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

RE: Theos-World ULT Mysteries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.