Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00261)

How many times do we have to repeat this? 

But, for those inquirers, old or new to theosophy, who know very little or 
nothing about ULT, here are the answers to ALL your questions -- again...

Our independent study group in Miami operated solely under the guidelines of 
the "Declaration of the ULT" -- which, if you will read it carefully, you 
will see that it makes no restrictions as to what books can be studied by 
"independent" students of theosophy who have mutually agreed to follow the 
ULT guidelines "To spread broadcast the teachings of Theosophy as recorded in 
the writings of Helena P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge" -- in accord with 
the "Declaration," as our only self governing principles. This, in my view, 
is pure "Democracy," as it was meant to be.

Such an open minded mandate would include studying or comparing any occult, 
philosophical, scientific, or scriptural writings of anyone, or of any 
religions we choose -- in the light of pure theosophy as presented by HPB and 
WQJ (and that must certainly include the Masters who dictated the SD)... And, 
which, incidentally, we actually did... Since, I was guiding a small study 
class specifically set up to compare the teachings of HPB to the sometimes 
contradictory teachings of Bailey, Crowley, Ouspensky, Steiner, Gurdjieff, 
Leadbeater, Besant, Krishnamurti, Perucker, etc., along with philosophers 
from Pythagorus to Ayn Rand, etc., (which, myself and some other students, 
were also studying in depth and comparing notes). Incidentally, the Mahatma 
Letters could also have been included if anyone wished to bring them up for 
scrutiny.

Were we to be SELF chartered as a ULT in Florida, why would any other 
independent ULT, also self chartered in another state or country, have had 
any say so about what books we were studying in the light of theosophy as 
presented by HPB? 

Unfortunately, I may have been misunderstood in my last posting, since, as 
Dallas said, there actually is no "Parent Lodge" that has to authorize the 
formation of any independent Lodge. But, there are links between the 
Independent Lodges as well as the Founding Lodge (and the Theosophy Company) 
in Los Angeles for the purposes of common membership records, advice, 
correspondences, publications, voluntary contributions, etc., that is wise to 
initiate and establish whenever a new lodge is formed. (The need, also, for 
knowledgeable and experienced, voluntary guides and monitors of study groups, 
a necessary given.)


However, since our study group was never in a position to independently seek 
a Florida State charter (as an eleemosynary corporation) -- I don't know all 
the fine details -- other than that we were recognized and supported 
(publication access, advice, etc.) as an independent ULT study group by the 
New York Lodge, where several of our charter study group members originally 
began their studies. 

To reiterate, please understand (as all our study group members understood) 
that each local ULT, as an independently self chartered Lodge (or any study 
groups set up by ULT members) are "independent associations of students of 
theosophy" with "no obligations other than that which [they themselves] 
determine." (See "Declaration" and membership form signed by ULT associates, 
at: http://www.ult.org/.)

So, Daniel, Dennis, et al -- why not accept all that at face value (or join a 
ULT and check it out for yourselves) and STOP these endless loaded 
questioning attempts to recreate ULT in the image of your own 
organizationally oriented prejudices -- as well as trying to denigrate it 
from being considered (as both Dallas and I have implied, and agree to, I 
assume, by the founders and moderators of the various blavatsky.net study 
groups) "the BEST MODEL for organizationally unregulated and uncontrolled, 
free, open, and independent group (and individual) theosophical study, and 
worldwide promulgation," that has yet been established in the past centuries 
of the Theosophical Movement. 
Nuff said. 

LHM

In a message dated 07/24/01 7:39:39 PM, dennw3k@earthlink.net writes:

>> Leon wrote in part:
>>
>> "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."
>>
> Okay, Leon. Let's take this a step or two further. Let's say that
> eventually your Florida ULT study group had been chartered by the
> Parent ULT as an "independent Lodge". And let's say the associates
> of your Florida lodge then decided they wanted to have a public study
> class in the lodge on THE MAHATMA LETTERS. Are you telling me that
> the Parent ULT would have no say so in the matter, in fact would have
> no concern whatsoever about this study class?
>
>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?
>
>Dennis