Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00124)

In a message dated 2/24/99 6:04:56 PM, David wrote:

<<I'm puzzled by your closing remark about 
>This will get you farther than allegations
>posted to a public forum.

Much of this was quoted directly from
Dr Campbell's historical study.  The lady
who is my ULT contact comments that what you
write applies to last ten-fifteen years of
ULT.  >>

David,

Allegations are no less allegations just because they are printed in a book!
I have read Campbell's book, in fact I have it here on my desk now.  He makes
a great many allegations ("allegation" is simply the noun form of the verb "to
allege").  One of Campbell's greatest prejudices is against HPB herself, and
nearly every page of chapter 2 "The Writings of H.P. Blavatsky" repeats the
allegations of William Emmette Coleman that HPB plagiarized everything she
ever wrote.  

So one cannot escape the taint of making "allegations" if one relies on a book
like Campbell's.

You ask me to reveal the names of the 7 board members of the Los Angeles
Theosophy Company -- but I am not on the board and I do not wish to interfere
in their work; I am not an associate who works through that lodge.  If you are
so excited to learn of them, why not write to the following address: Theosophy
Company, 245 West 33rd St, Los Angeles CA 90007.  Ask them directly -- then
they will have the right to reveal themselves or not.  Why should that
decision be mine?  Meanwhile, please do contact the California Secetary of
State for your "public information."

And what do we have when we have names on a list?

Interesting, David, that you ask for revelations, and yet keep the identity of
your ULT informant confidential.  Are we not in the same boat?  I don't wish
to bring notoriety upon the heads of the Theosophy Company, while I assume you
wish likewise to protect your informant from scrutiny.  To criticize me for
keeping confidentiality is surely for the pot to call the kettle black.

<<my informant tells me ULT 
LA resisted selling S Cranston's biography 
of Mrs Blavatsky. After much haggling, the "leaders" 
finally gave their blessings & permission.>>

No doubt this is true, but curious indeed.  It was leading members of the New
York ULT who wrote the HPB biography in the first place!  So you can see that
no monolithic power controls ULT behind the scenes.  One might say there is
too much disorganization and infighting for ULT to be an organization!  

One thing Campbell writes of ULT is particularly worthy of investigation.
>From page 185,

"At the Parent Lodge in Los Angeles and in other lodges, there are nonprofit
corporations that control the assets of the lodge.  The officers of these
corporations are the individuals who hold power in the U.L.T."

This latter allegation is manifestly untrue.  I know of a great many people
"in power" in Los Angeles ULT, and most of them are not on the Board of
Trustees for Theosophy Company.  The person who edits Theosophy Magazine, the
people who run study classes, the sole full-time staff person, many of the
most charistmatic platform speakers -- none of these associates are on the
Board.  So we must assume there are different kinds of power, and the nature
of that power rests in how it is wielded and the motive high or low, not
necessarily how it is structured on paper.

We can surely agree that Mahatmas KH and M had (and have) tremendous spiritual
power, yet they don't appear to control any of the physical assets used by
ULT.  

The larger question is not "who's on the board of Theosophy Company" but "what
is power and how is it to be used?"

Rich

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.