Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00358)

Sunday, July 29, 2001


Dear Frank:

I would like to answer any reasonable requests.

But I find that my earlier explanations seem to be systematically
misunderstood and misquoted. On that basis we could spend an
eternity in back and forth expressions. If possible let's agree
to curtail this rather time absorbing and fruitless rehash of
opinions and beliefs many of which are unsupported of the FACTS
derived from a DIRECT PERUSAL OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS.

I am a little tired of dealing with Hearsay, but for the benefit
of those who may read this exchange I hope my position as a
student is at least as clear as I can put it.

Let's cut it short shall we? I am placing some comments and
suggestions for you to work on below in the body of your text. I
am pretty sure that unsupported accusations and questions do not
merit too much future attention.

As far as I can determine Mr. Crosbie and Mrs. Tingley are no
longer here to answer your queries. I feel they would be the best
witnesses. History can be biased. There is no sense carrying on
a feud that has such a basis. So let's read the PRIMARY
DOCUMENTS, and we will all be able to frame our own judgments --
impersonally.

All of us can read Mr. Crosbie's writings as well as Mr.
Tingley's. Why not let the readers decide on relative merits?
By the way, what have you read of Crosbie's writings? I at least
am reasonably familiar with what Mrs. Tingley has written.

Best wishes,

Dallas.

=================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Reitemeyer [mailto:ringding@blinx.de]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:31 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE ULT -- Dallas' view and answers to
DC.

Frank writes:

Dallas:
As associates who are independent are free to answer as they
understand matters, you will also receive different points of
view. There is no "united front" beyond the DECLARATION of the
ULT to which each associate is independently devoted, each in
their own way.

Frank:
If so, what then please is the reason that I can't find any
independent,
unique, new statement over the decades in the ULT magazines? Does
that mean
that all authors have found the absolute truth and have therefor
an "united
view"?



DTB THAT DOES NOT SOUND REASONABLE, DOES IT ?



What is the real reason why "new" researches never appeared in
the ULT
magazines?



DTB WELL NOW I SUGGEST AGAIN THAT YOU AND ALL THE REST READ A
FEW OF THE U.L.T. MAGAZINES AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS. Your
statement is highly inaccurate



For example I can find one-sided stories about Robert Crosbie,
but certain
facts about him are suppressed. Why?



DTB BE SPECIFIC PLEASE. If our friends in Pasadena have ever
had anything to say they must have said it direct to the U.L.T.
associates at that time to which you refer. Has that record been
made available to you ?





If the ULT allows unbiased research and works impersonally, why
then can
this descent into ignorance happen?




DTB YOU ARE THE ONE WHO QUALIFIES IT. IF YOU HAVE A BASIS,
THEN LET US ALL READ IT.




ULT'ers freqeuntly say that they suppress new evidences about
Katherine
Tingley because that deals with personalities and they wnat no
personalities.




DTB IT WOULD BE KIND OF YOU TO QUOTE A DIRECT SOURCE FOR THIS
STATEMENT.



And when - so they seems to think - they don't meddle with
personalities, well - then there is only the individuality what
is left
over. Perhaps this is the reason why and how the ULT myth of
being 6
rounders was created. But when the axiom is wrong, then all
following
conclusions are wrong, too.




DTB AGAIN YOU ARE BOTH MISUNDERSTANDING AND MISQUOTING. GET
THE FACTS STRAIGHT. THE 5th AND 6th ROUND WILL NOT BE HERE FOR
US TO REINCARNATE INTO FOR QUITE A FEW MILLION YEARS. [ see S D
II pp. 68-70 ]



To my humble understanding the ULT view of the personality is a
misunderstanding, a parody or say an exoteric view of the the
real esoteric
doctrine.



DTB THEN TAKE ISSUE WITH H.P.Blavatsky WHO BROUGHT THEOSOPHY
TO US AND DESCRIBES THESE MATTERS IN HER KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB)
.



To me there is for an impersonel basic no reason to suppress new
reseachers
for the only reason that does it not support the own believe
system. On the
contrary, the more impersonel one is, the more he is willing to
accept facts
with contradict the own former convinction.



DTB I AGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLE YOU ENUNCIATE, but I do not
agree with all your interpretations. You sound to me very
confused. And while I have always desired to help I do not know
how; as all these matters you refer to, have been discussed, and
to my mind, settled long ago. You seem to want to keep them
alive for some reason best known to you.

Instead I think it more valuable to study THEOSOPHY starting with
the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) and The SECRET DOCTRINE . Then we
can spend time on trying to understand what THEOSOPHY teaches and
cease from discussing the irreversible opinions of historians
whose accuracy may or may not be a subject we can check today.
What facts I have been able to discover have been shared by me
with you. I leave you to your own opinions hereafter.




So to me the example with Katherine Tingley and her relationship
with ULT
founder Robert Crosbie shows how biased and offical ULT group
mind works.
The only policital correct view the ULT accepts on Katherine
Tingley is
based on the *personel* basic of Robert Crosbie.



DTB NOW LET ME ASK YOU WHAT YOU KNOW OF THOSE RELATIONS THAT
YOU ARE SO WILLING TO RAISE. I HAVE BEEN TO Pasadena
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, and am familiar with most who live and work
there, and have seen many original documents. WHAT HAVE YOU
SEEN? I deal as far as possible with PRIMARY EVIDENCE and not
opinions, hearsay or SECONDARY evidence.



But dealing with personalities is no stuff which makes a true
Theosophist. N
evertheless the ULT'ers claim not only to be Theosophists but
rather they
want to be regarded - without questioning - as superior
Theosophists.



DTB NO ULTer THAT I KNOW EVER CLAIMED TO BE A "Superior
Theosophist." We are all students of Theosophy.

In my opinion, to make such a claim would be foolish audacity and
ambitious pride. And that is a matter that cannot be proved,
even though it may be claimed by those who dare to take such a
vulnerable position.


What I do write about I am prepared to offer as good evidence and
as sound logic as I can secure or develop. And I do not think it
unfair t say that everyone does the same in their own way. But I
abstain from trying to force my opinions onto any one else.
Express them, and with emphasis -- YES. Enforce them? How
silly.

BEST WISHES TO YOU

Dallas

=============================

Frank continues quoting:

Dallas:
But I do believe it necessary to defend the fair name of
THEOSOPHY and of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge whenever there
are erroneous statements made concerning them, from those who do
not seem to have studied their writings and know the Philosophy
well.

Frank:
Do you really defend HPB and Judge? Both HPB and Judge were loved
Katherine
Tingley. Judge would never have brought her into the TS and ES
without
pledges if he had learnt that HPB would not support her.



DTB WELL THAT IS NOVEL INFORMATION -- WHERE DID YOU SE ANY
PRIMARY DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORTED THIS ?




So why the ULT spreads lies against Mrs. Tingley? What is the
real reason
for it? If you hurt Tingley, then you also hurt Judge.
So why for heaven's sake the ULT's claim to support HPB and
Judge?
As far as I can see the ULT's are misusing the names of HPB and
Judge for
their own model.


DTB AGAIN MAY I SAY YOUR LOGIC IS TO ME QUITE CONFUSED. No
one in the U.L.T. is in any way interested in hurting any one,
nor in spreading "lies." We are as associates students of
THEOSOPHY and we expect that those who are members of other
Theosophical bodies, are also students. Is that an evident
conclusion?

The PRIMARY RECORDS and DOCUMENTS OF THEOSPHICAL HISTORY AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEVERAL THEOSOPHICAL BODIES TELL THEIR OWN
STORY.

LET ANY ONE WHO HAS THE TIME AND THE INTEREST GET AND READ THEM
AND THEN FRAME AN OPINION.

IN THE MEANTIME, LET SETTLE DOWN TO STUDYING THEOSOPHY AND
EXCHANGING VIEWS OF WHAT WE READ, SHALL WE ?




Frank continues:

Dallas:
I made the statement some few days ago that the U.L.T. was an
experiment or an attempt to establish a "6th Round institution"
in a "4th Round" environment. I made an error, and should have
written 5th Round -- a period of time, distant in our future,

Frank:
Thank you for clarification. But if the ULT is even in the 5th
round they
would work impersonally and unbiased and give TRUTH a home. When
will this
time come?


DTB FIRST THE 4th ROUND HAS TO CLOSE. [ see H.P.Blavatsky's
diagram in S D I p. 200 and the explanations there concerning the
GLOBES and the ROUNDS. ] As I said above the time-table will be
a few million years in the future, but as eternal and
imperishable EGOS we'll all be there.



Best wishes,

Dallas