[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Robert Crosbie Claimed......

Jul 25, 2006 05:19 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

7/25/2006 3:18 PM

	RE:  Robert Crosbie Claimed....

Dear Friends:

I am not under the impression that Mr. Crosbie made any “claims” other than
being a devoted student of THEOSOPHY and openly avowing his respect for HPB
and WQJ -- however, let us see further: 

In what appears to be a fresh format recently brought into play { WHY ? ]
and adopted by Mr. D. Caldwell, unlike most historians in search of facts,
he appears to fail from the first to present the reader (see below), with
those accurate times and dates which are known to him. 

Are we all to be subjected to a set of teasers?  Are the queries genuine?  

I find that he does not seem to reveal what happened subsequent to the
period (which he questions) involved -- which may have induced a change in
Mr Crosbie’s appreciation of Mrs. Tingley’s conduct (under her Presidency)
of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY in America .

I have inserted in his text (below) CAPITAL LETTERS asking why his
observations and queries are made.  Let us cut the time, the fuzziness,
etc.,  and come to the point (if any).

To me, it is inappropriate to associate the WORK and the declared purpose
(1909) of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS with any individual, including
its chief founder: Mr. Robert Crosbie.  At the end of the book The FRIENDLY
PHILOSOPHER ( pp. 409 to 415 ) those reasons and purposes will be found
detailed as they have always been made available.

The impersonality and the denial of any individual’s “authority” is the

The publications for which the U  L  T has made itself responsible endeavour
to present THEOSOPHY as it was published, and students are expected verify
this and to do their own study – so that they may rely on their own
independent efforts, reasoning and common sense. Any good system of
education does the same. 

That work is the promulgation and study of “original” THEOSOPHY .  Is there
any problem ?

In retrospect we have observed that in those early years, students had few
materials for the actual study of Theosophy.  

1875-88	There were only HPB's ISIS UNVEILED, articles in the issues of THE
by Mr. Sinnett. 

1888 - 91	Later, apart from articles in THEOSOPHIST, LUCIFER, and

Judge in publishing the magazine THE PATH (1886-1896), provided students
with a great many practical hints on Theosophy.  These not only covered his
observations, but illustrated aspects of doctrine and metaphysics which
students were interested in.

1893 - 95	During this period Mr. Judge was attacked, exonerated, and,
later persecuted again by the chief officers of the T. S. outside of
America.  Those were Col. H. S. Olcott the President Founder, and Mrs. Annie
Besant as President of the British and European Sections of the T S.
Contemporary Theosophical magazines printed articles and contributions on
this, and from them, considered altogether one may reconstruct the motives
and events.  

Neither of these two officers appeared to have understood that Mr. Judge
(and Mr. Crosbie in Boston) stood primarily for Theosophy (as HPB did) and
not only for the T S .  

To them, the T S appeared to be a useful tool, to be sustained as a
promulgating body for the doctrines of Theosophy.  

To Judge and Crosbie, and others in America and England, the T S was to be
directed on the basis of the principles which Theosophy laid down and no

No individuals' "authority" was recognized by them.  Each member's free-will
and free-determination was his own responsibility and no one else could
wield authority over him or her.  Theosophy alone was held to be the sole
reason for the T S. and the Officers in its management ought to present that
basis at all times.

Mr. Crosbie supported Mr. Judge's principles fully.  He acted as one of the
"witnesses on the scene."   He, kept the "link" of pure Theosophy
"unbroken," after Mr. Judge's death.  

The hints given by W.Q.J. during his life in regard to Crosbie were not
grasped by those around him, who had what they fancied to be their own
positions.  And, in addition, seemed to be glamoured and deluded by the
psychic powers Mrs. Tingley exhibited (she had only been a member for only a
year prior to Mr. Judge's death).  

In New York, Mr. Neresheimer, who was Mr. Judge's executor and Mr. Hargrove
went through Judge's papers.  They found what was later described as an
incomplete and very fragmentary, cryptic diary of Mr. Judges', but which
Hargrove claimed (in 1896) to be an "occult" diary;  and in this, he said he
detected that Mr. Judge's indicated that Mrs. Tingley was to "succeed" him.

Mr. Neresheimer had introduced Mrs. Tingley to W. Q. J. about a year before
his death.  She became a member of the T S.  She was a psychic and
apparently did not have a very profound knowledge of Theosophical

She had been of help to Mr. Judge during the last year of his life which was
spent in great discomfort and illness.  However this gave her no special
"position" in regard to the management of the T.S.

Many years later (1923), Mr. Neresheimer made a deposition outlining these
events, and in that he reversed some of his earlier pronouncements, on which
the "succession" of Mrs. Tingley had been based.  

>From time to time this "occult diary" has been mentioned as giving
"authority" for the "Tingley succession," however, when requests were made
to see it, or have it published, for all to verify, this was not done at
that time.  Copies were made of it and are available from several sources,
but a reader will find it is difficult to establish any coherence in those
phrases and notes.	(see also: THY 3, p. 280)

Mr. Judge died March 21st l896.  Mr. Crosbie was in Boston.  

Of the events in New York, he wrote:--  

"Two or three of the New York members--notably E. T. Hargrove and E. A.
Neresheimer--obtained possession of Mr. Judge's keys and went through his
private papers;  in these [ they said ] they found reference to a certain
"chela," whom Neresheimer determined to be Mrs. Tingley whom he had known
for about a year, and whom he had brought to Judge's notice.  The idea being
in their minds that there must of necessity be an "occult successor."
Concurring in the opinion that Mrs. T. was indicated, they sent out a
circular that Judge had appointed her as such.  The minds of all, being in
the receptive condition ... accepted everything as stated by the few in New

The attitude assumed by Mrs. T. soon began to estrange those members who
were brought in close touch with her in New York, but those at a distance
had no inkling of the true state of affairs and kept on in full confidence.

Those who found that they had made a mistake in the first place in foisting
Mrs. T. upon the organization were in too doubtful a position to attempt
explanations;  one of them only -- Mr. Neresheimer--(who had introduced her
to Judge) -- remaining her supporter...his support was sufficient to offset
any withdrawal of the others in New York."

"Mrs. T. took advantage of the situation, and most plausibly and shrewdly
strengthened her position for two years after her advent, then formed the
"UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD" with herself as absolute dictator;  carrying with
her by far the greater number of the members throughout the country.  A year
later she went to Point Loma and established the institution there." 

1896-1900	In reviewing this period, Mr. Crosbie said:-- 

"I was in Boston and had no reason to doubt the statements of those in N.Y.
whom I believed to be sincere and of good training and judgment.  I should
have known by other means the true state of affairs...when Judge passed out
of life, I lost touch with him; doubtless I relied on him too much, and had
not exercised my own intuition; from later events my comprehension is, that
this loss of touch was purposely done in order that I might strengthen my
weakness in that direction..."

Mr. Crosbie was summoned by Mrs. Tingley to take up residence in Point Loma
outside of San Diego, California, where a Headquarters had been located for
He went there with Mrs. Crosbie, and as was required then, on taking up
residence, all their assets were turned over to the organization.  He gave
his support to Mrs. Tingley, as will be noted from several articles and
letters of his written during those years.          
	THEOS. MOVEMENT ('75-'50),p. 317-19   THY 65 159-60

Considering the close relationship that existed between Mr. Crosbie and Mr.
Judge, and the special position that Mr. Crosbie occupies in the
Theosophical Movement of modern times, one wonders whether Mr. Crosbie might
not be considered a "shepherd" who was following his straying "flock."  And
when that "flock" dispersed, the "shepherd" went in search of a new one.

Conflicting reports were circulated from the Point Loma organization as to
why Mr. and Mrs. Crosbie left the Point Loma establishment.  None of the
family assets which he turned over at the time of entry were returned to
him.  He and Mrs. Crosbie, when they left were left penniless.  

Mr. Crosbie is reported to have said: -- "We quietly left Point Loma."  And
that closed the subject.  (The Register of Members kept in Point Loma shows
a smudged remark in red ink against his name:  "EXPELLED 1904.")


Mr. Caldwell may still have on file the following concerning the history

	THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875 – 1950),  330 pages, 
                        Hard Bound   $  6.00 
                        Free  “On Line” 	at
 Very detailed history and accurate information.

[ The following explanatory statement drawn up by Robert Crosbie for the
information of all theosophists, was made public concurrently with the
foundation of “The United Lodge of Theosophists” and the adoption of its
DECLARATION by himself and the seven original Associates, on February 18,

The United Lodge of Theosophists is an integral part of the Theosophical
Movement begun in New York in 1875. It is—as the name implies—an Association
of Theosophists irrespective of organization, who are bound together by the
tie of common aim, purpose and teaching, in the cause of Theosophy.

Theosophy, being the origin, basis and genius of every Theosophical
organization, forms in itself a common ground of interest and effort, above
and beyond all differences of opinion as to persons or methods; and being
the philosophy of Unity, it calls for the essential union of those who
profess and promulgate it.

This Union does not mean a sameness of organization or method, but a
friendly recognition, mutual assistance and encouragement among all engaged
in the furtherance of Theosophy.

The Teacher, H. P. Blavatsky, declared that “Want of Union is the first
condition of failure,” and in her last message to the American Convention in
1891, said: “Never has it been more necessary for the members of the
Theosophical Society to lay to heart the parable of the bundle of sticks,
than it is at the present time; divided, they will inevitably be broken, one
by one; united, there is no force on earth able to destroy our Brotherhood. 

I have marked with pain . . . a tendency among you to allow your very
devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion. . . . No
opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of
mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting difficulties,
of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means the unity of the
Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows thinned and thrown into

There are a number of Theosophical organizations in existence today, all of
them drawing their inspiration from Theosophy, existing only because of
Theosophy, yet remaining disunited. The nature of each organization is such,
that unity cannot be had on the basis of any one of them; hence a common
basis should be taken if the success originally purposed is to be attained.

The need of such a basis with a broader view of the Movement, is the cause
for the present Association—the United Lodge of Theosophists—composed of
Theosophists of different organizations, as well as those belonging to none.
This Lodge, having no constitution, by-laws, officers or leader, affords in
its Declaration a common basis of Unity for all who see the great need of
it, and seeks their co-operation.

Holding to its motto: ‘There is no Religion higher than Truth,” it seeks for
the truth in all things, and beginning with the history of the Theosophical
Movement, sets forth herein some facts with their inevitable deductions, for
general information and consideration.

There is no question anywhere as to who brought the message of Theosophy to
the Western World, nor is there any reason to believe that the Messenger, H.
P. Blavatsky, failed to deliver all that was to be given out until the year
1975-- the time stated by her for the advent of the next Messenger.

While she lived there was one Society. After her departure, dissensions
arose, resulting in several separate organizations. The basic cause of these
divisions is to be found in differences of opinion as to “successorship,”
even where other causes were in evidence. No such question should ever have
arisen, for it is abundantly clear that H. P. Blavatsky could no more pass
on to another her knowledge and attainments, than could Shakespeare, Milton
or Beethoven pass on theirs.

Those who were attracted by the philosophy she presented, or who were taught
by her, were followers or students, of more or less proficiency in the
understanding and assimilation of Theosophy.

Once the idea of “successorship” is removed from consideration, a better
perspective is obtainable of the Movement, the philosophy, and the principal
persons—past and present—engaged in its promulgation.

We have the declarations of her Masters that she was the sole instrument
possible for the work to be done, that They sent her to do it, and that They
approved in general all that she did. That work not only includes the
philosophy she gave, but her work with the relation to others in the
Movement; and where a relation is particularly defined—as in the case of
William Q. Judge—wisdom dictates that full consideration be given to what
she says.

H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge were co-Founders of the Theosophical
Society in 1875 They were colleagues from the first and ever remained such.
When H. P. Blavatsky left America—never to return—she left behind her
William Q. Judge to establish and carry on the work of the Theosophical
Movement in America. How well that work was done is a matter of history.

H. P. Blavatsky departed from the body in 1891; William Q. Judge some five
years later. He never claimed to be her successor; on the contrary, when
asked the question, he said: She is sui generis—she can have no successor;”
the fact being that both he and she were contemporaneous in the work, he
retaining his body for some five years longer in order to complete the work
he had to do.

The work of these two cannot be separated if the Movement is to be
understood. The evidence of the greatness and fitness of William Q. Judge,
as a Teacher, is to be found in his writings—a large and valuable part of
which has become obscured through the organizational dissensions before
spoken of. These writings should be sought for, and studied, in connection
with those of H. P. Blavatsky. That study will lead to the conviction that
both were great Teachers—each with a particular mission—that each was sui
generis, that their work was complementary, and that neither of them had,
nor could have, any successor.                                         


 	Hope this is of help



-----Original Message-----
From: danielhcaldwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 
Subject: 	Robert Crosbie Claimed......

Robert Crosbie made the following claims:  [WHEN ?]

(1) that he "recognized" Katherine Tingley as the Outer 
Head "without hint or instruction".		[ WHY ? ]

(2) that he recognized Katherine Tingley as "the agent of the 
Master I serve...."	[ FOR HOW LONG ? ]

(3) that Katherine Tingley was appointed by William Q. Judge as his 

(4) that William Q. Judge had said of Katherine Tingley: "she is 
true as steel, as clear as diamond, and as lasting as time." [a 
quote from Judge's "occult diary"] 	

? ]

(5) that the Point Loma T.S. Center in San Diego, California, 
founded by Mrs. Tingley, was "a realization of what William Q. Judge 
lived for, worked for, [and] hoped for...."  [ WHEN AND WHERE SAID ?]

See source documents at:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application