' (much
as Skye shared in her post last evening)
I see her talking about the kingdom of man, (or
faces of man) of which different religions,
cultures, and races represent different 'facets'.
This 'reading' of people as representing archetypes
(or forces, as Jung would call them) opens hers
and others words up to a whole different level of
...do I wish she had taken better care in her
Is it likely that her choice of words refflected
Europe's view in the 1940's? Certainly.
What I find really regrettable is that *because*
of that, her message is not heard. And the message
is that the Old Testament (Jewish religion) represents
one archetype (or Ray), and the New Testament (Christian
religion) represents another.
First of all, I point out that even if I am exactly the
same as Hitler, this sheds no light on the questions before us, which are
Bailey's ideas and the effects to which they contributed.
Second, I point out that it hardly conflicts with nondualism to suggest that
ideas cause effects in the world.
Third, I point out that it's a pretty standard nondualist idea that ideas
Fourth, I point out that some ideas cause a lot more suffering than others.
Fifth, I point out that these particular ideas, which Bailey and Hitler
shared, caused waaaaaaay more suffering than most.
I wonder how many people here have read what Hitler wrote about Jews in his
book, "Mein Kampf."
Your (Melody's) comments here could be applied to much of what Hitler wrote. I'm sure
you wouldn't do that, yet you do it with Bailey.
Writing about archetypes instead of people doesn't excuse it. Archetypes
can't be thrown into gas chambers, only people can, so when the ideas in
Bailey's and Hitler's books get translated into action, it's boys and girls
and men and women who get thrown into the gas chambers.
Some folks here seem to think an anti-Semite is somebody who waves a flag
with a swastika on it.
But that's not the case. An anti-Semite is a person who holds the same
opinions as Alice Bailey or Hitler.
Wake up and smell the coffee, honey.
Now, how do we love Alice Baily, Hitler, Hussein, etc? To
accept hatred in
any form is to accept it in all its forms....how do we love those who "do" evil?
I attended a Friends meeting in Santa Cruz for two years during the period
of the Gulf war. As we planned demonstrations and anti-war activities I saw,
as we railed against George Bush and Saddam Hussein, that we were creating
amongst ourselves, the same energy of hate, derision, contempt, and fear,
that the "war mongers" create. When I pointed this out, it was heatedly
denied....but I became convinced that we were no different, except by
degree...and that were these loving Quakers, ever to be in charge of the
world, with the corruption that attends power, would we be any different?
They basically ran me out of the meeting for not seeing that they were
different in that their mission was righteous. I did silent vigils in
Salinas for the duration of the war by myself. (Boy, they spit on people
down there!) This was my first experience with Christ...to realize that he
so loved the world he gave of us body rather than raise a hand against
them...I wonder what he would have said to Alice Bailey? I wonder what he
would have done? Would he have crucified them or resurrected them through
I grew up in Germany and was indelibly touched by the shadow of the
Holocaust; I visited Dachau several times....a place that calls so
powerfully to peace and compassion that it served as a cathedral to me...I
went there to pray, to grieve, to sink deeply into the quiet of mourning
that knows no purpose, to touch the history of genocide and come away
cleansed of the desire to ever participate in it...and... to give thanks to
the millions who died and suffered...I don't care if they were Jew or Gypsy
or Gay or Gentile....and in whose name the consciousness of the planet may
have been moved forward inestimably....
This was the only resolution I could come to in my search for understanding
what it means to live as a pacifist, in such a way as to avoid the occasion
for war....to become the hater of those who hate only feeds the fire of
hatred....there MUST be rhyme and reason beyond what we can see...this may
be superstitious in the extreme, but I CHOOSE it because it makes the path
to seeing life as symbolic and finding goodness in the face of evil, so much
easier...if we are to transcend as as a universal consciousness it will only
be when we see only good...for we create what we see....Hitler, Hussein, et
al....believed in fear and the value of suffering and so they created
it....we have no choice but to forgive them if we value a state of mind, and
perhaps someday, a planet, where there is no suffering.
.My guiding light has been to know that if a Jew ever knocked on my door in
the middle of the night, I would bid him enter, come what may....and that if
he did not knock that I would seek him out...there are many "Jews"; today
they are the homeless and the poor; they are the face of every person cast
out, despised, and hated - often for "good" reasons; because they are
"bums", or commit bestial acts, etc.
Today, as I abide, more and more in a state of being...without the need to
evaluate or judge, I sometimes find myself in the presence of child abusers
or other violent people....do I love them, or hate them? To be non-dual is
to move beyond this question to the answer...which does not have to do with
form, but only the substance of Being, in this moment....would I open the
door in the middle of the night, to someone seeking shelter, whose presence
might destroy my life or the life of my children? I don't have an answer
anymore; I would trust in that moment to know the decision that was
beneficial to the big picture...I don't need to know or understand or (even
grieve or suffer - although I still do both), I need only trust and abide in
By the German Jewish poet, Paul Celan, who also said "No
for the witness.";
No one kneads us again out of earth and clay,
no one conjures our dust.
Blessed art thou, No One.
In thy sight would
we were, are now, and ever
shall be, blooming:
the nothing--, the
our pistil soul-bright,
our stamen heaven-waste,
our corona red
from the purpleword we sang
over, oh over
--contributed by Andrew
demonstrate 'against' something we are polarizing
ourselves, from 'another', and thus actually
magnifying that which we resist.
Actually, it is thru this observation that I stumbled
upon the nondual perspective to begin with.
I simply discovered that when resistance (also
hidden as denial) and opposition ceases,
Stillness is what remains.
"In between the two, there I AM."
When one end of a polarization becomes energized,
the 'opposite' side is equally polarized, and
separation is made even greater.
I have simply found that by accepting and embracing
the opposition, 'separation' ends.
I'm not suggesting we embrace genocide. I'm
suggesting we look beyond the 'act', and into
the heart of our enemy. I'm suggesting we look
for similarities, rather than distinctions.
The spiritual/moral imperative of loving one's enemies has
around for millennia. Few, sadly, have practiced it.
A poem written by a Polish Holocaust
survivor, who was also my philosophy
professor, but more importantly took a personal interest in my spiritual
direction way back in 1968.
I am entering the forest of granite,
The woods of branchless trees.
Even if I walked here for thousands-- of light years
I shall not find either limit or end,
Because it is a timeless wood.
And each tree is named inertia
And each vibrates in the wind like a granite string,
And I am listening to that stone concert,
Gray haired and turned ash.
Each column ls like a black candle,
But none is lit at the top
And under them, glassy ground.
They all stand eternally on watch
And reflect the stony choir of their granite bow strings
In the glassy pane of the surface
In place of flames on the watch at the Unknown Tomb,
At the coffin amidst of them
Hanging like a universe,
They stand - nameless at the Nameless' grave
In which God might be lying.
And high, very high over each -
As if it were a torn off head -
A faded star smokes yellow,
Stagnant and blind in the bIack air,
A relentless and inacessible remorse.
--contributed by Gloria
Hate and holocausts are teachers: they are about the hate-er,
hate-ee: until we resolve the capacity within ourselves to hate, we will
always find a hate-ee. I think the universe provides, of our own materiel,
extraordinary examples of these phenomenon, hoping that we will get it...we
do, increasingly all the time.
Have you read "the hiding place" by Corrie Ten Boom? Given your interest in
Christianity and the Holocaust you might really love this story....it is a
phenomenal story, true, about the spirit of forgiveness, a christ among us,
and the camps.
I was impressed when reading Alice Bailey that I might
be special and a part of the hierarchy. That special feeling
so nice and warm and fuzzy. That isn't to say that there
might not be some form of hierarchy. It is a matter of
how I take that information and to what use I put it. As
long as I have my self as the center of the universe everything
gets taken that way. With Self as the center reading Alice
Bailey is a very different experience. It is just black ink on
white paper. What I take away from reading is in me not in
-- "the religion of 5000 years ago"
is indeterminate and
certainly nothing resembling
Judaism, which is based on
The Torah and perhaps 3,000
years old. One cannot
credibly comment on "the Jew"
any more than one can speak
of "the Christian," "the
Hindu," "the Muslim," "the
Jain," or "the Wiccan."
Judaism recognizable as such today
is defined by Mosaic Law,
the Torah. By most
historians' estimates, the
Torah is less than 3,000
years old. The term "Jew"
is newer still. The
monotheism of Abraham was
not Judaism in anything
near the modern sense --
there were no scriptures,
no clergy, no congregations
per se, no prophets. It
pleases modern-day Jews
(and Arab Muslims) to trace
their ancestry back to
Abraham, but we really have
no idea if this is true.
Monotheism is a very durable
paradigm and an exclusive
one -- it does not abide
mutual coexistence with
other faiths..... It is also very simple
and easily understood, not
requiring the direct
experience that lives at the
heart of experiential
nondual revelation -- one
does not have to *be* Moses,
one simply has to abide by
what Moses teaches as
interpreted by rabbis.
..."the Jew" is a misleading
stereotype, especially since
one is considered a Jew by
ancestry even if one does not
abide by the Torah or any
consensus Jewish practices.
Alice Bailey works paved the way for me
to see my insignificance in the bigger picture and helped me
understand the possibility of the following;
U.G.: The day man felt this self-consciousness in him, which
made him feel superior to every other species on the planet,
is the day he set out on the road to complete and total
self-destruction. If man is destroyed, probably nothing is
lost. Unfortunately, the instruments of destruction he has
been able to stockpile over the ages are getting worse and
worse, more and more dangerous. He will take everything with
him when he goes.
Q: What is this self you are talking of?
U.G.: You are interested in the self, not I. Whatever it is,
it is the most important thing for man as long as he is
Q: From where does this basic urge to assume mastery over
himself and the world arise?
U.G.: Its genesis was in the religious idea that man is at
the center of the universe. For example, the Jews and
Christians believe that everything is created for the
benefit of man. That is why man is no longer a part of
nature. He has polluted, destroyed, and killed off
everything, all on account of his wanting to be at the
center of the universe, of all creation
U.G.: It is mortality that creates immortality. It is the
known that creates the unknown. It is time that has created
the timeless. It is thought that created the thoughtless
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.
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 Milosovic,
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.
One who sees others as hypotheticals, is projecting
their 'own' 'hypothetical nature' upon those others. One who is puzzled as
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 susceptible
to 'teachings' which _tell_ the reality of self. This 'reality of self' is
of course, hypothetical. Such a 'student' of teachings 'about self' is thus
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 teachings.
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 ownership
of the supreme definition of 'what is a valid human Being'. Once that
definition is owned, the owner of that definition (who assumes that there
is actually such a point to debate) becomes the arbiter of the fate of all
"Deciding" is vastly different than realization. "Deciding" or concluding,
is a consequence of observation and thinking, and the product is "belief".
"Believers" are the most dangerous of all humans.
The value of "Nonduality" is the abolition of all belief; thus, the entire
catagory of 'believer' is shown to be bogus. Consequently, there are NO
hypotheticals, and no realization; there is instead, only the Living
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
I feel that if the symbolic use of religions, races and
nationalities could be modified that the work would be less
manipulative and capable of being enjoyed by a wider
Have you seen The Truman Show? If she made The Truman Show,
I feel she'd have the Chinese in the laundries, the Jews in
the pawn shops, and the Caucasians in some big house on a
hill. Besides that, there's nothing wrong with playing the
game of The Truman Show. And even stereotyping is fair if
it's done humorously and with balance.
The play of concepts is endless. Concepts about the body, the
etc. It is the quicksand which entangles one more and more. It is the stuff
of religion, philosophy, spirituality, great writers, great thinkers, great
teachers, great leaders, etc. The presumption to teach and help others to
improve themselves reveals the unrelenting grip of the ego. The wise say,
that, "I am the doer" notion is bondage. To go to the root of the ego, one
should bring the awareness upon its own essence and thus stare at the
originating point of thoughts and feelings. It is the essence of simplicity.
Spiritual practitioners seek complex and glamorous practices leading to rich
experiences. That is alright. Ultimately one must come to face with the
directness of one's own awareness.
I know there are dozens, probably
hundreds of different versions of The Bible, but Bailey
seems untouchable, absolutely unalterable. What's behind
She made clear what the karma of Jews is. Like any good
leader, she simply has to state her case in an atmosphere of
believability and her followers will take care of the rest.
And I know Jews and non-Jews have shadow-selves. No
argument. Although Caucasians apparently do not. So my
answer is Yes, she was justifying racial violence, and it is
based on her determination of the karma a people should
suffer. She is the decider of that karma. If I have an
opinion of what the Jews' karma is, should it be heard? Is
it less valid? Is only her knowledge of a people's karma
I would like to think that if
nondualism stands for anything, it is truly free thought and
expression. If any reader of Bailey allows her to the sole
declarer of what the karma of people is, then the reader is
not free. Why does she get to decide? I want to decide.
I hereby declare that the karma of the Chinese people is to
be loved, cherished, valued, supported, embraced and never
will they face a violent confrontation. Is there anything
wrong with my declaration? Create your own statement of
karma, folks. Get free. Get very free.
For there's no such thing as karma and there's no such thing
as Alice Bailey's imaginings, or anything else we talk
about. This is a dream. My effort is to see it and enjoy it
I think Bailey helps people see the dream and get out of it;
but through her prejudices she is binding a lot of people.
The publishers could make changes.
Each one of us is free to state what the karma of a people
is. If you think only Alice Bailey is correct, you're bound.
If you think only Alice Bailey's version of occult force is
correct, you're bound.
So 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 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.
You're right, Andrew, about changing history. I
can see the white supremacy or 'symbolism' remaining as long
as there is a statement of understanding, such as yours.
I'm just a bit puzzled that
folks don't notice how
is and move on to look into
the sources -- it's kind of
like the old "Classic Comics"
where you could read a
version of Dickens or
Tolstoy and miss the
richness and authenticity of
the original. Blavatsky,
Besant, Leadbeater, Steiner,
and Bailey are poor and
distorted echos of their
sources, adding so much
"sizzle" that the vast
majority of their readers
never get to the nondual
"steak" at all.
Benjamin Creme claims Bailey
as his lineal predecessor
and foremost influence. If
"By their fruits shall ye
know them," then Bailey's
seed has brought forth a
harvest of extremely dubious
wishful thinkers. Even
among present day
Theosophists and other
esotericists, the "Masters"
invented by Blavatsky and
embellished upon by Besant
and Bailey are widely viewed
as fictionalized literary
devices loosely based on
actual people one of more of
the ladies encountered. Why
one would adhere to such
parlor dilettantes' work
rather than looking to their
sources on the subcontinent,
in Asia, or in the middle
east is a puzzlement here.
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 group
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, after
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 raving
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?
it strikes me that, if grace provides a guru in the form best
suited to the
stuff i need to learn, that form might appear to be a bit off center. which
would explain why i have learned so much from some of the most unlikely
forms--not all of them human. it could be that a "teacher" is abusing
power-- that is a lesson in itself. could it be that what's-her-face
"survives" in order that atrocities born from words such as hers do not
happen again? or that the shenanigan's of others finally drive us to the
point of true self/guru: silence and stillness of mind?
to me the paradox is that the truly non-dual teacher won't call himself
teacher, guru or whatever. that implies duality because of the
I despair, after all the years of studying to realise
the underlying harmony of life and still here we are *favoring*
one concept over another, one person over another and
blocking Love. Were's the freedom in it, calling
one person paranoid or another a white supremacists, right
or wrong and on and on.... Do we not gather together here to
look behind all that?. Why cant we see how much it
keeps us from the real work of bridging the illusory gap
between each other and our universe.
Whats the point in sending in high fallootin' quotes from
our favorite Gurus or sweet words during rare moments of
insight and then continuing the dirty dance of the human
condition as usual. How can this be? Do we go through a
schizophrenic crisis before we drop all this ignorance? Why
do we spend so much energy discussing, what we do not seem
to have the energy to live. Have you noticed how active the
list is at the slightest hint of controversy and how quiet we are when at
peace? It makes me wonder whether we really
serious about dissolving the illusory gaps here or prefering
to continue the deadly dangerous game, that the human
condition has become. Sure I love our human naughtyness ,
but when it starts hurting then we are sick again.
With my deepest love,
Regarding the criteria for a teacher, a few comments from the
The [true] teacher is well versed in the Veda, a devotee of
Vishnu, free from envy, pure, a knower of yoga and intent on
yoga, and always having the nature of yoga.
The Self-realized adept is always transmitting his native
condition of liberation, which is the true condition of all
beings and things. Thus, he constantly initiates others into
the same realization, though they may be slow in experiencing
O Devi, there are many gurus on earth who give what is other
than the Self, but hard to find in all the worlds is the guru
who reveals the Self.
Many are the gurus who rob the disciple of his wealth, but
rare is the guru who removes the disciple's afflictions.
He is the [true] guru by whose very contact there flows the
supreme Bliss (Ananda). The intelligent man should choose such
a one as his guru and none other.
Thanks for these beautiful quotes Jan and the earlier ones
Purohit Swami. They have the ring of Truth to them. Truth is simple. We must
make our "gaze" simple to recognize it. You are right that people run after
those teachers who speak of past lives and talk to their dead relatives for
a fee, etc. Many are the sophisticated and subtle deceptions of teachers who
make so many promises which are meaningless. Rare is the Soul, who is beyond
the teacher/student dichotomy and abides in the Silence of the Heart. I
like this following quote.
"O Devi, there are many gurus on earth who give what is other
than the Self, but hard to find in all the worlds is the guru
who reveals the Self."
Perhaps even those who have realized Self
are subject to having the unconscious shadow aspects
of selfness. Perhaps we would do well to be aware of the
acting out of the "shadow" by teachers, particularly
when this acting out involves harming others, imposing on others,
not informing or gaining consent from others. This "skepticism"
could point us toward realizing that indeed, it's
"not enough to realize Self." Reality involves the wholly Other
words, Reality requires the ending of the vision
of all as Self, to discover the wholly Other that originates
this vision. In this Other is the ending of the known,
the self, the finite, the attachments, the contrast of
self with other. Infinity may then shine unempeded, revealing
God as God is (or simply That which is).
This emptying of self from oneself is not an act of
the self, of thought or emotion, or of one's realization of
something such as an ultimate Self. Thus, this emptying
reverses the emptying which occurred when the Other made itself
Other to itself, created a "space" which allowed the finite to manifest
from the infinite. Can Reality simultaneously absent itself
from itself, manifest the finite, and absent itself as finite
self from manifestation? Speaking symbolically: can God become Adam,
experience a fall, and simultaneously act as Jesus and ressurect itself
from the fallen condition that it predestined when it manifested
what is finite? This is the wholly Other acting within the Self,
beyond the Shadow, to end the dialectical process of Self and Shadow.
Thus, there is a reclaiming by the One of
itself, delivering itself from duality and death by ending
the false self that seems to suffer and die. A trap for
the finite or false self is to think that its thought
process can deliver it, that a guru will deliver it,
that its false and manipulative existence in any sense will
be delivered. Only that which it erroneously conceives as nothingness
will be left, only that aspect of itself that it considers most
other than itself, which is the still point where it
"touches" God. The ending of the falsely separate
self by God is Grace, and love, yet the self that clings
to a vision of Self my be attached to such a vision
in a way that doesn't allow a place for the truly
infinite to enter.
If the Other enters the self in a way that
ends the "selfness" or embededness in the past
of awareness, infinity may
act in our present lives in ways that are unknown --
not a "self-process" and beyond a "self recognition."
The shadow that you mentioned might be very important
to be aware of, fully accept, as a prelude to the Unknown
which is "beyond the shadow" to "enter" one's life process.
For most people, living knee deep in bills
and family dramas, and their demanding
employers breathing down their necks,
the wisdom of 'this world is only
an illusion' or 'neti, neti' is seen
as escapism. The eastern masters
generally don't 'speak' to those that
are just beginning to stir from their
Yes, sure, I would like to see 'clearer'
channels of teachings, in both nondual
and new age offerings.
Even so, I think it would be great to build
a bridge between the Bailey and the Krishnamurti
and the Ramana lineages,
rather than trying to raise one as 'higher'
than another, or insisting on an 'either/or'.
They both have their role to play in
inspiring the awakening of human kind.
And the beauty of building a bridge, is
that in the meeting of the 'two', any obstacle
to union can be recognized, and alchemized.
Point being for me so far, I see sooo many opinions,
yet trapped in the limits of a dualistic conversation (she said then he says...)
yess same old, old same olddd dead.
Continuing The Thread: synthesis.
Sharing this conversation with a fellow heartland dweller just yesterday,
He said "NonDuality?, I like this...(continuing) That reminds me of a story,
'The person who turns two into one tells the truth, the person who turns one into
But this is an ancient story, in every book, a it may be the last story.
Where's the sage amongst us who can follow by integrating ALL?
Bridge that. IAm ready, are you?
FYI, I was introduced quite formally to DK/AAB at 18. In fact asked to replace a
departing, and important member of the um, Hierarchy. I Passed. Simply wasn't
my own lineage, and I knew that. At 19, w/o a teacher, call it what you want, IT
happened while trying to puzzle out my own, at that time, nihilism-a passage from
revelations (speak to all, in their native tongues, simultaneously...)-and the then pop culture movie
...and all i got for the experience was a lousy tee-shirt. At least on the
So, kind of skipped the "new Age Thang" - moved to arkansas instead, built homes
for a long time, by my self. BUILT HOMES. played with stones, like like Shirdi Sai Baba
played with Hindus and Muslims. everyone has a path.
now i'm playing with you (ALL)...
elock ; ]
love is not warm and fuzzy, just taste the water outside your door.
Melody: And this seems to say that
when such suffering and abuse is perpetrated
on us or those we love it becomes very 'real'...
so real that it can anger us to hear someone
say 'there is no suffering' or 'this is only
Dan: Yes, it might. There may even be
a repeat of the pattern of duality involved
in abuse - with one experiencing suffering
and one saying this suffering isn't real.
To have not duality might mean a nonseparation
from the experiencing without either negating
or holding onto the experience.
I want to do my best to look
at the whole situation of abuse,
and, as you have discussed -
not relying on easy answers, and recognizing
that we include the whole situation, indeed
Awareness that is pure, total, infinite
experiences no sense of suffering. However,
in our day to day human life, we encounter
people (ourselves) who are not clearly aware in a
pure, total, and infinite way, who have been hurt
and who suffer.
This is their (our) experience, and we can be aware
that this thread of abuse runs through human history.
Gene: Yes. For me, no amount of abstraction has yet succeeded in removing
the function of compassion.
As one who has suffered, I am acutely aware of suffering. I have never
intended my 'nondual' awarenss to serve as a means of dissociating myself
from my feelings; quite the reverse, in fact. My conscience is capable of
very intense activation. I myself am bounded by certain ethics, to which I
surrender at this time. Such has in fact become habitual, to my great
Dan: If suffering or abuse occurs, there is
that experience and the impact of that experience.
Whatever reality it has experientially, emotionally,
and cognitively won't dissolve (for me) by hearing
"there is no suffering" or "this is an illusion."
Such a statement presented
within this context is more likely to be
heard as an invalidation of the experience of hurting
and the person's awareness that he or she
(I) has been hurt.
In many cases of abuse, the abuser (I) will tell
the one who is being hurt (I), "this is for your own
good," "you deserve this" "don't tell anyone"
or even "it didn't happen." These statements
suggest "there is no suffering" and "suffering is
an illusion." The one
who hurts "the other" may indeed be denying
awareness of the suffering. How to bring
awareness to this situation (which is not other
Gene: VERY well and succinctly put. I hope this is clearly understood; it is an
incredibly important point, rarely made.
Dan: For awareness to heal, to be whole to itself, it
needs to move through the denial that is part of the situation.
I don't think this is easy, because
there is denial involved on the side of the one who
hurts "the other" and the one who has been hurt
"by the other" (which are not two
Gene: Denial: Not trivial.
Dan: To deal fully with a difficult experience involves
more than a statement that the experience is unreal,
although such a spiritual realization may "useful"
to healing in the right time and situation.
Gene: Yes... later/after.
Dan: I see it as important that the experience first
be "realized", that is, experienced without denial,
before it can be "released".
Gene: Abreaction: Not trivial. Much courage/can come/for that/end of denial.
release may be instantaneous, the readiness may take years,
or generations. My experience of this situation
(which occurs in many guises)
suggests that it takes unflinching honesty,
and not moving too quickly to thinking that
everything is resolved.
Gene: In fact, never concluding...
Melody: If I may ask this of you....
Let's use the analogy of nuclear power.
What does one do with something that has
the potential of misuse....such that it could
hurt thousands in the wrong hands,
yet if used carefully, as intended, it has the
energy to illuminate and warm the world.
Should we throw away what we know, and the potential
that is waiting to be uncovered....just to be 'safe' ?
Dan: The energy of awareness needs to be used skillfully
and compassionately. It isn't necessarily "safe"
in the sense that it doesn't
preserve structures and continuity of self --
yet it is always "safe"
because it is all there is.
Gene: Yes yes yes.
Again, this is vital to know, in my opinion. Reading your written words is
a tonic to me; seldom have I seen this expressed so accurately. How very
Thank you, Dan.
PS: I find myself bathing in a river of healing, which flow was for a long
time, for may years, toxic.
Jan: In Europe, too many survivors were left in their beliefs
culture. Destroy belief, culture like the Spaniards and
Portuguese did in South America and the drama is swept under
Melody: I doubt that. Not as long as the Spaniards and Portuguese
still carry their beliefs and attitudes... and silently, even
unconsciously, carry the guilt over their behavior...nothing
gets swept away. It just stores up and waits for another
day to get expressed once again somewhere else.
That's the nature of a 'polarized' reality.....for every
action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
Even if only one side of the conflict survives, the
pendulum of violence and hatred still swings.
Conflict doesn't end when all the 'bad guys' are executed
or put behind bars or when 'warning labels' are affixed
to all apologists books....not as long as the conflict still resides in the
For decades after my weekly rapes ended, the conflict
still raged within me. And that hatred, that sorrow
served only to create new sorrows in my life....just in
different forms. 'Abusers' came in every size and shape
....at work, at home, on the subway.
And for years I crusaded to make this world a safer place,
but I was deluding myself.
Not until I found the place of peace....that stillpoint
between victimization and abuse....did the cycle of abuse
end. Not only for me, but...amazingly...for my family as
Once I was able to watch the drama, from a sacred witness
position, I could see the 'perfection' in my suffering.
And after a while I began to see it even with a smile.
I am not without compassion for the Holocaust survivors.
I simply wish for them the peace that I have found. I
simply wish for them that they can step beyond the fear
and sorrow and see the events from a sacred witness position,
If 'my' history is any indication, until they do so....
(and until the *silent conspirators* can do so as well)
there will continue to be anti racial and ethnic violence
....and it won't matter how many 'warning labels' are pasted
on thousands of websites and books.
Jan: Or make the natives a minority in their country
like the Chinese still are doing in Tibet and the whites did
in North America, Australia and New Zealand. In South Africa
and Zimbabwe, white man was forgiven by the blacks. No wonder
at all. L'histoire se repète so you better smile...
Melody: Or at the very least, step back and see the 'bigger'
I think of the native culture we all but extinguished
here in North America. And the other cultures we
enslaved and abused. Yet, here we are, focusing our
attention on saving the world from a 'Hitler' and his
conspirators.....all the while, we fail to see that
we are he.
I have never 'defended' Alice Bailey,
and yet some of you are hearing me as if I am doing that.
I have stated at least a half dozen times that I
can recall that I find it regretable that someone
that has offered so much could be a racist.
It surprises me that it seems I need also say once
again that I am not a racist, nor do I condone
racist activities. (Please review the archives for more elaboration.)
I think if you will review carefully my postings you
will find that I hardly ever refer to Alice's writings,
and have admitted on more than one occassion that I have
read very little of her words.
The essence of my response is to say 1) that righteous
indignation and editorials serve little purpose other
than to make us feel better temporarily about a deeply
rooted dis ease. I choose to challenge myself and
others to redirect this 'passion' to clearing the anger,
hatred and sorrow from our own selves. I'm suggesting
that in Self focus and transformation lies the avenue
I'm also suggesting that although Alice Bailey may have
been a bigot, I would hope we do not toss the baby out
with the bath water. I, for one, am interested in exploring
her offering (absent the anti semitism) of the 7 rays, and
the races they represent. I find very close parallels in
both Jung's offering of the hierarchy of archetypes, as
well as the Neo-Sabbatian's offering of 'repairing the
face of God'.
I find it fascinating that the Jewish Kabbalists (the
Neo-Sabbatians, that is) see the Jewish 'race' as the
chosen race, the one chosen to be the 'suffering servants'
of God, - as in:
"You, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, my friend. You whom I brought from the confines of the earth
and called from the ends of the world; you to who I have said, 'You are
my Servant, I have chosen you.'" (Isaiah 41:8-9)
"See, my servant . . .a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering . . .
struck by God and brought low. Yet he was pierced through for our
faults, crushed for our sins. On him lies a punishment that brings us
peace, and through his wounds we are healed . . . while he was praying
all the time for sinners." (Isaiah 52:13-53:1-12)
to ultimately to fulfill the archetype of the
What is rather tedious is that one finds it very difficult
to find a forum in which this can be discussed and explored
without emotions becoming inflamed, and one being accused
of either bigotry, lack of compassion, or now...it seems...
of being a radical woman's liber??? :-):-):-)
chuckling (not to be confused with a 'smile'),
|Dr. Robert Puff||