Maitreya in The Light of Real Theosophy

Statue of Maitreya Buddha

Tibetan Master or Christian Priest?
(Uncovering the real inspiration behind the Alice Bailey Books)

~ * ~

“Maitreya Buddha (the last Bodhisattva, or Vishnu in the Kalki avatar) the tenth “messenger” expected on earth . . . But this will be the One Wisdom and will incarnate itself into the whole humanity collectively, not in a single individual.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “Lamas and Druses,” “H. P. Blavatsky Theosophical Articles” Vol. 3, p. 288)

Some frequent search terms used by visitors to this site are Blavatsky and Maitreya, Theosophy Maitreya, and What did Blavatsky say about Maitreya?

Since so many people have apparently been wondering and asking, it was thought wise to produce this article specifically on the subject.

It may come as a surprise to some but H. P. Blavatsky actually said very little about Maitreya.

The emphasis in the Theosophical Movement on Maitreya did not begin until 1909, 18 years after Blavatsky’s death. This emphasis and focus was begun by a highly controversial English Theosophist named C. W. Leadbeater.

In 1906, Leadbeater had been forced out of “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” in shame and disgrace after admitting under oath to having engaged in highly indecent behaviour with young boys in his care. However, only a couple of years later, Annie Besant – who was soon to become the president of the Theosophical Society – invited Leadbeater back and readmitted him, much to the shock and disgust of many members.

We would rather not go further into this here; suffice it to say that this issue did not end in 1906, as the mass of accusations, eyewitness reports, complaints, court cases, and police investigations continued to hound the rest of Leadbeater’s Theosophical career wherever he went in the world, up to his death in 1934. More information, for those who may wish to research further and who wish to deal with the direct documentation, can be found in The Case against C. W. Leadbeater.

In 1909, soon after having been readmitted and raised to a place of prominence by Besant, Leadbeater claimed that he had discovered via his supposed clairvoyant and spiritual powers that the coming of Maitreya was imminent.

It must be explained that the “Coming of Maitreya” is initially a Buddhist doctrine. It is said that Gautama Buddha stated that the next Buddha would come 5,000 years after him and would be called or referred to by the Indian name of Maitreya. Since Gautama lived 2,600 years ago, this would mean that the Buddha Maitreya is not due to appear on the scene until another 2,400 years from now.

But Leadbeater claimed that Maitreya was first of all going to appear as a Bodhisattva and World Teacher and then sometime later on would succeed Gautama as the Buddha. Even more surprisingly, he announced that Christ and Maitreya are one and the same person. According to him, this being – who he called the “Christ-Maitreya” or “Lord Maitreya the Christ” – was a highly advanced soul living in a physical body here on the physical plane, somewhere in the Himalayas, and that he had spiritually overshadowed and worked through “the Master Jesus” during the three years of the latter’s public ministry. Thus, according to this line of thought, Jesus and Christ are two distinct beings.

Apparently unperturbed by or oblivious to the fact that equating Maitreya with Christ is offensive to the majority of both Buddhists and Christians, Leadbeater declared that the coming of Maitreya – or, in other words, the Second Coming of Christ – was near and that he was intending to make his reappearance on the world scene by means of overshadowing another individual, this time a young Indian man called Jiddu Krishnamurti who Leadbeater had seen playing on the beach near Theosophical Society headquarters in Adyar, India, one day and taken a shine to.

Much to the distress of Krishnamurti’s father – who considered Leadbeater to be a predatory menace and corrupting influence towards all young boys – Leadbeater and Besant eventually managed to seize custody of the boy and the next twenty years were spent carefully grooming and training him – some might instead be inclined to call it brainwashing – for his eventual “mission.” For further details of this period, see “The Elder Brother: A Biography of Charles Webster Leadbeater” by Gregory Tillett or any in depth biographies of Krishnamurti.

Suffice it to say that just as Leadbeater, Besant, and thousands of Theosophists around the world were expecting Krishnamurti to begin publicly fulfilling his role, thus allowing the Coming of Maitreya/Christ to occur, the boy, now grown into an intelligent and capable young man, shocked them all in 1929 by delivering a speech in which he abdicated the position, assuring his listeners that he was not the vessel for “Christ-Maitreya” and that in fact there was no Christ-Maitreya after all, and subsequently separated himself from the Theosophists. When asked some fifty years later to share his reminiscences about Leadbeater, he replied, “All I will say about that man is that he was EVIL.”

Deflated but undaunted, Leadbeater continued to promulgate the notion that “Lord Maitreya” would soon be returning but the exact details of how this was now going to take place grew somewhat hazy and poorly defined. A staggering 15,000 members left “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” during this period. Leadbeater died a few years later but not before attempting to organise and announce the Coming of the “World Mother” – apparently a sort of Second Coming of the Virgin Mary – via a young Indian woman who he claimed was the chosen vehicle for this purpose, just as Krishnamurti supposedly had been for the coming of the “World Teacher.”

But by this time a relatively large number of Theosophists, realising that Leadbeater was either a conscious fraud or just highly deluded, had stopped paying attention and giving credence to his various schemes and the idea never got off the ground.

Several years after the 1909 announcement, a devout Christian woman from England named Alice Bailey joined “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” and began enthusiastically studying and accepting Leadbeater and Besant’s teachings. A few years later, however, she parted company with the Theosophists and began her own organisation, known as the Lucis Trust and the Arcane School. Over the course of thirty years she wrote and published over twenty books, almost all of which she claimed to have been directly inspired and dictated by a Tibetan Master called Djwhal Khul.

Just as Besant and Leadbeater had chosen years previously to reject, discard, and suppress the original Theosophy teachings of H. P. Blavatsky and to present their own instead, the version of “Theosophy” found in the Alice Bailey books is pure Leadbeater/Besant stuff and contradicts all the Blavatsky teachings at almost every point, having next to nothing in common with them. For more details in this regard, please see the articles 14 Good Reasons to Question the Alice Bailey Teachings, The Pseudo-Occultism of Alice BaileyOriginal Theosophy and Later Versions, and the very lengthy but extremely detailed and conclusive Tibetan Master or Christian Priest?

From her very first book, Bailey showed her faith in Leadbeater by promulgating the teaching that the Second Coming of the Christ-Maitreya was close at hand. Always written in a distinctly Christian tone, Bailey’s books developed an increasing emphasis on this theme until by the time of her death in 1949 she was writing about little else. She informed her readers that Maitreya had made a definite decision at the Gemini Full Moon of 1945 to reappear publicly on the world scene in person as soon as the necessary preparations could be made.

He was apparently intending to fly in an aeroplane from his retreat in Asia and give mankind the new spiritual teaching it needs in order to bring about the civilisation and force of the New Age of Aquarius, although it was implied that he was not actually likely to do this until some time after the year 2025 and that until then it was the “immediate and pressing” task and duty of the Bailey followers to let the whole world know about it and to smooth the way for the auspicious event by daily reciting a type of prayer titled “The Great Invocation.”

Although Bailey – who readily admitted of her own accord that she was a committed Christian and a former evangelical Christian missionary – naturally preferred the name “Christ” to “Maitreya” and thus referred to him in many of her books solely as “Christ,” she nevertheless made it clear that she agreed entirely with Leadbeater about Christ and Maitreya being one and the same.

Over the last few decades numerous individuals have come and gone, all claiming to be Maitreya, just as many pretenders have come and gone throughout history claiming to be Jesus.

At the same time, the Alice Bailey followers and other pseudo-Theosophists continue to spread their Leadbeater-esque teachings, whilst Alice Bailey enthusiast Benjamin Creme in London assures his large international following that the Christ-Maitreya has already returned and has been living secretly in London since 1977, waiting patiently (when not flying around in his “special starship”) for the day when he can at last reveal himself to the world. Meanwhile, hundreds if not thousands of channelling enthusiasts flood the internet daily with what they announce as being the “latest messages” – all contradicting each other – fresh from Maitreya, for whom each of them claims to be the chosen mouthpiece.

All this nonsense, this sheer fantasy and psychic delusion, goes directly back to C. W. Leadbeater, a man who has done more harm to the cause of modern spirituality than many have yet realised.

We have provided this overview of the whole affair in order to show by contrast just how extremely different are the genuine Theosophical teachings on Maitreya from this later material. Before we look at the little that H. P. Blavatsky had to say about Maitreya, we should clarify that the particular Theosophical Society which was ruled by Besant and Leadbeater is actually only ¼ of the entire Theosophical Movement at large.

It is more correct to refer to that particular organisation as the Adyar Theosophical Society or “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” in order to avoid giving the impression that it is THE Theosophical Society. In fact there are three entirely different and unrelated international organisations called “The Theosophical Society.” One of them has its headquarters at Adyar in India whilst another has its headquarters at Pasadena, California and the other, formerly based at Point Loma, California, has its headquarters presently in the Netherlands. There is also the United Lodge of Theosophists, itself a worldwide association. Of these four main branches of the modern Theosophical Movement, it is only the Adyar Society which accepts the Leadbeater/Besant teachings; the other three have nothing to do with them and have remained committed to H. P. Blavatsky and William Quan Judge.

For a brief overview of these organisations and the distinctions between them, please see The Four Branches of the Theosophical Movement.

What H. P. Blavatsky said and taught about Maitreya, and the themes that have been connected with Maitreya by others, can be condensed into the following points and explanations, with references for those who want to explore in more depth:

* “No true Theosophist” will ever accept the notion of an incarnated, bodily Christ or the “Second Coming” of such a being. (“On Pseudo-Theosophy” article)

* Those who believe that the Christ is a person or an entity are “ignorant.” (“The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” article)

[It goes without saying that HPB never equated Christ with Maitreya as beings. This was all Leadbeater’s invention. According to HPB and the Masters who taught and trained her, “Christ” is only the name for a spiritual Principle. Their view of Jesus, on the other hand, can be found in our article titled Theosophy on Jesus.]

* The Buddhist teaching of the coming of Maitreya, the future Buddha, actually refers to the same future event as the coming of the Kalki Avatar prophesied in the Hindu scriptures and the Soshiosh or Saoshyant of the Zoroastrian tradition. They are different names for one and the same thing. (“The Theosophical Glossary” p. 202)

* It is true, as the Hindus say, that the Kalki Avatar (i.e. the Buddha Maitreya) will not appear on Earth until the very end of the Kali Yuga. The Kali Yuga is the “Dark Age” through which mankind is presently passing. It began 5,000 years ago “at the moment of Krishna’s death” and will not end until sometime around the close of the Sixth Root Race. We are currently still in the Fifth Root Race and even the dawn of the Sixth Root Race is still thousands of years in the future. (“The Secret Doctrine” 1:384, 2:483)

* No new “Saviour of Humanity” can appear now during the remainder of the Kali Yuga. It may be hasty and rash to declare that this equates to “No more avatars of any kind at all, until the end of Kali Yuga.” HPB is clearly speaking of an Avatar whose main work will be to help in a major way the cycle of the Kali Yuga itself, in the sense of appearing as a “Saviour of Humanity.” But that is nonetheless how the coming of Maitreya or Kalki is viewed and expected. (“The Secret Doctrine” 1:384, 2:483, also HPB’s article “Misconceptions”)

* Physical, sexual procreation “is but a passing phase” in human evolution. It will gradually alter later on in this present Fifth Root Race and will slowly disappear altogether during the Sixth Root Race. It is indicated in the Hindu scriptures such as the Vishnu Purana that when the Kalki Avatar comes at the end of the Kali Yuga, procreation will then be solely by spiritual means rather than physiological. And – “The most learned Occultists assert this because they know it.” (“The Secret Doctrine” 2:406, 415, 420, 483)

[As for the duration of the Kali Yuga, the teachings of HPB and the Masters follow the Hindu chronology which says that the Kali Yuga is a period of 432,000 years. Since it began only just over 5,000 years ago this means that there are almost a full 427,000 years remaining of it! But more than once in “The Secret Doctrine” HPB states that the real numbers, figures, and calculations have to remain secret and entirely esoteric and cannot be given out. So we are not required to always abide strictly and literally by the extraordinarily vast Hindu chronology but even so it is plainly apparent from what is said that there are still thousands of years remaining of the Kali Yuga and that the end of the Sixth Root Race and dawn of the Seventh Root Race – the time when Maitreya will appear – is an immensely long way off, seeing as we’re still in the Fifth Root Race.]

* In the entry for “Maitreya Buddha” in “The Theosophical Glossary” (p. 202) HPB expresses the point at which Maitreya is due in a different way from her other writings: “Esoteric philosophy teaches that the next Buddha will appear during the seventh (sub) race of this Round.” The insertion of “(sub)” appears to change the meaning and one might think that perhaps she’s saying that instead of being due at the start of the Seventh Root Race it will be the seventh sub-race of our present Fifth Root Race. But this would only be speculation and, even if it were so, that would still be at least 50,000 years in the future, from what “The Secret Doctrine” teaches us about sub-races. Her insertion of “(sub)” does not make things clearer in any way but it does have the effect of making us realise we should not take any particular statement as being the “final word” on this or any other matter.

* Maitreya is “the last of the Avatars and Buddhas” and will “re-establish righteousness upon earth.” (“The Secret Doctrine” 1:470, 2:483)

* All Avatars and World Saviours are incarnations, in a certain sense, of the Universal Logos. This will also be the case with the coming of the Buddha Maitreya. (“The Secret Doctrine” 1:470)

* There is some type of mysterious connection or possibly even a sort of identicality between Maitreya and Aryasangha, also known as Asanga. The latter was an Arhat and direct disciple of Gautama Buddha in India 2,600 years ago. He went on to found “the first Yogacharya School . . . the early Yogacharya school of pure Buddhism, which is neither northern nor southern, but absolutely esoteric. . . . none of the genuine Yogacharya books have ever been made public or marketable.”

Yogacharya – also written Yogachara and Yogācāra – is well known as a school of Buddhist philosophy but it is only the later exoteric Yogacharya school which the public knows anything about. The original esoteric Yogacharya school has always remained purely esoteric and both its existence and teachings unknown to the masses. HPB and her Masters and Adept Teachers of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood belong to the esoteric Yogacharya School of Buddhism (see The REAL Esoteric Buddhism). This was founded by Aryasangha but virtually the same description and details as are given for Aryasangha in “The Theosophical Glossary” are also given in the entry for Maitreya where the latter is also described as having been an Arhat during the time of Buddha and later founding “an esoteric philosophical school.”

In Tibetan Buddhist tradition, it is always said that Aryasangha had a close connection with the future Buddha Maitreya and that during his periods of intense meditation he rose to other realms and there received special teachings from Maitreya which he later recorded in five main books known as the “Five Books of Maitreya.” As we said in the article Buddha Nature, one of these books – the Uttara Tantra or Ratnagotravibhaga, which has recently been translated and published in English – is a particular favourite with the Masters. But there is also a secret Book of Maitreya referred to by HPB, which she made use of (as she wrote to A. P. Sinnett) when writing “The Secret Doctrine” with the Master K.H. and the Master M.

HPB clarifies: “Chagpa-Thog-mad is the Tibetan name of Aryasanga, the founder of the Yogacharya or Naljorchodpa School. This Sage and Initiate is said to have been taught “Wisdom” by Maitreya Buddha Himself, the Buddha of the Sixth Race, at Tushita (a celestial region presided over by Him), and as having received from Him the five books of Champaitchos-nga [i.e. the Five Books of Maitreya]. The Secret Doctrine teaches, however, that he came from Dejung, or Shambhalla, called the “source of happiness” (“wisdom-acquired”) and declared by some Orientalists to be a “fabulous” place. . . . [Tushita] is no fiction located in transcendental space. It is a bone-fide locality in the mountains, or, to be more correct, one encircled in a desert within mountains.” (“The “Doctrine of The Eye” & The “Doctrine of The Heart,” or The “Heart’s Seal” article)

* Regardless of who and what Maitreya might actually be as an entity, the future event known symbolically and allegorically as the “Coming of Maitreya” or “Coming of the Kalki Avatar” will not be the appearance of an individual Avatar or personal Messiah figure as is often thought. It will instead be the incarnation of the “Supreme Wisdom” (Adi-Buddhi in Theosophical terminology) into the whole of humanity collectively.

To quote again from HPB’s “Lamas and Druses” article: “Maitreya Buddha (the last Bodhisattva, or Vishnu in the Kalki avatar) the tenth “messenger” expected on earth . . . But this will be the One Wisdom and will incarnate itself into the whole humanity collectively, not in a single individual.” She then states that no more is permitted to be said or explained about this because the time for further elucidations has not yet come.

She does however shed just a little more light on it in something she wrote to the Abbé Roca: “It is said that after the Kalki-Avatar (“He who is expected” on the White Horse, in the Apocalypse) the Golden Age will begin and every man will become his own guru (spiritual teacher or “Shepherd”) because the divine Logos, whatever name it may be given [“Whether it be Krishna, Buddha, Sosiosh, Horus or Christos, it is a universal principle”] will reign in each regenerated mortal. There can be no question, then, of a common “Shepherd” unless that Shepherd be entirely metaphorical.” More can be read from this source in Christos – The Christ Principle.

And that sums up everything H. P. Blavatsky ever said and taught about Maitreya.

There are two main objections which are sometimes raised in regard to the above. Some people say, “Oh but we’ve had enough of the Kali Yuga now. We need the Golden Age now instead of the Dark Age. We won’t really have to put up with thousands of more years of Kali Yuga . . . it’s time for the Golden Age, the Satya Yuga, to begin!”

To this we would respond: “Do you really think that your own personal wishes and emotional view of the matter can overpower the great Cyclic Law and alter its destined course? None of us wish to prolong the Kali Yuga but we have no say in the matter. The Law always works and proceeds exactly as it should and doesn’t stop in its tracks just because we little human beings are fed up with the course it’s taking. The Kali Yuga will end at its appointed time and not before . . . and that appointed time is still thousands of years off.”

Yet there is a possibility of the New Age of Aquarius, which has already begun, becoming a sort of Golden Age within the Kali Yuga, the Dark Age. But this does not mean the Kali Yuga (which is a much larger and longer cycle than the Aquarian Age) has ended or will end anytime soon. According to Theosophy, it most definitely has not. More can be explored on these themes in Theosophy on The New Age of Aquarius.

An objection often raised by Alice Bailey students and by followers of C. W. Leadbeater, Torkom Saraydarian, Benjamin Creme and others, is, “It wasn’t the right time during HPB’s lifetime to announce that the reappearance of the Christ-Maitreya was close at hand. She knew all about it but she purposely never said anything about it because she wasn’t permitted. That’s why it was the role of the later Theosophists to mention it and to start spreading that teaching.”

To such sophistry we would respond: “What evidence or proof do you have for this other than the fact that it conveniently allows you to casually brush aside all the major and glaring discrepancies in an attempt to give more weight to your own preferred beliefs? And secondly, does it genuinely not bother you that this central belief and teaching of yours originates from such a person as C. W. Leadbeater? Unpleasant and unfortunate as it is, his behaviour and activities are a fact which you can’t deny or hide from, no matter how much you may try. Or do you believe that the Masters use such people as that as their agents and messengers, in spite of their repeated statements in writing that chelaship requires the utmost moral purity?”

It was H. P. Blavatsky who coined the term “Pseudo-Theosophy.” In her article of that name she made some rather prophetic statements and remarked that it would be better for the Theosophical Society to lose almost all its members than to be “made a spectacle to the world through the exaggerations of some fanatics, and the attempts of various charlatans to profit by a ready-made programme. These, by disfiguring and adapting Occultism to their own filthy and immoral ends, bring disgrace upon the whole movement.”

She went on to say that “If the “false prophets of Theosophy” are to be left untouched, the true prophets will be very soon – as they have already been – confused with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff,” adding that both “the false prophets, the pretenders” and “their weak-minded dupes” must be challenged, because “We do not believe in allowing the presence of sham elements in Theosophy.”

In a letter written not too long before she passed away to her colleague and co-founder of the modern Theosophical Movement, William Q. Judge, HPB wrote, “The night before last, however, I was shown a bird’s eye view of the present state of Theosophy and its societies. I saw a few earnest, reliable Theosophists in a death struggle with the world in general, and with other – nominal but ambitious – theosophists. The former are greater in numbers than you may think, and they prevailed as you in America will prevail, if you only remain staunch to the Masters’ programme and true to yourselves. And last night I saw [the Master M.] and now I feel strong – such as I am in my body, and ready to fight for theosophy and the few true ones to my last breath.”

And also: “These are some of our most insidious foes. Under cover of the philosophy of the Wisdom-Religion they manage to get up a mystical jargon which for the time is effective and enables them, by the aid of a very small amount of clairvoyance, to fleece the mystically inclined but ignorant aspirants to the occult, and lead them like sheep in almost any direction. . . . Karma reaches them when least expected. But is it possible for our Society to stand by and remain respected, unless its members are prepared, at least in future, to stand like one man, and deal with such slanders upon themselves as Theosophists, and such vile caricatures of their highest ideals . . . ?” (H. P. Blavatsky, “Five Messages to the American Theosophists” p. 15-16, Second Message)

~ ~

You may also like to read:

14 Good Reasons to Question the Alice Bailey Teachings

The Case against C. W. Leadbeater

Why Stick To The Original?


Tibetan Master or Christian Priest?

(Uncovering the real inspiration behind the Alice Bailey Books)

16 thoughts on “Maitreya in The Light of Real Theosophy

  1. Leadbeater had too many mistakes in his books, so I prefer The Mahatma Letters, Blavatskys books and mahayana buddhism

  2. There are quotes from HPB about the return og the Christ, and the preparations needed before that can happen. She does not say “Christ” but the coming one.

    1. Thank you for your comment but your statement is incorrect.

      Can you provide references or sources for such “quotes from HPB”? I can assure you that such quotes do not exist.

      It sounds as if you may be attributing things by Alice Bailey to HPB. Bailey wrote at length about the return of the Christ and often using the phrase “the Coming One.” But as this article and others show, that is completely antithetical to the teachings of HPB and the Masters.

      Some related articles which may be of interest in this regard are “14 Good Reasons to reject the Alice Bailey Teachings” (, “Alice Bailey and her Christianised Pseudo-Theosophy” (, and “Christos – The Christ Principle” (

      We may also bear in mind the Theosophical teaching that there are thousands of years remaining of the Kali Yuga and that “it is not in the Kali yug, our present terrifically materialistic age of Darkness, the “Black Age,” that a new Saviour of Humanity can ever appear.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 470)

      1. Well, I can find them, but I need time (my old PC with the data crashed). But I can quote them from av video I have from one of the few persons who have, like myself made a comparative study of H.P.B, A.A.B and Leadbeatter. All who have done a deep study of those three have come to the same conclution. There is no discontinuity between them. Regarding Leadbetter, there is a lot of mistakes in his works (f.ex the mars, mercury, earth issue), because they were not dictated by DK, but he only helped him and let him make mistakes.

        Regarding DK as being the source of H.P.B, is only partially true, he did provide som of the info, but what he did was to manifest the thought forms M and KH prepared for the SD to H.P.B. So it is relative. M said somewere in the mahatma letters that the the only thing he needed to do was to smoke his pipe, and put DK to do the rest of the work. It seems that that was the way they normally worked together.

        1. I’m sorry but your comment is no different from the same old unsupported and unsupportable claims and assertions made by Bailey and/or Leadbeater students. Please excuse me but I find it very difficult to believe that you’ve really made “a deep study” of HPB’s teachings. Everyone I know or have heard of who has ever done so has subsequently ended up discarding the Bailey/Leadbeater/Besant teachings as false and misleading. I myself was one of these people, as I used to be a keen student and supporter of the Bailey teachings before deciding to properly read and study HPB for myself as well as “The Mahatma Letters.”

          So it is not true that “All who have done a deep study of those three have come to the same conclution.”

          Nor is it true that “M said somewere in the mahatma letters that the the only thing he needed to do was to smoke his pipe, and put DK to do the rest of the work.”

          Where is this “somewhere”? Can you find a page number or reference for this? There is no such statement in the book but many students, although sincere, conveniently misremember things in order to suit their own personal views and preferences.

          You also say that “Regarding DK as being the source of H.P.B, is only partially true, he did provide som of the info, but what he did was to manifest the thought forms M and KH prepared for the SD to H.P.B.”

          And what is the source of THIS statement? Is it only a personal opinion? Bailey or Leadbeater may have said something like that but it is not backed up by anything that the Masters themselves or HPB ever said or wrote. I assume you are genuinely interested in truth and facts, in which case you are invited to read the article “Who Wrote The Secret Doctrine?” at, which begins by saying:
          – – –
          The purpose of the present article is simply to present a number of important statements from the Mahatmas – Masters of Wisdom – relating to the true authorship of that book. It was not merely written by HPB herself, nor was it inspired or dictated to her by a chela of the Master Koot Hoomi known as Djwhal Khul, as has been falsely asserted by certain individuals.

          Djwhal Khul or D.K. was only a chela (disciple) “of the first degree” according to both HPB and Damodar K. Mavalankar and thus not a Master. He did not even take his very first initiation until the 1880s (see “Damodar and the Pioneers of the Theosophical Movement” p. 202 and “The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett” p. 12). He did not dictate any books or writings of HPB or anyone else. This is just a lie – one of many – of Alice Bailey, who claimed that “The Secret Doctrine” had been dictated to HPB by D.K. – who she claimed was her own inspirer – so as to then be able to “correct” and “revise” (i.e. distort, misquote, mangle, and suppress) the teachings of “The Secret Doctrine” in her own books, purportedly on the authority of the same Master.

          The Master K.H. certified that “The Secret Doctrine” was written by himself and the Master Morya, along with the one they called their “Direct Agent” and “Brother” HPB, who they also sometimes referred to as “Upasika,” a Buddhist term meaning “female disciple.” It was, as he put it, a “triple production.”
          – – –

          The idea that Djwhal Khul worked closely with HPB in her writings has no basis whatsoever in anything other than the unsubstantiated assertions of later writers, who began making such statements long after HPB had passed away.

          If you read “Who Wrote The Secret Doctrine?” along with “14 Good Reasons to reject the Alice Bailey Teachings” (, “The Unavoidable Facts about C.W. Leadbeater” (, “Original Theosophy and Later Versions” (, “The Theosophical Movement after H.P. Blavatsky” (, “The Closing Cycle” (, and “Why Stick To The Original?” ( – and still maintain that “There is no discontinuity between them” then I’m inclined to think that there’s very little point in us continuing this discussion.

          You say that you “need time” to find the quotes from HPB about the return of “The Coming One” and about the necessary preparations for this. Please take your time and we’ll be looking forward to seeing such quotes, which need to be properly referenced (book title, page number, or article name) and legitimately quoted (i.e. not distorted, abbreviated, or edited in any way) in order for anyone at all to consider them to be genuine.

          I have a feeling we might be waiting quite some time, since it’s not easy to find things that don’t exist.

            1. Please do prioritize if you can, as such “proof” will be of monumental importance for the whole Theosophical world, seeing as all deep and genuine students of HPB have been unanimously and unwaveringly agreed for the past 100+ years that she never said, wrote, or taught anything along the lines you are talking about.

              The two David Reigle articles you link to prove nothing to anyone except David Reigle and others like him, “preferring to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and becoming very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion.”

              I first read those two articles several years ago whilst still a committed Bailey student and actively involved in promoting her books and teachings. Like most Bailey students, I was enthusiastic about the “Tibetan Source” article and believed that it constituted proof or at least quasi-proof of the genuineness of the claims of authorship of the Bailey books. Only later, when I read it through properly, attentively, and with detachment, did I see that it provides no proof of any kind whatsoever, but merely one man’s speculation and opinion. An article like this could never stand up in a court of law but would be dismissed as meaningless and lacking in anything resembling any sense of definiteness.

              On the other hand, we have many clear, distinct, specific, unequivocal, statements from the writings of HPB, the Masters’ Letters, and William Q. Judge, which automatically invalidate – by implication – the Bailey teachings and show them to be the very antithesis of genuine Theosophy. All the relevant links to articles containing such quotes and references have already been included for you in my previous comments, so I’m not going to repeat them here. They are there if you want them. But if you choose not to look at them or to read them and then ignore them (as I myself used to do with such information, when I first began to realise that the Bailey teachings and Blavatsky teachings were incompatible), that’s entirely up to you and you are well within your rights.

              David Reigle writes that “There is a peculiar stylistic feature which characterizes the Bailey writings, something one does not usually see in English language writings. This is the habitual presentation of teachings within an outline structure using general topics, then divided into sub-topics, then subdivided into sub-sub-topics, etc., etc.; e.g.: “We will as usual divide our subject into three heads.” This is a well-known characteristic feature of Tibetan writings.”

              He fails to mention that it is also a well-known characteristic feature of Jesuit writings. There is far more reason to believe that Bailey’s unseen inspirer was a Jesuit or someone connected with the Jesuits than a Tibetan. But as you are a deep student of HPB, you don’t need me to remind you of all her and the Masters’ many important words and warnings regarding the Society of Jesus and its members or how the Master K.H. said that They have no hesitation in describing the Jesuits as the enemies of the human race. Strangely, Bailey and her “Tibetan” keep silent about the Jesuits, as did “Bishop” Leadbeater. But that too is no proof.

              But if you only read one of the above mentioned articles, let it be “Why Stick To The Original?” at and you will see some of the main reasons why an increasing number of people are abandoning the Bailey teachings (as well as those of Leadbeater/Besant and others of their ilk) in favour of the original Theosophical teachings, i.e. those of HPB and WQJ, the latter of whom you have left completely unmentioned so far for some reason.

              If you read that article and the quoted statements included, you will understand how even if the Bailey teachings were entirely in line with HPB’s teachings, they could still never be accepted as being legitimately from the Masters, due to the restrictions of cyclic law, which only allow further teachings to be given out during the closing 25 years of a century. If HPB, WQJ, and the Mahatmas, were ever clear and specific about anything, they were clear and specific about this. But as it is, the difference between the two systems is as the difference between daylight and dark.

              I will now say no more and wait patiently for the quotes and evidence you’ve promised to send.

  3. For the benefit and interest of those who may have been reading the above dialogue:

    A new article has been written which really needs to be read by anyone who believes the Alice Bailey teachings to be something good or who considers them to be legitimately from the real Masters of the real Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood who were behind H.P. Blavatsky and her work.

    The article is very lengthy but it had to be in order to sufficiently expose all the relevant facts and information that reveal the deliberate deception and sinister motives at the heart of the Bailey books, the Lucis Trust, and other organisations or groups connected with or based upon it.

    It will not make comfortable reading for Bailey followers but if they truly believe that “There is no Religion higher than Truth” they will surely take the time and effort to read it through to the end and then respond according to their own conscience.

    Please share the link with anyone you know who may be interested or who may benefit from it:

  4. To cling to teachings that were written over 130 years ago and not think that the teaching of the Masters will not continue to evolve through other disciples as we the New Age moves forward is to be stuck in sand. Alice Baily was an evolved disciple who worked with and through her Master DK. Not unlike HP and not unlike Mr Crème. It is such short sightedness for those who should know better to hold to teachings that served there purpose at one time and to disregard teachings from the same source (the Masters of Wisdom). Maitreya is here (never left really) and has taken physical form in a mayavirupa and will be with us for many many years to come along with his fellow Masters. This is a fact. To those who doubt… try to have an open mind.

    1. It is not a matter of having an open mind…it’s a matter of facts and trustworthiness.

      The writer of these articles was initially a faithful student of the Bailey teachings himself until beginning to research into the facts and into the original Theosophical teachings and the very clear and unequivocal statements found therein from the Masters, HPB, and William Q. Judge.

      Before dismissing such a stance as “shortsightedness” we strongly encourage you to closely and attentively read the following three articles. Even if you don’t agree with the conclusions at least you’ll understand the very solid reasons why many Theosophists reject and oppose the Alice Bailey teachings and anything similar:

      * “The Closing Cycle” –

      * “Why Stick To The Original?” –

      * “Tibetan Master or Christian Priest?” (“Uncovering the real inspiration behind the Alice Bailey Books”) –

      Numerous people around the world have given up the Bailey/Leadbeater/Besant teachings in favour of genuine Theosophy after reading these articles.

  5. Hi,

    Can you say me please in where book Alice Bailey say:

    “He was apparently intending to fly in an aeroplane from his retreat in Asia” and “although it was implied that he was not actually likely to do this until sometime after the year 2025”

    Thank you.

  6. Personally, the fact that Leadbeater was a sexual predator and Bailey willingly took a blind eye to this is quite enough reason to discredit them. How can a learned occultist and/or disciple of high spiritual grade be a victim of his own perverse sexuality, and how does another so called disciple ignore such a major personality fault? I doubt a spiritual master would choose a deluded child molester and his enabler to be the vehicles of great spiritual truths for the masses.

  7. ‘The fifth, Maitree-Buddha, is yet to come. This latter is the expected kabalistic King Messiah, the Messenger of Light, and Sosiosh, the Persian Saviour, who will come on a white horse. It is also the Christian Second Advent. See “Apocalypse” of St. John.’ Isis Unveiled vol. II,

    1. Thank you for sharing this quote Patrick.

      However, as you’re most probably aware, all of the quotes and statements from HPB on any given subject have to be taken together in order to arrive clearly and accurately at the understanding of what she actually said and taught.

      As someone who publicly and actively promotes the Alice Bailey teachings, your decision to share this particular quote here is understandable. But it naturally has to be read and understood alongside other HPB statements such as the very important one mentioned in the above article that the occurrence which some describe as “the Coming of Maitreya” will not take the form which many might be inclined to expect, for “this will be the One Wisdom and will incarnate itself into the whole humanity collectively, not in a single individual.” (“Lamas and Druses” article)

      And as she explains elsewhere:

      “Christos is neither the Christ of the Churches, nor yet the Jesus of the Gospels; it is only an impersonal Principle.” (“The Kabalah and the Kabalists”)

      “No true theosophist will accept any more a carnalised Christ … than an anthropomorphic God, and still less a ‘Pastor’ in the person of a Pope …” (“On Pseudo-Theosophy”)

      “The Christ of esoteric science is the Christos of Spirit – an impersonal principle entirely distinct from any carnalised Christ or Jesus.” (Footnote in response to the Abbe Roca’s “Esotericism of Christian Dogma”)

      “Theosophy … hushes the “Lo here! and lo there!” and declares the Christ, like the kingdom of heaven, to be within. … With the advent of Theosophy, the Messiah-craze surely has had its day, and sees its doom.” (“Modern Apostles and Pseudo-Messiahs”)

      “I write in every letter that a divine Christ (or Christos) has never existed under a human form outside the imagination of blasphemers who have carnalized a universal and entirely impersonal principle.” (“Reply to the Mistaken Conceptions of the Abbe Roca concerning my Observations on Christian Esotericism”)

      A more extensive compilation of passages on this subject can be found in the article “Christos – The Christ Principle” at

Comments are closed.