Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00318)

Daniel:

I think from other times when this item came up for discussion, there were
different answers offered. What was Crosbie's attitude at one time? Did it
change? What does this mean?

One viewpoint is that he was a follower of Katherine Tingley that found over
time that he could not get along with her. He could not adjust to the strict
routine of the Point Loma community, and eventually left, founding a group
that exposed a different approach to Theosophy. He rebelled against her
style and approach and started an organization to take things in the
opposite direction. This was much as Krishnamurti rebelled against the World
Teacher idea and the structured theosophical beliefs that C.W. Leadbeater
raised him with, quitting to form an follower-less organization and
movement.

Another viewpoint, more in accord with the position typically expressed at
the ULT, the organization he founded, was that he went through a period of
losing touch with his destiny in life. During that misguided period, he was
a supporter of Tingley. Latter, he came to his wits and saw through what she
was doing, and founded a proper theosophical group, correcting her mistakes.

Each theosophical group has its version of history that attempts to explain
its past in a positive light and to give it a meaningful role in the world
today. This is much as each person we meet thinks well of the religion that
he or she belongs to as clean-cut and with a noble past. This makes it
easier to live with the religion and not have too many things in life fall
apart at once, which would happen if someone's beliefs were torn apart by
too much negative information on its past.

I could take five different theosophical friends. I could ask them: What is
Theosophy? What are the Masters? How are we Theosophists? What should we do
with it? What purpose do existing theosophical organizations serve in this?
Each of them would give me a different answer, and it's not important that I
make a strong effort to win all five over to the same view of things. When
they sort out what's going on amidst all the different ideas and events,
they're not just trying to find out some objective reality about what's
going on. They're actually working on their own process of developing
discriminative awareness. They're training themselves in symbolic thought.
They're learning to exercise their intuition and directly leap to insights
without having to be spoon fed some predigested, simplified beliefs.

I think that an important thing for Theosophists getting together from
different backgrounds is to accept each other without letting any of the
bitterness or intolerance of the past poison present friendly relations.
Whatever Besant, Olcott, and Judge did do each other, for instance, has no
bearing on how Adyar, Point Loma, and ULT Theosophists need feel towards
each other today. 

-- Eldon

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H. Caldwell [mailto:danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:43 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World A Question about Robert Crosbie

In 1901 as well as 1902, Robert Crosbie said:

". . . Katherine Tingley . . . was appointed by William Q. Judge as 
his successor." [1901]

". . . We feel that he [Judge] knows of the self-sacrificing efforts 
made by the faithful ones, and that those efforts have been called 
forth by his chosen successor [Mrs. Tingley], of whom he said, 'she 
is true as steel, as clear as diamond, and as lasting as time.' " 
[1902]

C.F. Willard in the 1930s wrote:

"I know now that Judge never designated Katherine Tingley as his 
successor, although Robert Crosbie assured me that he [Judge] had and 
[Crosbie] also told me he had seen Judge's occult diary in which it 
was so stated. I know now from the custodian of that diary and who 
now has it, that he [Judge] designated some one by the symbol of the 
three-barred cross as his successor and she [Tingley] claimed that 
[sign] meant her."  

"Later Crosbie came to me after he had left Point Loma [1904] and 
said that she never had been appointed by Judge. I recalled to him 
that he had said after Judge's death when he returned to Boston that 
he had and he denied it, and I told him either he was lying then or 
had been lying in Boston." 

We know that after he left Mrs. Tingley's organization in 1904 that 
Crosbie changed his mind and denied that WQJ had appointed KT.

But my question is:  

Did Crosbie ever deny that he had ever said what he did in the above 
statements from 1901 and 1902? Or did he simply say he once believed 
those statements but later came to the conclusion that they were not 
true?

Daniel






 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/