Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00215)

Frank wrote:
"The truth is that a messenger, coming with certain instructions from the
Lodge of the Masters with a certain message to deliver to certain people in
the outer world at a certain time, appoints his/her successor and there is
no other way possible in the operations of the white side. Note for example
that the Outer Head of the that organization with headquarters in Rome is
not appointed but is elected by majority vote. But it is also true that no
messenger ever appoints his/her successor and that is no contradiction. Make
of it what you want but that is the truth."

Dear Frank,

First of all, I want to thank you for your posts. You always say what you
think, even though I often disagree with you. Nevertheless, I look forward
to reading what you have to say, because you make me think. Like Peter, I
am a neophyte at Theosophical history, and will probably always remain so,
yet I feel compelled to offer a few thoughts.

I'm not sure if I understand what you say:
1. A messenger "appoints his/her successor. . ." but then you turn right
around and state:
2. "But it is also true that no messenger ever appoints his/her successor
and that is no contradiction."
Huh? Either a messenger appoints a successor, or s/he does not. Which is
it?

The issue of "succession" has been a difficult one in the Theosophical
world. Few seem to make the distinction between an administrative
successor, where a job or other responsibility is passed on from one person
to another, and "occult succession," which seems to me, by definition, to be
always private and hidden from the world. You are quite right when you say,
until today "neither the exoteric nor the esoteric history of the
Theosophical Movement is written with all details."

If Judge was Blavatsky's "successor," it was not because he himself said
that he was. This seems to be an immensely important example for us.
"Follow not me nor my path, follow the path that I show, the Masters who are
behind," wrote HPB. Judge "succeeded" Blavatsky only because he carried on
the Work along the same lines as hers. My problem with your ideas is when
you say that a Messenger "appoints his/her successor and there is no other
way possible in the operations of the white side."

How do you know this? What makes you think: 1, that someone succeeded
them, and 2, that you know who that successor is or should be? Who
succeeded Plato? Who succeeded the Buddha? Who succeeded Jesus? Who
succeeded Pythagoras? These individuals were (in Judge's words, I think,
but someone may correct me) *sui generis,* that is, "unique." For that
matter, who succeeded Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Charles Dickens or Gandhi?
Why can't a Teacher or other (even relatively perfect) human being be who
they were (no matter how little we really know of them) WITHOUT someone to
"succeed" them? If, in fact, someone does come along later who exhibits
remarkable, spiritual capacities and qualities, they too would be unique and
have to stand on their own merits, not because they had a "successor,"
occult or otherwise.

I do agree with you that anyone wanting to follow any Teacher would do best
by paying close attention to "the life and the instruction of the person,"
and not on written documents found after the death of a predecessor.

Frank also wrote:
"The attention to Crosbie is given because he assumed successorship to Judge
instead KT and became within his own organization in 1909 the Outer Head,
indicating that the link to the Masters was kept unbroken. What he not
explained what then was between 1896-1909, 14 years. Was the link broken
for 14 years? And how was it possible to him to recover it? And why not
earlier?"

Frank, this is your interpretation of Crosbie, and you are welcome to your
views. However, others should know that this is *your opinion,* which may
not be according to the facts. In my view, Crosbie did NOT "assume
successorship" to Judge! If you are going to make such categorical
statements, please cite your references. Where in his (relatively sparse)
opus does Crosbie say this? I think Peter is right, that Crosbie simply
changed his mind about Katherine Tingley, and felt that the less said, the
better. Was he "right" to do so? Apparently, he thought so. Have you
read all of his talks, letters and essays? Until you have, you might
refrain from judging him because he rejected *your* choice for occult
successor.

Was "the link" broken for 14 years? Crosbie is entitled to his opinion, is
he not, even if some of us disagree with it. How was it recovered? One way
was to put students directly in touch with the writings of Blavatsky, sans
the filters of other students. This included the re-publishing of the
Secret Doctrine. An anecdotal story, related by my Father who knew some of
the early students at ULT in Los Angeles (not Crosbie), was that they had to
search the used bookstores around town to find a decent copy of the SD so
they could photograph it for the printer.

Frank wrote further:
"That he [Crosbie] followed the invitation to help in launching the school
in Point Loma shows that he at that has had not any knowledge about his own
status."

Say what? What is your logic here? Crosbie worked at Point Loma, therefore
he had no knowledge of his own *status?* How does your second statement
follow from your first?

That is all the time I have for the moment. It seems to me that IF Judge
(or HPB) had wanted an "occult successor," he would have been doing
something no Teacher had ever done before. And if so, would he not have
done so in terms so clear and unmistakable that everyone would agree on
them? His silence on the subject is as deafening as that of any other
teacher.

As you say, Frank, "everyone must come to his own conclusions."

Best Regards,
Wes