28970The Supposed "Attack" on Mr. Robert Crosbie
- Dec 17, 2005The Supposed "Attack" on Mr. Robert Crosbie
Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005
When you write that I have attack Mr. Crosbie, I
assume that you refer to the article at:
If this is what you are referring to, WHAT in
the article actually constitutes an "attack"
(your favorite word it appears!) on Mr. Crosbie?
First of all, are there any MISSTATEMENTS about
Mr. Crosbie in the article? Are there any inaccuracies?
If so, what are the REAL facts? Please
provide us with the "corrections."
Secondly, I assume you do NOT like us actually
posing the question:
"Did Robert Crosbie Break the Seventh Clause of
His Solemn Pledge as a Member of the Esoteric School?"
I assume that you and Mr. Aveline "bristle" at us
even asking the question!!
But I will say that the question is a honest one
and in light of the facts STATED in the article it
has occurred to more than one student. I have
even received inquiries years ago about this.
At least on my part, if I have asked similar HARD
questions about the claims of Mr. Leadbeater, Mrs.
Besant, Mrs. Bailey, the speculations of Mr. Johnson, etc. ,
etc., I see no good reason why one cannot ask
that question about Mr. Crosbie or similar questions
about claims concerning Mr. Crosbie made by ULT writers.
In the article we quote Theosophy magazine writers
who assert Mrs. Besant broke her seventh pledge. One
might ask if that was an "attack" on Mrs. Besant?
Dedicated followers of Mrs. Besant would, no doubt,
consider it such an attack.
But I ask: is it "unfair" or to be considered "an attack"
in light of what was actually stated in the article, to
ask the same relevant question about Mr. Crosbie?
Notice we did NOT answer the basic question and even
posed the question:
"Did Mr. Crosbie believe and claim that he was in contact
with the dead Blavatsky, the deceased Judge and the Mahatmas
receiving their permission to start the Dzyan Esoteric School
and reissue H.P.B.'s esoteric instructions, etc. in 1909?"
If Mr. Crosbie believed he was in such contact, then he
would not have necessarily broke his pledge by reissuing
the E.S. Instructions.
Apparently Mrs. Besant believed she was in contact with
the dead HPB for she writes in the SD III, page 434 about
HPB's esoteric instructions:
"....they are published with her consent."
So IF Mrs. Besant BELIEVED she was in contact with the
dead HPB and that HPB had given her consent, then did
Mrs. Besant actually break her pledge?
As far as I can tell, the writers in Theosophy magazine
did NOT bring up THAT particular point but merely stated
Mrs. Besant had broken her pledge, etc.
The questions asked in the article under question were
asked in all honesty and sincerity and if that is
considered "attacking" then so be it.
Paul Johnson also believed I was attacking him when
I asked hard questions, etc. in my pamphlet HOUSE OF
CARDS about some of his assertions and speculations.
Then you write that we did not include "the view" from
The gist of this Crosbie article was published several
years ago by David Green and he asked for input and the
view of the ULT from a number of ULT students. To this
date,no student has come forth and presented "the view
of the ULT" --- at least has NOT presented any relevant
historical information that would answer the question
which is the title of the article.
So if YOU would like to throw more light on the subject
by giving the ULT view and HISTORICAL FACTS that will
give readers of that article further answers
and insights, then I ask you to write something and
we will be more than happy and willing to append your
comments to the said article and circulate both the
original article and your additional comments to our
readership. But hopefully what you give about "the
ULT view" will be more than vague assertions such as
you apparently gave one time about the D.E.S. in emails
to Dr. Gregory Tillett. Hopefully your comments will actually
help to answer the question rather than obscuring it further.
So give the true facts....
- << Previous post in topic