Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00157)

In a response concerning ULT, Dallas said some things that brought up
several questions in my mind, especially in light of all the recent talk
about union:

<<<He had apparently, earlier, in Adyar, with Ettie Beswick, T.L.Crombie,
and others, discussed the question of how to get the T S back on to the
track of real Theosophy.

JERRY: Dallas, was this a result of the Khristamurti business? Or something
else? I thought that Crosbie founded ULT out of some kind of problem with
Pasadena, not Adyar (??). Are you saying that Tingley's drama etc was not
"real Theosophy?" In any case, I would really like to hear exactly what you
think is "real Theosophy" and exactly why you perceive it not to exist in
the other TSs. I would think that an honest answer may go far to some kind
of union.


<<<I recall him saying fairly often how important was HPB's plea,
found If one reads the last 2 or 3 pages of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY;
there one may see how she hoped that when the "next Messenger"
from the Lodge of Adepts came, he would receive a cordial
welcome.

JERRY: Dallas, I would really love to hear your honest answer to some
questions that are very close to my heart: The ULT accepts only HPB, Judge,
and the MLs as valid, and anything new or not specifially detailed in those
writings is, by ULT definition, neo-Theosophy and suspect. Lets face it,
Dallas, why is a Messenger necessary if he/she has no new ideas to present?
In such a climate, how would ULT recognize a Messenger when, and if, one
showed up? I say this in some sense because I have been presenting somewhat
"new" (but not really) ideas on theos-l, and for all you know I could be a
Messenger and frankly you have not made me feel all that welcome. Also,
there have been several others on theos-l over the years with new ideas,
who, for all you know, could have been Messengers, and you (and your fellow
ULTers) seem to have rejected them to the point where they have all left (I
must have infinite patience ...). I am referring here not to personalities,
but to new (or what may be perceived as being new) ideas. Do you, for
example, consider the 15 themes that I recently presented as being
"neo-Theosophy" and thus rejectable? Or are they worthy of some thought
before you throw them out? Can you accept even one?


<<<<The T S had changed drastically in direction and in teachings
since her "death," and since that in 1896 of Mr. Judge in
America. HPB'S writings had been changed by editing, and were
going "out-of-print." Mr. Judge was unknown.

JERRY: Changed how? Aren't all the TSs still echoing her teachings (with or
without any concept of what they may mean)?
I can go to my local bookstore and buy The Secret Doctrine, so the TSs must
be doing something right. Can you tell me where these editing changes to
HPB's writing changed the idea that she was trying to convey? Does ULT try
to maintain the exact writing of HPB irregardless of meaning? Or are they
trying to maintain an original meaning that other TSs have
changed/distorted? Exactly what do you see as the failings of Adyar and
Pasadena, especially today.


<<<ULT offered those conditions which she had hoped would be
available. I would say that the increase in ULT work and centers
is a result of that.

JERRY: What conditions? Please explain what these conditions are, and why
they are lacking in Adyar and Pasadena. I understand your dislike of
personalities, but quite honestly, Dallas, one of the conclusions that I
have reached after scanning the online ULT THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY is this:
Blavatsky and Judge walked on water, and everyone else was a black magician
or devil incarnate or worse. Please tell me if my conclusion is wrong.

Sincerely and in brotherhood

Jerry S.