Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00253)

At 02:33 PM 7/24/01 -0700, you wrote:
> And take it a little further. Let it study another book about
> Theosophy, by a Soviet Style "Non-Person", who actually worked with
> HPB, and HSO, and Annie Besant. What if they decided to study C. W.
> Leadbeater's OUTLINE OF THEOSOPHY (1915), currently available from a
> non-Theosophical publisher?
>
> Will that be OK with the parent body?
[writing about the autonomy of an hypothetical ULT branch]

Dennis:

There are two questions. What would they do? What should they do?
As to the first, I'd expect that they might pressure the group
to not study Leadbeater, and eventually no longer recognize the
group if it continued. As to the second, it would depend upon the
approach that the ULT takes.

Although the ULT is defined such that there's no person in
control, and all members simply stay in touch for purposes of
promoting Theosophy, it does not seem to work that way. Some
members seem to speak for the organization and what it does.
Others do not seem to have the same authority to do so. When
I say something about it, for instance, it may only count as
a single member's views. When someone else says something about
it, it may be a quasi-official statement that others must heed.

As to the hypothetical situation, if the ULT were taking a
conservative position, they might say that only Blavatsky and
Judge are to be studied. The argument would be that although
the writings of others may also represent the ideas of the
Masters, there is disagreement over what other people are to
be considered authoritative, and what are writers of confused
and misleading materials. By staying to the original writers,
we avoid the controversy. Members can study other materials
outside the meetings.

If the ULT were taking a more liberal approach, they might
say that a certain amount of meeting time should be
devoted to the original materials by Judge and Blavatsky,
but the groups could pick whatever other materials they
liked for the rest of the time. By requiring a certain portion
of the time to the original materials, the ULT would be
insuring that members are conversant with the core doctrines.
Then, as members study other materials, they have something to
compare the new materials to. Note that the other materials
could be classical, like Plato, or more modern, like Jung. The
choice is not just over including some later theosophical writer
or not.

If at least a certain amount of meeting time (or certain number
of meetings a year) aren't devoted to the original doctrines,
it's possible for members and groups to not understand what
Theosophy is about. As they share their ideas with others, that
can lead to public misinformation about Theosophy and harm the
effort to spread the philosophy.

Does the ULT take a conservative or liberal approach? According
to the organization's definition, each branch and individual
is free to choose. In actual practice, it seems to have a
conservative past. But that has been how its members have chosen
to do things. New branches and members are free to take the
approach that they find the most suitable.

As soon as we start dealing with any organization, though,
regardless of how lofty its stated purpose, we'll find the
seeds of disagreement and conflict. Different people will
have different ideas about what a group should be about. Some
will want to change a group's stated purpose. Others will want
to change how the group operates in carrying out that purpose.

People are different, and no group can effectively be all
things to all people. In seeking unity in the Theosophical
Movement, I'd say that the best approach is that of a "passive
unity" like we say in the Theosophical Network project of the
1980's. This form of unity is based on mutual respect and the
breaking down of barriers between organizations and peoples.
Everyone is listed side-by-side, showing that they were part
of the same effort, regardless of group affiliation. There was
no bias in favor of certain individuals or groups.

In this approach, there is no umbrella organization that
everyone needs to join. There is no stated purpose that must
be worded such that everyone can agree to it. There is no
central lodge or headquarters with people policing the activities
of satellite groups. There is no official publishing house that
acts to promote approved literature and block unapproved
materials from being promoted.

An up-to-date example of passive unity is a theosophical website
or mailing list. Assuming it's not moderated, anyone can join
in, participate, and say what they think. There's no restriction
as to what group one belongs to, or what books one reads. The
same is possible of a moderated mailing list, if the moderation
is just to keep study focused on a particular topic, and not to
filter out views, except in extreme cases where someone gets
disruptive to the list.

Back to your original question. Could you found a ULT branch,
then study Leadbeater? Perhaps. Or perhaps not, depending upon
how the group was looked upon by the people approving its charter.
(Although how some particular ULT student or students are
empowered to decide upon charters for other ULT groups is a
mystery to me.)

A better question might be: why try for a ULT charter? If there's
an existing organization that's in harmony what how you want to
run a group, you might affiliate with it. But a group has value
in its own right, apart from any charter from some established
organization.

In the past, it may have been necessary to belong to a national
or international group in order for people to know if your group.
That would get it listed in directories and get supporting lectures
and materials from other members in the organization. Now, it's
not as needed. Perhaps the model for the future would be to have
completely autonomous groups. The groups would affiliate with
zero-or-more national organizations, but not belong to any
external organization. The groups would cooperate with theosophical
societies to the extent there were shared interests, but would not
be externally chartered or owned in any way. The groups would be
as autonomous as individuals are, associating for the common
purpose of promoting the philosophy, but maintaining complete
freedom of action.

-- Eldon