Technically, I make a clear distinction between Rudolf Steiner and the other two, H. P. Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. Blavatsky and Bailey are something that works optimally for me to successfully complete my experiments on reality. That is to find out how reality really works, with perfectly repeatable successful results. My hypothesis based on these results is that it is not because of Blavatsky and Alice Bailey but because of the understanding, possibly the level of development, the background knowledge and the background wisdom that one brings, why some seem not to be able to apply what is written in these books although they are allegedly studying them for 30-40 years.
I came across the page of Henry T. Laurency years ago, but let it go for the time being. I came across your work at the very moment when I decided to put into action certain plans that have a certain great similarity with your work.

I found that Steiner’s obsession with Golgotha and the blood of Christ, disturbing. When Laurency pointed out that Steiner was self-taught and not a disciple to a master, things became clearer. It is so easy to be fooled on the Emotional plane. At the end of the day, Hylozoics is a system of thought rather than the books of Bailey, Blavatsky and Steiner. They are just volumes of knowledge; incomplete at best and misleading at worst. Hylozoics gives the student a framework with which to examine their world as well as any proposition and see if it is coherent. As the Lord Buddha said, trust your own intuition above all else.