The Soul and its Mechanism

A few weeks ago my wife and I went to a talk by William Meader, a teacher from the Esoteric Tradition, on “Death: The Great Adventure”. He spoke about by the process by which the soul withdraws from the body, and the ways in which we can help make death a smooth transition. It was a good talk, simple language, non-threatening, and we came home stimulated by his ideas. He quoted from Alice Bailey, and so I took down from our bookshelves “The Soul and its Mechanism”. I have to confess that neither of us are avid Bailey followers, and this book has been collecting dust for 20 years. Another confession: I reckon this is an awful title for a book! Souls should be soaring, not mechanical!

The Soul may well have been covered before in this section of the forum, but I’ll assume that there are some members who haven’t come across it before. Bailey’s aim is commendable: to more properly understand the soul by drawing together the traditional teachings of east and west. The subtitle “The Problem of Psychology” suggests she feels that the western tradition is inadequate.

She presents the western case in terms of the impact on human behaviour of the ductless glands. What I know about the human body is only skin deep (there are some nice bodies out there) so I don’t know whether this stands up to close scrutiny. I wasn’t convinced by (or interested in) the numerous quotes from people I have never heard of, but with recognised teachers like Bailey I am prepared to accept statements at face value until I get to the end.

She then devotes space on speculations on the location of the soul within the body, which I found surprising. My understanding is that the various subtle bodies exist in the same continuum as the physical body, interpenetrating but at different rates of vibration, but “Galen argued for the fourth ventricle of the brain as the home of the soul in man”.

It was only when Bailey moves on to the Eastern tradition that I really became engaged with the book, presenting the body’s energy system and chakras as the key to life. For me, Alice Bailey is at her best when she simply tells it how it is. I want to read her, not dozens of ramblings, verbatim and ad nauseum, from obscure and long-forgotten ‘experts’.

She brings the two strands together by suggesting that the ductless glands are the physical counterparts to the seven major chakras. That’s more like it. This is what makes the book worth reading. Other books tell you how to work with your chakras, but Bailey is saying we have to pay attention to our glands as well. By all means work on your chakras, but don’t try raising the kundalini unless your glands are healthy.

So I enjoyed the second part of the book, but I am left wondering about the glands. Back in 1930 Bailey claimed that the secretions of some of the glands were unknown. If she had access to esoteric knowledge it might have been helpful to share that knowledge with medical science. Does anybody know what the situation is today? Do we know what the pineal and anterior pituitary glands secrete?

Overall, though, I was left disappointed. Perhaps you have to read The Soul and its Mechanism in conjunction with all her other books, but as a stand-alone teaching it doesn’t seem to do a good job of helping a western mind understand this nebulous subject. I got more out of William Meader’s talk.

I now await an avalanche of responses from Alice Bailey adherents telling me which points I missed!!!

Lanoo Harvey

The pituitary gland secretes various hormones regulating homeostasis, and the pineal secretes melatonin, which IIRC may also change into DMT.

There is also a great deal in the Edgar Cayce material about correspondences between the endocrine glands and the chakras.

I haven't read any of that stuff in many, many years, tho..

Jon

Even Indian Yogis & Doctors such as Sri Swami Sivananda Saraswati, have said the chakras and glands correspond. However one of the glands is dual--the adrenals. The glands, and perhaps chakras, also affect the organs around them; that fact must be noted too.

Thanks, Jon and David, sounds like there is still some stuff to learn on this subject.

I'm still waiting for someone to take me to task for being critical of Alice Bailey. Perhaps Nick is still trying to calm down before he puts me straight. :rolleyes:

Harvey,

You said,

"I'm still waiting for someone to take me to task for being critical of Alice Bailey...."

--> You have brought up an important point, a point that has caused friction on this Forum in the past. People have talked trash about various Theosophical teachers on this Forum in the past. I finally had to make a rule that we do not talk trash about people, nor do we talk trash about their ideas, but we discuss their ideas. This way, we can see which of their ideas make sense to us (and thereby fit into our individual belief sytems), and which do not.

Your discussion of Alice Bailey's ideas follows such a discipline of discussing (but not trashing) her ideas. Your discussion gets everyone thinking about how ductless glands are related to Chakras, without passing any judgement on such an idea. Everyone is free to decide how they want to approach such an idea. Now that is how a Theosophical discussion (with people from various traditions with Theosophy) is supposed to go.

Well done.

Thanks, Nick. I certainly had no intention of trashing anyone, but I was critical of parts of the book. Some groups can’t take that. A great teacher becomes a sacred cow, and mustn’t be challenged. But I believe that on this plane none of us are perfect, and even if channelled wisdom is pure at the source that’s not necessarily how it comes out. Add to that the fact that both our vocabulary and imagination are inadequate to cope with multi-dimensional concepts, and we have justification for asking questions.

As for The Soul and its Mechanism, I am genuinely puzzled as to what the book is about.

Harvey,

You said,

"I certainly had no intention of trashing anyone...."

--> And you did not. Good for you.

"A great teacher becomes a sacred cow, and mustn’t be challenged."

--> This is exactly the kind of thing HPB taught against. The very purpose of Theosophy is to discuss opposing ideas in a civil way. I think that is exactly what you are doing. I have not read Alice bailey's books, and I would love to hear some of her ideas that disagree with HPB. This is why we are all here. The more that we can find things in your and my belief system that do not agree, and the more that we can agree to disagree on them in a civil way, the better.

Harvey, I will praise you for being critical of AAB.

Here is a link to an old article of mine will give you an overview of some of the basic flaws in AAB's pseudo-theosophy.

http://www.blavatsky.net/movement/alice_ba...ailey_weeks.htm

Nicholas, this is a very helpful explanation of AAB’s work. I know members of the Arcane School, and I never understood why they seem to have abandoned HPB.

Nick the Pilot said:

But for me it is not so simple. The God that fits into my interpretation of theosophy is so vast that an individual couldn’t hope to understand, recognise or relate to in a personal way, but as that God is everything then an individual could have a relationship with other aspects or manifestations of that God. If Bailey’s followers want to relate to some power greater than themselves, I don’t really have a problem with that.

The Soul and its Mechanism is only the second AAB book I have read, after The Destiny of Nations. I seem to remember that had some very politically incorrect views on certain groups of people and not a great deal of wisdom. Before I abandon her completely, however, I understand that she claims to have written further verses of Dzyan in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. Is this something with which you are familiar?

Harvey,

I apologize if I sound like I am beating a dead horse. However, it is one thing to want to relate to some power greater than ourselves. (I think all Theosophists do exactly that.) I think it is quite a different thing to 'have a personal relationship with God.' (I think most Theosophists do not do that.)

Harvey,

There are "stanzas" in Cosmic Fire, but AAB does not claim they are part of the Dzyan stanzas. You are probably thinking of Theogenesis: The Third Section of the Ancient Stanzas of Dzyan. This is a channeled work by Francia La Due, who along with Dr. Dower founded a theosophical community in Halcyon, California around 1898. She claimed to channel the Adept Hilarion.

There are several books by La Due with these "Hilarion" teachings. Helena Roerich seemed to think they were authentic. There was too much personal & purple prose & vapid verse (although I have not read them for 30 years) to impress me as adeptic teachings.

Nick, I don't think we have personal relationships with God, but if some people do and still make spiritual progress then I wouldn't want to criticise.

Thanks, Nicholas, I had wondered whether I should be thinking of a follow-up to O Lanoo! (which only interprets the Dzyan stanzas in the SD) but if it's personal purple prose and vapid verse perhaps I'll give it a miss.

I agree Harvey. I believe that Bhakti yoga is a valid path. Not for me or for everybody, but very powerful for some.

Many of the folks I work with at the shelter believe they have a personal relationship with their God, that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior, and I wouldn't dream of arguing with them. I admire the work that they do.

The question is not so much avoiding face-to-face criticism of personal God worshippers. Depending on how well one knows the God-folk, one can or cannot broach the subject. In most cases they are not affected at all by someone denying the existence of a personal God, as Theosophy does.

People of whatever spiritual stripe are not as delicate as this PC era thinks. It is egotistic to think that if we non-theistic types broach the subject, the poor, weak God-folk will collapse in tears and lose their spiritual bearings.

The linch pin of Divine Wisdom is, as KH says, the philosophical atheism, God-less, impersonal nature of reality. We should make this clear and not mislead people into thinking Theosophy teaches a personal God; while also making clear that everyone is free to believe whatever they like.

Harvey,

You said,

"... if some people do and still make spiritual progress then I wouldn't want to criticise."

--> I hope I have not come across as criticizing the way 'monotheists' pursue their religion. If I have, I apologize. Theosophy definitely encourages monotheists to pursure their religion. If someone gains spirituality from pursuing monotheism, then I am all for it.

The trick is for monotheists and non-monotheists to all work together in teamwork for the benefit of humanity -- the most basic of Theosophical teachings.

We all have to learn to agree to disagree -- this is one of the first lessons that Theosophy teaches.