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

RE: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 of 12 , May 10, 2003
                    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 9 of 12 , May 10, 2003
                      --- 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 10 of 12 , May 5, 2005
                        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.