What is Said

2006-12-19 13:04:00

Larry quoting JJ:

Even if the teacher is wrong in an area or two this does not mean his whole work should be rejected.

Larry writes:

You should argue with what I have said, and not with what I have _not_ said. I have never said that all of your teachings should be rejected.

Also I don't think that I have ever said that the AAB works should be rejected 100% out of hand. It is simply the case that I do not believe some of the facts that AAB has DK assert as being true. Therefore I think the AAB works have to be approached like all of the New Age channeled literature, that is, very carefully (and yes I understand that you claim this work was not channeled per se).

Again, argue with what I have said and not with what I have not said.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically in your quote but was teaching a principle applicable to all; therefore I could not be arguing with what you did not say. When I respond to a member I often give out general teachings to all interspersed with my specific arguments. If I intend to accuse someone I will be specific about it. If I see several possibilities floating around in the persons mind and want to respond to one I will sometimes do it in a teaching format applicable to all so I will not be arguing with what the person did not say. The reader can accept or reject it as applying to himself.

I know you see value in many of my writings and have never accused you of thinking otherwise. It is the Alice A. Bailey writings that you have appeared to outright reject as being uninspired and created by the Bailey mind. You have given no indication in the past of attributing any value or authenticity to them and every time you comment on a quote I give from the Bailey materials you do so with a negative disbelieving mindset.

Therefore concerning the Bailey material (to which I was referring) it appears my quote could apply to you for what you have said indicated a total disbelief in the Bailey material.

Of course you can find some tidbits of truth in any material, even the Satanic Bible but I was referring to your flat rejection of the Bailey Material as being inspired by a master or Christ and his Hierarchy, or are you open to the possibility that DK is the real author? If not then the argument could apply with what you say.

The existence of this hierarchy in Tibet is about as likely as the Abominable Snowman.
LK