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

Blavatsky's Esoteric Instructions Issued by the DES on Whose Authority?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.