Theos-World Dzyan Esoteric School---Esoteric Instructions Issued on Whose Authority?
Mar 31, 1999 07:24 AM
by David Green
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
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
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
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application