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

RE: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jul 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Thursday, July 12, 2001

      Dear Dr. Tillett:

      Thanks and noted

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

      Best wishes,
      Dallas

      DTB

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



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

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

      Dr Gregory Tillett



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Frank Reitemeyer
      ... Dallas, curiously enough, what you decribe here as the reasons why Robert Crosbie left the Headquarters by free will (according to ULT history) is on the
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >I would however observe that "anonymity" is not a crime, and in
        >this case was deliberately adopted by the U.L.T. as a basis for
        >impersonalizing all its work and directing attention to the main
        >CAUSE for its existence; THE PRESERVATION AND THE PROMULGATION
        >OF THE original teachings of THEOSOPHY.

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

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

        The problem with that book is not with that what is in, but with that what
        was left out.
        Some say the kind how facts are selected give the reader a misleading
        imagination about what happened.
        This books gives me impression that self-righteousness is better than
        self-criticism.
        In the worst case one could say a fanatical sect under self hypnotization is
        faking the facts to make themselves always looking good. I have seen this
        sheme in all the splinter groups (Hartmann, Temple, I Am,
        Anthroposophists).
        All they claims to be the better ones. Perhaps that's a needing paradigma
        for them to survive.
        The same experiments I have made with Communists. They are always eager to
        quote from Karl Marx, no matter what facts you present from the real world,
        they have always a quote from Marx that it is not so.
        Frank
      • dalval14@earthlink.net
        Saturday, July 14, 2001 Dear Frank: From the general tenor of this and several other E-mail notes of this date, there appears to be a great misunderstanding.
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 14, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Saturday, July 14, 2001


          Dear Frank:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


          Dallas

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



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

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

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

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


          DTB Kindly quote any published reference to this.


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

          Frank
        • Daniel H. Caldwell
          Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote: What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the control and/or management of the ULT? . .
          Message 4 of 12 , May 10 1:08 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:

            "What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
            control and/or management of the ULT? . . .The DES . . . remains one
            of the great secrets of Theosophical history (not unlike the ER of
            the Adyar TS); I hope that its history and teachings will be made
            accessible to students of Theosophical history when I complete the
            history of secret societies in the Theosophical movement on which
            John Cooper and I were collaborating at the time of his passing."

            I hope that in this forthcoming publication Tillett will grapple with
            and try to answer the question that heads this posting.

            This issue is partly addressed in the following essay on the WWW:

            "Dzyan Esoteric School---Blavatsky's Esoteric Instructions Issued on
            Whose Authority?"

            In ULT's Dzyan Esoteric School, esoteric instructions of Madame
            Blavatsky are reissued to members under a pledge of secrecy.
            Blavatsky's instructions were not to be discussed or shown to regular
            ULT associates or to other non-members of the DES. Anyone who
            violated this oath was expelled from DES.

            The essential question to ask is---

            On whose authority were Madame Blavatsky's instructions reissued by
            the DES?

            During Blavatsky's & Judge's lifetimes, these instructions were given
            to new members by the authority of Blavatsky & Judge as Outer Heads
            of the E.S. directly representing the Masters who were the Inner
            Heads. Each member took a pledge not to discuss or show the documents
            to non-members.

            Robert Crosbie was an esoteric member during the lifetimes of
            Blavatsky & Judge. Mr Crosbie had taken the same pledge not to reveal
            any of these esoteric papers.

            After Mr Judge's death & at the formation of the ULT's DES, by whose
            authority were the instructions reissued with a new pledge of
            secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie violate his own original pledge by allowing
            the reissue of Blavatsky's esoteric instructions under a new pledge
            of secrecy?

            It is clear Blavatsky & Judge issued the instructions at the
            direction of the Masters. Who gave Mr Crosbie the authority or right
            to violate his original pledge & reissue the instructions to new
            students under an oath of silence and secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie believe
            that he was following in the esoteric footsteps of Blavatsky and
            Judge?

            In the last month I've received several emails from ULT associates
            suggesting that if I publish the contents of any DES material I'm
            opening myself & those who read the contents to esoteric or occult
            harm. This is the essential reason (I'm told) why the U.L.T. has been
            so adamant against the public release of Blavatsky's ES instructions.
            Those who are not ready & haven't taken the appropriate pledge, etc.
            could be subject to some sort of negative occult influence. So goes
            this type of reasoning.

            A correspondent wrote that Mr Henry Geiger, one of the more
            recent "leaders" of the Los Angeles ULT, was very much against Mr
            Boris de Zirkoff's proposal to publish Blavatsky's esoteric
            instructions in the "Collected Writings" series. When Mr de Zirkoff
            finally published them in Volume XII of the series, the ULT
            leadership was extremely upset. This is part of the underlying
            reasons for the ULT not mentioning in their publications
            the "Collected Writings" or using any of the CW material in their
            study of Blavatsky's teachings, so I'm told.

            This negative reaction by the ULT to Mr de Zirkoff's publication of
            Blavatsky's esoteric material appears ironic (even hypocritical) in
            light of the fact that the ULT leadership issued (through DES) the
            same material to their chosen ULT associates. Who gave them the
            authority to disseminate this esoteric material to new people while
            at the same time condemning Mr de Zirkoff for publishing the material
            for new people?

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

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

            Daniel H. Caldwell
            BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSY ARCHIVES
            http://blavatskyarchives.com
          • Steve Stubbs
            ... one ... Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there any word on when the book will be published?
            Message 5 of 12 , May 10 3:46 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
              <inquire@b...> wrote:
              > Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:
              >
              > "What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
              > control and/or management of the ULT? . . .The DES . . . remains
              one
              > of the great secrets of Theosophical history (not unlike the ER of
              > the Adyar TS); I hope that its history and teachings will be made
              > accessible to students of Theosophical history when I complete the
              > history of secret societies in the Theosophical movement on which
              > John Cooper and I were collaborating at the time of his passing."

              Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there
              any word on when the book will be published?
            • Daniel H. Caldwell
              Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote: What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the control and/or management of the ULT? . .
              Message 6 of 12 , May 5 10:47 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:

                "What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
                control and/or management of the ULT? . . .The DES . . . remains one
                of the great secrets of Theosophical history (not unlike the ER of
                the Adyar TS); I hope that its history and teachings will be made
                accessible to students of Theosophical history when I complete the
                history of secret societies in the Theosophical movement on which
                John Cooper and I were collaborating at the time of his passing."

                See relevant material at:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1870
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1901
                http://www.geocities.com/danielhcaldwell/des5.jpg

                I hope that in this forthcoming publication Tillett will grapple with
                and try to answer the question that heads this posting.

                This issue is partly addressed in the following essay on the WWW:

                "Dzyan Esoteric School---Blavatsky's Esoteric Instructions Issued on
                Whose Authority?"

                In ULT's Dzyan Esoteric School, esoteric instructions of Madame
                Blavatsky are reissued to members under a pledge of secrecy.
                Blavatsky's instructions were not to be discussed or shown to regular
                ULT associates or to other non-members of the DES. Anyone who
                violated this oath was expelled from DES.

                The essential question to ask is---

                On whose authority were Madame Blavatsky's instructions reissued by
                the DES?

                During Blavatsky's & Judge's lifetimes, these instructions were given
                to new members by the authority of Blavatsky & Judge as Outer Heads
                of the E.S. directly representing the Masters who were the Inner
                Heads. Each member took a pledge not to discuss or show the documents
                to non-members.

                Robert Crosbie was an esoteric member during the lifetimes of
                Blavatsky & Judge. Mr Crosbie had taken the same pledge not to reveal
                any of these esoteric papers.

                After Mr Judge's death & at the formation of the ULT's DES, by whose
                authority were the instructions reissued with a new pledge of
                secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie violate his own original pledge by allowing
                the reissue of Blavatsky's esoteric instructions under a new pledge
                of secrecy?

                It is clear Blavatsky & Judge issued the instructions at the
                direction of the Masters. Who gave Mr Crosbie the authority or right
                to violate his original pledge & reissue the instructions to new
                students under an oath of silence and secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie believe
                that he was following in the esoteric footsteps of Blavatsky and
                Judge?

                In the last month I've received several emails from ULT associates
                suggesting that if I publish the contents of any DES material I'm
                opening myself & those who read the contents to esoteric or occult
                harm. This is the essential reason (I'm told) why the U.L.T. has been
                so adamant against the public release of Blavatsky's ES instructions.
                Those who are not ready & haven't taken the appropriate pledge, etc.
                could be subject to some sort of negative occult influence. So goes
                this type of reasoning.

                A correspondent wrote that Mr Henry Geiger, one of the more
                recent "leaders" of the Los Angeles ULT, was very much against Mr
                Boris de Zirkoff's proposal to publish Blavatsky's esoteric
                instructions in the "Collected Writings" series. When Mr de Zirkoff
                finally published them in Volume XII of the series, the ULT
                leadership was extremely upset. This is part of the underlying
                reasons for the ULT not mentioning in their publications
                the "Collected Writings" or using any of the CW material in their
                study of Blavatsky's teachings, so I'm told.

                This negative reaction by the ULT to Mr de Zirkoff's publication of
                Blavatsky's esoteric material appears ironic (even hypocritical) in
                light of the fact that the ULT leadership issued (through DES) the
                same material to their chosen ULT associates.

                Who gave them the authority to disseminate this esoteric material to
                new people while at the same time condemning Mr de Zirkoff for
                publishing the material for new people?

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

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

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