Re: Theos-World Frank: "ULT publishes falsehoods about Purucker and Tingley."
May 05, 2006 03:03 AM
by Frank Reitemeyer
I'm wondering if you could specify for readers on
what you are referring to when you write about the
publishing "falsehoods about Purucker and
A few examples would help readers to understand
I for one would like to know what you consider
Also what "ULT" texts are you referring to?
I see that Carlos is recommending a ULT text when
"Other books are also useful.'The Theosophical
by ULT associates, is unfortunately unavaible as
long as I know."
Frank, do you believe that these above mentioned
falsehoods are in
this book mentioned by Carlos?
I am in a hurry now, but yes, I mean this book for
They still sell it.
Other ugly and untrue things they published in
their magazine about Purucker.
You have on your website.
It shows a narrow-minded attitude about occult
A kind of Theravada theosophy, the ULT texts being
a kind of Pali canon on which they stick and
reject any Mahayana theosophy doctrines, like that
of tulkus and messengers.
I'm sure a number of readers have noticed that
Carlos is almost
constantly referring to "slanders," "lies" and
Notice just one of Carlos' recent postings where
"I invite Daniel to stop circulating the old
slandes which he knows all too well to be pure
"I hope I clarified my point. I feel the same
regard to Paul Johnson, Katinka Hesselink, John
Algeo and others who propagate falsehoods."
Now the question that comes to my mind is:
Frank, I wonder if you use the term "falsehoods"
the way Carlos uses
It is not always clear to me in which way Carlos
uses the terms.
I would have to meditate about that.
To me a falsehood is a statement which is
For example, do you consider the following
testimony given by Robert
Crosbie about Mrs. Katherine Tingley to be in the
slanders, lies and/or falsehoods?
Here is Mr. Crosbie's testimony:
"...I went to Point Loma at Mrs. Tingley's urgent
request to assist
in the proposed work, and was there for two years,
prepare the way for the expected developments. . .
. I am slow to
turn back from any task I have set myself, and am
prone to excuse
inconsistencies and deviation in others, so that
although I had
begun to doubt, and to see, it was more than a
before I saw so clearly and unmistakably that I
took occasion to
tell Mrs. T. the facts as I saw them, and to state
my intention to
withdraw from all connection with her. 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
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
"She will also speak in Belasco Theater on Sunday
eve on "Some
Practical Lessons in Human Life", and will
doubtless present a fair
picture to the mind's eye; and yet she is as I
have said. Those who
see these pictures would not believe anything
different from what
they see - and she knows it, and preys upon the
best and noblest in
human nature for her own ends. I tremble for the
invokes. . . . "
Pretty strong words! Are Crosbie's words
At least he erred. But as I did not knew him, I
cannot say whether he lied or not.
As in the similar cases of Hartmann, Dunlop etc. I
would rather say they believed what they reported
about their quarrels with KT, but it is not THE
TRUTH - it's only their biased, personal truth.
In best case a kind of pledge fever and the
unfoldment of past mental karma.
And notice that Crosbie even accuses Mrs. Tingley
"...there is no slander too low or mean for her to
So far as I have researched I never found a false
word by KT.
Carlos here used the same method as Besant did.
When KT attacked Besant's wrong actions and
interpretations and new, wrong inventions of the
teachings (to be discriminated from new, but true
teachings), Besant replies always that KT would
In other words, spiritual and intellectual
criticism was transformed down to the emotional,
psychic kamical level.
OTOH, Carlos is basicly right in some of his
criticism of the HPB-Letters edition and I find
myself so far in a middle position between Daniel
I also wonder what Carlos' reaction would be if
Mr. Crosbie had used
those identical words (quoted above) to describe
If this was a description of HPB, would Carlos
call it: slanders,
That question makes much sense.
It shows that all depends on the own view and the
acceptance of a teacher.
In fact there are descriptions of HPB by certain
sound similar in description and tone to what Mr.
Crosbie says about
Now notice that Carlos accuses Katinka Hesselink
falsehoods." [See his text above.]
He does not specify in this posting of his exactly
what he is
referring to in regards to Katinka.
But it should be noted that the complete
transcript of Mr. Crosbie's
testimony about Mrs. Tingley is published on
Katinka's website at:
So is Katinka guilty of circulating slanders, lies
about Mrs. Tingley?
What is your "take" on this Frank?
Katinka just published what Crosbie said.
She is not responsible of any falsehoods which
might be in the text.
It is the duty of every theosophist to help to
clear any quarrels and falsehoods.
And making the fellow-theosophists able to have
access to such texts is a virtue, not a crime.
OTOH, in a book like HPB-Letters the insertion of
false letters without much discrimination for the
average reader is misleading.
They were better included in an extra chapter or
But the foe letters must be included for the
record and for the conduct of future generations.
Think only about the clambake of the Judas gospel
Historian of the future will know anything about
and around HPB and not only a selection.
I have similar quarrels here with my archives, for
which I collect ALL theosophical stuff, with no
distinction to which sect it belongs.
The one forces me not to collect Point Loma
stuff - otherwise I am a dugpa.
The next one force me not to collect ITV
(Hartmann) stuff, the next one says: Nothing from
TGD (Hartmann, too!)
And nothing from Leadbeater, and nothing from this
In other words: If I would like to satisfy each
sect I would have nothing.
But the good news is that I have just heard from
our elder and wise theosophist that we need no
archives, as it is the aim of each theosophical
generation to begin anew.
And if I continue with my dugpa work of re-buying
what the TS'ies bring to the
secondhand-book-seller, I am against the Masters
will, I hinder the next generation to start from
So if you would like to hear Masters voice you
should first bomb down any theosophical library
you know of!
The German presidents have come in close contact
to the Masters and have over-fulfilled what they
regard as their duty!
BTW, have you been satisfied withe my quick reply
to your question about the quote on Hartmann?
Was it not Olcott who conspired at HPB against
Hartmann according to her later regrets?
I'm gonna run.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application