Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • gregory@zeta.org.au
    The discussion about the role and positive or negative aspects of the ULT reminded me of a few intriguing mysteries about the origins and control of the ULT.
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The discussion about the role and positive or negative aspects of the ULT
      reminded me of a few intriguing mysteries about the origins and control
      of the ULT.

      1. Why was Robert Crosbie ejected from Pt Loma?

      2. What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
      control and/or management of the ULT?

      3. Who actually has controlled the ULT throughout its development, and
      how?

      On question (1) there are several versions, notably those of the ULT and
      Pt Loma, but there are also "inner" accounts, at least one of which is
      probably accurate. The DES (question (2)) 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. But the role of the DES has
      been even greater than that of the Adyar and Pt Loma ES groups because it
      has remained largely "invisible". For example, it is not, to my
      knowledge, referred to in a single history of the Theosophical movement
      (and is not, of course, mentioned in the Theosophy Company's history).
      Question (3) relates to the real history - as opposed to the vague
      historical statements - of the ULT. No organization operates without
      leadership and systems of power and control, and those that deny they
      have such systems are inevitably more rigidly controlled by those who
      actually hold the "non-existent" positions of authority.

      I do not in any way denigrate the work (or, particularly, the
      publications) of the ULT, but I would venture to suggest that the public
      relations position it takes simply misrepresents the reality. Scholars in
      the field know, for example, who wrote Theosophy Company's history and
      who headed the movement at various stages of its development.

      It is, of course, equally true that the real "inner" history of both
      Adyar and Pt Loma have never been published. Perhaps a little more open
      access, accurate and honest information and the release of historical
      material would promote (rather than damage) the Thoeosphical movement?

      Dr Gregory Tillett
    • ramadoss@infohwy.com
      ... If ever a full real history of the interaction between the exoteric and esoteric organizations becomes available, it would be very interesting to learn
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 05:22 PM 7/11/01 +1100, gregory@... wrote:
        >It is, of course, equally true that the real "inner" history of both
        >Adyar and Pt Loma have never been published. Perhaps a little more open
        >access, accurate and honest information and the release of historical
        >material would promote (rather than damage) the Thoeosphical movement?
        >
        >Dr Gregory Tillett

        If ever a full "real" history of the interaction between the exoteric and
        esoteric organizations becomes available, it would be very interesting to
        learn in what ways it has helped theosophy and hurt theosophy during the
        last 100+ years, because real life is always a mixed bag of good and bad.

        mkr
      • dalval14@earthlink.net
        A documentary history of the modern Theosophical Movement has been made available for the past 50 to 75 years. THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT : 1875 - 1950
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 11, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          A documentary history of the modern Theosophical Movement has
          been made available for the past 50 to 75 years.

          THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT : 1875 - 1950

          Publisher: Theosophy Company.
          245 W 33rd St.,
          Los Angeles, Ca., 90007, U.S.A.


          Dallas

          =================================

          -----Original Message-----
          From: ramadoss@... [mailto:ramadoss@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 6:49 AM
          To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

          At 05:22 PM 7/11/01 +1100, gregory@... wrote:
          >It is, of course, equally true that the real "inner" history of
          both
          >Adyar and Pt Loma have never been published. Perhaps a little
          more open
          >access, accurate and honest information and the release of
          historical
          >material would promote (rather than damage) the Thoeosphical
          movement?
          >
          >Dr Gregory Tillett

          If ever a full "real" history of the interaction between the
          exoteric and
          esoteric organizations becomes available, it would be very
          interesting to
          learn in what ways it has helped theosophy and hurt theosophy
          during the
          last 100+ years, because real life is always a mixed bag of good
          and bad.

          mkr




          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • gregory@zeta.org.au
          THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, as interesting as it is (in both significantly different editions), cannot be described as a documentary history . There is no
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, as interesting as it is (in both significantly
            different editions), cannot be described as a "documentary history".
            There is no documentation of most of the sources, for example. It is
            written entirely on the basis of the ULT position: nothing wrong with
            that so long as it's clear that this is the perspective of the author,
            but it hardly equates with "documentary history" (any more than, say,
            Josephine Ransom's history does, or Joy Mill's recent history of
            (essentially the Adyar) Theosophical movement in America, which manages
            to omit substantial amounts of history, presumably because Adyar would
            prefer not to recall them). It is difficult to know how any work without
            a named author or authors can expect to be taken seriously, although in
            the case of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, the publisher's identity discloses
            its perspective. One might wonder, of course, why there is no reference
            in that work to the DES.

            Dr Gregory Tillett
          • Compiler
            Dr. Tillett, Not being in any way a scholar, I only have these few things to offer as food for thought to the reader: Below your comments, I ve posted a
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dr. Tillett,

              Not being in any way a scholar, I only have these few things to offer as
              food for thought to the reader:

              Below your comments, I've posted a complete copy of the first of the 34
              articles in "THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT" series (that preceded the first
              book). Of course they may be found elsewhere, but in that 1st article, which
              is a "Prefatory Note" to all that will follow, I do not find the
              "documentary history" words that you use, but found these: "authoritative
              history". Either way, it is my opinion that in setting the stage for the
              reader, the authors were quite up front to the fact that not everything of
              the history can be supplied, not all the documents, and so on -- and they
              offered reasons why.

              On another note, do you know if this series was the first attempt, by any of
              the organizations, or anyone within it, to lay out a history of the
              Theosophical Movement? I only ask because it seems to me that since each
              group, in the end, probably had someone, or some group of people, present
              their own particular version, as you mentioned a couple, being the first to
              attempt it and offer it to humanity and students seems, to me at least, to
              be somewhat important and significant.

              As far as the presentation of "documents", and the quoting of many people,
              which I assumed, as a reader, they could back up with documents and proof, I
              found in the 34 articles to the series, a lot of it.

              The few excerpts from the "Preface" of the later book, entitled "The
              Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950", that I quoted in my introduction in this
              Index page link, seem quite confident, for whatever that may be worth to any
              reader, and even to historical truth and reality, to the ideas of
              "evidence", "facts", etc.:
              http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/TheTheosophicalMovement-Series/index.html

              Maybe you and others who are much more knowledgeable than me, can comment a
              bit on these few things.

              Fraternally,

              John DeSantis
              (Compiler)
              -------

              gregory@... wrote:

              > THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, as interesting as it is (in both significantly
              > different editions), cannot be described as a "documentary history".
              > There is no documentation of most of the sources, for example. It is
              > written entirely on the basis of the ULT position: nothing wrong with
              > that so long as it's clear that this is the perspective of the author,
              > but it hardly equates with "documentary history" (any more than, say,
              > Josephine Ransom's history does, or Joy Mill's recent history of
              > (essentially the Adyar) Theosophical movement in America, which manages
              > to omit substantial amounts of history, presumably because Adyar would
              > prefer not to recall them). It is difficult to know how any work without
              > a named author or authors can expect to be taken seriously, although in
              > the case of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, the publisher's identity discloses
              > its perspective. One might wonder, of course, why there is no reference
              > in that work to the DES.
              >
              > Dr Gregory Tillett

              ==========================================

              THEOSOPHY, Vol. 8, No. 3, January, 1920
              (Pages 65-67; Size: 8K)
              (Number 1 of a 34-part series)

              THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

              (Prefatory Note)

              IN the February, 1920, number of the Magazine THEOSOPHY there will be
              commenced the publication of an authoritative history of the Theosophical
              Movement of the Nineteenth century, and thereafter instalments will be
              published each month until the conclusion of the work.

              There exists nowhere such a collected and authentic recital. Yet, although a
              scant half century has elapsed since the foundation of The Theosophical
              Society at New York City, the work there begun has spread into all portions
              of the civilized world, until the word Theosophy is a familiar term to every
              educated mind. The teachings known under that name have been more or less
              investigated and adopted by millions, while its more earnest students who
              have accepted it as a complete and satisfactory explanation of all the
              problems of life, here and hereafter, are numbered by thousands in every
              country and of every race.

              In an indirect but none the less powerful manner the teachings of Theosophy
              have profoundly affected the ideas and ideals of the race on the great
              questions of ethics, of morality, of religion, philosophy and science, so
              that today it may be truly said that there is nothing worthy of the
              consideration of the human mind that has not been leavened by the injection
              of Theosophical leaven. It is not too much, therefore, to affirm that the
              direct and indirect influence of Theosophy upon humanity in the course of a
              single generation has been greater than that of any other system ever
              promulgated, during as many centuries as the Theosophical Movement numbers
              decades. And the Movement can as yet scarcely be said to have passed the
              stage of its germinal impulsion.

              The record of the Theosophical Movement is scattered through thousands upon
              thousands of pages of books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and other
              documents. Many of these are extremely controversial in character, many
              inaccurate, many contradictory and confusing. The attempt to study, digest,
              collate and compare the immense literature of the subject is a monumental
              undertaking. The writers have spent more than thirty years in connection
              with the work of the Theosophical Movement, and their opportunities and
              facilities have been greater than most. Yet they know only too well the
              impossibility of doing anything like justice to the subject, or of affording
              satisfactory replies to all questions of the sincere student of its
              complexities. The very nature of the subject forbids. For Theosophy, the
              Theosophical Movement, and the real and true Theosophical Society have, each
              of them, an esoteric as well as an exoteric side, and the latter can never
              be fully grasped and understood but through the former.

              Some of this hidden side can be touched upon, some documents referred to,
              some indications submitted, some deductions offered for the consideration of
              the reflective mind, but for by far the most important portion of the
              esoteric aspect the student must rely upon his own intuition: for the hidden
              side of Theosophy can only be arrived at through the hidden nature of the
              student himself.

              Still another difficulty that confronts alike the writers and the sincere
              student is the fact that many of those who were active in the life-time of
              the original Theosophical Society are still living and now prominent, both
              in the public eye, and as leaders and exponents of the many existing and
              conflicting theosophical and occult societies that have sprung up in the
              past twenty-five years, since the disruption of the Parent society. All
              these antagonistic organizations have their devoted adherents, their own
              particular tenets and claims of pre-eminence and successorship. The
              situation exactly parallels that of the early centuries of Christianity.
              Rival pretensions to apostolic succession, to knowledge, to authority, and
              to the possession of the keys to the teachings of the Founders confront the
              inquirer. The danger is imminent that if a better knowledge and
              understanding of the real teachings of Theosophy, the real mission of the
              Theosophical Movement, and the real facts in connection with the history of
              the Parent Theosophical Society, are not made available for any one who may
              become interested, the fate that has long since overtaken Brahmanism,
              Buddhism and Christianity, will inevitably befall the great Message of H. P.
              Blavatsky.

              For all the reasons expressed and implied, an accessible record of the
              facts, as accurate a survey of their significance and bearing on the present
              and on the future as possible, is of the utmost moment to all sincere
              students and to all earnest inquirers. Themselves members of none of the
              existing organizations, but profoundly convinced of the surpassing value of
              the noble philosophy of Theosophy, the writers are moved to this attempt to
              aid the unimpeded flow of the great stream of the Theosophical Movement, not
              so much by any belief in their own especial ability as by the conviction
              that that flow is being impeded and corrupted by the sectarian partisanship
              and pretensions of the leading exponents of the existing societies. It is
              therefore addressed, not to any society or societies, but to all true
              Theosophists, whether members of any of the existing organizations or of
              none, and to all true inquirers everywhere, who may be willing to accept
              truth wherever it may be found, and to defend it, even looking popular
              prejudice and their own straight in the face.

              Readers of this magazine are advised that we cannot guarantee to supply back
              numbers of the series, and it is therefore suggested that subscribers and
              others interested should not depend upon our being able to fill later
              requests for the full series. Only the regular editions of the magazine will
              be printed, plus any additional requirements from month to month. The series
              will run during the greater part of the ensuing two years. We respectfully
              invite our readers to call the attention of their friends and
              fellow-students of their acquaintance to this Notice.

              EDITORS, THEOSOPHY.
              -------



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • dalval14@earthlink.net
              Dear Dr. Tillett In answering your questions let me place some attachments for you to read. If placed in the body of an E-mail letter it would be very long.
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Dr. Tillett

                In answering your questions let me place some "attachments" for
                you to read.

                If placed in the body of an E-mail letter it would be very long.

                I hope this presents no problem to you.



                Briefly:

                1. Mr. Crosbie was not "ejected" from the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY at
                Point Loma. He and his wife left. [ I attach some biographical
                notes ].

                2. The "role of the DES" (whatever that may be) would have no
                role in "management of the U.L.T. " [ I enclose an attachment
                giving a note on the organization of the U.L.T.] Further if you
                possess a copy of THE FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER by Mr. R. Crosbie (I
                will be glad to send you one, [although John Cooper ought to have
                his own copy in his library, as he was an associate of the U.L.T.
                in Sydney, many years ago when my father and mother visited him
                in the winter of 1958/9] you will read there in the last section
                "IN THE BEGINNING" the answers Mr. Crosbie made to his friends
                and associates when the U.L.T. was started.

                3. The "control of the U.L.T. " is made plain in the attachment
                that deals with its organization. To put it paradoxically all
                associates have the same status: "volunteers." They all "own" it
                to the extent that they give their time money and work to its
                program. Yet, none own it in the personal, financial or legal
                sense. Mr. Crosbie made it plain that "It is a name given to
                certain principles and ideas." Those require no physical
                lodgment or ownership as they (as ideas) reside in the minds of
                men and women interested in them.

                To publish books and magazine requires money and editorial work.
                To discuss ideas requires an open field, or any one's home, or a
                building and halls if available.

                You could as well ask: Who owns THEOSOPHY? And I believe the
                answer would be: "No one can own or patent a Law of Nature."
                "No one can place a patent on History." But I would observe that
                in my experience few histories are totally unbiased.

                If you seek the "secret" history of the Theosophical societies
                and their offshoots, then the best I can suggest are the 2 books:
                "The Theosophical Movement --1875-1925" and "The Theosophical
                Movement 1875-1950." I am sure both of these are in John's
                library. The first is now OUT OF PRINT, the 2nd is available. I
                think the price is about $ 7.00. Both are based on articles that
                appeared (written and edited by Mr. Crosbie, I believe) in
                THEOSOPHY Magazine, Los Angeles :
                MASTERS AND THEIR MESSAGE, vols. 2, 3, 4; and Theosophical
                HISTORY Vols. 8 to 10; and then the AFTERMATH series in Vol. 23.

                In the Bombay magazine THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT in Vol. 17 will
                be found an historical review covering several articles it is
                titled THE CYCLE MOVETH. In Vols. 25, 26 will also be found a
                different series titled: THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT : 1875- 1950 ;
                Also THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT IN OTHER AGES, Vol. 35, p. 93.

                In trying to answer you I looked through the INDEX of both
                THEOSOPHY Magazine and THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT and found a few
                articles there on esotericism, which might offer you clues.

                THEOSOPHY

                ESOTERIC AND EXOTERIC Vol. 32 p. 308
                MOTIVE IN ESOTERIC SCIENCE 14 175
                ESOTERIC TEACHING (Sinnett) 38 202
                ESOTERIC VALUE OF CERTAIN WORDS 4 79 421
                HISTORY OF ESOTERICISM 13 385


                THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

                ESOTERIC COLLEGES 11 169
                ESOTERIC AND EXOTERIC (B P Wadia) 30 271
                ESOTERIC HISTORY 37 225 285
                ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY 36 516
                THE ESOTERIC SECTION 2 52
                ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY Answers 11 171
                SEPTENARY PRINCIP. IN ESOTERICISM 33 326


                I am aware of the frustrating difficulty you are presented with,
                and the hope you express that some "secret" will open up.
                However I doubt that there may be anything that remains "secret"
                any longer. I say this because if you have read ISIS UNVEILED,
                The SECRET DOCTRINE and H.P.Blavatsky's articles, you will have
                noticed that there has been reference made to a secret Grand
                Lodge of the BROTHERHOOD OF ADEPTS. And, that this Brotherhood
                has existed ever since the world and our Universe began. [ISIS
                UNVEILED II 98 - 107; S D I xxiii, 122, 516, II 275,281, 215,
                636, 641 The THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY 303,

                Until such time as the world of history, science, investigation
                realizes that the HUMAN INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS are
                eternal and immortal ENTITIES and REALITIES, this aspect of
                knowledge will remain a nebulous a blurred "secret."

                Theosophy teaches that LIVING INTELLIGENCES (Human MINDS) that
                have passed beyond the grade of our average human level of
                consciousness exist. It is claimed there that these have existed
                since the most remote past, and will so continue till the end of
                the inconceivable future.

                Read, for instance, the pages of the MAHATMA LETTERS and the
                LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. Are they normal
                correspondence? Do they not indicate that outside the rigid (and
                current) lines and parameters of "dead-letter" translations and
                the now narrowed and narrowing walls of Orientalism, and that
                literalism which is called "the Doctrine of the Eye," there is a
                far deeper science and wisdom that unites the knowledge of
                natures' LAWS with the practice of a man's (and woman's) daily
                life? The ETHICO-MORAL area is that which I indicate. For this
                pertains to the development of the Soul and not to the mere
                physical frame that so limits us all.

                There are two areas where our scientific training of rigid
                materialism and literalism in interpreting ancient scriptures and
                current psychological mysteries, do not appear to have any points
                of reference.

                They revolve about the curious notion that Man's SOUL (and
                SPIRIT) are deemed to be IMMORTAL. And that every human is an
                ETERNAL PILGRIM on a journey that leads eventually after many
                incarnations to a goal one can only very dimly define as "sublime
                PERFECTION."

                As an analogy consider our well-established seats of learning,
                and how an academician may pass his whole life in learning a vast
                number of details on a very narrow (or on many) subject(s). The
                process of selection and the devotion applied is always
                individual. The true motive for such effort is known only to the
                individual, though it might be speculated about by his comperes.

                It should be clear that the planes, realms and speculations (to
                be traced down the ages in all philosophies, religions,
                histories, lore, myths, annals, etc...) concerning the CAUSE,
                SOURCE and MOTIVES of Nature's existence and its Laws -- as well
                as the reason for Man's existence, are forever a "secret" for
                those who believe that luck, chance, and blind fate (perhaps) are
                the sole cause of our existence and the diversity of our
                interests. Theosophy in its system includes these parameters and
                adds several more that provide reasonable answers to the
                condition of things as they are.

                At least, that is briefly how things seem to be to me.

                I am sure this will not completely satisfy you, but if you wish
                to ask further, then do write, I will try to answer.

                Best wishes,

                Dallas TenBroeck


                SEE ATTACHMENTS

                ==================================

                -----Original Message-----
                From: gregory@... [mailto:gregory@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:23 PM
                To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

                The discussion about the role and positive or negative aspects of
                the ULT
                reminded me of a few intriguing mysteries about the origins and
                control
                of the ULT.

                1. Why was Robert Crosbie ejected from Pt Loma?

                2. What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in
                the
                control and/or management of the ULT?

                3. Who actually has controlled the ULT throughout its
                development, and
                how?

                On question (1) there are several versions, notably those of the
                ULT and
                Pt Loma, but there are also "inner" accounts, at least one of
                which is
                probably accurate. The DES (question (2)) 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. But the role of the DES
                has
                been even greater than that of the Adyar and Pt Loma ES groups
                because it
                has remained largely "invisible". For example, it is not, to my
                knowledge, referred to in a single history of the Theosophical
                movement
                (and is not, of course, mentioned in the Theosophy Company's
                history).
                Question (3) relates to the real history - as opposed to the
                vague
                historical statements - of the ULT. No organization operates
                without
                leadership and systems of power and control, and those that deny
                they
                have such systems are inevitably more rigidly controlled by those
                who
                actually hold the "non-existent" positions of authority.

                I do not in any way denigrate the work (or, particularly, the
                publications) of the ULT, but I would venture to suggest that the
                public
                relations position it takes simply misrepresents the reality.
                Scholars in
                the field know, for example, who wrote Theosophy Company's
                history and
                who headed the movement at various stages of its development.

                It is, of course, equally true that the real "inner" history of
                both
                Adyar and Pt Loma have never been published. Perhaps a little
                more open
                access, accurate and honest information and the release of
                historical
                material would promote (rather than damage) the Thoeosphical
                movement?

                Dr Gregory Tillett



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • dalval14@earthlink.net
                Thursday, July 12, 2001 Dear Dr. Tillett: Thanks and noted I would however observe that anonymity is not a crime, and in this case was deliberately adopted
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thursday, July 12, 2001

                  Dear Dr. Tillett:

                  Thanks and noted

                  I would however observe that "anonymity" is not a crime, and in
                  this case was deliberately adopted by the U.L.T. as a basis for
                  impersonalizing all its work and directing attention to the main
                  CAUSE for its existence; THE PRESERVATION AND THE PROMULGATION
                  OF THE original teachings of THEOSOPHY.
                  I may also add that I have personally reviewed and checked almost
                  all of the references used in the 2 books mentioned [ THE
                  THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- 1875 - 1950 ] and have been able to
                  trace their sources or have seen, read or have actual copies of
                  the relevant items.

                  Best wishes,
                  Dallas

                  DTB

                  ============================



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: gregory@... [mailto:gregory@...]
                  Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:12 AM
                  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

                  THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, as interesting as it is (in both
                  significantly
                  different editions), cannot be described as a "documentary
                  history".
                  There is no documentation of most of the sources, for example. It
                  is
                  written entirely on the basis of the ULT position: nothing wrong
                  with
                  that so long as it's clear that this is the perspective of the
                  author,
                  but it hardly equates with "documentary history" (any more than,
                  say,
                  Josephine Ransom's history does, or Joy Mill's recent history of
                  (essentially the Adyar) Theosophical movement in America, which
                  manages
                  to omit substantial amounts of history, presumably because Adyar
                  would
                  prefer not to recall them). It is difficult to know how any work
                  without
                  a named author or authors can expect to be taken seriously,
                  although in
                  the case of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, the publisher's identity
                  discloses
                  its perspective. One might wonder, of course, why there is no
                  reference
                  in that work to the DES.

                  Dr Gregory Tillett



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • Frank Reitemeyer
                  ... Dallas, curiously enough, what you decribe here as the reasons why Robert Crosbie left the Headquarters by free will (according to ULT history) is on the
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 13, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >I would however observe that "anonymity" is not a crime, and in
                    >this case was deliberately adopted by the U.L.T. as a basis for
                    >impersonalizing all its work and directing attention to the main
                    >CAUSE for its existence; THE PRESERVATION AND THE PROMULGATION
                    >OF THE original teachings of THEOSOPHY.

                    Dallas, curiously enough, what you decribe here as the reasons why Robert
                    Crosbie left the Headquarters by free will (according to ULT history) is on
                    the contrary exactly the same reason why Robert Crosbie was ejected
                    ((according to Point Loma history).

                    >I may also add that I have personally reviewed and checked almost
                    >all of the references used in the 2 books mentioned [ THE
                    >THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- 1875 - 1950 ] and have been able to
                    >trace their sources or have seen, read or have actual copies of
                    >the relevant items.

                    The problem with that book is not with that what is in, but with that what
                    was left out.
                    Some say the kind how facts are selected give the reader a misleading
                    imagination about what happened.
                    This books gives me impression that self-righteousness is better than
                    self-criticism.
                    In the worst case one could say a fanatical sect under self hypnotization is
                    faking the facts to make themselves always looking good. I have seen this
                    sheme in all the splinter groups (Hartmann, Temple, I Am,
                    Anthroposophists).
                    All they claims to be the better ones. Perhaps that's a needing paradigma
                    for them to survive.
                    The same experiments I have made with Communists. They are always eager to
                    quote from Karl Marx, no matter what facts you present from the real world,
                    they have always a quote from Marx that it is not so.
                    Frank
                  • dalval14@earthlink.net
                    Saturday, July 14, 2001 Dear Frank: From the general tenor of this and several other E-mail notes of this date, there appears to be a great misunderstanding.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 14, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Saturday, July 14, 2001


                      Dear Frank:


                      From the general tenor of this and several other E-mail notes of
                      this date, there appears to be a great misunderstanding.

                      We are being involved in opinions, and as they differ, we may be
                      wasting our time.

                      THEOSOPHY (as I see it) is for study, verification and individual
                      application. We may debate its principles so that a better
                      understanding of those arises.

                      But some of the rather extreme forms of expression, I believe,
                      are not conducive to any great improvement of understanding on
                      matters we both have a deep respect for, namely THEOSOPHY.

                      Arguments and discussions about individuals and the part they
                      currently play or used to play in the past of the Theosophical
                      Movement are visible today in DOCUMENTS. If relevant, let us
                      bring them forward as evidence. Opinions have no force
                      otherwise.

                      In effect those (opinions) are time wasters. And they detract
                      (as I strongly feel) from the time we can constructively spend on
                      the study, promulgation and application of the PRINCIPLES OF
                      THEOSOPHY.

                      My guess is that most of those who participate in these exchanges
                      are interested in the PHILOSOPHY and its applications. This
                      time, and the effort we have spent, does not (I believe) add
                      anything to THEOSOPHY .
                      This illustrates the reason why THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
                      exists: As its DECLARATION states (1st paragraph) it does not
                      concern itself with "dissentions or differences of individual
                      opinion."

                      My answers are placed here on my own responsibility and
                      personally. I do not and cannot "speak" for the U.L.T. but I
                      can speak of what I have experienced, respect, and know.

                      If you have any FACTS, then present them please. I see no
                      reason to continue this particular exchange, unless some are
                      advanced.

                      Best wishes to you, as always, and many thanks for all your
                      constructive suggestions.


                      Dallas

                      ================================



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Frank Reitemeyer [mailto:ringding@...]
                      Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:45 AM
                      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

                      Frank
                      >I would however observe that "anonymity" is not a crime, and in
                      >this case was deliberately adopted by the U.L.T. as a basis for
                      >impersonalizing all its work and directing attention to the main
                      >CAUSE for its existence; THE PRESERVATION AND THE PROMULGATION
                      >OF THE original teachings of THEOSOPHY.

                      Dallas, curiously enough, what you describe here as the reasons
                      why Robert
                      Crosbie left the Headquarters by free will (according to ULT
                      history) is on
                      the contrary exactly the same reason why Robert Crosbie was
                      ejected
                      ((according to Point Loma history).

                      =================================


                      DTB Kindly quote any published reference to this.


                      =================================

                      Frank
                      I may also add that I have personally reviewed and checked almost
                      all of the references used in the 2 books mentioned [ THE
                      THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- 1875 - 1950 ] and have been able to
                      trace their sources or have seen, read or have actual copies of
                      the relevant items.

                      The problem with that book is not with that what is in, but with
                      that what was left out. Some say the kind how facts are selected
                      give the reader a misleading imagination about what happened.
                      This books gives me impression that self-righteousness is better
                      than self-criticism. In the worst case one could say a fanatical
                      sect under self hypnotization is
                      faking the facts to make themselves always looking good. I have
                      seen this sheme in all the splinter groups (Hartmann, Temple, I
                      Am, Anthroposophists).

                      =============================


                      DTB I would be glad to receive references that can be
                      verified. Pasadena is not far from me and I can go there anytime
                      and ask about the things you have to offer for reference.


                      ==============================

                      Frank:
                      All they claims to be the better ones. Perhaps that's a needing
                      paradigma for them to survive.

                      The same experiments I have made with Communists. They are always
                      eager to quote from Karl Marx, no matter what facts you present
                      from the real world, they have always a quote from Marx that it
                      is not so.

                      Frank
                    • Daniel H. Caldwell
                      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? . .
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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."

                        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
                        Whose Authority?"

                        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
                        the DES?

                        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
                        to non-members.

                        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
                        of secrecy?

                        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
                        Judge?

                        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?

                        Quoted from:
                        http://members.tripod.com/davidgreen_2/despart2.htm

                        -----------------------------------------------

                        Daniel H. Caldwell
                        BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSY ARCHIVES
                        http://blavatskyarchives.com
                      • Steve Stubbs
                        ... one ... Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there any word on when the book will be published?
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 10, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
                          <inquire@b...> wrote:
                          > 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."

                          Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there
                          any word on when the book will be published?
                        • Daniel H. Caldwell
                          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? . .
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 5, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1870
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1901
                            http://www.geocities.com/danielhcaldwell/des5.jpg

                            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
                            Whose Authority?"

                            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
                            the DES?

                            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
                            to non-members.

                            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
                            of secrecy?

                            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
                            Judge?

                            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?

                            Quoted from:
                            http://members.tripod.com/davidgreen_2/despart2.htm

                            -----------------------------------------------

                            Daniel H. Caldwell
                            BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSY ARCHIVES
                            http://hpb.cc
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.