|
VII. Conclusion
So, according to the numerous letters of Helena Roerich, in which she mentions Alice Bailey and her "Arcane School", the situation was as follows: Alice Bailey never received any messages from Great Masters. A "Tibetan" who pretended to be a member of the Great White Brotherhood gave her texts in which pages of the true teachings of Light were artfully intertwined with dark instructions, which made these works extremely harmful. Negative reviews of the Master M. about Alice Bailey took place already in the early 1920s, i.e. a few years after the establishment of the first contact with a "Tibetan". The same reviews, as can be seen from the letters of Helena Roerich, continued later, in the 1930s and 1950s. Nevertheless, Alice Bailey maintained contacts with the Roerichs – for some time she taught classes of her esoteric school in "Master-Building" (the skyscraper in New York, where the Roerichs' institutions were located), bought and popularized books of Agni Yoga series. This interaction has never been close, the closest coworkers of the Roerichs have always been wary of Alice Bailey, kept their distance. Why were these contacts necessary? Why did the Roerichs continue to interact with Alice Bailey and her followers? It is possible that at an early stage the Great Master M. had a hope to "neutralize" Alice Bailey (as in the case of C. W. Leadbeater, who was close to H. P. Blavatsky in order to neutralize his psychism under the influence of a Light coworker). Also, Helena Roerich writes a lot about Karma and complexity of its intricacies. Probably, in the case of Alice Bailey, there was a "karmic knot" that could not be simply cut – sharp movements could lead to such unexpected consequences that their harm would be much more serious than from careful work at the correct distance. Considering these complex circumstances, Helena Roerich did not see the need to everyone to explain in detail her (and the Master M.'s) opinion about "Arcane School". She carefully pondered the possible consequences of such a warning and measured what to say to whom. To one Helena Roerich wrote carefully, briefly, without giving ratings to the works of Alice Bailey, reporting only objective facts of her biography; to the other – she wrote in details and quite definitely, what she felt and knew, with reference to the Master M.'s statements. |