Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00306)

SUBJECT: Rich Taylor writes on the United Lodge of
Theosophists

[On July 22, 2001, Rich Taylor wrote the following
letter to me about his involvement in the ULT. His
account is an honest, straightforward and balanced
narrative giving some insight into the structure,
organization and working of the ULT. Earlier tonight,
Rich gave permission to share his letter with others. 
He wrote: "It's fine to share it with whomever. It
wasn't meant to be malicious or an 'unveiling' but
just as you write, honest and straightforward, so it's
for all to read." Rich's account is below.] 

Daniel

---------------------------------------

Dear Daniel (and interested listeners),

There are two different discussions here. One is being
carried on largely by "outsiders" who are curious what
ULT is, how it works, and how it fits into the larger
Theosophical history and picture.

The other discussion is being carried on by ULT
"insiders," long-time members who, as Jerome has
rightly pointed out, have given their fortunes and in
a very real sense (counting by days of labor) their
very lives to the movement.

I suspect that the outsiders are not sufficiently
aware of the principled and spiritual dynamics at work
in the ULT, such that it is hard to believe an
association can actually be carried out with an
amazing degree of autonomy by following certain
philosophical lines. While studying in school in
Cambridge, Mass., I helped found a study group run
along what I would call ULT principles (impersonality,
sticking to the original teachings, etc.). I asked no
one's permission, and needed no one's supervision.
After a year of operation the little Cambridge group
was included in the annual letter the LA lodge sends
out to associates as a ULT-related activity. So
there's autonomy for you, motivated as Jerome mentions
by dedication, perseverance and sacrifice.

I suspect that the insiders are not sufficiently aware
of the non-spiritual dimensions of the ULT effort.
Let's call these "interpersonal dimensions," or
psycho-social dimensions, or what-not. These
dimensions, by the very fact that they are personal or
interpersonal, are generally foresworn by ULT
associates (especially if there are perceived negative
consequences of certain behavior) and are simply
chalked up to individual temperament, irrelevant
personal concerns, cliques, or dare I say the
influence of negative forces, even Dugpas. Many ULT
associates are not aware, or choose not to be aware,
that the personal and interpersonal dynamics are
absolutely everywhere that the spiritual dynamics are
at play, and the systematic long-term consequences of
this situation. In the minds of many ULT students, the
ULT is guided by the Mahatmas and so its operation is
above reproach -- and such things as leadership, etc.
are trivial concerns pondered by small-minded men.
Hence the continual attempt to redirect such inquiries
to the Declaration, the Objects, the philosophical
study of the original teachings. This is a fine
technique -- if the assumptions are true!

And of course there IS a leadership. I have been a
long-time associate of the ULT, having worked closely
with four different lodges and several study groups,
and I can tell you that in each location there are
leaders. In many cases these leaders have emerged
simply because they have been the longest and hardest
workers, and are recognized by their peers as having
the most knowledge, dedication and insight. And let's
face it: lodges need physical things, and someone has
to sign the checks. The building is owned by SOME
legal entity, entitled to own property and make
transactions. There are also significant sums of money
held in trust for the use of the ULT, both locally and
for worldwide use. But how shall this be managed? To
my knowledge the ULT "as such" has never made this
public. The property is not held by ULT but by legally
separate entities, thus in theory leaving ULT
philosophically "free" of material influence and
non-spiritual issues. But is it really?

I know for a fact that those who sit on the boards are
appointed, not elected. The Boards also have a
President. As ULT never claimed to be a democracy, I
see no conflict here. But HOW are these people
apppointed? What are the criteria? What is their
relationship with the daily functioning of the lodge?
For instance, who decides what books will be sold at
the book table? I know of one lodge which refused to
sell Cranston's autobigraphy of HPB for quite some
time, on the grounds that it was not an "original
teaching." (When learning of this, I made a note to
self: "Does the ULT Declaration ordain the contents of
booktables?") This decision was made by one
individual, the appointed decision-maker, with some
support and with quite a bit of protest from several
"less empowered" associates. (Other lodges sold the
book however, so one must be careful about
generalizations.) Indeed, the ULT itself was formed by
one individual, Robert Crosbie, whose writings sit on
every ULT booktable and whose bust sits in the Los
Angeles "Parent Lodge." Obviously, one must hastily
add that he was helped by numerous others in starting
the ULT, who apparently left few writings, none of
which have made it to the book table. De jure: a group
effort. De facto: a single leader.

The mistake I think many ULTers make, and the point
I'm trying to make, is that in light of the admittedly
very high motives and excellent spiritual service ULT
provides, it is easy to gloss over or dismiss as
irrelevant the non-spiritual forces at work. It is
easy to choose not to recognize the coercive power
single individuals or appointed boards may have over
other, less politically or economically empowered
decision-makers in the ULT. I am by no means
suggesting that the "empowered" decision makers
generally make poor decisions, or have any less than
altruistic and spiritual motives. But there are many
methods and means by which a group may pursue even
altruism, and in many cases my experience has shown
that the decision makers are usually small in number
and wield nearly absolute power. It is nearly absolute
because, as Tillet rightly suggests, it is largely
unacknowledged that there are even certain decisions
to be made, or who is making them, or alternatives
that o! ne might pursue. Having been on the Board of
the SF ULT, and having signed checks etc. I can state
that most of these tasks are absolutely routine
(paying electric bills etc.). But there were also
decisions about how a platform speaker should present
material, what sources would be used for quotes in
public talks, which books would be carried in the
building library (many, many donations were
discarded), what would form the year's study, whether
it was acceptable for our very small audiences to join
the speaker and sit in a circle on the platform for
discussion classes, etc. These are certainly minor
decisions individually, but cumulatively create the
entire culture of the place and create the conditions
under which newcomers experience Theosophy. And I can
state that all of these decisions in SF were made by
just three of us -- and among us three, the
acknowledged leader regularly contacted a single
individual in Los Angeles (called the "Parent Lodge"
for reasons besides being the first) for guidance on
any knotty problems. Neither the decision makers, the
leader, nor the regular guidance from the individual
in LA were known to the rank-and-file associates. All
of this is quite apart from any esoteric concerns
which have been brought up.

Perhaps other ULT associates will protest that (a) ULT
is not a democracy and therefore need not reveal its
leaders and decision-making processes to newcomers and
outsiders and/or (b) every decision, no matter how
mundane, is a spiritual decision which should be made
by the single best decision-maker (and possibly small
circle of confidants). Okay. But as a long-time ULT
associate with allegedly equal standing to every other
ULT associate, I can say that in my humble opinion,
option (a) leads to secret cabals which are free of
oversight, and therefore subject to abuse; option (b)
overlooks the fact that every decision also has
other-than-spiritual dimensions. Particularly in light
of the secrecy the ULT's public persona of absolute
independence and freedom from non-spiritual concerns,
the situation breeds hypocrisy and outright deception.
What's more, it's no secret. I've been privy to open
discussions of the situation among other longtime
students in more than one ULT location for years. On
the whole, though, the system has worked well for
nearly 100 years and most people in ULT seem mostly
happy with it most of the time. 

If other ULT associates, with alledgedly equal
standing to me, believe the situation (or significance
of the situaion) is different, so be it: let them also
openly share their perceptions. I suspect far more
associates will agree with the party line than agree
with me -- otherwise it would have been altered long
ago. And besides, did I mention that it's not a
democracy?

Rich Taylor

---------------------------------------------


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/