Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00117)

Dear Frank,

Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative reply. I agree with what you say
about freedom -- what the average person thinks of as freedom is often
merely the ability indulge him/herself unimpeded. However, I disagree with
your statement that the form of ULT is "being worshipped as if that is the
highest possible form which is thinkable." It is only a beginning, and,
after all, only a form. I tend to think that ANY form can be made to work,
if the intent of the members is to make it so. Some forms seem to work
better at different times, with different groups of people, and all can
interfere with real progress, especially when undue attention is paid to
"form." (See Eldon's account of the various forms taken by the different
theosophical organizations, and his argument for "passive unity.") Also,
forms change and develop, so that a once-excellent form may prove entirely
useless at a later time, and need to be discarded or "re-formed." I agree
with you that we should "regard a good organization as good and a bad
organization as bad."

What still really puzzles me, Frank, is your statement that ULT was founded
on a "denial to work with the Masters and their representatives." You make
that assertion, but I don't see the evidence given for it. If Robert
Crosbie made "esoteric mistakes," how would you or I know that? How do you
know he was "expelled because he failed to follow the Instructions?"

If anyone at ULT (or anywhere else, for that matter) thinks they are "free
from responsibility," then I think they are mistaken. In my view, the
appeal of the ULT Declaration is its insistence on inner authority and
responsibility -- not institutional power and authority. The fact that
individuals at ULT have sometimes acted as if they had such outward
authority does not, for me, change the essential principle involved. It
only means that they have failed (for the moment) to live up to the high
ideals they have set for themselves.

To whom would you have us "give up our 'freedom?' " If I found a "true"
Teacher, I might choose to give up some or all worldly freedoms for the
privilege of studying with that teacher. But I would never give up to any
Institution my right (and obligation) to think for myself. And, I doubt
that any true teacher would expect that either. Do you recall the words of
Krishna, at the very end of the Bhagavad-Gita, after all his instruction to
Arjuna: "act as seemeth best unto thee."

Finally, I heartily agree with your last statement, "it is back to
Blavatsky." But, as John DeSantis recently wrote in reply to you, "wasn't
ULT begun to get students back to Blavatsky?" Isn't it a matter of
historical fact (verified by publication dates) that Theosophy Company
published the first Twentieth Century original edition of the Secret
Doctrine in 1925? Whatever its other failings and shortcomings, this set
an example since followed by both Theosophical Societies.

My intent is not to argue theosophical "history" with you, interesting and
important and it might be. As I write this, I received the Digest
containing further discussions about Judge, Tingley, letters, etc., which I
have not had time to read. If you have already answered my questions, I
apologize for the duplication.

Best Regards,
Wes



My argument is relative, ot absolutely.
What the mundane man calls free and freedom ist not so in the esoteric
world.
For a Theosophist freedom should mean to recognize and follow the Higher
self.
The mundane man follows his lower self including his brain speculations and
then calls that freedom.

In connection with the Theosophical Cause such thinking is poisonal because
to my humble understanding the TS was not merely launched to have "free
discussions"
and have free forums. That is only one side of the coin. It is not enough.
Esoterically seems it gives me impression that this kind of organization for
which the ULT stands for is being worshipped as if that is the highest
possible from which is thinkable.

>How is "the problem with the ULT" the cause of trouble in the "whole
>theosophical movement?"

Because this kind of "freedom" on the basis the ULT was founded was the
denial to work with the Masters and their representatives. Freedom from the
higher worlds is not really freedom, only the kama-manas feels free, but the
Higher self then is a slave. That Robert Crosbie (who may have been a good
man from the worldly view) made esoteric mistakes and was at one time around
1904 no more willing to follow the plan of the Masters and therefore, as he
believed that he is right, launched his own organization is better for him
and the cause as if he would have been launched a foe organization or
something of that kind. But not direct help is near to opposition.

An example: You are driving with your car on a highway. if you are not
concentrated enough you will make an accident.
The highway track will be closed to give the helpers an opportunity to do
their work.
On other tracks of the highway the cars are still driving.
But on the track were the accident happened protested against a re-opening
of their original way. They say: We have freedom now, everyone is free to
walk by feet on our highway and there are people who are damaged. They need
our help.
If we allow that the highway runs in its original form then there will be
accidents and we want no accidents, and there is no freedom, because we
cannot walk anymore by feet on it. And walking by feet on the highway makes
so much fun. Some argue that by car you are much faster from L.A. to S.F.,
but that cannot be true as the holy bible says that the last ones will be
the first. So in reality someone walking by feet to L.A. is faster than any
car.

That means to me in my humble English that as long as the ULT believes that
they are free (free from responsibility, free from moral and free from
spirituality) no Master will appear.
They do NOT come do us. We must come to THEM. How do you come to them? Only
if you give up your "freedom".
You cannot have both: Freedom and the Masters. (To me the Masters are the
greatest freedom).

>What part of the "clear instructions of the
>Masters" did Crosbie fail to follow, and what duties does his approach
>avoid?

The Instructions are in print since 1980, to be found in Blavatsky Collected
Writings.
Crosbie was expelled because he failed to follow that Instructions.
The details were once stated in The Theosophical Forum of the 1930s.

>It seems to me that the "organization" problems of the movement that you
>refer to are often precisely because of an over-emphasis on politics,
>structure, who-gets-to-be-leader disputes, etc. Has your experience with
>"chaos" been such that you value "organization" so very highly?

Every extreme is bad. To me the whole Theosophical Movement of today is
nothing as chaos.
I regard a good organization as good and a bad organization as bad.
The problem is that may people would regard an organization as bad which
follows the moral code of the Masters and regard an organization as good
which allows them to follow their own impressions.

>How would
>you suggest that we "care for organization" to be able to learn from the
>past and avoid "the mistakes of some unlucky individuals?"

The only way to overcome the chaos and the real existing opposition and
anti-Theosophy within the Theosophical Movement is to learn from the past.
We must have an unbiased look to the facts. Then we can grow and learn.
We can also learn from Robert Crosbie (or from Franz Hartmann or Charles
Johnston which were in a similar situation of "pledge fever"). Then there
will be progress and understanding what the Masters are working for. In
other words it is back to Blavatsky.