Masters on Death & After

[Skull]

This little book compiled by Geoffrey Farthing is based on the teachings that HP Blavatsky garnered from her Adept Gurus. Those Adepts were not speculating, they actually knew what happens at death and afterwards.

http://www.blavatskytrust.org.uk/pdf...20WE%20DIE.pdf

[yoyo1]

hi can i ask about moksha mukti dissolving of soul after death

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Skull

This little book compiled by Geoffrey Farthing is based on the teachings that HP Blavatsky garnered from her Adept Gurus. Those Adepts were not speculating, they actually knew what happens at death and afterwards.

http://www.blavatskytrust.org.uk/pdf...20WE%20DIE.pdf

Thanks, Skull.

For anyone interested, the work of Blavatsky was continued by Alice Bailey between 1920 and 1949, and Alice Bailey produced a book called Death, the Great Adventure. This is an organised compilation of all the material on the process of death given in Alice Bailey's other books. Well worth reading.

Peace.

[Skull]

Originally Posted by iamthat

For anyone interested, the work of Blavatsky was continued by Alice Bailey...

The work of Bailey was based on CW Leadbeater's pseudo-theosophy, not on the real Theosophy of Blavatsky. Stay away from AAB & CWL.

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Skull

The work of Bailey was based on CW Leadbeater's pseudo-theosophy, not on the real Theosophy of Blavatsky. Stay away from AAB & CWL.

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

Ha. This is a common view among Theosophists, who tend to be quite narrow in their beliefs. The points raised in the link are open to dispute.

Leadbeater was an unusual character who came out with his fair share of nonsense, but he must have had something - after all, he saw an unpromising boy on a beach and decided that this boy was worth cultivating. The boy was Krishnamurti.

Alice Bailey is a completely different category. The Theosophists of the time rejected her because they couldn't accept that a lowly member of the Theosophical Society might have her own connection to the Masters, a connection which the then leaders of the TS were sadly lacking.

We could have endless discussions about this, but the proof of the pudding lies in the books of AAB.

Peace.

[Skull]

Originally Posted by iamthat

We could have endless discussions about this, but the proof of the pudding lies in the books of AAB.

Peace.

Not to go off topic too much, but comparing & contrasting the Bailey pudding versus the Blavatsky pudding, as the linked article does, gives a flavorful appraisal as to which Chef followed the Masters' recipe and which did not.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Skull

Not to go off topic too much, but comparing & contrasting the Bailey pudding versus the Blavatsky pudding, as the linked article does, gives a flavorful appraisal as to which Chef followed the Masters' recipe and which did not.

Or perhaps Blavatsky provided the entree and Bailey provided the main course. The question arises, who will provide the dessert?

And when the dessert is provided, will it be rejected by both the Theosophical Society and the Lucis Trust? Because there is an unfortunate tendency for any organisation to become rigid in its beliefs over time.

Peace.

[Skull]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Because there is an unfortunate tendency for any organisation to become rigid in its beliefs over time.

Peace.

True enough, which is why the linked article is useful because the author focused just on a few themes to compare and had been a member of both groups.

[iamthat]

I too have been a member of the Theosophical Society and I greatly respect Blavatsky's work, even if by modern standards much of it is difficult to understand.

Perhaps the author should have considered the entire body of Bailey's work, which for me is a natural progression from what Blavatsky taught.

Peace.

[Skull]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I too have been a member of the Theosophical Society and I greatly respect Blavatsky's work, even if by modern standards much of it is difficult to understand.

Perhaps the author should have considered the entire body of Bailey's work, which for me is a natural progression from what Blavatsky taught.

Peace.

I was wrong in the previous post when I said Weeks was a "member of both groups" at the time of writing his article. There is a revised version of his article that I found online and it has this little paragraph appended:

First published in Fohat, a Theosophical Magazine, Summer 1997 issue. This edition has been expanded and revised by the author, Nicholas Weeks. He was, for about fifteen years, beginning in 1970, a staunch believer in the Bailey and Leadbeater teachings. The author was a member of the Arcane School and active in another Bailey group during this period. He was never a member of any Theosophical group, nor did he know much about HP Blavatsky's Theosophy at that time.

That suggests he knew all the Bailey corpus.