Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00012)

Jan 2nd 1999

Dear Martin:

As far as my association with the ULT is concerned (for the past
60 years or so) there has been no deviation in the ULT, or among
the many "Associates" of the ULT in applying in full the
DECLARATION of POLICY of the ULT.  It has NO OFFICERS or BYE-LAWS
and therefore has NO LEADERS.
Everyone is a student-teacher.

I tend to believe that Leon allowed his rhetoric to get away from
him as nowhere in my experience has anyone been "commissioned" to
"root-out" form the ranks of those who have become "associates"
of the ULT anyone for any reason.  Each is invited to mind their
own business and do the best they can with others and for others.
The work of the ULT is focussed on providing the original works
on Theosophy by HPB and WQJ;  and, in providing a forum for their
discussion and study.  This is Brotherhood in action.

Let's be reasonable.

	1 - we are all immortals.  So we cannot eliminate each other.
Our common source of origin is the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT.  Nature
offers all of us a place where we can live and work together.
The ULT expressly states in each of its published programs that
there are no restrictions on attendance, and all those who are
interested in its work are free to attend.  No fees or dues are
ever charged, and no "door-keepers" stands to bar anyone from
attending those meetings as advertised.

	2 - No one is asked or invited to make any judgments of others
or their motives.  Hence there could be no "rooting-out" of
anyone.  We always have to live with one-another and we are only
expected to do as well as we can - honestly and sincerely.  There
is enough to keep us all very well occupied and with little or no
time left over to worry about how others are doing or not doing.

	3 - each of us makes his own Karma as he goes along.  None of us
are so "pure" that we do not make errors of judgment, choice,
etc.  We are invited to apply without limits the first Object of
the Theosophical Movement:  Brotherhood - and in so doing,
establish a focus, a nucleus, where others also work, have the
same opportunity to study, learn, inquire, etc... as we have
done.  Thus we can see how the Karma (of a group), of all those
who participate in Theosophical endeavors no matter what
designation they give to themselves as individuals or as groups,
is established for a joint future.

	4 - In terms of the third Fundamental of the SD  (Vol. I pp 14 -
19) we all labor together and are bound by our own decisions.  If
great Nature allows us to continue in this physical body in this
incarnation, then there are possibilities for our improving our
nature and working closer to the universal Goal.  Nature is the
impartial judge of all we think, feel and do, and no one man or
group is "told-off" to act as policeman.


	5 - - I recently posted an answer to questions that Mr. Daniel
Caldwell asked.  These relate to the Eye and the Heart Doctrines.
I will insert again those portions that seem to be relevant

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

	"  Dec 30th 1998
	Dallas offers:

In my esteem the Mahatmas in writing as they did, desired to
distinguish between the SELFISH and the UNSELFISH "Paths" and
those who follow those two schools - imbued with the motives and
choices relative to those separate states of mind and personal
"goals."

There were at that time some confusions of opinion (and it
apparently still persists, mainly because we are only able to
perceive the EXTERNAL APPEARANCE of things and people, and are
unable to see what their inner nature and motives are) as regards
Tibetan sects - so it became necessary for the Mahatmas in
writing Sinnett and Hume (and others) to draw those distinctions.
They speak mainly about the inner motives.

Applications can be made all around the world when we consider
the motives that drive religious movements (especially the
congregational ones:  Judaism, Islam, Christianity).  In addition
to this are the motives of those who participate (and who does
not ?) in "capitalism," "socialism," and various other forms of
business and politics, where living conditions are enforced on
vast masses of people.  [ It should be noted that while the
several sects of Buddhism encourage the monastic life for those
who wish to adopt it, either for life, or for some shorter period
(or periods), it is not congregational, any more than is
Hinduism.  Attendance at temples is purely voluntary and no one
is under compulsion to attend. ]

Essentially, to me, the ethical and moral implications of
Theosophical philosophy and doctrine are more important than
details.  The "theory" is given at length in the "metaphysics" so
that the practical applications to daily life by those who desire
to improve their methods of living may be adopted.

It is essential to recognized that there can be no final
compulsive discipline.  [ That would generate the "Eye
Doctrine." ] Rites and rituals which lose their meaning arise
from such compulsion in time.

Better is time spent to offer explanations of the metaphysics, so
that those who desire may see how their applications in daily
life may be used by them.  Of necessity, each one selects and
determines for himself what those will be.  [ This selection and
use is the "Heart Doctrine."  Every one of us builds his own as
he lives. ]

The "way out of this morass" is to first apprehend what are the
basic concepts of continuing life":  --

1) the immortality of man's True Essence - his Spiritual
Soul-Mind;

2) that this is not only man's condition but that there is a bond
between every least component of Nature, taken as a whole.


3) the progress of all beings is evolutionary, is essentially one
of a growth of intelligence and consciousness rather than merely
a physical one.  The physical always provides a base for the
emotional and the mental planes of experience and growth.  All
"progress" is self-chosen.

4) Nature is lawful in its entirety;  and impartial, universal
and immutable LAWS prevail and pervade the whole of Nature in all
its departments, of which Mankind is one.  The Sciences prove and
use this fact all the time.  We depend on this for our continued
physical life.

5) All evolution starts on the subtle planes of Spiritual nature,
and concurrent with those, are the development of material forms.
At this, our present stage, the two have merged.  Consequently we
perceive in our minds and feeling natures the conflict and
uncertainty of the two divergent/convergent streams of
development.  It becomes our duty to resolve these in our own
minds - by studying Nature and OURSELVES, and our capacities and
potentials.

Much more could be said, and in fact is said in Theosophical
literature - such as emanated from the pen of HPB.  It deserves
correlation and close study in order to verify its accuracy.
Such study has to be done individually.  There can be no
vicarious advance.  No one can trust any conclusions except his
own.  The conclusions that are offered by many who are good
thinkers need to be carefully reviewed, questioned, and checked
by each "student" in this vast School of Life and living.  We are
so accustomed in our present culture to trust "authority" that it
is rare to meet with those who insist on verifying all that they
adopt and use.  Authorities are usually found to offer shaky
views for which they claim accuracy and often universality.  Time
and again these have been proven faulty.  Humility and honesty
demand that all opinions be carefully labeled, so that the naïve
and the untutored are not misled.

All through the writings of HPB one can find that she
distinguishes between the "DOCTRINE OF THE EYE," and the
"DOCTRINE OF THE HEART."

The first is intense selfishness and isolation from the rest of
Nature - even though this is quite impossible - it is an
impossible attitude when forced to its logical conclusions.

The second is found to harmonize with nature's ways of adjusting
evolution in the widest possible sweep of view.  It is brotherly,
compassionate, considerate, merciful, forgiving, and yet demands
that we as independent minds prove this each for themselves."


I believe that this also answers your question about what is
taught (in general) at ULT.  It is THEOSOPHY as originally
expressed in the writings of HPB and WQJ.

All ULT work is centered around that and focused on the
transmission of this "message" with as much purity as possible to
those who will be following us.

Let us not forget that "reincarnation" is a fact for all of us.
We are those who lived, worked, studied and built in previous
civilizations.  And in the future we will be reincarnating in our
descendents - so why not be "reasonable" and leave for our return
a basis that we can contact and use with the least possible
difficulty.

It is clear that we ought to be working on ourselves and our
study, so that we know whether Theosophy is accurate, true,
reasonable, or is not.  It is quite futile for us to try to
perpetuate something in which we have no real confidence.

Now, these are subjects on which many will have different views
either wholly or partially.  It is only fair if there is
disagreement that further inquiry and questions be directed for
our consideration.  I will be glad to answer.

In my opinion no one need spend time "defending themselves or
their views."  We are here to discuss Theosophy and to find out
what are the principles that are valid and basic from which all
practical derivations can be made.  If de Puruker and Mr. J. Long
(also Annie Besant and Leadbeater) write for Theosophy, clearly
and based on the fundamentals of the original message, then no
one will have anything but praise for their efforts.  If however,
they are found to deviate from the original presentation, they
will have to do the necessary explaining to those who inquire
about any differences of them.

In regard to the writings of AB and CWL a valid comparison was
made by Margaret Thomas
( THEOSOPHY OR NEO-THEOSOPHY) as early as 1924.  It will be well
for those who desire to know about the differences in doctrine to
read this book.  Of recent days, Mr. G. Farthing of England
 former General Secretary of the TS ] has been writing on the
same subject and his notes and pamphlets ought to be secured and
carefully read.

To sum up briefly:  In the writings of HPB and WQJ readers will
find out what Theosophy is.  In the writings of all subsequent
writers (including myself) they will secure opinions that are
either close or divergent from the original impulse.  Each
student has to study and make up his own mind on these things.


With best wishes for this new year,

Dallas

> From: Martin Leiderman
> Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc.

Dear Leon,
You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root
out" people from
it as you wrote recently:

>
> "I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three
such infiltrators
> from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of
"platform lecturer"
> with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. "
>
>
> And also you wrote:
>
> "As an added note.  Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us
to them--before
> the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and
through Germany
> (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes)
who infiltrated
> the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles
Leadbeater and
> introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a
new, "reformed
> theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . .  Then, with
the help of
> another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master
posing as the
> teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators
enticed out all the
> rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of
the original TS
> by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as
themselves, plus
> a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations".  As a
support of this,
> they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for
the phoney DK's
> pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic
Fire".
>
>
> What else do you teach at ULT.  I know several people who go
there (like
> Dallas, and Wes) and I would like to know what other doctrines
they are
> exposed to.

What is your opinion on G. de Purucker and James Long. I like his
book Expanding
Horizons which I am studying in Spanish. Are they in the same
group of AB, CWL
etc.


Martin Leiderman
in West Los Angeles, CA


theos-talk@theosophy.com

of