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

Re: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 of 12 , May 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

          The essential question to ask is---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Daniel H. Caldwell
          BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSY ARCHIVES
          http://blavatskyarchives.com
        • Steve Stubbs
          ... one ... Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there any word on when the book will be published?
          Message 4 of 12 , May 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
            <inquire@b...> wrote:
            > Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:
            >
            > "What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the
            > control and/or management of the ULT? . . .The DES . . . remains
            one
            > of the great secrets of Theosophical history (not unlike the ER of
            > the Adyar TS); I hope that its history and teachings will be made
            > accessible to students of Theosophical history when I complete the
            > history of secret societies in the Theosophical movement on which
            > John Cooper and I were collaborating at the time of his passing."

            Now that does sound interesting. When was this posted and is there
            any word on when the book will be published?
          • Daniel H. Caldwell
            Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote: What has been the role of the DES (the ULT ES organization) in the control and/or management of the ULT? . .
            Message 5 of 12 , May 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Gregory Tillett in a Theos-Talk posting wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

              The essential question to ask is---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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