This post discusses who Alice Bailey’s Tibetan may be giving photos and possible documentation about his true identity. The post goes on to argue pros and cons about who he may be and discusses the mystery of the name given to him as well. The post also gives shows how in the end knowing who he is doesn’t really matter. What is more important are the teachings and what they share about spiritual development.
NOTE: As of 9/5/2022 I received a number of email correspondences, about the photo and associated drawing used in this blog casting doubt that either are Alice Bailey’s Tibetan. Please find that discussion here, Who is Alice Bailey’s Tibetan Photo Controversy.
A WARNING ABOUT BEING CONCERNED OVER THE TIBETAN’S IDENTITY
At the beginning of every book by Alice Bailey she writes the following:
“The books that I have written are sent out with no claim for their acceptance. They may, or may not, be correct, true and useful. It is for you to ascertain their truth by right practice and exercise of the intuition. Neither I nor A.A.B. is the least interested in having them acclaimed to be inspired writings, or in having anyone speak of them (with bated breath) as being the work of one of the Masters. If they present truth in such a way that it follows sequentially upon that already offered in the world teachings, if the information given raises the aspiration and the will-to-serve from the plane of the emotions to that of the mind (the plane whereon the Masters can be found) then they will have served their purpose. If the teaching conveyed calls forth a response from the illumined mind of the worker in the world, and brings a flashing forth of his intuition, then let that teaching be accepted. But not otherwise. If the statements meet with eventual corroboration, or are deemed true under the test of the Law of Correspondences, then that is well and good. But should that not be so, let not the student accept what is said.”
We also find this in her book A Treatise on White Magic.
“You have wisely guarded the teaching from the taint of superimposed authority, and there lies back of your books no esoteric principle of hierarchical authority or support, such as has produced the narrow limits of certain ecclesiastical bodies and groups, differing as widely as the Catholic Church, Christian Science, those who believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, and numerous (so-called) esoteric organisations. The curse of many groups has been the whispered word that “Those who know wish….” “The Master says….” “The Great Ones command…” and the group of silly sheep feebly and blindly tumble over themselves to obey. They think thereby, through their misplaced devotion, to contact certain authoritative personages, and to get into heaven by some short cut.
You have wisely guarded your books from the reaction accorded to those who claim to be masters, adepts and initiates. My anonymity and status must be preserved, and my rank be regarded as only that of a senior student and of an aspirant to that expansion of consciousness which is for me the next step forward. What I say of truth alone is of moment; the inspiration and help I can accord to any pilgrim on the path is alone vital; that which I have learned through experience is at the disposal of the earnest aspirant; and the wideness of the vision which I can impart (owing to my having climbed higher up the mountain than some) is my main contribution. Upon these points the students are at liberty to ponder, omitting idle speculation as to the exact details of unimportant personalities, and environing conditions” Treatise on White Magic, pp. 3 – 4
HOW DIFFERENT STAGES OF EVOLUTION APPROACH BAILEY’S TIBETAN
Based upon Bailey’s Ten Evolutionary Groups the below asserts that depending on what group someone is in, they will view Bailey’s Tibetan in different ways.
Groups 1, 2, 3. Frankly these groups are either so non-existent on the planet, or so consumed with just surviving and indulging themselves they are unlikely to ever even be exposed to one of Bailey’s books. So, let’s just rule these groups out.
Groups 4 & 5. Within these two groups, Alice Bailey says, the masses of humanity reside. These groups tend to struggle with emotional impulses that frequently cloud their mental reasoning power. For this reason, they tend to question very litte of what they hear and are more easily led by authority. And, they are prone to be literal minded inclining them to believe what various political, cultural and religious leaders tell them without question. If someone in these groups were ever to hear about Bailey’s Tibetan, they would turn to the leaders of their various tribal (social, religious, cultural) groups to help them decide if they should judge the Tibetan, Bailey, and the Bailey material favorably or unfavorably. The tendency to hype and distort whatever is said or written about Bailey’s Tibetan also occurs. In fact there are already plenty of YouTube videos, articles and websites on the Internet already doing this. Who the Tibetan is then, is going to be whoever their leaders claim him to be. And, they are very unlikely to use their minds to dig much further than that.
Group 6. Those in this group tend to have more intellectual capacity. They employ their critical minds more and tend to be more investigative, but they are also highly skeptical of anything that exists beyond the realm of the five senses. That is why they tend to be secular materialists. If they were to learn about Bailey’s Tibetan most likely they would conclude that the Tibetan was a figment of Bailey’s imagination and that Alice Bailey was a deluded, even if well-intentioned, woman. The problem with those in Group 6 is that they rarely challenge what I call their own “illogical logic.” (See my chapters on Group 6 in my Becoming Human book). Despite the fact that they want to argue that their minds are open, too often their minds are closed. Because their minds and belief systems still follow along the line of their desires (especially for prestige, power, pleasure, and money) if Bailey’s teachings help them to achieve more of these things, they might give her writings some thought. Otherwise Bailey’s teachings would be viewed as not being valuable and rapidly discounted since they don’t bring them much.
Group 7 — Little Chelas. Little Chelas are comprised of Aspirants (who actually reside in Group 6) and Probationary Disciples (who are part of Group 7). Little Chelas are opening up to the realities of life beyond the material world and trying to discover what exists beyond what the five senses convey to them. They are very likely then to be attracted to Bailey teachings and will want to know who the Tibetan really is. The problem is Little Chelas take on too much of a devotional approach making them gullible regarding who Bailey’s Tibetan may be. Because they lack objectivity, too often they create much glamour and confusion regarding the Tibetan’s identity. They may even claim to be in touch with and/or channeling Bailey’s Tibetan themselves. Bailey warns about this when she talks about the “problems of guidance.” (See Problems of Guidance – Channeling & Psychic Powers). The “problems of guidance” that Bailey talks about is the tendency to follow teachers (either living in physical bodies or existing on the “inner planes” somewhere) blindly. The tendency towards blind devotion happens when we do not possess enough discernment to analyze various teachers, teachings, or techniques correctly. Hence the increased confusion.
Group 7 — Chelas in the Light. Here we find greater understanding and experience with realms that exist beyond what the five senses can reveal. Chelas in the Light are much more likely to have a mental understanding of these realms. And, they are more likely to analyse things looking at them from various perspectives including mythical, metaphorical, and scientific viewpoints. They also tend to be much more skeptical and investigative in regards to both inner and outer realms making them similar to those in Group 6. But, whereas those in Group 6 tend to be close minded to realms beyond what the five senses reveal, Chelas in the Light are not. That means Chelas in the Light will be open to the possibility of the existence of Bailey’s Tibetan. At the same time they are more likely to adhere to what the first few paragraphs in this blog state, that a focus on the teachings, more than the teacher, is the most important thing. This blog post then, will most likely appeal primarily to them.
THE POPULAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHO BAILEY’S TIBETAN WAS
For decades there have been numerous theories regarding who Bailey’s Tibetan is. Drawings have even been circulated claiming to be a likeness of him. The most popular drawing circulated is the one done during the time Bailey was alive by a woman named Annie Gowland, who painted a picture of Bailey’s Tibetan in 1931. It is claimed that when she saw the drawing Bailey said that, “yes, that was a good likeness of her Tibetan.” There is also a black and white version of this painting that has circulated for decades and as you can see, even that black and white version already has a few variations. Please see these below. NOTE: As of 9/5/2022 I received a number of email correspondences, about the photo and associated drawing used in this blog casting doubt that either are Alice Bailey’s Tibetan. Please find that discussion here, Who is Alice Bailey’s Tibetan Photo Controversy.
Regarding the colored painting the following information is copied and pasted here from the website of Philip Lindsey. “The DK colored painting is from one of five paintings made in the 1930’s. The original of this particular painting was in the possession of one of the principals of The School for Esoteric Studies in North Carolina, USA, and was passed on to the SES for safekeeping. The SES has a particular lineage with two of its founders participating in some of DK’s experimental groups in the 1940’s, namely ‘RSU’ and ‘FCD’ – Regina Keller and Roberto Assagioli. These groups of aspirants and disciples are discussed in the two books, Discipleship in the New Age (Volumes I & II), by Alice A. Bailey.” https://esotericastrologer.org/articles/the-tibetan-master-djwhal-khul-d-k/
Most people then who follow the Bailey writings and want to be concerned with her who Tibetan really is, look to the images above.
BAILEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF WHO HER TIBETAN WAS
In general it is safe to say that Bailey first became aware of the person known as the Tibetan, or Djwal Khul (D.K.), through her connection to the Theosophical Society. At the time D.K. was one of the Theosophical Masters (or Mahatmas), who were said to be evolved and realized men in physical human bodies who mainly lived near or in the Himalayas. Helena Blavatsky, who first shared the notion of Masters with the West, referred to D.K. as “that little boy” and there are some assertions that Blavatsky did not believe that D.K. was as evolved as the other Masters around her, rather he was thought to be only a “messenger of the Masters.” For this reason when some traditional Theosophists hear about Bailey’s Tibetan, they shake their heads as they believe Blavatsky did not consider Djwal Khul (D.K.) to be a Master, or Mahatma.
Regardless of this controversial disagreement with traditional Theosophists, Bailey clearly believed that D.K. was a Master and referred to him as a Tibetan lama. Ironically, however, when we look at the name Djwal Khul we discover that it is not at all a Tibetan name. True, Bailey claims he was known by a variety of different names. One name the Theosophical Society used to refer to D.K. was Aryasangha, though this may be another blind, because this name simply means the “noble community.” (Note: Please go to the end of this post for my analysis on what the name Djwal Khul may really mean and where the name may have come from).
Just as Blavatsky claimed that her Masters were real human beings, Bailey said the same thing about her Tibetan. Here is a quote from her “Extract from a Statement of the Tibetan, Published August 1934” that is found at the start of just about every one of her books. “Suffice it to say that I am a Tibetan disciple of a certain degree, and this tells you but little…. I live in a physical body like other men on the borders of Tibet, and at times (from an exoteric standpoint) preside over a large group of Tibetan lamas, when my other duties permit. It is this fact that has caused it to be reported that I am an abbot of this particular lamasery.”
Bailey claims she met the Tibetan telepathically only by first hearing his voice asking her to write books for him on November 19, 1919. (Externalization of the Hierarchy, p. 631). In the book Alice A. Bailey Life and Legacy on p. 73, the author points out that Bailey’s date about when she first met the Tibetan (telepathically) do not line up, because in the book Letters on Occult Meditation there is a letter dated September 25, 1919 from the Tibetan already (see p. 133 of that book in versions of it published before 2002). Also, the September letter reads as if there are a number of letters preceding that one. So, something is off with dates here according to Bailey’s accounts.
In her Unfinished Autobiography, Bailey goes on to state that this lamasery was in the region of Shigatse. And, she claims to have received letters and packages from her Tibetan in the mail. For example, she has this to say in response to famed psychologist, Carl Jung, who doubted if her Tibetan was real or not. “I have been told that Jung takes the position that the Tibetan is my personified higher self and Alice A. Bailey is the lower self. Some of these days (if I ever have the pleasure of meeting him) I will ask him how my personified higher self can send me parcels all the way from India, for that is what He has done” (The Unfinished Autobiography, p. 165).
After this statement in her book Bailey goes on to illustrate how a friend of Bailey’s, Mr. Henry Carpenter, was trying to get into Tibet to reach the Tibetan on Bailey’s behalf. Though he was not given permission to come into Tibet from India, an Tibetan abbot crossed the border near the Tibetan town of Gyanste to greet him. Mr. Carpenter states that this Tibetan abbot then inquired about Alice Bailey’s Arcane school and asked Mr. Carpenter to deliver some incense to her. Until recently this is all we knew about Alice Bailey’s Tibetan.
Then in 2018 for some reason I was led to do research on the Internet to try to discover who the Tibetan may have been following clues from Bailey. I focused on lamaseries that were said to be near Gyatso and then Shigatse. What I found out was that the head of a lamasery in that area was indeed a “high lama” as Mr. Carpenter claimed he was. In fact, he was the highest lama in all of Tibet, the 9th Panchen Lama. Here he is.
I continued my research and started to make claims to friends that the 9th Panchen Lama shown above was a likely candidate for Bailey’s Tibetan. I found other pictures and even a video of him that I saved onto my computer. (See these later in this post). Few thought my intuitions were correct. Then, in 2019, one hundred years after Bailey was first said to contacted her Tibetan in 1919, a photo was shared by Bailey’s grandson taken inside Bailey’s apartment in New York, and within that photo was another photo of a man on the wall. That man, Bailey’s grandson claimed, was Bailey’s Tibetan. Her grandson says that he knew this because when he had asked Bailey if the man in the photo was D.K. (her Tibetan), Bailey confessed to him that it was. Here then is the photo that Alice Bailey had on her wall that she claimed was a photo of her Tibetan next to a the photo I found of the 9th Panchen Lama in a newspaper magazine clipping in 2018. You decide for yourself.
As of May 2020, I have since learned that Roberto Assagioli, a student of Alice Bailey, had a photo of the 9th Panchen Lama and was known to have told someone that the photo was one of DK. Assagioli later gave the photo to someone who is now apart of the Community for Living Ethics in Italy. That photo is to the left here). Also a picture of the 9th Panchen Lama was found in Ojai from the secretary of Florence Garrigue, the founder of Meditation Mount, and on the back of that photo the following words were written on the back “young DK, given by Alice Bailey”). Though I do not have that photo, the only photo of the young 9th Panchen Lama I know of is the one after the next paragraph below.
And, as of January 2021, I was given information about the photo of the 9th Panchen Lama to the right that came from the website linked here. The website claims that the following: Fotografía del Maestro Djwhal Khul tomada por \”Nikolái Roerich\” en uno de sus viajes al Tibet. Ubicada en el Museo de los Roerich, New York, USA. Fecha: Entre enero – mayo de 1928. The English translation states: Photo Master Djwhal Khul taken by Nikolai Roerich on one of his trips to Tibet. Located at the Roerich Museum, New York, USA. Date: January-May 1928. Here is the link. http://www.umetafisicachile.com/2020/07/palabra-y-silencio.html?fbclid=IwAR3YoZOIu2mzK2wcjKxf6M_XFaCEOAF7rLIgR6Jc7sJYc3bJb6kPhQuYf3o
In January 2021 this photo of the 9th Panchen Lama was also released from a Paul Brunton website, www.paulbrunton.org. It seems clear that the photo to the left was the basis for the Tibetan drawing in the middle. NOTE: As of 9/5/2022 I received a number of email correspondences, about the photo and associated drawing used in this blog casting doubt that either are Alice Bailey’s Tibetan. Please find that discussion here, Who is Alice Bailey’s Tibetan Photo Controversy.
The 9th Panchen Lama – Lobzan Tub-ten Cho-gyi Nyima
This then, the 9th Panchen Lama, is who Bailey herself claims was her Tibetan. He was a real man, who was in fact an abbot of a lamasery at the time she began to write her books. Interestingly enough his lamasery was precisely on the border near the Tibetan town of Gyanste, exactly where Henry Carpenter welcomed him, and he was indeed a lama of very high status. That is because the Panchen Lama in the Tibetan system is the highest lama that exists, higher up than the Dalai Lama himself.
Having researched the life of the 9th Panchen Lama – Lobzan Tub-ten Cho-gyi Nyima — on the Internet, (including finding videos of him visiting China , see later below) I was stunned to see some other facts line up that might indicate that he could have been Bailey’s Tibetan. First, he crossed over into India as a young boy with a group of Tibetans around the time Blavatsky was around. Her reference to him as “that little boy” then lines up, because he would have been a little boy at the time Blavatsky was said to have known him.
Second, at the turn of the 20th century, the British Indian government sought to cultivate a relationship with the 9th Panchen Lama after they had been rebuffed by the 13th Dalai Lama. The 9th Panchen Lama visited India in 1905 (see photo above) and met the Viceroy at Hastings House in Calcutta. In 1906 Sir Charles Alfred Bell, known as “British India’s ambassador to Tibet”, visited the 9th Panchen Lama at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery, where they had friendly discussions on the political situation that were emerging around the globe at the time. The 9th Panchen Lama’s connection then with the British government was well known and it makes sense that Bailey, who was a British citizen and lived in India for a time would have met him.
Third, the Panchen Lama was very modern for his times (he even flew around in airplanes), and spoke English and Chinese as well as Tibetan. Because of his growing knowledge of the modern world in the early 1900’s he felt a certain sense of urgency to get Tibet to enter into the modern world. For this reason he was one of few advocating that Tibet open up more to outsiders. He especially felt it crucial that Tibet and China learn to establish better relations, as he felt there would be difficulty if they did not. Unfortunately, the 13th Dalai Lama at the time did not agree with him. That Dalai Lama wanted to keep outsiders away from Tibet and argued that Tibetans should even take up arms against the Chinese.
The 9th Panchen Lama countered this by asserting that Tibet did not have the means to fight the Chinese (something the 9th Panchen Lama would have understood first hand as he, unlike the 13th Dalai Lama, had been traveling for sometime outside of Tibet). Sadly, the two men entered into conflict. In fact, the 13th Dalai Lama even attempted to take money from the Panchen Lama’s monastery so Tibet could go to war with China. The disagreement between the 9th Panchen Lama and the 13th Dalai Lama actually resulted in the 9th Panchen Lama – Lobzan Tub-ten Cho-gyi Nyima — being forced out of Tibet by the 13th Dalai Lama into exile in China of all places.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about this event. “In 1924, the thirteenth Dalai Lama prohibited the 9th Panchen Lama’s followers from holding any office in the Central Tibetan government and imprisoned them in Lhasa, prompting the Panchen Lama to flee to Inner Mongolia, China. The Dalai Lama was attempting to collect revenue from the Panchen Lama’s estate to cover Tibet’s military expenses, and to reduce the power of the Panchen Lama. In China, the ninth Panchen Lama worked on plans to develop Tibet. He also held a position in the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, and was considered extremely “pro Chinese”. There, he adopted the ideas of Sun Yatsen through revolutionary Pandatsang Rapga of the Tibet Improvement Party.”
As a side note having learned about the above fight between the 9th Panchen Lama and the 13th Dalai Lama, I suddenly understood why I have heard the current 14th Dalai Lama (Lhamo Thondup, the one we currently know) has said that the invasion of China into Tibet was partially the fault of Tibetans. Also, tragically when the 14th Dalai Lama recognized the 9th Panchen Lama’s reincarnation to have come back into physical existence, the Chinese government kidnapped the young boy and took him to China. Since then no one knows what has happened to the young boy (who would now be a man if the Chinese government did not have him killed). The Chinese government then turned around and handpicked their own 10th Panchen Lama training him on their own outside of Tibet and away from the typical system used in Tibetan lamaseries and culture. The hand-picked Panchen Lama of the Chinese is who most people consider the 10th Panchen Lama (spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism) to be.
CONTRASTING THE DRAWINGS WITH THE PANCHEN LAMA PHOTOS
(Note: In these drawings of DK that Bailey says is a reasonable likeness of him, how the color of this costume is more Chinese like, than Tibetan. That also fits with the 9th Panchen Lama, who often wore CHINESE clothes).
Photos of the 9th Panchen Lama
Additional photos of the Panchen Lama that are available.
YouTube Video of the 9th Panchen Lama in Shanghai Harbor in 1934
WAS THE 9th PANCHEN LAMA BAILEY’S TIBETAN?
The Case for YES.
Here are the facts that indicate that perhaps he really was. First, Bailey herself claims that the photo I have above, the one of the 9th Panchen Lama, that looks just like the photo on her living room wall, was her Tibetan. Plus, others claim they had photos of D.K., and again those photos were of the 9th Panchen Lama. Second, most of the facts line up. The 9th Panchen Lama was in fact a Tibetan, the head of a lamasery, that was in the region Bailey claimed he was, Shigatse! He was also a very important (if not the most important) Tibetan at the time as Bailey and Henry Carpenter claimed he was, meaning he had the power and means to not only be exposed to Tibetan spiritual teachings, but teachings of other faiths. We know factually that he lived in India for some time, spoke English and was connected with representatives of the English government.
We know as well that the 9th Panchen Lama interacted with the Theosophical society. For starters Blavatsky was known to have been in touch with the 8th Panchen Lama personally (see The Masters Revealed, p. 198), who was the previous incarnation of the 9th Panchen Lama. It is said that Olcott also talked about being in touch with the 8th Panchen Lama (or Tashi Lama) at the time. Johnson goes on to write that a friend of HPB’s, Sarat Chandra Das, was even in the 8th Panchen Lama’s funeral procession in 1882. When the 9th Panchen Lama was born shortly after the 8th Panchen Lama passed and was chosen as his incarnation, the connection between the Theosophical Society continued, and Blavatsky was said to have met him when he was a child. Some years later the 9th Panchen Lama endorsed Blavatsky’s The Voice of the Silence before it cam out in 1937 (see The Masters Revealed, p. 204)
The 9th Panchen Lama also seemed to be a very modern Tibetan! He traveled in airplanes and wore modern clothes (not just his Tibetan robes). He was very passionate about trying to bridge East and West. All this fits the profile of someone who would want to reach out and try to get esoteric teachings out to the world so that East and West would become more receptive to each other, which is one of the major goals of Bailey’s Tibetan.
The 9th Panchen Lama also paid a heavy price for his desire to get Tibet more modernized as I have illustrated above in his conflict with the 13th Dalai Lama. Looking back at what has since happened to Tibet, perhaps the 13th Dalai Lama should have followed the advice of Lobzan Tub-ten Cho-gyi Nyima, the 9th Panchen Lama, and tried to bridge Tibet more into the modern world. By following the 9th Panchen Lama’s advice to create stronger alliances with the West, and to make greater efforts to get along with China, instead of believing Tibet could somehow militarily fight them off, Tibet may not have been invaded. Who knows? Perhaps, then yes, this is Bailey’s real Tibetan.
The Case for Maybe NO!
First of all, some people argue that the 9th Panchen Lama, Chökyi Nyima, who left his physical body as of 1937 (eleven years before Bailey passed over in 1949) could not have been Bailey’s Tibetan because he was dead and gone during the last twelve years that Alice Bailey was doing the major part of her writings. (Note: Bailey wrote her books from 1919 to 1949). They also wonder why Bailey never mentioned that he was dead and gone. (But, then Bailey like other Theosophists may not have mentioned such things either because they saw no need or were trying to create veils over their teachers and teachings).
In some ways the argument that the 9th Panchen Lama was dead during the time when Bailey wrote most of her books could easily be countered. After all we are told that Bailey was writing all of her books “telepathically.” Perhaps it didn’t really matter that the 9th Panchen Lama was no longer in a physical body., especially when we consider that when it comes to telepathically receiving messages from someone, what does it matter if that person is alive or dead?
Next some argue that the 9th Panchen Lama could not have been Bailey’s Tibetan because she claims that her Tibetan had already reached what she calls the 5th initiation as of the year 1875 (Initiation: Human & Solar, p. 57), and that was before the 9th Panchen Lama was born in 1883. They say this because they believe that means he would not have reincarnated again into a physical body. First off, when we look at the Bailey books we actually find different dates regarding the year Bailey’s Tibetan took the 5th Initiation. In the book Externalization of the Hierarchy, p. 522 Bailey’s Tibetan claims to taken the 5th Initiaton 90 years before that letter was written in 1946. That means he would have taken the 5th Initiation around 1856! We are left then with a date of the Tibetan taking the 5th Initiation as being somewhere in the mid to late 19th century (between the 1850’s to 1890’s). So why is this a big deal? Because many people believe that wen someone takes the 5th Initiation they are said to have created the “mayavirupa” (the “body of illusion”). And some Bailey people think this means (as mentioned above) that someone could not have reincarnated again into a physical form. Since the the 9th Panchen Lama did come back in a physical body, they feel he cannot be Bailey’s Tibetan, since he was born in 1883, and he died like every other human being.
To me this argument doesn’t make sense because the Tibetan himself states in many places that he was born and lived in a physical body. To counter this some people insist that Bailey’s Tibetan may have looked like a physical being but that his physical body only apparently seemed real, but wasn’t! If that is what you want to believe, then it makes sense to argue that the 9th Panchen Lama is not Bailey’s Tibetan. But before you totally believe that read what the mayavirupa is or isn’t, which leads us to the next section.
The Case for Maybe YES!
So, what is the mayavirupa really? Well, it is hard to know because frankly there are different opinions about it and there is not a lot of information out there to give us a very clear idea. However, as I have documented at the end of this post, Bailey herself gives three different ideas of what a mayavirupa is.
First, a mayavirupa could be something that looks like either a light body (which is more like a resurrection body), or it can even look solid like a physical body, but really is like a holographic video game avatar.
We see an example of this in one of the latest Star Wars movies, where Luke Skywalker confronts Kylo Ren. Luke appears to be a physical person fighting against Kylo Ren, until Kylo Ren tries to kill Luke and we discover that Kylo can’t kill Luke, because though Luke looks like a solid human being, he is really just a very solid looking hologram. Turns out Luke is actually far away on another planet, projecting that holographic image towards Kylo. Later we see Luke talking to his father Annakin who is in a mayavirupa which is less solid.
We see then that the mayavirupa in this example is much like a video game avatar image that we project out into space. Or, like some of the modern day 3D hologram images that we currently can project of people that look like almost solid images of ourselves out there in front of others. To let you know I have at times seen CNN use this technology to interview people. When they do it looks like a slightly broken up image of the person is standing in front of them, instead of just a moving image of the person coming through a television screen. I have put an example of the first time this technology was used by CNN in the video below.
The mayavirupa is also found within the Hindu tradition, and along these lines I refer to the classic book The Autobiography of a Yogi written by Paramahansa Yogananda. In this book Yogananda talks about a few cases where his gurus use a mayavirupa. One example is when his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, appeared to Yogananda looking just like a solid human being. But, then after the conversation with Yogananda was over, his guru — Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri — was said to have rolled himself up like a scroll before disappearing.
Now, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri was very much in a physical body. He was born and died just like everyone else does. That implies that yes, you can be a 5th degree initiate and come back into physical incarnation. (Again Bailey herself confirms this, see the quotes at the bottom of this page). And, you can also use a mayavirupa both while you are in and out of a physical incarnation. For example, Yogananda states that after his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri died, he again appeared to Yogananda in what what looked more like an etheric light body. This is similar to the “resurrection” body (holographic body?) that comes from the Christian tradition, meaning that the “resurrection” body may be equivalent to the mayavirupa (something Bailey insinuates).
Video clip of Yogananda looking up at his guru who is standing, Sri Yukteswar.
The only problem with the argument of saying that once you reach the 5th initiation you can’t come back into a physical body in the normal way, is Bailey herself doesn’t agree with that premise. First off, her Tibetan says at the start of everyone of her books that he is a Tibetan living in a physical body. And, (see addendum at the bottom of this post where I have the quotes from Bailey), Bailey’s Tibetan himself says 5th degree initiates (who can create a mayavirupa) can decide to reincarnate like ordinary human beings who get born and die just like everyone else. Here the mayavirupa is viewed as being composed as a physical body you consciously create before you are born again (like getting all the atoms and DNA figured out), and then you project that consciously constructed image into a new physical body at the time of your conception. In the Tibetan tradition this process of known as coming back as a “yangsi,” which represents what Bailey speaks of regarding what a mayavirupa is in this particular view. The following video clip shows how the Tibetan’s themselves view this mayavirupa process, as we look at the reincarnation of someone most Tibetan’s consider to be one of the highest spiritual masters in the Tibetan lineage, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
All of this demonstrates that maybe yes, Bailey’s Tibetan could very well have been the 9th Panchen Lama because he could have: 1) Taken the 5th initiation in his previous incarnation as the 8th Panchen Lama in the two time periods stated by Bailey of him having done so in 1856, or as she for some reason states later in 1875, before becoming the 9th Panchen Lama. Then he could have come back into a physical body in 1883. 2) In his previous incarnation as the 8th Panchen Lama, the 9th Panchen Lama may have already learned the mayavirupa “hologram like projection” technique, but he took physical incarnation anyway. 3) Which leads us to that fact that as the 8th Panchen Lama he might have even used his knowledge of how to create the mayavirupa while out of incarnation to consciously build the characteristics (including the DNA) of his next physical body incarnation as the 9th Panchen Lama making him a Yangsi.
The point I am making is taking the 5th initiation does not mean that you don’t come back in a new physical body. And, that physical body may look different than the body you had before. (Again read the quotes from Bailey at the end of this post). Taking the 5th initiation may simply mean that you know how to consciously create your next physical body before you incarnate into it, or that you have learned the technique of creating a mayavirupa like holographic projection in front of others at will (without needing CNN’s technology to do so). And, it may mean that you are not stuck with your “video game avatar” forever, you can change it whenever you want to. Either by changing its appearance in a physical body, or by changing its appearance in etheric substance. Your choice!
Actually, if you read the Bailey books you can see that she talks about the mayavirupa in both these ways (see the quotes from Bailey on this at the end of this blog). You will also find that if you do the research the Tibetan Buddhist tradition itself talks about the mayavirupa in both of these ways.
So again, yes maybe, the 9th Panchen Lama learned to create a mayavirupa when he was the 8th Panchen Lama, by deciding consciously how to incarnate as the 9th Panchen Lama in a physical body, and then died. And, even after he died yes maybe, he stayed in touch with Bailey and communicated with her through a less solid more holographic kind of mayavirupa as he helped to dictate the rest of his books, just as Yogananda’s guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, communicated certain information to Yognanda after Sri Yukteswar Giri was technically dead.
The Case for NO!
When I first got into the Bailey teachings and questioned the validity of the Tibetan, I was shown the passage in her Unfinished Autobiography of how the Tibetan gave her incense as proof that the Tibetan was a real person and not just a figment of Bailey’s imagination. Later (a year before the word came out that Bailey had a picture of her Tibetan on her wall), I had already come to wonder about the 9th Panchen Lama being her Tibetan because of my research on the Internet. For a time I was convinced Bailey’s Tibetan was real and was leaning in the direction that it was the 9th Panchen Lama.
Then I started to reflect on experiences from my own life and became skeptical again. To begin with though there may have been someone like the 9th Panchen Lama giving Bailey letters and packages, it does not necessarily mean that he was telepathically communicating with her or writing books through her. I mean unless there are letters saying things like, “How are my books that I am telepathically communicating to you coming along?” with the 9th Panchen Lama’s signature or seal; or, “Good work on writing those books for me. Your telepathic skills are awesome” — how do we really know he was telepathically dictating books to her?
I say this based on my own experience with real live in the flesh Tibetans. You see in 1989, I was volunteering at the East/West Conference in Southern California that the 14th Dalai Lama was attending having received his Nobel Peace Prize that year. Because I was a volunteer I was often backstage and was fortunate enough to meet a lama of and some of the monks from the Gaden Shartse Monastery. I even became initiated as a White Tara by this high lama (though at the time I was initiated I had no idea what a White Tara was). For ten years, I kept in touch with monks from this monastery. One of them even made a special trip by airplane from Texas (where they were giving talks) to California (where I lived) exclusively to bring me a special package from the abbot of Gaden Shartse lamasery. I still have that vase that was gifted to me (filled with something — I have never opened it to find out — with a double dorje symbol on top of it).
Looking back at my own experiences with a high abbot and monks from the Gaden Shartse Monastery, it occurred to me. What if I now believed I was in touch with this high abbot of the Gaden Shartse Monastery on a regular basis and started to believe that he was now telepathically trying to write books through me? I mean I have his picture. Someone could have easily made a drawing of it. I know that we were physically in touch. And, he even sent me a vase after personally instructing one of his monks to fly out to see me in a remote area of California to give it to me. I mean I have the proof! With that proof I could easily write book after book claiming that this “Tibetan” who was a high abbot was telepathically working through me. I could even point to my communications with him and my vase to verify to others that it was all real.
But, would that really make it so? Unless I am in a process of talking through emails, or having a cell phone conversation back and forth where he and I are talking about writing books together, there is no way of knowing outwardly for sure that the telepathic communication I was having was not just really me imagining it. (And NO, I DO NOT THINK someone is telepathically writing these books through me! Do not go down that path on my behalf now. I believe I have read enough books and had enough of my own experience to come to the conclusions I am putting forth in this blog using my own intuition and capacity for investigative work).
What I am saying, however, is using my own experience as an example — it is possible that Bailey may have thought she was having a “Tibetan” like 9th Panchen Lama dictate these books through her, and despite this belief, Carl Jung may have been right. She may have made the entire thing up that she was taking dictation from some Tibetan, while using the photo of the 9th Panchen Lama and her interactions with him to justify the notion that they were telepathically in touch! So, then if we follow the ideas put forward here, no the 9th Panchen Lama was not Bailey’s “Tibetan” because in this scenario Bailey’s Tibetan was not even real.
My main point though having gone through all of this is WHO CARES?
What matters is the message, not the messenger!
Still I get it, all of us are curious. So let’s take a moment to look at what our motivations are for being more attached to the messenger than the message and get some insights into ourselves there.
WHY WE MAY CARE ABOUT THE MESSENGER MORE THAN THE MESSAGE
Here are some psychological and psycho-spiritual reasons we may care more about the messenger than the message and what the message says itself.
- We want to feel comforted in our confused, lonely, scary lives to know there is someone out there watching over us who knows better than us how to make our own lives and the world right.
- We seek a role model, someone who can show us the way, which is fine. But, when we focus too much on the messenger, we tend to do so through a lack of discernment. When this happens we fail to see if the person we are looking to for guidance (guru, lama, pastor, rabbi etc.) is truly walking their talk and giving us really helpful advice through their message, as well as their living example, so that we can make our own lives and the world a better place. None of this is a problem really unless we blindly ignore if the person we are following is actually not walking the talk of their message. If we are not paying attention to this it means we are actually steeped in glamour. Worse we may even excuse behaviors in the messenger that should not be excused especially when they are hypocritical, contradictory, and at times even abusive. (Note: this is a problem Little Chelas are especially prone to Bailey’s teachings state),
- We want to feel special despite the mess of our own lives. One of the best ways to recover from a life where we feel like an outcast or have been ridiculed instead of appreciated for who we are, is to find a special group to be part of who claim to be in touch with some really special people. This makes us feel well — that much more — special! Instantly elevated we can forget about the message and all the disciplines they are asking us to go through to really become truly spiritual, or special. Now we can automatically leapfrog into special status and forget about the disciplines that help us get there. Claiming to be special we can also rub elbows with, or claim to be in touch with, some very special people.
- We want to become important in the eyes of others. And, what better way is there to become important than by getting others to believe that we are associated with people of high spiritual standing? In fact, some side benefits of claiming to be in touch with really special people, is that this makes us more important in the eyes of others who in turn might give us important goodies (like money, pleasure, power) to make us feel even better about ourselves and make our lives a lot easier.
- We are trying to understand psi phenomena. An example of this is when someone, like a person working for the Institute for Noetic Sciences, is doing research to see how two people can be telepathically receptive to each other. When we are concerned about the messenger more than the message here, it is mainly because we are doing research that is not necessarily for our own personal gain. Rather, it is meant to further humanity’s overall understanding of psychic phenomena.
- We are trying to get clear from glamours. Here our attempts to understand the background of certain individuals and the claims about them helps us to gain greater clarity and insight for the purpose of helping us shift out of our own misunderstanding and glamours. We can still believe that the messenger is who he/she says he/she is. But, we are working to free ourselves from an attachment to the messenger, so we can get back to focusing on the message, and more importantly — the practice of doing the work to embody the teachings.
Personally? As a female who wants to have brilliant female role models in the spiritual world. I would love it if I found out that Alice Bailey made up her Tibetan and had actually written all these books herself (even if she believed she hadn’t). I would say to her (since she was an English woman), “Bloody well good on you!” Though they can be mind-boggling frustrating and at times strangely convoluted from my point of view, her books remain full of brilliant insights that continue to stand the test of time. That is why I am bothering presenting them to you.
But then again, maybe some Tibetan lama did telepathically write them through her. I for one believe this to be entirely possible. I am also open to that person having been the 9th Panchen Lama, or someone else. In my way of thinking all insights and ideas are channeled from somewhere (be it our own minds or the minds of someone else). As someone who walks in many circles (Theosophical, Integral, and other esoteric traditions), I find a lot of depth in the Bailey material that makes me believe it is entirely possible that such depth of wisdom could have come from a mind apart from Bailey’s, who then telepathically inspired her.
Another reason I am open to the notion of there having been a Tibetan telepathically working with Alice Bailey is precisely because the teachings themselves continue to hold up. I find it fascinating that over 100 years after she started writing her books, we are still barely beginning to understand her works. Personally, for me then it is the ideas in these books are most important, and yes I am open to the notion that a highly evolved being could have communicated these ideas to her in or out of the physical body. I just don’t know for sure. And, honestly it doesn’t matter that much to me. What matters are the teachings themselves, which is why this blog exists. The teachings are also why I spend so much of my life trying to understand them, share them, and most important — try to apply them! I encourage you to do the same.
WHERE DOES THE NAME DJWAL KUHL (D.K.) COME FROM?
Here is what I have found out about this very strange and not very used name.
KHOOL… this spelling of the name is always used as a first name, not a last name and that first name is connected to Manipur in India (near Myanmar, formerly Burma).
KUHL is actually a German name! Kuhl comes from the Middle Low German word “kule,” meaning a “hollow” or “depression.” There are also several places in the northern part of Germany with that name. You can find migrations of this name to the United states in the mid 1700’s and 1800’s.
KHOL is another derivative of the name, which is a two sided drum in Bengali.
KOHL is a word from from Bohemia. it refers to a community that is somewhat “bohemian.”
KHUL. This spelling can be found in Tibet. Khul is a Tibetan word meaning ‘region, jurisdiction etc.’, but this is not used in reference to people in Tibet and is not used as a name anywhere.
KUL or KULA, (Sanskrit: “assembly,” or “family”). In India the word ‘khul’ is a rendering of the word kula that in India refers to one’s group, family or community’. Throughout India, except in the south, a family unit or, in some instances, an extended family, are called a kul or kula. Most commonly kul refers to an existing family, though sometimes this sense is extended—for example, when “family” implies a sense of lineage. As such, kul describes, in the Indian context, the patrilocal family unit, often made up of three generations who live together in a compound headed by the grandfather or his eldest son, into which the brides of the various generations are absorbed. The family holds its property in common, and division of possessions is traditionally frowned upon.
The splitting up of the joint family and the reforming into new units normally takes place on the death of the grandfather. The joint family system had a beneficial effect on the consolidation of landholdings and the sharing of resources but is steadily disappearing under modern pressures of economic mobility, improved communications, and widening job opportunities.
Special usages of kul, or kula, are found in such appellations as Agnikula (“Family of the Fire God”), a putative ancient dynasty from which the Rājputs of Rājasthān derive their claim to be Kshatriyas (nobles). Another is the gurukula (“guru’s family”) system of education, in which a pupil, after his initiation, lives in the house of his guru, or teacher, and studies the Veda and other subjects under his guru’s guidance. — Encyclopedia Brittanica Website
Doing further research I also found this about the word KUL. “There are several major subdivisions of Rajputs, known as vansh or vamsha, the step below the super-division jati. These vansh delineate claimed descent from various sources, and the Rajput are generally considered to be divided into three primary vansh: Suryavanshi denotes descent from the solar deity Surya, Chandravanshi from the lunar deity Chandra, and Agnivanshi from the fire deity Agni. Lesser-noted vansh include Udayvanshi, Rajvanshi, and Rishivanshi. The histories of the various vanshs were later recorded in documents known as vanshaavaliis. Beneath the vansh division are smaller and smaller subdivisions: kul, shakh (“branch”), khamp or khanp (“twig”), and nak (“twig tip”). Marriages within a kul are generally disallowed (with some flexibility for kul-mates of different gotra lineages). The kul serves as primary identity for many of the Rajput clans, and each kul is protected by a family goddess, the kuldevi.” http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/
DJWAL. It has some connection to the Sanskrit word jwala-, meaning ‘light, flame or illumination.’ Treated as a Hindi name, the final a’s of both words would be silent; thus you would say it as jwal kul.
In short, perhaps the name Djwal Kuhl is really a made up name. Put the two words together of jwal and kul connected to the Sanskrit and what do you get?
JWAL = LIGHTED KULA = COMMUNITY, FAMILY, CLAN
Meaning: LIGHTED COMMUNITY or COMMUNITY OF LIGHT
How interesting because this name has a similar meaning to the Aryasangha name that was also once attributed as another name Djwal Kuhl was said to have used. As I mentioned before Aryasangha means “noble community” with Arya meaning “noble” and sangha meaning “community.” So both names point to something we should consider, that it is ALL of us as a community of “light” or “nobility” that matters more than one individual.
OTHER NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH D.K. & OPINIONS OF WHO HE MAY BE
Finally, some in the Theosophical Society claim that Djwal Kul was also known by the name Gai Ben-Jamin in his youth, which they say was his name before he became an Adept. In other Theosophical circles he is often referred to as the Master D. K. and is also known as “The Tibetan.” This is how Bailey came to know of him. Edward Abdill, in his book Masters of the Wisdom, refers to the D.K. and uses the spelling Djual Khool. Abdill also asserts that in the Mahatma Letters, the “Master K.H.” asserts that “D.K.” was only a high chela, not yet a Master at the time. I myself have found the quote in The Mahatma Letters that Abdill refers to. And, it is true that Blavatsky’s Masters did not see D.K. as a Master at all. This has caused some disagreement, tension and difficulty between more traditional Theosophist’s and those that follow Bailey’s teachings. I find that unfortunate because again it puts the emphasis on the messenger and not the message, meaning people may discount Bailey’s books as having value, when in my humble opinion they do. Finally, in the book The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge by K. Paul Johnson, he asserts that Djual Khool was really a man named Dayal Singh though I personally find Johnson’s argument here unpersuasive. Rather, I find Johnson’s chapter talking about Sengchen Tulku (who was the spiritual minister of the 8th Panchen Lama and died a horrible death at the hands of his fellow Tibetans for letting Westerners into Tibet), as having more evidence regarding who D.K. was, but that chapter again points to the possibility of the 9th Panchen Lama, or possibly even the 8th!
QUOTES FROM BAILEY ABOUT THE MAYAVIRUPA
Information has also been given anent the mayavirupa through which the Master works and contacts the three worlds and which He deliberately creates in order to serve His purposes and plans. It is a definite substitute for the personality and can only be created when the old personality (built and developed during the cycle of incarnation) has been eliminated. I prefer the word “eliminated” to the word “destroyed.” The structure—at the time of elimination—persists, but its separative life has gone.
If you will think clearly about this statement, you will see that a very complete integration is now possible. The personality life has been absorbed; the personality form is still left, but it persists without any real life of its own; this means that it can now be the recipient of energies and forces needed by the working initiate or Master in order to carry on the work or salvaging humanity. Students would find it of value to study the three “appearances of the Christ” as recorded in the Gospel story:
- His transfigured appearance upon the Mount of Transfiguration. That episode depicts symbolically the radiant soul, and also the three vacated bodies of the personality, and hints also at a future building of a vehicle of manifestation. St. Peter says, “Lord, let us here build three huts” or tabernacles.
- His appearance as truth itself (silent yet present) before the bar or judgment seat of Pilate—repudiated by the world of men but recognised by the Hierarchy.
- His radiant appearances after the resurrection initiation:
- To the woman at the sepulchre—symbolising His contact with Humanity.
- To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus—symbolising His contact with the Hierarchy.
- To the twelve disciples in the upper chamber—symbolising His contact with the Council Chamber of the Lord of the World at Shamballa.
You can thus see the factual nature of the results to which I earlier referred in this instruction. The disciple who has eliminated (in the technical sense as well as in the mystical sense) the hold of the personality has now the “freedom of the Ashram,” as it is called; he can move at will among his fellow disciples and initiates. There will be nothing in his vibratory life or his quality which can disturb the rhythm of the Ashram; there will be nothing to call forth the “calming intervention” of the Master, as is frequently the case during the earlier stages of discipleship; nothing can now interfere with those higher contacts and spheres of influence which have hitherto been sealed to the disciple because of the intrusion of his own personality. Esoteric Healing, p. 518 – 520
(NOTE FROM LISA LOVE: This first understanding of what a mayavirupa is may actually be referring to what Bailey calls a “monadically infused personality,” which means it is simple a purified person with monadic consciousness who may be in a physical body. It means the person is not either a hologram or a consciously created incarnation. In other words the consciousness of the seemingly human person in front of us is dedicated solely to service of humanity and is fully spiritualized).
How will these Members of the Hierarchy in Their various grades appear on earth? Will They come through the methods of ordinary birth, of childhood and maturity? Some initiates may follow this ordinary pattern, some are already passing through it today and are in the stages of infancy and adolescence; to them will be given a large share of the preparatory work. Some will not pass through these relatively limiting phases… Some of the Masters will create what is called in the language of the East the “mayavirupa”—a vehicle of expression which is built of atomic physical and astral substance and of concrete mental substance. This they can create at will, use at will and cause to vanish at will. Externalization of the Hierarchy, pp. 696 – 697.
[ccli] 52: The Mayavirupa is literally the illusory form; it is the body of temporary manifestation which the Adept creates on occasion through the power of the will and in which He functions in order to make certain contacts on the physical plane and to engage in certain work for the race. A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Footnotes.
(NOTE FROM LISA LOVE: This second understanding of what a mayavirupa is of someone being able to create a temporary manifestation of oneself that is much like the hologram projection idea that Yogananda’s master Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri was said to have demonstrated. This seemingly real body can also disappear at will, much in the way Yukteswar was said to have vanished by rolling his mayavirupa up like a scroll).
In the third method the student pictures himself as the ideal man. He visualises himself as the exponent of all the virtues, and he attempts in his daily life to make himself what he visualises himself to be. This method is employed by the more mental types, the intellectuals, and those whose ray is not so coloured by love, by devotion or by harmony. It is not so common as the first. The mental thoughtform thus built up serves as the mayavirupa as did the other and the man passes from these forms into the higher consciousness. As you therefore see, in building these forms certain steps will have to be taken and each type will build the form somewhat differently. Letters on Occult Meditation, p. 146
One or other of these three [definitions of a mayavirupa] can, if so He will, occupy a body on the physical plane which will not be simply a created mayavirupa. A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, p. 1193
(NOTE FROM LISA LOVE: This third understanding of what a mayavirupa is sounds more like the Tibetan Yangsi idea of consciously creating your next physical incarnation, which means you go beyond simply creating a mayavirupa as a kind of hologram).
(SUMMARY: NOTE FROM LISA LOVE: Finally ALL THREE ideas of what a mayavirupa is may be true meaning when you can create a mayavirupa you have monadic consciousness, can pop in and out like a Star Trek hologram, and are able to consciously creates what you will look like in your next life).
Copyright © 2020 by Lisa Love. All rights reserved. No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, computer, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.
FEEDBACK OR OPINIONS? Share your comments below that appear on this blog after the black box. If you maintain a respectful tone I am happy to approve them. I have also shared comments below that were emailed to me, and not posted directly through this blog. Love and light! Lisa
September 5, 2022 at 4:10 pm
EMAILED FROM PATRICK CHOUINARD AND POSTED HERE.
Some theosophists assert that DK was not a high initiate at all. This is based on a statement by H.P.B:
‘Helena Blavatsky, who first shared the notion of Masters with the West, referred to D.K. as “that little boy” and there are some assertions that Blavatsky did not believe that D.K. was as evolved as the other Masters around her, rather he was thought to be only a “messenger of the Masters.”
For this reason when some traditional Theosophists hear about Bailey’s Tibetan, they shake their heads as they believe Blavatsky did not consider Djwal Khul (D.K.) to be a Master, or Mahatma…
Edward Abdill, in his book Masters of the Wisdom, refers to the D.K. and uses the spelling Djual Khool. Abdill also asserts that in the Mahatma Letters, the “Master K.H.” asserts that “D.K.” was only a high chela, not yet a Master at the time. I myself have found the quote in The Mahatma Letters that Abdill refers to. And, it is true that Blavatsky’s Masters did not see D.K. as a Master at all.
This has caused some disagreement, tension and difficulty between more traditional Theosophists and those that follow Bailey’s teachings. I find that unfortunate because again it puts the emphasis on the messenger and not the message, meaning people may discount Bailey’s books as having value, when in my humble opinion they do. ‘ (Lisa Love, https://soultospirit.com/2020/01/08/who-is-baileys-tibetan/ )
However, it is clear from scrutinizing statements made about DK in The Mahatma Letters that he was far from being merely a messenger boy or a chela of the “first rung” at that time but was of high status indeed (at the very least an “adept” or 4th degree initiate to be precise). First he was clearly KH’s chief disciple (see: ; also DK is referred to in a note by HPB in the September 1882 edition of The Theosophist magazine as “our Brother’s [KH’s] favorite Chela” ) and is often referred to as a “high chela.” These alone imply a very high spiritual status. KH indicates that he had undergone an initiation changing his relationship to KH and presumably his duties:
‘And it was he again G.K. “great artist” who had to make away with the “leech,” and to correct cap and features, and who made it “look like Master” (he will insist giving me that name though he is no longer my chela in reality), since M. after spoiling it would not go to the trouble of correcting it but preferred going to sleep instead.’ ( Mahatma Letter 24b http://www.theosophy.wiki/en/ML85b [written September 1882] )
He had graduated so to speak from his role as KH’s primary chela and helper.
Mahatma KH refers to DK as “high, initiated” chela (see: Theosophy Wiki: “Djual Khool” ) :
‘She can and did produce phenomena, owing to her natural powers combined with several long years of regular training and her phenomena are sometimes better, more wonderful and far more perfect than those of some high, initiated chelas, whom she surpasses in artistic taste and purely Western appreciation of art – as for instance in the instantaneous production of pictures: witness – her portrait of the “faikir” Tiravalla mentioned in Hints, and compared with my portrait by Gjual Khool.’ ( K.H., The Mahatma Letters, Letter no. LIV)
One of his functions as that helper was to help with the teaching of very advanced esoteric cosmology.
Several Mahatmas wrote a number of articles for the Theosophist magazine or arranged for articles to be written by their chelas . There are articles by DK in The Theosophist magazine explaining the intricacies of planetary chains, rounds, etc. (published under a pseudonym):
‘DK also reviewed – rather negatively – a book called The Philosophy of Spirit in The Theosophist, vol 3, December 1881, as well as a ” footnote” to the same ( currently published as Mahatma Letter No. 83 in the chronological edition of the letters…)’ (Theosophical Wiki: “Djual Khool”)
No novice would have such understanding or be tasked with clarifying these subtle points of esoteric cosmology:
‘In a letter to A. P. Sinnett, one of the Brothers again mentions a third initiation in regards to certain knowledge:
“When our first correspondence began, there was no idea then of any publications being issued on the basis of the replies you might receive. You went on putting questions at random, and the answers being given at different times to disjointed queries, and so to say, under a semi-protest, were necessarily imperfect, often from different standpoints. When the publication of some of these were permitted for the Occult World, it was hoped that among your readers some may be able, like yourself, to put all the different pieces together and evolve out of them the skeleton, or a shadow of our system, which, although not exactly the original—this would be an impossibility—would be as near an approach to it as could be made by a non-initiate. But the results have proved quasi-disastrous! We had tried an experiment and sadly failed! Now we see that none but those who have passed at least their third initiation are able to write upon those subjects comprehensively.” (ML 128)
In the same letter, the Brother goes on to say that The Secret Doctrine will correct some of the earlier mistakes, perhaps hinting that the author or authors of that work had passed the requisite initiation to enable them to write upon such subjects.’ ( https://universaltheosophy.com/key-concepts/initiation/ )
It was DK who drew the “Man on a Planet diagram” (reproduced in the Mahatma Letters : “N.B. — The above in D. K.’s hand — the rest in K. H.’s. — A. P. Sinnett” ; see : https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-14.htm )
Mention of this diagram is made by H.P.B in one of her letters to A.P. Sinnett:
‘D. K. is very angry with me for having written so inaccurately to you about him yesterday, “dishonouring” him in your eyes. He says he never copied Olcott’s and Coul. diagram; but it was they who copied his —- (did I tell you otherwise?).’ (Letter No. LXXXVII)
Finally we are told that DK was capable of creating a mayavirupa. He delivered letters from KH and M. to both A.O. Hume and T. Subba Row in his majavirupa:
‘Several times D.Kh. [Djual Kul] had tried to penetrate [in his mayavi rupa] into Rothney Castle [Hume’s home], but suffered each time so acutely that I told him to give it up. . . . Well, Fern did not post it but sent a friend – his dugpa – to leave it at the house and the latter placed it in the conservatory about 2 a.m. This was half of a phenomenon but H. took it for an entire thing, and got very mad when M. refused as he thought to take up his answer in the same way [i.e. by occult means].
Then I wrote to console him, and told him as plainly as I could say, without breaking M. ‘s confidence in relation to Fern that D.K. could do nothing for him, at present, and that it was one of Morya’s chelas that had placed the letter there, etc., etc. I believe the hint was quite broad enough and no deception practiced? The second letter, I think, was thrown on his table by Dj. Khool . . . and, as it was done by himself it was a pukka orthodox phenomenon and Hume has no need to complain.’ (MLC 170 / ML 45)
And in one of Blavatsky’s letters to Sinnett she writes:
‘D. K. passed last night into Babajee’s room [in Londonl] and—I heard him sobbing the whole night. I went to him and knocked but he would not open. New mystery!!’ ( THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY to A.P. SINNETT, p. 204)
Only an ADEPT can do that according to HPB (as far as I know she could not do that herself):
‘The Mâyâvi-Rûpa is a Manasic Body, and should not be confused with the Linga-sarîra; its projection is always a Mânasic act, since it cannot be formed without the activity of Kriyâshakti.
The linga sharira must not be confused with the mayavi rupa or “thought body”–the image created by the thought and will of an adept or sorcerer; for while the “astral form” or linga sharira is a real entity, the “thought body” is a temporary illusion created by the mind.’ (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Theosophical Glossary , p. 256)
‘The adept may at his will use his Mayavi-rupa, but the ordinary man does not, except in very rare cases. It is called Mayavi-rupa because it is a form of illusion created for use in the particular instance, and it has quite enough of the adept’s mind in it to accomplish its purpose. The ordinary man merely creates a thought-image, whose properties and powers are at the time wholly unknown to him.’ (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Collected Writings vol. X, p.p.274)
‘But when a man consciously projects a Mâyâvi-Rûpa and uses it as a vehicle of Consciousness, he is an Adept.’ ( Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Collected Writings vol. XII, p. 706)
The word ‘adept’ is used in a very specific sense by Blavatsky:
‘There are four grades of initiation mentioned in exoteric works, which are known respectively in Sanskrit as “Shrôtâpanna,” “Sagardagan,” “Anagamin,” and “Arhan”—the four paths to Nirvana, in this, our fourth Round, hearing the same appellations. The Arhan, though he can see the Past, the Present, and the Future, is not yet the highest Initiate; for the Adept himself, the initiated candidate, becomes chela (pupil) to a higher Initiate. Three further higher grades have to be conquered by the Arhan who would reach the apex; of the ladder of Arhatship.’ (The Secret Doctrine vol. I: 206-07 ; see also “adept” in : https://universaltheosophy.com/key-concepts/initiation/ )
This quote also shows that the word “chela” does not necessarily refer to a spiritual novice. And it makes clear that “Arhan” and “Adept” are synonymous and refer to a 4th degree initiate. In Initiation, Human and Solar (DK’s first book through Bailey and written many years prior to the disclosure of his identity) it says that DK was even more advanced than an “adept” at that time:
‘He is the latest of the adepts taking initiation, having taken the 5th in 1875…’ (p.57)
September 5, 2022 at 4:13 pm
EMAILED FROM STEVEN CHERNIKEEFF and posted here.
The three Lamas photo was taken by Aloha Baker in 1924 and is held at the Detroit Public Library. The Director of the Roerich Museum confirms it is NOT a Roerich photo. It is simply a shot of three Lamas in Bhutan.
Gowland copied this photo and painted several versions of it. There is no evidence Assogioli had one or that he stated it was DK – this is myth. I think DK would have told us if he passed over in 1937 or that he had allowed a photo to be taken – or painted.
December 15, 2022 at 10:43 pm
My sincere appreciation for the quality of this article and the topic of the article itself; It has been of immense interest!
December 17, 2022 at 4:00 am
Thanks for the awesome reflection. I was particularly curious on the connection of Alice Bailey and Carl Jung – because I am researching whether she may have had the same brain condition, a peculiar thing called Geschwind Syndrome. This may cause person to have visitations, visions and to channel text from a higher source – Jung had a version of this too! Message me back for more info
February 21, 2023 at 6:45 am
Mia, that is an interesting hypothesis but in researching that syndrome online the association did not fit for me. Still, I encourage you to further your research and to continue to come to your own conclusions. Love and light, Lisa