Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00102)

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."

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://blavatskyarchives.com