Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00600)

Carlos writes:

=================================================
ULT accuses A. Besant of PUBLLISHING to the wide public the esoteric 
teachings. This fact is undeniable.
=================================================

Yes this fact is undeniable.

And then Carlos writes:

===================================================
Now, Daniel & David accuse the ULT of circulating PRIVATELY the 
esoteric teachings of HPB.
====================================================

This is not just an accusation but as Carlos might write:

"This fact is undeniable."

That is, the ULT or let us be more precise the DES has circulated
PRIVATELY to NEW students over many decades the esoteric teachings 
of HPB in a new edition that in fact contains many changes, etc. 
from HPB's originals.

But the question remains:

WHO gave permission or authorization to ULT or DES or to particular 
DES officials over many decades to circulate to new people HPB's 
esoteric writings???

And consider this:

Mr. Crosbie died in 1919.  So in the last 87 years on whose 
authority was the esoteric instructions of HPB given to new people?

During the lifetimes of Blavatsky and Judge, they gave out these 
esoteric instructions, etc. based on their claim that the Masters 
authorized them to conduct the esoteric school, allow new students 
to be admitted to the school, and permitted them to give these 
instructions.  But after Mr. Judge's death and after Mr. Crosbie's 
death, who were the persons who believed they had authorization to 
circulate these esoteric writings to NEW people?? 

And authorization from???????????

Carlos please note what Dr. H.N. Stokes, who was a severe critic of 
the teachings and policies of Besant and Leadbeater, wrote on this 
very issue in his O.E. Library Critic Magazine:

"....why did the magazine 'Theosophy' in its series of articles 
later published as 'The Theosophical Movement' [that is, published 
1925 as a book] quote from documents [written by H.P.B. and] marked 
private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy? 

Are we to suppose that . . . the editors of 'Theosophy' Magazine, 
are above all rules applying to lesser mortals? 
  
"No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

"If .... [HPB's esoteric documents] are [still] private documents 
today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit 
from the Mahatmas is more entitled to [quote from them or] read them 
than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does 
himself when it suits his purpose...."

Notice here in this instance the editors of Theosophy magazine 
circulated quotations from HPB's esoteric documents to the "wide 
public," not just in "private"!  And on whose authority did the 
editors of this public magazine decide to quote private and 
confidential esoteric writings of HPB?

See also another example of this quoting to the WIDE PUBLIC (as 
Carlos phrases it):

http://blavatskyarchives.com/sauceforthegoose.htm

And what Mrs. Besant or Mr. Crosbie did or did not do later, and 
whatever the consequences of their actions or whatever negative or 
positive contributions were made by Adyar TS or ULT, this does not 
necessarily justify circulating the esoteric instructions or help us 
to decide why this was done by either Mr. Crosbie or Mrs. Besant. 

And as to the rest of your posting, far as I can tell, you are 
confusing issues that may not necessarily be related the way you 
might want to relate them. 

But each reader can decide what is what. 

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
> 
> This (below)  is an interesting question posed by Mr. David Green 
under the name of Daniel Caldwell --  or perhaps by Daniel Caldwell 
himself under his own name -- who knows? 
> 
> My answer is that -- trees should be judged  by their fruits. 
Let's see, then. 
> 
> ONE.
> 
> ULT accuses A. Besant of PUBLLISHING to the wide public the 
esoteric teachings. This fact is undeniable.  
> What are are the fruits of Besant's action? All those crazy 
fancies and immoralities commited by C. W. Leadbeater, which 
provoked his expulsion from the very Adyar TS by H. Olcott; Annie 
Besant and Leadbeater's several fake initiations, the second coming 
of  a Fake Christ, etc., and so on. 
> 
> 
> TWO.
> 
> Now, Daniel & David accuse the ULT of circulating PRIVATELY the 
esoteric teachings of HPB.  
> 
> And -- what are the fruits of  ULT's action in general, since its 
creation in 1909? No crazy fancies; important preservation of the 
authentic teachings; common sense without too much noise; a growing 
worldwide network of students. 
> 
> By the fruits we can see where the occult link was kept unbroken, 
and where wild fancies destroyed common sense and inner commitments.
> 
> Wild fancies that ultimately produce actions like those of Daniel 
Caldwell/ David Green, and/or  those actions of John Algeo as 
described right here a couple of days ago by our Theos-talk member  
Dr. Gregory Tillett.
> 
> The ULT, as the ETS, as, in great part,  the Pasadena TS and in 
some degree even members of the Adyar TS (like Geoffrey Farthing or 
Ianthe Hoskins) and  many independent students -- have kept an 
innerly unbroken link.  Whether they belong  to an Esoteric School 
is another issue. 
> 
> And I should mention here a most  important and  successful  
effort, the Wizards Bookshelf, made by the great independent 
theosophist and editor Richard Robb.  See especially his "Secret 
Doctrine Reference List". 
> 
> Take a look at www.wizardsbookshelf.com
> 
> 
> Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:24:03 -0000
> 
> Assunto:Theos-World Do we see a double standard here at work?
> 
> > Mr. John Garrigues et al (editors of Theosophy Magazine and 
leading 
> > associates of the ULT) in The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925, 
pages 
> > 571-572 wrote the following about Mrs. Annie Besant:
> > 
> > "In Mrs. Besant's 'Third Volume' [of The Secret Doctrine, 1897] 
are 
> > incorporated the private papers originally issued by H.P.B. to 
the 
> > E.S., and in reprinting these Mrs. Besant . . . broke the 
seventh 
> > clause of her solemn pledge as a member of the Esoteric 
School...."
> > 
> > Using the same "reasoning" as Carlos, should we characterize
> > the above statement as an "attack" against Mrs. Besant, as an
> > attack against the Adyar T.S.?
> > 
> > Does Carlos condone what the Theosophy Company writers have done 
in 
> > the above statement?
> > 
> > Is it ok to question (or [to use Carlos' word] "attack") Annie 
> > Besant but it is not okay to simply ask SIMILAR relevant 
questions 
> > about Mr. Crosbie? 
> > 
> > Do we see a double standard here at work?
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com
> > http://theosophy.info