Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00041)

Carl,

"Third section"? Not quite.

I guess you are referring to the "Biographical Notes on Mr. Robert Crosbie", written by Dallas TenBroeck. But it refers to the second section, not to the third. I guess Dallas wrote (and this is his individual opinion) that Crosbie reestablished part of the second section of the movement.

Although this idea may make sense and must be respected as the opinion of an associate to the ULT, this is not a "common belief" to ULT associates, at all, and their freedom is assured. 

Still, let's work with sources, please -- as otherwise sourceless rumours and imagination go uncontrolled. 

Regards, Carlos. 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:17:49 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Re: NO ULT "CLAIMS"

> I know very well what that the Declaration of ULT is saying. I'm not 
> talking about that. But there are material from leading ULT 
> associates, that are claiming that with the establishing of the ULT 
> 1909, the "Third Section" (not the organisation it self, but its 
> true spirit and purpose) was reestablished. See for example: `Robert 
> Crosbie en de "U.LT." tegen de historische achtergrond" by Armand 
> Courtois, published by the Belgian ULT (Geünieerde Loge van 
> Theosofen) in Antwerp, June 25th, 1991.
> 
> Carl
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> > 
> > I think you did not carefully consider the "ULT Declaration", 
> where the ULT expressly gives up any claims as to the "Third 
> Section" -- or any "Theosophical Societies". The ULT Declaration 
> is the main ULT document and statement of purposes. 
> > 
> > You can be an associate of the ULT and belong to any Theosophical 
> Society. 
> > 
> > So, no claims in that area either. 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards, Carlos. 
> > 
> > 
> > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Cópia:
> > 
> > Data:Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:27:42 -0000
> > 
> > Assunto:Theos-World Re: To Carl on "Successors"
> > 
> > > Not successor to HBP, but successor of Judge as head of 
> the "Third 
> > > Section" (the exoteric society). What or if he was claimed to be 
> an 
> > > agent of the Masters, I do not know. Same are saying that, as 
> you 
> > > very well know, and even ULT-associates are doing this (se the 
> > > introduction of the Yahoo group "Theosophia"). And others are 
> > > denying this. I think, as other has said here. We will not know 
> the 
> > > truth before the Theosophy Company in Los Angeles opens its 
> > > archives. Even leading members of other ULT-lodges (then Los 
> > > Angeles), has problems with access to this archive. I am not, in 
> any 
> > > way criticizing Crosbie. His writhing has been in my one study, 
> of 
> > > in great value, and still very much is. I may be critical to the 
> ULT 
> > > (as an organisation) on same ways as it is today, but that has 
> not 
> > > anything to do with Crosbie, or his work. 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > 
> > > Carl
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carl,
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't see any real source as to Robert Crosbie's 
> supposed 
> > > claims to be a successor of HPB's. On the contrary, he has 
> written 
> > > against the very idea of successorship. Can you materialialize 
> any 
> > > real source to that rumour? Or is it something which was said by 
> > > people who wanted to criticize the ULT or Crosbie? 
> > > > 
> > > > I tend to be this is fiction. We have to constantly re-examine 
> > > our sources... 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Regards, Carlos. 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > > 
> > > > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > > 
> > > > Cópia:
> > > > 
> > > > Data:Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:27:47 -0000
> > > > 
> > > > Assunto:Theos-World Re: â??Successorsâ??!?
> > > > 
> > > > > Chuck!
> > > > > 
> > > > > I didn't say anything about that "personalities" should 
> matter. 
> > > For 
> > > > > me, the question about succeeding is stupid, hence I can't 
> see 
> > > that 
> > > > > anyone could succeed nether Blavatsky, nor Judge, in occult 
> > > matters 
> > > > > as Teachers (in till the next Messenger from the Lodge, of 
> > > curse). 
> > > > > As Leader/President of the T.S. is it something else. My 
> point 
> > > was 
> > > > > as I wrote; "which was faithful, to the real and true 
> impulse of 
> > > the 
> > > > > Masters after W.Q.J. past away, and followed the True 
> > > Theosophical 
> > > > > Path", instead of only discus on what his or hers claims was 
> > > based 
> > > > > on (right or wrong). In other words, where do we find or 
> found 
> > > this 
> > > > > after W.Q.J. death. Which Theosophical group/succeeder 
> > > as "leader" 
> > > > > (I don't mean this in a Pasadena terminological way) was 
> > > actually 
> > > > > true to the Holy Cause? Mrs. Tingley, Mr. Crosbie and Mr. 
> > > Hargrove 
> > > > > were al, more or less, claiming to succeed Mr. Judge in some 
> > > way. 
> > > > > Mrs. Tingley claimed to be it occult (as Teacher), and Mr. 
> > > Crosbie 
> > > > > and Mr. Hargrove to be the "visible head" of the true Third 
> > > Section 
> > > > > (and Second Section in Crosbie's case also, if Mr. Hargrove 
> hade 
> > > any 
> > > > > claims in this matter I do not know for sure) and the/an 
> agent 
> > > of 
> > > > > the Master.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We need Theosophical organizations, in some way for many 
> > > reasons. 
> > > > > Then, as well as today. And we need Theosophical 
> organizations 
> > > which 
> > > > > are faithful to the real and true impulse of the Masters 
> (the 
> > > Cause, 
> > > > > the Doctrines and Teachings and so on), and who follows the 
> True 
> > > > > Theosophical Path.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And Chuck! You are on this "mailing list" also, so that most 
> > > include 
> > > > > you to!? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Carl
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Drpsionic@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In a message dated 10/31/2006 4:14:59 AM Central Standard 
> > > Time, 
> > > > > > carl.ek@ writes:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do any serious Theosophist or Student of Theosophy really 
> > > thinks 
> > > > > that 
> > > > > > anyone could, what so ever, succeed Blavatsky or Judge? 
> Isn't 
> > > the 
> > > > > > question, which was faithful, to the real and true impulse 
> of 
> > > the 
> > > > > > Masters after W.Q.J. past away, and followed the True 
> > > > > Theosophical 
> > > > > > Path? So was it Mrs. Tingley or Mr. Crosbie, or even Mr. 
> > > > > Hargrove? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't see why it would even matter. Theosophy is not 
> about 
> > > the 
> > > > > > personalities but about the ideas.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Other than the folks on these mailing lists, no one cares.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chuck the Heretic
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]