Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00072)

Peter Merriott---

Your post is 5 pages printed & an adequate reply would require 15 pages.  
I have neither inclination nor time to write that reply.  But I'll 
briefly answer some of your points.  

You appear to question my motivations, my motives.  To be blunt and 
honest, I could care less what you believe my motives are.  Paint me a 
"vile dugpa" hell bent on detroying theosophy & the theosophical 
movement.  Nothing I could write would convince those who desire to 
assign me a negative motivation.  I consider myself a seeker of truth 
interested in getting at the facts.   Take it or leave it. 

You ask----"are you seeking to validate or denigrate Theosophy and its 
leaders?"  I've studied theosophical teachings for several years.  I'm 
very interested in the teachings, but wondering if some of them can be 
validated.  Theosophy makes some big claims & I'm dubious of some of 
them.  But I'm open to new insights & willing to set aside doubts in 
order to learn.  I don't seek to denigrate theosophical leaders but  
reserve the right to question claims & statements by these leaders, 
especially when there are competing & conflicting claims by various 
leaders.  

I'm fascinated especially by Mrs Blavatsky's & W Judge's claims & lives.  
But I'm genuinely confused by conflicting accounts of their lives.  I 
selected W Q Judge for my proposed dissertation for a number of reasons.  
I had wanted to do one on Mrs Blavatsky but in view of the many works on 
her, decided to focus on Mr Judge.  With few works devoted to his life 
or the controversies surrounding him, I decided this would be the ideal 
study.  I plan to focus on the controversies surrounding his life:   the 
"Judge Case" & his relation with Mrs Tingley.  Because of the documents 
I have in my possession, I also hope to write a section on the claims of 
Robert Crosbie & ULT in relation to Mr Judge.  Initially I assumed I 
could do the research in about a year but greater familiarity with the 
material tells me it will be a project of several years.  I've decided 
to write articles on various aspects of these subjects, post them on the 
WWW, & consider writing a book in conjunction with the proposed 
dissertation.  With my family & financial situation, the project may 
take 5 years to complete.

Regarding the 6 items marked as such, I post material to this public 
forum which may or may not be related to my project.  The Bharati 
article & the Gilbert essay I discovered on the WWW & thought other 
students would find of interest.  Some of the points in these 2 articles 
may or may not be true.  I don't know.  I'm open to a different view & 
will keep an open mind.  The material I posted on Judge & Tingley is 
very relevant to my study.  I've posted the material here since (as far 
as I know) this material is not easily accesible & is not found in books 
on the subject.  The "quotes casting doubt on the integrity and 
character of both Judge and Tingley" were from ULT's history.  I 
personally believe that the ULT writers have defamed & denigrated Mrs 
Tingley.  Mr Pryse's "mockery" as you call it may or may not be 
justified.  But if what he reports is true, then what is one to 
conclude?  I hope to go over this matter in my study.

I'm sorry if I don't pass your litmus test.  Also being a subscriber to 
this public forum doesn't mean one needs be a true believer in 
Theosophy, right?  The material I posted here has been helpful to a 
number of subscribers as they've emailed me & told me.  I have also been 
able through this forum to establish contact with a number of persons 
who have shared relevant materials with me or have suggested various 
contacts.  I appreciate their help & they did not require that  I be 
subjected to a FBI check.  

I hope this satisfies some of your questions.  I don't intend to pursue 
this in any more detail because it is totally irrelevant to my study.  I 
don't need your approval or the approval of MKR.  I have no idea what 
your background is or what MKR's background is.  And really don't care 
to know.

Regarding my supposed mockery of Tony, reread what I wrote to him twice.  
I was mocking his supposed superior insight & spiritual standing.  I 
asked him to get off his high horse & join us common mortals.  

Regarding my alleged "interrogation" of Mr Dallas TenBroeck, he has been 
quite agressive on this public forum with persons who have dared to 
question Mrs Blavatsky's & Mr Judge's claims.  He has demanded evidence.  
I'm not criticizing his point of view but he has had no qualms to 
criticize the views, for example, of Mr Paul Johnson & Mr Richard 
Taylor.  He's made several quite loud protests on theostalk.  Mr 
TenBroeck has also made denigrating statements about C W Leadbeater & 
Annie Besant.  All that is okay with me.  Mr TenBroeck has taken every 
opportunity to advertise the ULT & the ULT history of the Theosophical 
Movement.  Therefore, that subject is fair game for investigation.  Why 
shouldn't one be able to examine & question the claims surrounding Mr 
Robert Crosbie and the possibility that the ULT has their own esoteric 
group even while defaming the esoteric groups of other Theosophical 
organizations? Several of my email correspondents suggested I contact Mr 
TenBroeck on these subjects.  Instead of contacting him privately, I 
decided to post the questions publicly for all to read.  If Mr TenBroeck 
refrains from answering my post, that's his decision. 
 
So once again you have it.  I'm going back to finish my next brief 
article on the ULT & will post it shortly here.

David Green


>From: "Peter Merriott" <caduceus@dial.pipex.com>
>Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
>To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
>Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: TO---Dallas TenBroeck SUBJECT---ULT'S 
ESOTERIC GROUP
>Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:24:50 -0000
>
>Dear David,
>
>Anything that we do not know directly for ourselves is second hand. And 
even
>what we do 'know' is open to interpretation and is only ever one side 
of the
>matter.  In Occult matters this is even more the case.  Our motives, 
self
>interest and alliegences with others greatly influence what we 'see' 
and how
>we recall events.  When it comes to issues of leadership, 'special 
status'
>and power and in organisations  these factors are even more important 
to
>bear in mind.  That something is written in a book or a letter in no 
way
>alters this and in no way bestows any special authority on that 
person's
>words than if they told it to us over a lunchtime coffee.
>
>Surely political events over the last few years alone have taught us 
that
>things are never as they seem, and that reported statements, involving
>numbers of people, sometimes even 'on oath', may turn out to be totally
>false at a later date.  We have also seen that the so called 'seekers 
after
>truth', who profess the unselfish desire *only to get at the facts*, 
can
>just as often turn out to have a personal agenda of their own - to pull 
down
>the other person / group.  Ruining others through exposing their 
weakness
>seems to be a common currency in the modern age.
>
>You ask where are the rumours and slurs on other peoples characters in 
your
>posts.  To this I have already replied in a previous post which I 
include
>below in case you missed it.  I do not have a sense of indignation over
>anything you have written. But, as a theosophist, I do have a concern 
about
>where it is all leading.  For, as said, the major theme of your posts 
(see
>my earlier response below) revolves around casting doubt on the 
integrity of
>Theosophy and its leaders.  Only a few of these posts are from the book 
you
>mention, by the way.
>
>You wish to be taken as a serious researcher into theosophical matters 
yet
>your series of posts to Tony,  which contained nothing but mockery and
>taunting of another theosophist for his views, do you no credit at all 
in
>this respect (see "Mahatmas" - 25 Jan 99:"Koothoomi unveiled" x 3 - 3 
Feb
>99).
>
>You ask members of this group to give you detailed information - about
>themselves, other theosophists (past & present) and their organisation, 
in
>order to confirm reports, rumours that you receive from your many 
un-named
>sources.  Yet while your research dissertation is to explore the 
motives,
>actions and integrity of others you are far less forthcoming in giving 
out
>any information about yourself.  Indeed, when asked for information, 
your
>response (to my post 24th Feb) was to express indignation that your own
>motives where being questioned.  Even though I replied, you still did 
not
>answer any of the questions put to you, just as you did not you reply 
to
>MKR's question about your research back in January.
>
>In my profession, I regularly receive requests for help or information 
from
>students and other professionals who are carrying out research.  In 
every
>case they offer, *without asking*, information about themselves, their
>background, their research aims, their interest in the topic, the
>Institution for which the research is being carried out, the level of 
the
>research project (eg Masters, PhD) and so on.  Along with this there is
>usually a statement about confidentiality.  There is nothing 
exceptional
>about any of this.  It is simply in line with the professional and 
ethical
>codes for carrying out research.  It only becomes exceptional when 
people
>are digging into the personal lives of others but are reluctant to give 
any
>information about themselves and how they intend to *use* that 
information.
>
>Even when asked, what have you told us of yourself and your research
>dissertation apart from that it is about W Q Judge?  To the questions 
put to
>you from the above paragraph you have still offered no reply. I also 
asked
>"are you seeking to validate or denigrate theosophy and its leaders?"
>Again, no reply.  In my earlier post I wrote:
>
>> So I am naturally wondering how you see the Teachings of Theosophy, 
its
>students, Madame Blavatsky, Judge & so on, and how this will inform 
your
>research.  Of course, you are entitled to whatver views you hold, and 
yes,
>we do need to explore the facts (so called), and yes again, there is no
>religion higher than truth.   It's the regular theme of aspersion and
>mockery based on second hand reports that weave in and out of your 
posts
>that I am queerying.  Are there any examples of noble qualities, 
accounts of
>honesty and integrity, validations of Theosophy, of HPB, Judge and 
others
>that you are seeking to substantiate through your research?<
>
>Given that this *is* a Theosophical Group and you are researching
>theosophical matters the above are very relevant questions to ask.  But
>still, you offer no reply to the specific questions therein.
>
>You write:
>
>> If you or Mr Richard Taylor or Mr Dallas TenBroeck are really
>> interested in facts, historical truth-----why haven't one of
>> you set record straight?  No, you question my motivations
>> & Mr. Taylor & Mr TenBroeck remain silent.  & this silence
>> is from Mr Taylor who prides himself in being scholar
>> ready to ferret out facts however uncomfortable truth may
>> turn out to be.
>
>David, what is so special about your motivations that you feel we 
mustn't
>ask you what is behind your research?  I am not an associate of ULT, 
nor am
>I 'follower' of Judge, Crosbie, Tingley and others.  In fact I have no
>information about historical matters that is worthy to give or to 
withold in
>a group like this.   Members of this group only know you through the 
posts
>you have made to it.   So, even if they have it to give, why should 
people
>give you information when, as yet, they don't know whether you intend 
to do
>a servive or a dis-service to the cause of Theosophy - of which many of 
the
>people in this group are dedicated students.
>
>But let's leave other people out of it for the moment and focus only on 
our
>posts to each other.  Given the number of unanswered questions I have 
put to
>you,  the only person who appears to be reluctant to give out some 
facts and
>set the record straight is yourself.
>
>As for me, I am a very imperfect student of HPB and the Masters.  Any 
thing
>that you wish to know of my understanding of the Teachings (as opposed 
to
>personalities) I would be happy to pass on.  In my 30+ years of 
studying
>their work I have found there is a fount of knowledge therein which 
speaks
>to my soul of the highest truths and points to a spiritual path along 
which
>I struggle at the rear and try to make some little progress.  My own 
small
>endeavours have left me with a sense of profound respect and loyalty to
>those that have gone before me and whom have made it possible for 
myself and
>others to have that opportunity to "TRY".
>
>I also recognise that many of those ahead of me are not perfect, 
sometimes
>they fail (seemingly) in their attempts to clear the way for others.   
But I
>also remember what a dear friend and fellow traveller pointed out to me 
many
>years ago:
>
>"Great individuals make great mistakes."
>
>And I have since come to appreciate that exceptional people on the
>'spiritual path' often have exceptional burdens to carry and trials to 
face.
>
>If you research project is to shed some more light on the noble efforts 
of
>such individuals and the Path they tread then I for one would be 
willing to
>support you where I can.  So please say more.
>
>Best wishes,  PETER
>
>
>*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
>
>Copy of my post to you Dated 25th February 1999
>
>Peter wrote:
>
>I'm making an observation, not an accusation, along with a desire to 
know
>more about your views and how you are going to use your research.   I
>appreciate that in your posts you are passing on the views of others 
which
>may not be your own.  It's just that the theme that binds them all 
together
>is one of casting aspersion on, if not mocking, the character of 
others.
>
>The posts I have in mind are:
>
>1.  Your series of posts on the themes of Judge Communicates with dead
>Blavatsky and Kingsley Channels dead Judge and culminating in quotes 
casting
>doubt on the integrity and character of both Judge and Kingsly.  For
>example,  Judge is a deluded leader, a guileless psychic:  Mrs Tingley 
at
>best self deluded, at worst a charlaton.
>
>2.  The post on 'Judge is Rajah' followed up by Pryse's mockery of 
Judge as
>being ridiculous.
>
>3.  The R.A. Gilbert post asserting that devestating attacks on the 
Mahatma
>Letters and the objectivity of Lillie and his attacks on the Mahatma 
Letters
>have yet to be responded to.
>
>4.  The Post on Fictitious Tibet & Madame Blavatsky, a "pique" of 
mockery on
>Theosophy and its founders, wherein it accused:
>- Madame Blavatsky of being a phoney and self deluded fraud
>- The Secret Doctrine as being "horrendous hogwash"
>- The Esoteric Schools and Brotherhood as being a pure fiction
>- The Masters of being a silly fiction of HPB's imagination
>.. and casted Madame Blavatsky in the same light as the "aggressive
>homsosexual" Leadbeater and Lobsang Rampa.
>
>(Actually it was interesting that the writer of that article stated 
Henry
>Olcott to be genuine and HPB to be a fraud, especially as both 
professed to
>have the same Master and follow the same esoteric tradition.  Olcott 
also
>testified to meeting both the Master M & Master KH in the flesh, as did
>Damador, Brown (who met KH) and others.  Either this didn't seem worth
>mentioning as it didn't support the author's views or our 
anthropological
>author didn't research very deeply into the  subject matter he 
professed to
>know so much about.)
>
>5.   With your latest posts:
>
>> Does anyone know who these 7 trustees are?
>> They are not elected by ULT associates.
>> This board is the power behind the ULT,
>> Los Angeles & is accountable to no one
>> especially to the rank & file ULT associates,
>> a former ULTite tells me.
>
>To ask who runs ULT and how they are elected is a simple question 
deserving
>of a straight forward answer. But the way you put it came across to me 
as
>more on the same theme - another round of reported rumour, allegation 
and
>aspersion.
>
>I imagine it may have come across to Rich in the same way.  Hence his 
last
>words to you in his reply:
>
>> This will get you farther than allegations posted to a public forum.<
>
>6.  All your posts above are qoutes from 'sources' with virtually no 
views
>of your own attached.  In order to discover something about the latter 
I
>glanced back to see what other posts you had made over the last few 
months.
>The only ones I could find were your dialogues with Tony (re: Koothoomi
>Unveiled) which contained yet another round of mocking a theosphist for 
his
>views.
>
>So I am naturally wondering how you see the Teachings of Theosophy, its
>students, Madame Blavatsky, Judge & so on, and how this will inform 
your
>research.  Of course, you are entitled to whatver views you hold, and 
yes,
>we do need to explore the facts (so called), and yes again, there is no
>religion higher than truth.   It's the regular theme of aspersion and
>mockery based on second hand reports that weave in and out of your 
posts
>that I am queerying.  Are there any examples of noble qualities, 
accounts of
>honesty and integrity, validations of Theosophy, of HPB, Judge and 
others
>that you are seeking to substantiate through your research?
>
>Regards
>
>Peter

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.