Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00361)

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? 

David Green 


______________________________________________________
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.