Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00313)

Wednesday, July 25, 2001


Dear Eldon:

Permit me to correct some parts of this very useful presentation.

In my experience for over 60 years with the U.L.T. I have not
seen or even heard of anything approaching some of these items on
discussion at the chat groups..

If shows me (to my amazement) that either people have not
understood the U.L.T. DECLARATION, or don't believe it.

There is no "PARENT U.L.T.," (Los Angeles U.L.T. is the
oldest.) True. But it holds no sway over the independent and
autonomous ULTs around the world. Nor is there any kind of
PERMISSION (or "charter" ) granted or removed. And yet we all
know that the Los Angeles U.L.T. is the oldest and is always
ready to assist with its experience any U.L.T. that asks about
problems or procedures.

As in the case of associates the ULTs and the U.L.T. Study
Groups are all in a fraternal affiliation. No one "cracks the
whip." Independence is the sole basis for UNITY, paradoxical as
that sounds.

Adherence to the DECLARATION is the sole requirement and need of
any U.L.T. Lodge or Group.

If there is a single level of "associate," and that is a
"volunteer," then how is it possible for the deviations that are
raised as possible objections to even, or ever, have effect.
Absolutely no financial benefits accrue to any one personally in
the U.L.T. work. No fees or dues are ever asked for. Its
services, library, study classes, lectures are FREE. For the
books it publishes a replacement cost is asked for.

To be quite honest -- and why should any one be otherwise? -- why
would a person or a group that decides to follow some other
course or principles than those embodied in the DECLARATION
desire to retain the name "U.L.T. " ? That would be
hypocritical, and disharmonious, (not to say downright dishonest)
would it not?

As far as I am concerned that ends the matter.

Only some disruptive motive could allow an individual or a group
influenced by such an one, to follow this suggested course. I am
really appalled by Daniel's suggestions and trend of inquiry.
What a waste of energy. As I see it he is prying into things.
Let him offer himself as an associate and see if what I say is
any different. Both you and he (and I) have seen and watched
U.L.T. work for many years, so you do have some basis already.

As I see it, the whole discussion revolves about a grasp of what
THEOSOPHY is in terms of principles, fundamentals and
application. It is in short IDEALISM made practical as far as
possible in the conditions of our world today.

As far as I have been able to trace it, it is no different than
the perfectly common regulations that rule common decent human
affairs. It attempts to place the affairs of Man, and the Earth
and then, the Universe, into the recognizable and commonly
acceptable patterns of a true brotherhood of humanity. Is that
wrong? Is that anti-social? Does that contravene the spirit and
the letter of our laws or the laws of any country?

Please see my notes below.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:58 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World what if they taught Leadbeater?

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:

===============================


Eldon
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.

==================================


DTB The U.L.T. is an amorphous group of associates, each
having the same status as everyone else: volunteer.. How would
it set about "pressuring" any one ? It has no 'spokesmen.' It
has no "Constitution, By-Laws nor Officers." It is completely
free as to the nature of assistance and the contribution that the
volunteers decide to offer to it. It dos have a most firm basis
nd that is the study and the promulgation of THEOSOPHY "as
recorded in the writings of H. P. Blavatsky, and William Q.
Judge."

Consequently the concept of discussing or studying some other's
writings and/or opinions would not arise in a true U.L.T. --
this does not prevent any and all of that group from forming some
other "group" at which some other studies are the subject of
discussion. In fact such situations are current, and the
difference is made clear.

If you are interested in seeing what Mr. Crosbie had to say about
Leadbeater, the read p. 28 of The FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER - R.
Crosbie .

If a group of U.L.T. students desires to branch out in studying
some writings other than H.P.Blavatsky's and Judge's then it
really ceases to be U.L.T. work and it ought to take on some
other name. I know of some group where this has happened and
where another name was given to that Group activity when the
members decided to study something else. U.L.T. Study Group was
reserved for U.L.T. oriented work



===========================

Eldon
.... ? ....oough 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.

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


DTB I would hold issue with this. The statements
made by any associate are always open to being questioned, and
CONFERENCING is the method used in U.L.T. to agree on methods of
study and work. Everyone is listened to, and no one in
particular has more "authority" than any other, either in theory
or in practice. It is the TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY, and no one or
several individual opinions that seem to carry the most weight at
conferencing times.


===================================

ELDON
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.

=========================


DTB I agree this is the usual and a correct way. The
U.L.T. is dedicated to the study of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q.
Judge 's writings. What is done by individuals outside of the
ULT is of course always their own responsibility and their
affair. While the U.L.T. may feel repercussions from their
actions or words ,in the U.L.T. it is CONFERENCING as the method
recommended to be used. The idea is that several minds are
better than one -- in other words several studying the pros and
cons are more likely to come up with an improved action proposal
than any one isolated person.

========================

Eldon
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.


===========================


DTB	And that is why U.L.T. is such a valuable training ground to
learn impartiality and impersonality in. Anonymity is another
tool that assists the personality to rely on FUNDAMENTALS and on
PRINCIPLES. Rather than on individual OPINIONS.


=========================


Eldon
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?

===============================


DTB	as I see it, the U.L.T. is dedicated to the study and
promulgation of ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY.

L. made changes.

Why then should he be studied at the U.L.T. ?

In any case his ideas have solidified in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
with HQ in Adyar. Let those who desire to take that as
"theosophy" go there and find out. It would be the best thing in
the world for those who have learned THEOSOPHY from H. P.
Blavatsky, to go and see how it is handled elsewhere in other
centers.

If individuals desire to ascertain what he (L.) had to say,
there are no boundaries that restrain them.


===========================


Eldon
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.)


=======================================


DTB	ALSO A MYSTERY TO ME, as this is the first time I have ever
heard of a U.L.T. BEING "CHARTERED." Does any one have data or
facts on this ? Please advise me. I am curious. DTB


=====================================


Eldon
A better question might be: why try for a ULT charter? If there's
an existing organization that's in harmony with the way 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

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

DTB	THANKS ELDON, I THINK THIS IS WELL SAID I hope you do not
mind my observations and questions.

Best wishes,

Dallas

==========================