Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00608)

Hallo all,

My views are:

I have stated my views before.
I will try to do it again, so we all can see Crosbie's fruitgarden with 
contrast.
The truth is, that Blavatsky and the Masters only prepared the ground for 
further development of the living progress of the Path of Wisdom.

Here is the email to Theos-talk.
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200211/tt00432.html

An excerpt which tells very well, what at least in part happened when
the Masters agent H. P. Blavatsky died:

"After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the 
followers
will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their strength and
weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good or bad, and
this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher - when he/she
arrives.
If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been
developing themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied,
they will be too blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher,
for which appearance they have been prepared. They may attach themselves, in
default, to a different group. (And this groups existence is maybe no
coincidence.) Again well and good : providing they return to the mainstream
of teaching when it is offered to them again. This is the test of whether
they have overcome the lower self. They will realise, if they are
sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be 'second' teacher
is in reality - the first in importance.

Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she will
behave in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life easier,
in most cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them
things, which are only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality
falls into place. The object of this is twofold. In the first place, certain
valuable thoughts have been given to the disciples. In the second, they are
tested by the means of these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give
odd-shaped pieces of wood to people, to see how they put them together,
teachers of Wisdom will give odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to
his/her followers. - If they try to fit these together however, and to make
a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they are becoming 'fossilised'. Because,
the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not to
construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece by
piece.

Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their
'waiting-period', will try to work out their own interpretation. They may,
as have been done in the past, write books to explain what they have
learned. This is the danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted as,
say, a philosopher (of wisdom) because she/he has written a book explaining
a philosophy, he/she will not readily accept, that she/he only have been
'fumbling'. He/She has quite possibly become a prisoner of his/hers lower
self. The self-conceit of the man/woman is now bound up with his/hers
'creation', the book or the method, which he/she has used to organise the
fragments, which he/she has. He/she is probably or possibly lost - for the
cause.
In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations,
the - second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a certain
dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen, to
break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which were
originally given.
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to
support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in
which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of
ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about."

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: Theos-World Attack or Criticism of Robert Crosbie & "There is no 
religion higher than Truth.


Actually I think quite highly of
Mr. Crosbie.  I am thankful that
Mr. Crosbie founded both the ULT
and THEOSOPHY magazine.  That is
why I recommended that Kessinger
reprint the early volumes of THEOSOPHY
magazine.

I even bought a used copy of the
original Volume I of THEOSOPHY
magazine and sent it to Kessinger
and said here it is please reprint it.

See:

Theosophy Magazine:  Reprints of Volumes I-IV
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophymag.htm

I'm sure Carlos will view this as some kind
of an "attack"!!  :)

Or consider my "attack" here on the Theosophy Co.:

Recommended Blavatsky Books from the Theosophy Company
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosohyco.htm

But it is true I can be critical of some of the
publications of the Theosophy Company.  For example:

Reprint of A Modern Panarion by the Theosophy Company
http://blavatskyarchives.com/modernpanarion.htm

But having said all of the above, is Carlos suggesting
that the independent student, the independent researcher
should just accept at face value any and all statements
made by Mr. Crosbie or about Mr. Crosbie?

Take this statement made in the pages of Theosophy magazine
after Crosbie died:

"Robert Crosbie preserved unbroken the link of the Second [Esoteric]
Section of the Theosophical Movement from the passing of Mr. Judge
in 1896, and in 1907 - just eleven years later - made that link once
more Four Square amongst men. In the year 1909 the Third Section was
restored by the formation of the United Lodge of
Theosophists....There is always one Witness on the scene. After the
death of Mr Judge, Robert Crosbie kept the link unbroken."
Theosophy magazine, August, 1919.

Now is this a factual statement?  Should we just beleive it
because it is in THEOSOPHY magazine?

Did Mr. Crosbie really keep the link unbroken?  And how do the
writers know that?

Dr. Stokes who was a frank commentator on Theosophicl history had
some interesting comments on this statement.  I will try to find
them and post them later.

But exactly what was Mr. Crosbie doing between 1896 when Judge died
and for most of the years up to 1907.  Well, readers might want to
know that Mr. Crosbie was basically defending and promoting Mrs.
Tingley and her claims to be the unbroken link after Judge died.

Read Mr. Crosbie's own words:

Robert Crosbie on Katherine Tingley
http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokescrosbie.htm

Here is what Mr. Crosbie said as late as 1902:

=====================================================
". . . We who have the privilege of assembling at this place and
taking part in this ceremony of sweet and grateful remembrance---
know that the establishment of this great Center [by Mrs. Tingley at
Point Loma, California] is a realization of what William Q. Judge
lived for, worked for, hoped for, and we cannot but feel deep in our
hearts that he knows and rejoices with us today.

We feel that he 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."

By her work has she [Mrs. Tingley] shown to all men her fitness to
demonstrate the principles laid down by H.P. Blavatsky and W.Q.
Judge, by making them practical in the daily life of mankind.

Her [Mrs. Tingley's] work and our work stand today as an offering of
gratitude and love to that noble soul and loving human heart, whom
we knew as W.Q. Judge."
========================================================

Notice what Mr. Crosbie said above in 1902 about Mrs. Tingley and
Judge:

===================================================
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, [in
his 'occult diary'] "she is true as steel, as clear as diamond, and
as lasting as time."
=======================================================

So did Mr. Crosbie know what he was talking about when he said this
in 1902 or did he know what he was talking about when he totally
reversed himself in a document written only 5 years later:

=====================================================
She tried of course in every way to change my determination, but
finding me unchangeable, she let me go, and as I afterwards heard,
gave out that she had sent me away for "bad conduct" - just what I
do not know.  This of course, to "save her own face" as the Chinese
say. I am quite will aware of her capacities in the above direction
form the history of others who had discovered her real character,
and left; there is no slander too low or mean for her to use in such
cases to justify herself. Sorry as I am to say it, such is the
character of Katherine Tingley, the Leader of the Theosophical
Movement Throughout the World, as she styles herself - (there is
more of it that is simply too nauseating to write.) It was a hard
schooling for me, but it had its good uses and effects. I feel no
enmity towards her; I truly pity her and would help her do right any
time it might be in my power. I also feel most deeply towards those
who are held in mental bondage by her; but nothing can be done -
they must open their own eyes, they mare not in a condition to have
them opened by anyone else.
=====================================================

Some serious students of Blavatsky and Tingley have suggested that
this shows he became a "victim" of pledge-fever.  He took a pledge
to Mrs. Tingley in 1897 which reads:

======================================================
"I . . . recognizing the person called Purple [Mrs. Tingley] as
being the agent of the Master I serve . . . do hereby unreservedly
pledge myself, by my Higher Self, to unquestioning loyalty, devotion
and obedience to her and to her support and defence as such agent,
under any and all circumstances and conditions to the extent of my
available means, utmost exertion, and with my life if need be. . . .

So Help me my Higher Self.

(Signed) Robert Crosbie

Witness my hand, this 22d day of May, Eighteen hundred and Ninety-
seven."
======================================================

Some students say that he "failed" and as a result of that failure,
turned against Mrs. Tingley.

I am not saying I believe this or disbelieve it.

And I am NOT suggesting that Mr. Crosbie was insincere when he
supported Mrs. Tingley or that he was insincere when he rejected her
claims.  He may have believed whatever he said and when he said it
and, of course, persons have the right to change their minds.

But if one can question statements made by Mrs. Besant, Mr.
Leadbeater, Mrs. Tingley, Mrs. Bailey then why not Mr. Crosbie?

They may have all been sincere in their pronouncements but all of
them or some of them may have been equally wrong or deluded.

Remember what the Masters said about various individuals and ask if
these statements might have some applications to later individuals:

------------------------------------

"[Rai Salig Ram is] - a truly good man - yet a devotee of another
error. Not his guru's voice - his own. The voice of a pure,
unselfish, earnest soul, absorbed in misguided, misdirected
mysticism."
------------------------------------

"You have scarcely learned the elements of self-control in
psychism. . . . Your vivid creative fancy [imagination] evokes
illusive Gurus and chelas, and puts into their mouths words coined
the instant before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself.
The false appears as real, as the true, and you have no exact method
of detection, since you are yet prone to force your communications
to agree with your preconceptions...."
-------------------------------

". . . So is Jesus and John the Baptist [clearly visible and
audible] to Edward Maitland; [who is] as true and as honest and
sincere as S.M. . . . And does not E. Maitland see Hermes the first
and second and Elijah, etc."

"Finally does not Mrs. [Anna] Kingsford feel as sure as S.M. with
regard to ... [Imperator] that she saw and conversed with
God!! . . . And who purer or more truthful than that woman or
Maitland!"

"Mystery, mystery will you exclaim. IGNORANCE we answer; the
creation of that we believe in and want to see. . . . "
----------------------------------------------------

Whether these statements might also be applied to some of the later
individuals, such as Mrs. Besant or Mr. Leadbeater or Mrs. Tingley
or Mr. Crosbie, I would suggest that the thoughtful independent
student who wants to think thru the issues for himself (herself) and
not just naively accept what any theosophical group might promote,
would carefully consider all of this.  Whether he can come to any
certain decision or not is left for each student to decide.

And if the ULT in its archives has relevant documents that will
throw additional light on this subject, then I encourage the ULT to
release those documents for independent researchers.  And I applaud
Carlos your call for the Adyar TS to release documents that would
throw additional light on the Judge case.  Other archives should be
encouraged to follow suit by allowing researchers and students to
have access to relevant documents on Judge, Tingley and Crosbie.

No present day student who believes in the motto:  "There is no
religion higher than Truth" could possibly object or fear the
release of all relevant documents which will allow seekers of truth
to understand better what all of these historical events were and
what was true or not true.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc



















Yahoo! Groups Links