Dzyan Esoteric School---
Blavatsky's Esoteric Instructions Issued on Whose Authority?

By David Green

In ULT's Dzyan Esoteric School, esoteric instructions of Madame Blavatsky are reissued to members under a pledge of secrecy. Blavatsky's instructions were not to be discussed or shown to regular ULT associates or to other non-members of the DES. Anyone who violated this oath was expelled from DES.

The essential question to ask is---

On whose authority were Madame Blavatsky's instructions reissued by the DES?

During Blavatsky's & Judge's lifetimes, these instructions were given to new members by the authority of Blavatsky & Judge as Outer Heads of the E.S. directly representing the Masters who were the Inner Heads. Each member took a pledge not to discuss or show the documents to non-members.

Robert Crosbie was an esoteric member during the lifetimes of Blavatsky & Judge. Mr Crosbie had taken the same pledge not to reveal any of these esoteric papers.

After Mr Judge's death & at the formation of the ULT's DES, by whose authority were the instructions reissued with a new pledge of secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie violate his own original pledge by allowing the reissue of Blavatsky's esoteric instructions under a new pledge of secrecy?

It is clear Blavatsky & Judge issued the instructions at the direction of the Masters. Who gave Mr Crosbie the authority or right to violate his original pledge & reissue the instructions to new students under an oath of silence and secrecy? Did Mr Crosbie believe that he was following in the esoteric footsteps of Blavatsky and Judge?

In the last month I've received several emails from ULT associates suggesting that if I publish the contents of any DES material I'm opening myself & those who read the contents to esoteric or occult harm. This is the essential reason (I'm told) why the U.L.T. has been so adamant against the public release of Blavatsky's ES instructions. Those who are not ready & haven't taken the appropriate pledge, etc. could be subject to some sort of negative occult influence. So goes this type of reasoning.

A correspondent wrote that Mr Henry Geiger, one of the more recent "leaders" of the Los Angeles ULT, was very much against Mr Boris de Zirkoff's proposal to publish Blavatsky's esoteric instructions in the "Collected Writings" series. When Mr de Zirkoff finally published them in Volume XII of the series, the ULT leadership was extremely upset. This is part of the underlying reasons for the ULT not mentioning in their publications the "Collected Writings" or using any of the CW material in their study of Blavatsky's teachings, so I'm told.

This negative reaction by the ULT to Mr de Zirkoff's publication of Blavatsky's esoteric material appears ironic (even hypocritical) in light of the fact that the ULT leadership issued (through DES) the same material to their chosen ULT associates. Who gave them the authority to disseminate this esoteric material to new people while at the same time condemning Mr de Zirkoff for publishing the material for new people?