Alice A. Bailey & the Master Djwhal Khul
-
What do you guys think about Alice A. Bailey & the Master Djwhal Khul & their writings?
R.E.D.
-
I delayed answering this (and thought others would) because I haven't actually read any of the books. My impressions are not of Bailey or what the Tibetan gave her, but only of people who were "really into Bailey."
Most people that are "really into Bailey" are occult crazies! They're usually delusional about occult things. At the very best (and few were 'very best'), those I've known in this group were hungry for occult information and hadn't a clue where to really look.
This may not be a comment on Bailey herself, but only on the kind of people who, especially in the 1960s-80s were way into her.
From everything I can tell, her psychic connection with The Tibetan was legit. Whether The Tibetan was legit I haven't the slightest idea (he or she might have been a Hindu used buggy salesman's step-aunt for all I know). I've heard an occasional worthwhile (that is, meaningful at the time, for the person in question) idea emerge from the writings (especially some interpretations of the Rays) but, overall...
-
...Yet another post, two years too late or so it would seem. Regardless, for interest's sake, I shall submit an - perchance more informed - opinion on the matter.
So: what do I think of the work of D.K. via A.A.B.? Well, personally - having read through a significant amount of their work - I'd have to say that it is some of the best occult/esoteric work I have read. In short: I find the material incredulously detailed, immaculately organized, and - relatively - of a "no B.S." demeanor. In truth, it is exactly as many of the introductions state: the works - more often than not - are not for neophytes, dilettantes, and/or the merely curious. ...Then again, the works are quite "esoteric" anyways; no beginner will grasp the deeper and more effective contents. ...Infact, I am reading through one of their works at the moment, for "umpteenth" time; verily it is so: the more you learn by application, the more the works reveal in a new read.
That said and done, ...Jim:
I understand what you mean about many new-agey folk - they are often on the verge of sanity at best, but perchance it is unfair to judge the quality of a work(s) by an analysis of the demeanors of many who (have) read them; what justice is that?
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
Note: I recognize you had not been talking about the works "specifically" however, my point was rather meant in relation to what is - or rather can be - inferred from your consideration. ...Just to be clear.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
EDIT: ...And, as I think of it now: I am not trying to start a debate, Jim. I only meant to make the conflict more explicit, for the sake of comprehension.
-
I only know about the parts of the litterature she has written on astrology. I have more here, but havent looked at it in any coherent way. A.A.B met with the tibetan Djwhal Kuhl once before she died.
It is difficult litterature to understand and its messy in that way its easy to lose the red thread in it. However, me and the rest of my class have probably approached it wrong, missing out alot that should have been understood before taking on our particular subject. I have to say I am very satisfied with integrating AB's stuff into astrology, if not the subject of development and the work that needs to be done on a personal level would have been almost non excistent. Classical astrology has a tendency to be a caricature of itself, but Bailey's work have made astrology whole.
-
93,
I have no clue what the other poster is talking about. Bailey's writings are chock-full of BS. BS upon BS, and BS diagrams of BS. She is obsessive about the rays, the planes, and seems to take her map to literally be the territory whereas Crowley was much more adaptable and careful. Nothing in her writings comes close to the sublimity of 'Do what thou wilt.' DK is probably just Bailey's excuse to get her own ideas accepted by the spiritualist - theosophist crowd, and it generally worked. Even if the 'connection is legit,' DK is at best an astral entity similar to Amalantrah. /opinion
93 93/93
-
An opinion indeed, Aum418! ...However, I cannot help but wonder: is it an "informed" opinion; an opinion worth listening to? I cannot help but wonder: just how familiar are you with these works; just how familiar you are with the system (ie: explanatory model) at their core?
Yeah, yeah - it's easy to "knock" on A.A.B., D.K., and/or the new-age flakies out there, ...but towards what end Aum418; what does that prove about the works? As I said above to Jim: what justice is that? Reason now, Aum418.
The ball is in your court.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
A review of "The Aura" by Djwhal Khul? ...As far as I know Alrah, that isn't one of the books/papers written by D.K. via A.A.B. - I checked; lucis trust owns the copyrights to all the others, afterall. Nice try though. In short, it seems you're reviewing the work of a new-age flakie; congrats! ...While you're at it, you might want to look Djwhal Khul up on facebook, twitter, and youtube - now "that" is some serious B.S., Alrah!
Indeed - people shouldn't believe everything they read; the door swings both ways, Alrah! Think on that.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
First and foremost, let me just say this: thanks for the heads-up, Alrah; I had looked around for a title, "The Aura" only to find nothing. I especially appreciate the link to the book on amazon - that was absolutely necessary, infact.
Now...what can I say about that? Firstly (and perchance most importantly), the book mentioned is not - technically - part of the D.K. via A.A.B. corpus - as I already mentioned, lucis trust owns their copyrights which can be viewed on site. Thus, it is already dubious in nature - yet another "channeller" of D.K.? Red flags are going up.
...Admittedly, I must reserve judgement here for I am not familiar with that work and/or it's "channel" - I'd need to read some if it to know for certain. As such, I wonder: if you have it, could you send me a snippet...a chapter, say? That should be sufficient.
...On a further note, I suppose I could ask my contacts at the Arcane School whether or not the book is considered legit, ...for what it's worth (which wouldn't be much, mind you).
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
@Alrah said
"
Are people in the habit of writing books and adopting the completely unpronouncable nom de plume of Djwhal Khul? "Actually, yes they are. Djwhal Khul is one of the Theosophy Masters that people channel. The book you're talking about is by Elizabeth Claire Prophet. The books we're discussing were written by Alice A. Bailey.
Personally I love the Bailey books. I haven't made much sense of the system though.
They're online. Here's "From Intellect to Intuition"
kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/Intellect/toc.html -
Indeed, I most certainly was not kidding Alrah - nor am I kidding about Djwhal Khul being on facebook, twitter, and youtube (supposedly); discrimination is a necessity.
...However, I cannot agree that it is weird - it makes perfect sense why there are so many (supposed) "channels" of D.K.. Consider a few examples:
- Done well, it's a "gravy train" (...I won't name names here, as that would be libellous)
- There are alot of deluded peoples out there...'nough said, I think
- The astral plane is full of such "replicas" - as many as there are thoughts about them
...And that'll likely cover a good 90% of the (supposed) "channels", if not more so.
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.