Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00041)

Dear Friends,

The following two emails were part of a recent private correspondence.
Although this started as a discussion between myself and Daniel Caldwell, we
both realized that the information might be helpful and useful to others,
and hence deserved wider consideration and exposure. We therefore present
it in that light.

Best Regards,
Wes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Earlier today I tried to collate and organize my notes that I've taken over
the years of my many conversations with various ULT people. I find three
series of notes quite interesting in light of all our recent discussions
about the ULT.

(1) Soon after Anita Atkins' HPB biography was published she personally
told me that either the LA ULT or the NY ULT was refusing to sell her book
on Lodge premises. I can't make out all my scribbling but it appears that
it was the LA Lodge that made this decision. Is that correct? Now I ask:
WHO was empowered to make this decision? I realize that the situation later
changed and her book was allowed to be sold on the ULT book tables. But it
again amazes me that anyone (let alone one of the "leaders") would have
wanted to ban her book from being sold on ULT premises! I remember that she
was somewhat upset over this decision and said that she and her co-workers
were going to try to have this decision reversed. What in the DECLARATION
would prohibit selling Anita's book?

(2) I was told by another ULT associate that several years ago he wanted to
start a class on the Mahatma Letters at the LA Lodge. He was "pulled aside"
[to use his exact words] and told in private that this class could NOT be
formed and was not allowed on lodge premises. Does anyone know any more
details about that particular case? WHO made the ultimate decision in that
case? What in the DECLARATION would prohibit this class? Dallas always
writes about all this freedom in the ULT, but the above 2 cases negate his
affirmations.

(3) I was also told by another "well-placed" ULT associate that even the
current ULT "leaders" {LA}believe they are in contact with the Mahatmas.
About 15 years ago I was told by Walter Carrithers that he had discovered
evidence to show that Robert Crosbie, John Garrigues and later "leaders"
believed they were communicating with HPB, Judge, and the Mahatmas. Messages
had been received from the "Masters." Several years later, I asked John
Cooper of Australia if he thought this was true and he confirmed everything
Walter had originally told me and added more! I bring this all up because
of Jerome's remarks in his latest email. So I ask the group: are any of
you willing to comment on these claims? These claims go against the public
persona the ULT tries to project.

(4) Jerome recently wrote: "A new President of the Board WAS ELECTED in
February. And it was not whom a minority maneuvered for!!!"

(a) WHO is the new president and is this a secret or is it public
knowledge to all the associates of the ULT LA?
(b) I assume that ONLY other directors (trustees) of the TC Board [LA]
could vote in this election, right?
(c) Did the rank and file associates of the LA ULT even know that such an
election was pending or that it even occurred?
I have a number of other items but will save those for later.
Daniel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Daniel just asked some questions in a recent email correspondence, all of
which deserve a reply. Below are my own views on these matters, and do NOT
constitute any "official" position of the United Lodge of Theosophists.
Such a position would, in my view, misrepresent the fact that "ULT" is a
name given to a certain set of ideas and ideals, not the least of which is
individual devotion and responsibility to work in the cause of Theosophy.
ULT as conceived by Robert Crosbie is a "work in progress," subject to error
and the vagaries of human nature, and therefore final pronouncements as to
methods are difficult and risky. Part of that work is necessarily
decentralized, and therefore anything said of the operation of the Los
Angeles Lodge might not necessarily apply elsewhere.

1. HPB Biography: Several years ago, I heard that some ULT Lodges had
refused to carry the HPB biography on their public book tables. However,
the decision apparently was reversed early on, as I purchased a copy many
years ago directly from the L.A. Lodge. Perhaps someone who was there at
the time would care to comment.

I suppose the premise for such a "decision" might have run like this:
"Strictly speaking, the purpose of ULT is to publish and promote the works
of HPB and Judge. This is a fine book, but it is by a student, and the
works of students, even those using pseudonyms, don't belong on our book
table." In my opinion, nothing in the ULT Declaration itself supports this
"strict interpretation" view.

2. Mahatma Letters Class: I am not familiar with this case. However, I
might assume that a "senior" student probably told a younger one not to do
the class. The younger person may have respected the elder one too much to
argue.

Again, the premise could be: "Internal evidence in the Mahatma Letters
indicates that the Masters did not want the material published in the first
place. Since it had been published (not by ULT), however, we should respect
the wishes of the Masters as far as possible and not publicly study the
letters."

Freedom in ULT (as everywhere else in the world) has always been within
certain boundaries, the nature of which is indicated by the two instances
above. Jerome's recent comment in an email about the tension between "the
sacrificers and the power grabbers" indicates how complex this subject can
be.

3. ULT and Mahatmas: Somewhere, I have heard this rumor, but always second
hand, never from anyone who stated it from first-hand experience.
Apparently, the axiom, "those who know don't say, those who say don't know"
holds true. Over the years among Theosophical groups there have been so
many claims and counter-claims about letters, masters, ascended masters and
occult successors, that yet another such claim would hardly seem to be
constructive.

However, let me ask Daniel a question: Suppose YOU were the one who
received a "communication" from a Master, and you were convinced it was
genuine. What would YOU do? It seems to me you would have two choices:
Tell others, and risk having them turn you into a "guru" of some sort, or
keep quiet about it! I'm not saying that is what happened here, but how
would such a situation "go against the public persona the ULT tries to
project?"

4. I am currently President of Theosophy Company. I was elected by the
Board of Directors, as required under California law. Theosophy Company is
not a membership organization, so the Associates of ULT do not vote. It was
founded in 1925 when the former practice of having a business agent for the
Lodge proved too cumbersome and unworkable when they decided to re-publish
the Secret Doctrine and build a building. ULT, being an "association" of
students, was never conceived to be a legal entity, which one has to be in
order to own property and do business in this state.

I have never denied it, nor have I found it necessary to announce that I
hold this "position." Most of the active workers at the Los Angeles ULT
probably know it.

Now, some unstated but obvious questions should be addressed: What is
Theosophy Company responsible for? Primarily, the publishing, distribution
and sale of books and magazines, and the ongoing expenses for the building
in Los Angeles.

What does Theosophy Company NOT do? It has nothing to do with the affairs
of Associates at any Lodge. The choice of topics for lectures and panel
discussions, what books are used in the study groups, when the classes meet,
who chairs the meetings, how long the meetings are, etc. etc. are decisions
made locally at each Lodge by the Associates.

Now, are there dilemmas, contradictions and problems associated with this
sort of arrangement? You bet there are! It is sometimes tricky, trying to
keep Theosophy Company "out" of the business of the Associates. Theosophy
Company is definitely an influence, especially at the L.A. Lodge, much less
or virtually not at all at other Lodges. For example, how and where we
advertise, what books and pamphlets to reprint, who has keys and access to
the building, whether and whom to hire when volunteers cannot be found for a
certain task, etc., are important decisions. The Associates who work at the
LA Lodge have a lot of input into these things. However, I received no
"handbook" for this, and I have only my fellow students, some business
experience and the theosophical philosophy to guide me.

Please keep in mind that this is the arrangement at only one of 22 Lodges.
Other locations use different formats, and each Lodge is autonomous and free
to order their own affairs. In the seven months I have been President, I
have never been asked permission by another Lodge to do anything, nor do I
think such permission possible or necessary.

Daniel, your questions are legitimate, and I have tried to answer them
squarely and honestly. I don't know how much detail other Theosophical
organizations reveal about their operations, but I can assure you that it
is a huge change in the ULT/Theosophy Company culture to engage in this kind
of open dialog. It probably would not have happened in the past.
Individuals then did what I am trying to do now -- the best they can to
uphold and implement Theosophical ideals in an imperfect and sometimes
hostile world.

Best Regards,
Wesley Amerman