Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00332)

Dear Dallas, 

Thank you for your email below. 

I think Rich Taylor's detailed and informative letter [ 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/2097 ] gives me and 
other readers a clear idea of how the ULT really works. His letter 
certainly confirms what a number of other ULT associates have from 
time to time told me about the organizational structure of the ULT, 
the lodges, etc. 

It appears that Rich has also confirmed some of the major points in 
Dr. Tillett's previous comments on ULT.

As far as me asking you questions, you are always free to say nothing 
in reply. Many times I ask questions that I have privately asked 
myself hoping that others might answer them or at least give some 
food for thought. But even if no answers are immediately 
forthcoming, I believe there is value in the asking. I am free to 
ask the questions just as you are free to answer or not to answer in 
turn.

I am still somewhat puzzled by your comment:

"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."

Why do you use the phrase "public prying"? Is it wrong or "bad" to 
ask questions about a public organization? As far as I know, the ULT 
is a public organization as opposed to some kind of secret or 
esoteric society. If you or other ULT associates make various public 
statements about ULT, then is it not to be expected that "outsiders" 
or even some associates (like Eldon) may have further questions or 
may even challenge some of your statements? Dallas, you may choose 
to call this "prying" but others may consider it "free inquiry" and 
asking relevant questions? 

If you think that the STUDY OF THEOSOPHY is a more valuable 
occupation then I would suggest that you limit yourself to such 
philosophical discourse. But if you bring up historical and 
organizational issues or choose to join others in the discussion of 
such subjects, then why complain when others are ALSO discussing 
these mundane issues rather than engaging in discourse on some 
philosophical idea. 

Daniel



--- In theos-talk@y..., dalval14@e... wrote:
> 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@y...]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:31 AM
> To: theos-talk@y...
> 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/