Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00225)

I don't know what ax you have to grind, or what anger you are suffering under 
that makes you so eager to discredit ULT... But all I know about the policy 
of that "free association of independent students of theosophy" is what I 
read in its declaration -- plus the freedom, along with the facilities it 
gave me over the past 35 years, to study as deeply as I desired in the 
mysteries of the occult, under my own "self devised and self determined 
efforts -- without ever having to become a (signed up) member, or having to 
make any contribution to its work, except as I might freely volunteer. 

As for the DES -- while I have never found a need to join it (and could have 
if I wanted to) -- I have read (please don't ask me how) all its supposedly 
secret teachings to its members, and have not learned anything from them that 
I couldn't find through my own efforts in the writings of HPB, WQJ and RC 
(with the added help of Patanjali, Krishna, Plato, Moses, Buddha, Lao Tse, 
etc. -- all writings, incidentally, recommended for study by ULT). It's 
perfectly understandable, however, why they (or we, as a group) don't 
recommend (but also don't restrict) the studying of any of the later 
followers of HPB -- since in my perusals of all their writings, the 
accumulated errors and misinterpretations of HPB's teachings, could easily 
lead the non-discerning student far astray... Especially into the realm of 
psychism and pseudo (personality, and religiously oriented) theosophy (such 
as promulgated by Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, etc., and their followers). 

Since the Lodge never prohibited me from studying any works written by others 
than HPB, WQJ or RC, or ever prevented me from bringing up in open 
discussion, points of contradiction, or possible errors that I found in their 
writings, I don't see how you can say that ULT makes any dictatorial 
restrictions on its members. 

I think Dallas has already made it clear that there is no hierarchical 
relationship between the independent local Lodges and associate run study 
groups, or any overriding dictatorial powers that can govern how each 
individual Lodge or student associate freely goes about their self determined 
business. For example, many years ago I set up a ULT study group in Florida, 
that -- had we sufficient members to justify a registration under state and 
federal laws as a "not for profit association" requiring our own premises and 
tax free status -- could have been chartered by the Parent ULT as an 
"independent Lodge." (At that time, incidentally, we were studying the occult 
teachings in the Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads with the help of a Hindu 
initiate.) At no time did the Parent ULT ever give us any restrictions or 
guidance, have any interest, or ask for any reports on what we were doing. 

As for the internal politics of any of the ULT lodges... That has never been 
of interest to me -- (although I have observed, and sometimes have bucked up 
against the personal or political power plays that are common to any study 
group, association, or organization) -- since, it could never effect my study 
of theosophy... Which was carried out at my own choice, in conjunction with 
every source of ancient and modern occult information available in the ULT 
libraries, as well as in the libraries of any other theosophical society, 
mystery school, or occult organization (Masonic, Rosicrucian, Gnostic, etc.) 
that I chose to refer to. 

In this light, and since ULT allowed me to make my own decisions as to how 
deeply I reached into the mysteries and to form my own interpretations about 
the truth or falsity of the teachings, I think that the ULT is a much better 
model for the study of fundamental theosophy than any other hierarchical (and 
consequently, dictatorial) organization that claims its oligarchic leaders 
were more knowledgeable than the Masters who taught HPB -- (who, right up 
front, stated that she may have made mistakes and that her works were not to 
be taken as final gospel). However, I know for certainty, that she took 
great pains to offer hidden clues in the SD and in her other writings to 
enable the discerning and intuitive student to reach a full and comprehensive 
understanding of the occult laws through all seven levels (although HPB 
claimed to have turned the "key" only four times). Incidentally, does that 
make HPB (or any of the Masters who ctually dictated the SD) a liar?

However, since my interest lies in the study and practice of scientific 
theosophy (based on fundamental principles) both from a metaphysical as well 
as a practical standpoint, rather than the means through which it is offered 
or presented, I have no interest in getting in a debate over the merits, or 
the history of the various theosophical groups or their leadership 
personalities -- which is, apparently, the chosen job of "scholars" and "nit 
pickers" such as yourself. Therefore, there's no point in any further 
questioning of me along those lines... Although, since you chose to inject 
personality and pejorative remarks into your arguments. I will answer some of 
your questions directed at me as best I can in the body of your letter below.

In a message dated 07/19/01 1:08:40 AM, ringding@blinx.de writes:

>>It seems that among all the diverse TM groups, only ULT -- not an organized
>>"theosophical society," but as a free association of independent students
>>whose only obligation is "that which they, themselves (individually)
>>determine" -- sanctions this truly occult and free thinking approach.
>
>Leon, do I understand you in the right way that you say that the present ULT
>(not that ULT with a new police that we recently discuss about) welcomes
>occult matters and free thinking - and is the only theosophical group that
>does it?

What "police" are you talking about? Who compared ULT to any other 
theosophical group? I told it just the way I have experienced it for the 
past 35 years. Whatever its faults are (that your paranoia sees so clearly 
and that apparently restricts you from using its facilities) -- it did 
nothing to prevent me from studying theosophical occultism as deeply as I 
wanted to. But, then, I have no ax to grind and have always taken its 
declaration at its face value.
>
>1. How then do you explain the Crosbie story?
> stateme
>2. How is it possible that free thinking people were made believed and
>which believed for nearly hundred years a twisted version?

Who cares? What difference does all that contradictory infighting, power 
playing and jockeying for position, make to a serious student of theosophy? 
>
>3. How is it possible that free thinking people (who claim to be
>Theosophists, following Blavatsky) in nearly hundred years did not come
>to new ideas, insights and never corrected falsents?

How do you (or anyone else, for that matter) know what conclusions, occult 
insights or new ideas that independent ULT students may have come up with 
about theosophy in the past hundred years? I'm sure that there were quite a 
few in this long history of the modern movement (including some of my own 
:-). But, why should we have any reason to write about them in any exoteric 
publication (especially, if the new insights we obtain may be 
incomprehensible or even dangerous to the uninitiated)? 

The only apparent "falsehoods" I ever found in the SD were, possibly, the 
intentional blinds that the Masters actually placed there as protection or as 
misdirection for the profane. Why would I, or any other serious theosophist 
(who might do the same in their place) make any corrections? Only self 
serving and self appointed "gurus" who wish to establish themselves as 
"adepts" and head up their own organization with dictatorial powers, would do 
such a thing. (Vide, Besant and Leadbeater, and their misuse of Krishnamurti 
along with their usurpation of WQJ, to further their own dictatorial ends.)

As far as I am concerned, the Theosophy magazine (published by the 
independent Theosophy Company in Los Angeles) which has, justifiably, its own 
editorial policies as to what it will or will not publish -- has no influence 
on the activities of students who study at the ULT lodges. In spite of that, 
as a long time subscriber, I sincerely admire the way they have maintained 
the integrity of the fundamental theosophical teachings in all that they do 
publish.
>
>4. Which doctrines were recognized by the ULT in the last 100 years which
>are not know to others?

I wouldn't know. As far as I'm concerned there is only one "Secret 
Doctrine." I never thought that ULT had any mandate to come up with new ideas 
or "Doctrines" -- since it's studies are openly based on the original 
teachings of HPB, WQJ and RC. (What's wrong with that for the ordinary 
student of theosophy?) I believe, even Besant, Leadbeater, Tingely and 
Perucker had to learn their fundamentals through the writings of HPB. Based 
on my studies of their books -- which, in my view, contain many 
contradictions and distortions of the original teachings -- that are quite 
clear (at least to me) just as they were written down in the SD -- I also 
question any claims of these later teachers having any direct contact with 
HPB's Masters. 

Although, through my own insights, I may have come up with several "new 
ideas" of a highly esoteric nature "not known (openly) to others" -- based on 
my studies of HPB's writings (along with other teachers far outside of the 
various contradictory TS organizations) -- why would I have any requirement 
to expose these possibly dangerous insights to those that I am not sure of 
their status of "initiation" or their "need to know"? As a practicing 
occultist (or, as HPB said, "practical idealist") and having no need for 
"guru" status or organizational power plays, I take very seriously the 
Hermetic admonition, "... and to remain silent." 
>
>5. The Mystery school HPB founded in 1875 has had nine degrees; which degree
>actually had Robert Crosbie when he was kicked out in 1904 from the
>Headquarters (in ULT phrase one would rather say left by free will)?

I wouldn't know, and couldn't care less. I judge the wisdom of Crosbie solely 
through his own writings (The Friendly Philosopher, Notes on the Bhagavad 
Gita, etc.). Since I also don't have such a high opinion of Tingley or any 
of the self proclaimed leaders of the various TS organizations (after 
Blavatsky and Judge) that you appear to have -- I prefer to take the ULT 
view. So, who's to believe whom? 
>
>6. Is the ULT magazine censored or is every ULT member free to place his/her
>(so far as 6th rounders still have a gender) articles there?

Disregarding the sarcastic non sequitur inference about 6th rounders -- I 
have no knowledge of the editorial policy of Theosophy Magazine, which, I 
assume, is the sole decision of its editors. I have been asked a number of 
times to write articles for it, which I have declined for reasons of my own. 
However, I'm sure that, since it adheres to the original teachings of 
theosophy by HPB and WQJ (which are in close conformance), and endeavors only 
to explain them based on fundamental Principles, there would be no point in 
changing their policy and having it become a vehicle for controversy based on 
personal opinions. 
>
>7. If not, who blocks the free thinking? Are they elected? Are they known
>by the simple members?

What has "free thinking" got to do with a magazine that is independent of the 
free study (and thinking) policy of the Lodge itself? There are no elected 
leaders of ULT, since it has no constitution, nor officers, and operates by 
consensus solely under the statements made in its Declaration. Students are 
free to accept this policy or not, and no attempt is made to restrict anyone, 
whether or not an avowed member, from utilizing the facilities or attending 
the study classes. And, as far as I know, the DES is open to any associate 
who is capable of figuring out how to get through the hidden gate (which is 
no secret to any perspicacious student who makes the effort to find out). 

>Until you come with serious facts and statements I am sorry to say that
>all this smacks not like freedom but much more like sectarian brain washing.
>I hope you give serious questions also a serious consideration and answer.
>Make believe and commercial statements does not convince me. Let's speak
>simply facts.

Well, I feel sorry for your angst over it... And don't appreciate your 
misrepresentation about "brain washing," "commercial statements," and "make 
believe" -- which I haven't engaged in -- nor, as far as I know, has anyone 
else that has responded to your queries. The simple facts are that you 
haven't the faintest idea about the nature of the ULT, or the meaning of free 
choice -- since your idea of freedom appears to be sectarian, highly 
prejudicial and organizationally based. The only ones who could engage in 
"brainwashing" would be such organizations' self elected dictators. "The 
true theosophist is a member of no cult or sect, but a member of each and 
all" (Declaration of ULT). Maybe you should study it carefully before going 
off in wild and unfounded criticisms. 
>
>>I hope we can all (including this and other online forums) soon get off this
>>incessant argumentation about past organizational and personal history, and
> 
>Why? Have you hide something? You, Dallas and others are frequently saying
>that the ULT is a good model for the Theosophical Movement. So it seems to
>be a duty to have a nearer look to the ULT. Especially HOW they LIVE free
>thought (and not merely PROCLAIM it as Communists).
>And why are this things past? Has the ULT changed its policy? Are the
>results of Mrs Geiger from 1931 about the Judge/Tingley-successorship
>published? Where can I read it?
>As long as you surpress the TRUTH about the past I do not believe that you
>really love the TRUTH in the present and in the future. Someone who has
>no past has no future, too.

If we can be said to "PROCLAIM as communists" -- then we might be justified 
in accusing you of JUDGING like nazis. Free thought, as it pertains to the 
study of theosophy, is based on the teachings of HPB about just that subject. 
Her students were told, in so many words, not to accept her teachings except 
as they can prove them to themselves through free and open inquiry, as well 
as on first hand experience (through study and practice of meditation as 
described in the Voice of the Silence). ULT does nothing more than follow 
that mandate to the letter. Maybe you should study HPB a bit deeper and find 
out that what ULT is offering (and its free and leaderless, non 
organizational policy) is just what she suggested. Even HPB never took any 
position of "rulership" in the TS other than as "Founder" and "Corresponding 
Secretary." 

What has theosophical TRUTH got to do with the truth or falseness of 
individual members or leaders of any group? Methinks you stretch your 
arguments far too deep into the realm of personalities, and have, apparently, 
little conception of the purpose of independent theosophical study and the 
freedom of open-minded, impersonal. and even skeptical, agnostic thinking 
that it requires. ULT offers its student associates the opportunity to 
practice just that. 
>
>>get back down to the basic study and understanding of pure theosophy --
>>along
>
>Ah, I see. When we discuss things that you don't like because old ULT dogmas
>break up then it is not pure Theosophy.
>But when we discuss how free and equal the ULT members are, then you would
>say it is pure Theosophy.
>Don't you think that you violate HPB with such twisted thinking?

What dogmas? You can discuss anything you please, but please don't call what 
you have been doing theosophy or theosophical thinking. Nothing about what 
either you or I say about ULT has anything to do with theosophy. Twisted 
thinking is in your own mind, based on the words you place in other peoples' 
mouths. It's you, with your opinionated criticisms that have violated HPB -- 
who taught just the opposite. What has the freedom (or lack of it) of 
members of any group or organization got to do with pure theosophy? Truth is 
truth, no matter what you decide it is based on. That's why it says in the 
ULT Declaration that it has no time to waste on "differences of personal 
opinion." All the arguments you have put forth to discredit the policy of 
ULT or its founder, is based on pure hearsay, and in my view carries no we
ight in any discussion of ULT policy as it is presently and has always been 
practiced in accord with its declaration. 
>
>>with discussing its practical applications (both individually and
>
>Reminder: The whole recent discussion has to do with practical application
>and only with that. Please read the emails again. For example I have asked
>when and in which way new researches of which the DES members at least
>1931 know of will be made known to the ULT members? Is that practical or is
>that not? Free thinkers read the book "Theosophical Movement", recognize that
>there are twisted stories and lies about KT, make research and make a
>PRACTICAL use of their new findings and keep their sheep informed what
>was happened.
>Will you help me to make it practical? Otherwise I would spent some time
>and write up an article. Would you be willing to care for it being published
>in the ULT magazine?
>That action would convince me that the ULT'ies are not living on cloud nine
>or in the lower astral world were personal dogmas are protected on every
>cost but that they are eager to spread practically and free thinking the
>truth to help others to think free.

Wow, that's really making far out claims that are totally unfounded as far as 
I can see. Who needs to convince you of anything? I've read your previous 
diatribes thoroughly, and in no way do I see any of it falling under the 
category of "practical theosophy." What has your divisive opinions about ULT 
got to do with the "practical application" of the "principles of theosophy" 
(which is what I was talking about)? Who cares about the long past "lies" 
(if they are so, other than what you believe) of individual members of any 
group? What does the practice of theosophy, based on individually gained 
knowledge and wisdom, have to do with the politics of the leaders, or of any 
individual member in any theosophical organization or association? If one 
doesn't agree with the policy of any such group, they are certainly free to 
leave -- or stay and try to change it -- as they choose. 

If you want to write up an article about your opinions and/or research -- 
(which I personally think, judging from your previous correspondence, is not 
only, not "practical theosophy," but also divisive, disruptive, and nothing 
more than opinionated gossip) -- you are free to do so. When you have 
finished, you are also free to submit it to whichever publisher/editor will 
accept it. Why ask me (or any other theosophist) to sanction your actions? 
Where's the freedom in that? 

However, it's your choice to defend KT, or anyone else you think has been 
wronged -- as you see fit. In the meantime, the theosophical "sheep" can do 
just what they like, as well. That's the "freedom" that is offered by ULT to 
whichever theosophical students wish to partake of its offerings -- freely 
given, and freely taken. 

As far as I'm concerned, since you can take it or leave it as you choose, and 
since ULT doesn't seem to breed defenders of organizations, such as yourself 
-- I still think the more or less anarchic (although still guided by its 
common aim and purpose) formation of ULT is a good model for group and 
individual study of fundamental theosophy. At least it doesn't wrap students 
up in pointless political arguments based on personal opinions, or on 
individual angst or paranoia -- which are "side issues" that takes them away 
from their independent studies and their following of the "objects of the 
Theosophical Movement."

LHM 

>