Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00390)

07/31/2001 4:00 PM

Dear Eldon:

I agree with you that this is now becoming extinct and we are
repeating thing and no real progress is achieved.

As to writing to U.L.T. . It can be done and a response will come
in due time, that has been my observation and experience. Some
volunteer associate writes an answer after conferencing -- no
mystery. Anonymity is observed. And this may add to the
frustration of those who want names, etc... Sorry but I have
witnessed the U.L.T. process for many years, and that's how it
is. Those who participation the actual work of sustaining the
U.L.T. ideal have volunteered to do so, no one is denied making
such an offer.

Is it not curious that those who question most are not associates
of U.L.T. ? If they care to become associates they will
subscribe to the DECLARATION which they say they have UNDERSTOOD.
If so they also know they will not be asked to do anything unless
they offer themselves as volunteers. Those who have so offered
are conferred with on the subject of what they would feel most
able to do. Even then they are free to refuse, or contribute
nothing. There are positively no "spokesmen" for U.L.T. I wish
this would get across clearly and finally.

Also it is perfectly true that there are "older students" and
"newer students" -- not in physical age, but in experience and
knowledge of Theosophy. Not all of those are "in U.L.T. ."

But there is one important thing that I think we must always keep
in mind, and that is the two purposes for the existence of the
U.L.T.

1.	to keep the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY available

2.	to provide a forum where they can be discussed.

This is purely an attempt to avoid the repetition of that which
happened after the death of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge --
their writing were either garbled by "improvers" and "editors" or
simply went out of print. The U.L.T. brought back to prominence
those ORIGINAL TEACHINGS and that has produced the Karma we now
see unrolling in front of us.

The unstructured, amorphous U.L.T. offends no one that I can
see, and its continuity is aimed at the imposition of no kind of
rules or regulations on any one. Sometimes, I have observed
that people who do not understand in their frustration will
strike out at a mirror that shows only too clearly their nature
and motives. Are we facing to day such a crisis? If so, why ?

Let me say clearly that these are my own thoughts on this
subject, and of course I may have misunderstood you, or have
replied in error in some way. I hope you will let me know.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 2:08 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cc: dalval14@earthlink.net
Subject: Theos-World who to write to in the ULT

My last posting was garbled due to my email program
crashing. Somehow, it sent an copy directly to
Dallas and posted another garbled one to the list.
I'm reposting the message in its original form below.

-- Eldon

---- original message ----

At 01:05 PM 7/29/01 -0700, you wrote:

> Sunday, July 29, 2001
>
> Dear Daniel:
>
> If Rich has a question why does he not write it to the U.L.T.
>
> Seems obvious to me: If you want to know something then write
to
> the U.L.T.

Dallas:

I think that this topic is starting to wind down, and other
things of interest are coming forth. But in reading your
interchange with Daniel, I have a few comments I'd like to make.

Daniel may be making his point by getting this answer from you.
When someone wants to write to the ULT, to *whom* do they write?
If they already are in accord with the common purpose, they
presumably would be equally qualified to answer questions as to
ask them. Someone deciding to answer the mail at an established
ULT Lodge has no special standing to represent the organization.

>From what I've been hearing, there is no person to write to.
Each associate is equally qualified to say what he or she thinks

the ULT stands for. Apart from that, any common statement could
only come from a consensus arrived at in come large convention of
ULT students -- say at Cambria -- and what they arrived at would
only apply to them as a group, and not to the wider body of
associates.

Correct me if I'm wrong in this. But if it there are a few
associates recognized better qualified to answer questions and
make statements about the ULT than the common associate is, those
members would be self-appointed guardians, and might be operating
in violation of the stated spirit of the organization. (The
recognition of certain students as guardians of the purpose of
the organization creates a leadership or governing body of
students, which is what we see happening at times in the other
theosophical societies.)

If the ULT wants to try the experiment of being an organization
without leadership, it should really try to do so, and not fool
itself when it falls short of the objective. Otherwise, it's
equally fine to be a more conventional organization, with an
openly recognized organizational structure and leadership, since
the important thing is promoting the philosophy and doing the
spiritual work in the world, not the arbitrary means chosen to
achieve those ends.

-- Eldon





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