Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:
"What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
control and/or management of the ULT? . . .The DES . . . remains one
of the great secrets of Theosophical history (not unlike the ER of
the Adyar TS); I hope that its history and teachings will be made
accessible to students of Theosophical history when I complete the
history of secret societies in the Theosophical movement on which
John Cooper and I were collaborating at the time of his passing."
See relevant material at:
I hope that in this forthcoming publication Tillett will grapple with
and try to answer the question that heads this posting.
This issue is partly addressed in the following essay on the WWW:
"Dzyan Esoteric School---Blavatsky's Esoteric Instructions Issued on
In ULT's Dzyan Esoteric School, esoteric instructions of Madame
Blavatsky are reissued to members under a pledge of secrecy.
Blavatsky's instructions were not to be discussed or shown to regular
ULT associates or to other non-members of the DES. Anyone who
violated this oath was expelled from DES.
The essential question to ask is---
On whose authority were Madame Blavatsky's instructions reissued by
During Blavatsky's & Judge's lifetimes, these instructions were given
to new members by the authority of Blavatsky & Judge as Outer Heads
of the E.S. directly representing the Masters who were the Inner
Heads. Each member took a pledge not to discuss or show the documents
Robert Crosbie was an esoteric member during the lifetimes of
Blavatsky & Judge. Mr Crosbie had taken the same pledge not to reveal
any of these esoteric papers.
After Mr Judge's death & at the formation of the ULT's DES, by whose
authority were the instructions reissued with a new pledge of
secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie violate his own original pledge by allowing
the reissue of Blavatsky's esoteric instructions under a new pledge
It is clear Blavatsky & Judge issued the instructions at the
direction of the Masters. Who gave Mr Crosbie the authority or right
to violate his original pledge & reissue the instructions to new
students under an oath of silence and secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie believe
that he was following in the esoteric footsteps of Blavatsky and
In the last month I've received several emails from ULT associates
suggesting that if I publish the contents of any DES material I'm
opening myself & those who read the contents to esoteric or occult
harm. This is the essential reason (I'm told) why the U.L.T. has been
so adamant against the public release of Blavatsky's ES instructions.
Those who are not ready & haven't taken the appropriate pledge, etc.
could be subject to some sort of negative occult influence. So goes
this type of reasoning.
A correspondent wrote that Mr Henry Geiger, one of the more
recent "leaders" of the Los Angeles ULT, was very much against Mr
Boris de Zirkoff's proposal to publish Blavatsky's esoteric
instructions in the "Collected Writings" series. When Mr de Zirkoff
finally published them in Volume XII of the series, the ULT
leadership was extremely upset. This is part of the underlying
reasons for the ULT not mentioning in their publications
the "Collected Writings" or using any of the CW material in their
study of Blavatsky's teachings, so I'm told.
This negative reaction by the ULT to Mr de Zirkoff's publication of
Blavatsky's esoteric material appears ironic (even hypocritical) in
light of the fact that the ULT leadership issued (through DES) the
same material to their chosen ULT associates.
Who gave them the authority to disseminate this esoteric material to
new people while at the same time condemning Mr de Zirkoff for
publishing the material for new people?
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSY ARCHIVES