Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tl00065)

Leon Maurer wrote---

"I'm pretty sure you are quite 'serious' about looking for ways to 
denigrate the one [Mr Robert Crosbie] who made that original statement."

I'm not looking for ways to denigrate Mr Crosbie.  But I'm interested in 
examining whether Mr Crosbie made "occult" claims & exactly what those 
claims were.  I find it somewhat ironic that U.L.T. associates are 
generally very skeptical & even sometimes disdainful of the claims of 
Mrs Tingley, Mrs Besant, Mr Hargrove, Mr Leadbeater, Mrs Bailey &c, but 
apparently accept without question Mr Crosbie's claims.  (Many 
associates naively believe that Mr Crosbie made no claims.  I've 
published several citations documenting some of Mr Crosbie's claims & 
also documenting that writers of U.L.T.'s publications have made special 
claims for Mr Crosbie.)  

I'm even more puzzled & quite interested in the type of hysterical 
response many U.L.T. associates have to any questioning of the claims of 
Mr Crosbie & U.L.T.  Mr Richard Taylor's latest effusion on the subject 
& his harsh words directed towards me are the most recent example of 
this quite (IMO) paradoxical & even somewhat bizarre behavior.

Examining U.L.T. publications, one finds considerable amount of 
historical material in which annoymous authors have harshly criticized & 
(some would say) have denigrated other Theosophical societies & their 
leaders.   

Examine----

[1]  series of articles "Masters and Their Message: Some Chapters from 
Theosophical History" written by Mr Crosbie & published in "Theosophy" 
magazine, 1914-1915.

[2]  series of articles "The Theosophical Movement" written by Mr 
Garriques et al & published in "Theosophy" magazine 1920-1922.  
Reprinted in book form same title 1925.

[3]  series of articles "Aftermath" published in "Theosophy" magazine 
1935.  These articles contain snide, sarcastic & vitrolic language in 
their denunciation of all other Theosophical groups, officials & 
leaders.  It is hard for me to conceive how I or anyone else could write 
more negative or partisan material than what is found in this 1935 
series.

[4]  updated edition of "The Theosophical Movement" by Mr Henry Geiger.  
Still sold by The Theosophy Company.  I've seen the book for sale on ULT 
tables.

[5] Numerous other "negative" articles appearing in the pages of 
"Theosophy" magazine especially in the time period 1920-1950.

Let me make myself clear---above material on Theosophical history is 
valuable in many respects.  At same time there's harsh criticism, 
vitrolic statements, sarcasm, etc. in much of this writing.  And all of 
it was written annoymously.  As far as I can determine, "Theosophy" 
magazine during years in question never allowed other side to respond in 
either articles or letters to the editor in their publication 
["Theosophy" magazine].  This is in sharp contrast to the editorial 
methods of Mrs Blavatsky.  She allowed her critics equal time to respond 
in her magazines "The Theosophist" & "Lucifer". Again Mrs Blavatsky 
didn't attack her opponents under the cloak of annoymity.  Mrs. 
Blavatsky's editorial practices stand out in sharp contrast to those of 
"Theosophy" magazine. Why?

In regards to esoteric groups & material, Mr Crosbie, Mr Garriques, Mr 
Geiger & other annoymous U.L.T. writers have heaped harsh criticisms & 
scorn upon esoteric schools, esoteric leaders & esoteric claims of  
other Theosophical organizations.  All of the above sources contain such 
negative material.  These U.L.T. writers also show no hesitation in 
quoting (sometimes volumiously) from esoteric material written by Mrs 
Blavatky, Mr W Judge, Mrs K Tingley, etc.  In U.L.T.'s harshly worded 
"expose" on Mrs Tingley, many esoteric douments marked "private and 
confidential" are quoted with sometimes snide & sarcastic commentaries 
added.  Who gave U.L.T. authors the permission to use in a very public 
manner material marked "private and confidential"?  Yet when I mention 
in a very general way that U.L.T. has had for decades its own esoteric 
school, Mr Richard Taylor starts foaming at the mouth. And I haven't 
*yet* published any of the esoteric material issued by U.L.T.'s esoteric 
group.  Yet where is Mr Taylor's indignation toward Mr Crosbie, Mr 
Garriques & Mr Geiger for invading the privacy of other esoteric groups 
& publishing for public view various esoteric documents?  No, Mr Taylor 
saves his "venom" for me.  Why?

Also on this theos---talk forum, I've read fairly constant stream of 
postings (usually Mr Dallas Tenbroeck's) "advertising" United Lodge of 
Theosophists.  In his "pitch" Mr Tenbroeck has made number of 
questionable statements.  In one posting Mr Tenbroeck wrote that the 
Thesophical Societies (Pasadena & Adyar) engage in politics but the 
U.L.T. doesn't.  As far as I can determine, this is a patently false 
statement.  What organization or society or association consisting of 
human beings doesn't have its own share of "politics"?  I've received 
various accounts & documents showing that United Lodge of Theosophists 
has had its share of "politics".  For example, in the 1930s when Mrs 
Crosbie, the widow of the founder, & a group left Los Angeles U.L.T.  A 
court battle ensued.  Another example.  The politics, bickering, & power 
struggles during the time of Grace Clough.  A Mr Victor Endersby (see 
citation in Dr Bruce Campbell's theosophical history), a U.L.T. 
associate & writer for "Theosophy" magazine, recounted some of the 
internal struggles & politics he was involved in within the U.L.T. Los 
Angeles.  

Why does Mr Tenbroeck whitewash all of this and maintain that his U.L.T. 
is different (& better?) than other Theosophical organizations?  Mr 
Tenbroeck may be quite sincere in what he wrote; but such unrealistic & 
unfounded statements should be questioned by any thinking human being.

I'm still working on next email dealing with certain aspects of U.L.T.'s 
esoteric group.

David Green

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com