Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tl00091)

jim meier wrote:

> Negative comments on this list over the years on the Bailey writings
> generally fall into three categories:
> 1) "It's not HPB"
> 2) "It's anti-homosexual" and
> 3) "It's anti-Semitic"

    It's also anti-African.

> Taking these out of order,
>
> 2) On homosexuality: as far as I can tell, the Tibetan doesn't say much
> that could be considered pro-gay.  Most of the very little *that is*
> mentioned is along the lines that homosexuality is a misplaced expression
> of human sexual force.

    I have quoted here in the past a section where Bailey claims that
homosexuality is a matter of choice, and the choice is evil.

> 3) This is Bart's point above, and much as I respect Bart and his comments
> on theos-l, I have to disagree with him on this one.  The Tibetans writings
> are certainly not ZIONIST, but we should remember that the last of the
> Bailey books came out in 1949, and at that time the pro-Zionist movement
> was a minority position even within the Jewish community.  In summary, the
> Tibetan's position was that the Jewish Diaspora occured for a reason, and
> that the Jewish nation was best left dispersed to intermingle and effect
> the many countries rather than to be consolidated as one nation  back into
> Palestine.  Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with this position,
> but it should be pointed out that to this day not even all Jews agree among
>  themselves on the Zionist position.

    You misunderstood. While I have seen quite a bit of what I call
anti-Semitism in Bailey, and mentioned it in the past, I was commenting on the
habit of many FOLLOWERS of Bailey treating more traditional Theosophist the way
many anti-Semitic Christians treat Jews. As you say...

> not accept Alice Bailey's writings (or anyone else's).   Bart's second
> criticism was "the attitude among many Baileyites that HPB started
> Theosophy, but Bailey completed it...".  He made the analogy to
> Christianity "finishing Judaism," but no matter; the idea of Bailey
> "finishing Theosophy" isn't quite right; to be accurate, the Bailey
> writings are that HPB is the beginning of the modern exposition of the
> Ageless Wisdom, the Bailey writings are the sequential installment, and
> there is one more yet to come.  This -- imo -- is the source of the
> "anti-Bailey" sentiment in the TS; the implication is that the AAB writings
> are somehow more "advanced" than the standard, orthodox 19TH CENTURY
> Theosophical teachings.  For those who do not accept this on face value, I
> can only restate the preface to each of the AAB books: it is for each
> reader to decide whether or not they are correct, true and useful.
>
> To be sure, both Paul and Bart prefaced their comments as "most Baileyites
> believe...", etc.

    You quoted me as saying "many". It is certainly true of about 75% of the
Baileyites I have met. I also know of a few like you.

    Bart Lidofsky