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

Re: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jul 11, 2001
      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 2 of 12 , Jul 11, 2001
        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 3 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
          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 4 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
            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 5 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
              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 6 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
                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 7 of 12 , Jul 13, 2001
                  >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 8 of 12 , Jul 14, 2001
                    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 9 of 12 , May 10 1:08 PM
                      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 10 of 12 , May 10 3:46 PM
                        --- 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 11 of 12 , May 5 10:47 AM
                          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.