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

Dallas on "Robert Crosbie Claimed......"

Jul 25, 2006 06:20 PM
by danielhcaldwell


In my posting, I wrote at the end:

See source documents at:

On this web page, the sources for most of the
quotes will be found.

Did you not check this webpage????

I'm sure as a student of Mr. Crosbie's life,
that you are quite familiar with all of these

Do you dispute any of them?

Mr. Crosbie made these claims on the dates given.
On this webpage, these are his words...not mine....
Do you dispute any of his claims??


--- In, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@...> wrote:
> 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 
> I find that he does not seem to reveal what happened subsequent to 
> period (which he questions) involved -- which may have induced a 
change in
> Mr Crosbie's appreciation of Mrs. Tingley's conduct (under her 
> 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 
> etc.,  and come to the point (if any).
> To me, it is inappropriate to associate the WORK and the declared 
> (1909) of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS with any individual, 
> its chief founder: Mr. Robert Crosbie.  At the end of the book The 
> PHILOSOPHER ( pp. 409 to 415 ) those reasons and purposes will be 
> 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 
> 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, 
> Judge in publishing the magazine THE PATH (1886-1896), provided 
> with a great many practical hints on Theosophy.  These not only 
covered his
> observations, but illustrated aspects of doctrine and metaphysics 
> 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 
> 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 
> Contemporary Theosophical magazines printed articles and 
contributions on
> this, and from them, considered altogether one may reconstruct the 
> and events.  
> Neither of these two officers appeared to have understood that Mr. 
> (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
> others.  
> No individuals' "authority" was recognized by them.  Each member's 
> and free-determination was his own responsibility and no one else 
> 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 
> 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. 
> went through Judge's papers.  They found what was later described 
as an
> incomplete and very fragmentary, cryptic diary of Mr. Judges', but 
> 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
> philosophy.  
> 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 
> "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 
> 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 
> "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 
> 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
> York.  
> 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 
> had no inkling of the true state of affairs and kept on in full 
> Those who found that they had made a mistake in the first place in 
> Mrs. T. upon the organization were in too doubtful a position to 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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
> the T S in A, now renamed UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD and THE 
> 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 
> book:
> 	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 
> foundation of "The United Lodge of Theosophists" and the adoption 
of its
> DECLARATION by himself and the seven original Associates, on 
February 18,
> 1909.]
> The United Lodge of Theosophists is an integral part of the 
> Movement begun in New York in 1875. It is—as the name implies—an 
> 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 
> profess and promulgate it.
> This Union does not mean a sameness of organization or method, but 
> 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 
> 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 
> Theosophical Society to lay to heart the parable of the bundle of 
> 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 
> I have marked with pain . . . a tendency among you to allow your 
> devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into 
disunion. . . . No
> opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage 
> mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting 
> 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
> disarray."
> 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 
> basis should be taken if the success originally purposed is to be 
> 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 
> 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, 
> 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 
> understanding and assimilation of Theosophy.
> Once the idea of "successorship" is removed from consideration, a 
> perspective is obtainable of the Movement, the philosophy, and the 
> persons—past and present—engaged in its promulgation.
> We have the declarations of her Masters that she was the sole 
> 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 
> philosophy she gave, but her work with the relation to others in 
> 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 
> 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 
> William Q. Judge to establish and carry on the work of the 
> Movement in America. How well that work was done is a matter of 
> 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 
> 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 
> spoken of. These writings should be sought for, and studied, in 
> 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 
> ========================================================
>  	Hope this is of help
> 	Dallas
> =====================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: danielhcaldwell
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 
> To:
> 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 
> successor. 	[ WHERE AND WHEN IS THIS STATED ? ]
> (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. 
> lived for, worked for, [and] hoped for...."  [ WHEN AND WHERE 
> See source documents at: 
>  =====================================

[Back to Top]

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