Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00331)

Saturday, July 28, 2001


Re: appalled at some of your questions? Yes, and curious too.

Dear Dan:

As always, I send you these comments and answers based solely on
my own observation and experience. Please understand that I do
not, and cannot, speak as "a spokesman" for the U.L.T. .[Its
nature as stated in its DECLARATION precludes this. And I wish
this to be clear t everyone.] So what I have said and do say are
the result of my personal observation.

If you will refer to the statements I have made as to the
management of the U.L.T. by associates who are volunteers, and
who do not expect to be directed to do anything; but do expect
to be able to discuss Theosophy, as it was recorded by
H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. And when matters relating to
practicing Theosophy arise through the ULT, they expect to be
permitted to arrive at a consensus for study, action, and mutual
assistance, then, you will have a grasp of the situation. At
least for the sake of your understanding and that of our audience
I will try to offer what to me are reasonable explanations. As I
said I try to provide information of what i have experienced. I
think THEOSOPHY is a valuable addition to World Knowledge. If
the Academies do not take it very seriously, then the associates
of the U.L.T. do, and they consider that their work will have the
effect of eventually making it a subject for more universal and
deeper study.

As associates who are independent are free to answer as they
understand matters, you will also receive different points of
view. There is no "united front" beyond the DECLARATION of the
ULT to which each associate is independently devoted, each in
their own way.

So then what is there further to ask about? I think you will
find that I am reasonably consistent in what I have said and now
offer.

Yes I suggested that the STUDY OF THEOSOPHY was amore valuable
occupation, than your and other's public prying. And the time
spent in answering such queries and setting them as straight as
possible for the public and academic mind to grasp.

My characterization may be unfortunately phrased but let me
observe, that, to me, it seems that I have already answered your
questions, and additionally answers can be found contained in
printed material we have commonly available.

As to relevancy, why not take the FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER by Robert
Crosbie, and read through it. Most of your "questions" will be
answered. Further, I suggest the study the actual meaning in the
DECLARATION of the U.L.T. . Is there anything objectionable
there ?

Have you the time and the inclination to do that as some / most
of us "associates" have ?

Yes, I also suggested that you join the U.L.T. and become an
associate. It is better to be at first hand rather than snipe
from the outskirts of misinformation, and drawing conflicting
inferences from diverse opinions. .Yes I have noted them too,
but as they have little relevance, I classify them as "side
issues" and give as much importance to them as I think they
deserve.

I do not consider it essential to place myself into some "dock"
you, or others, may have contrived. I try to impersonalize such
statements as I may make and refer inquirers to the texts they
can study and upon them they may decide in their independent
wisdom what is reasonable and fair.

I am a very strong believer in PRIMARY EVIDENCE, and have almost
no respects for innuendo and personal opinions or unsupported
reports. When I am addressed directly on matters where I know
evidence is available, I attempt to offer the location to the
inquirer and let him/them do their own checking. Why should my
opinions be trusted over those of others?

But I do believe it necessary to defend the fair name of
THEOSOPHY and of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge whenever there
are erroneous statements made concerning them, from those who do
not seem to have studied their writings and know the Philosophy
well.

The whole crux of the matter, as I see it, which any one can
employ to answer your questions resides in their willingness to
avail themselves of the literature and material available and
find out for themselves what is useful and worthwhile. When the
"truth" is agreed on, then the questions answer themselves and
opinions are discarded.

The U.L.T. really needs no "defence" or further "definition."
Its integrity lies in the DECLARATION. The application thereof,
resides in the hands of, and in the discrimination, devotion and
verve of those who are touched by THEOSOPHY and look on the
U.L.T. as a useful tool, through which to carry forward the hopes
and wishes of the Masters of Wisdom of the Great Lodge.

In this connection, I have noted that there are always some who
desire to know if the Universe is infinite, eternal; and whether
the RULE OF LAW is as inflexibly just and all encompassing as is
the ubiquity of the ONE SPIRIT -- from which every aspect of
differentiation is derived. In other words is EVOLUTION of the
MIND, of INTELLIGENCE, and of CONSCIOUSNESS actual or just an
impossible dream. Can a CAUSE and/or a PURPOSE for our Universe,
our Earth and ourselves (and the ATOM ) be ascertained ?

Yes I believe in free study, but my sense of discrimination
limits me to what I would call decency, in public expression. No
U.L.T. associate will ever demand that another reveal any
aspects of their work and thought. Each has the opportunity to
ASK for help and benefit from the proffered study of others.

As I see it, you have originated this series of queries and you
fuel it with (what I would call, in tone) continued
inquisitorial broadsides. As I look back over our exchanges, I
believe I clearly see that most of those have already been
answered. Then after some time they are trotted out again. And,
I am of the opinion that if you desire to proceed, then for the
benefit of our audience, you ought to quote them along with your
new set of questions I say this as a retired editor of
scientific material, and I know that true scholarship always
provides them. This is for the benefit of third parties who will
always review the work and texts in question.

I would add that in matters of Theosophy there are no "blind
beliefs" or "faiths" that are encouraged. There are no rituals
and no dogmas and certainly nothing mysterious in study,
individually or mutually. But, there is the undying hope that
all who are interested in filling the gaps of knowledge that our
academies still find, can be filled by the greater coverage given
and the extent in terms of ancient time surveys which is provided
by the WISDOM OF THE AGES.

I made the statement some few days ago that the U.L.T. was an
experiment or an attempt to establish a "6th Round institution"
in a "4th Round" environment. I made an error, and should have
written 5th Round -- a period of time, distant in our future,
when the general cycle of evolution as described in The SECRET
DOCTRINE states in a general way that "Higher Manas" (or
BUDDHI-MANAS) will be prevalent in humanity and the relevance of
"personality" (moved by the 4th Principle, Kama -- desire
selfishness and passion) will be at a far lower ebb -- probably
totally insignificant. It is an attempt to see if an IDEAL could
survive the vicissitudes of the prejudices and institutionalized
concepts of this age. So far 90 years have seen this survive.
Theosophy thanks to it efforts has a far grater impact in the
world today than back at the turn of the 19th/20th century.

Instead of a monolithic "power structure" or a "united front,"
the U.L.T. presents itself as it is -- a band of independently
devoted students who choose, and place before themselves for
individual study, the original teachings of Theosophy. Have you
also done this? Has the rest of the audience done that? Some of
the associates of the U.L.T., and even those who are not
"associates" are in the process of doing this. The field is
open. There are no boundaries. No one need answer these
questions, as they are only to be answered in the forum of our
own Heart.

I wrote that to my knowledge, the Los Angeles U.L.T. was the
first of such. But it did not arrogate to itself a designation
such as "Parent Lodge." Nor have I ever seen, in any of the many
ULTs that I have visited around the world, (nor heard) of any
"charter" issued to them by a so-called "Parent Lodge." I asked
if any could be produced, as I would like to see it/them also.

You use the word "concealment" I do not know why. It may be the
result of some -- -- -- ? well, you define it.

If Eldon has questions that I have not answered, he has not so
advised me.

As to Mr. R. Taylor's; letter that you published, he as an
independent associate can certainly state anything he thinks is
relevant. So too Mr. Maurer and others, I agree there are some
minor differences of knowledge and opinion, but bye and large
there appears to me to be more agreement than disagreement. But
then, again, I could be wrong. I would observe that the tone and
tenor of every letter or answer inevitably revels the depth of
knowledge and the motive of the writers.

Best wishes,

As always,

Dallas.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Blavatsky Archives [mailto:blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:31 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Dallas, are you "really appalled"???


Dear Dallas,

This morning I read in one of your emails:

"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 [ULT] associate and see if what I say
is
any different."

So you think I am "prying" into things. And that is among other
things. . . a waste of time? No doubt, from your point of view,
all
this questioning may be a waste of time - but not necessarily for
others.

First of all, Dallas, I thought you believed in free inquiry,
independent thinking, etc. But I guess you have your own
definitions
of these things. What is wrong with asking relevant questions,
Dallas?

Please Dallas - step back and look at the total situation.

(1) Theos-talk is a public forum where anyone can discuss any
theosophically related subject including wanting to know more
about
ULT. Eldon, the founder of this forum, does not moderate and
therefore censor what is discussed.

(2) It was Dr. Tillett who wrote on this forum:

"In real terms, the ULT has always possessed a power structure
and
leadership as strong - indeed, arguably stronger since its
existence
is concealed - than any other Theosophical Society." This is a
strong, definitive statement.

(3) You, Leon and other ULT associates then totally contradicted
Tillett's statement.

(4) Furthermore, Leon said something to the effect that the ULT
was
a "superior" organization to other Theosophical societies. I
don't
have his exact quote right now but whatever his wording, it
raised in
the minds of a number of readers some questions about the nature
of
ULT.

(5) I also believe that the ULT was characterized as a "sixth
round"
organization. Again I have tried to find that quote this morning
but
haven't succeeded. Actually I believe it was you who said
something
like this. Again whatever the exact wording, it raised questions
in
the minds of some students and readers about the REAL nature of
ULT.

(6) Bart made a number of observations about ULT that raised
more
questions.

(7) Leon wrote about the "Parent Lodge" and its ability to
charter
new lodges. You then replied and said he was totally wrong on
this
and then Leon recanted his position. But he fails to adequately
explain why he used the term "Parent Lodge" in the first place
and
why he was confused about the "chartering" issue. Several other
ULT
associates still tell me that the ULT "charters" lodges. I don't
have evidence one way or the other to settle this question, but
again
these contradictory views raise a number of troubling questions,
including the issue of CONCEALMENT from outsiders of the true
nature
of ULT.

(8) Eldon (who has been an ULT associate for several years and is
a
very fair minded individual)even had questions about the
structure
and decision making process in ULT. I felt that some of his KEY
questions were never properly answered --- in fact, one of his
key
issues appeared to be evaded even by you.

In light of the above and much more, don't you think that various
persons reading all of this might not have some legitimate
questions?? If such questioning is to be considered "prying"
then so
be it.

And now with Rich Taylor's frank and straightforward observations
on
ULT, even more legitimate questions are raised.

Daniel













Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/