Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00080)

Although, I might add some additional comments within the body of your letter 
below... All I have to say with regard to your continuing accusatory 
diatribes attacking ULT and any one of its associates who try to set you 
straight on what ULT actually is all about -- (for one thing, that ULT is NOT 
its associates, nor are its associates ULT) -- is that, in my view, any 
"membership organization" whose officers and directors are not nominated and 
elected by the membership, nor its policies subject to consensual agreement 
or majority vote of its members -- certainly are "dictatorships" in one sense 
or another (good or bad, as the case may be). 

So, whatever dictatorial shoe fits the various TS organizations and their 
leaders you're so enamored of, who claim (or have claimed in the past) to be 
the "spokesmen" for The Theosophical Movement, or for the study of Theosophy 
itself -- then let them wear it. This, of course, has nothing to say about 
their relative merits or knowledge as individual theosophists. So, please 
don't try to twist it into an attack on any one of them -- including KT. 
Although, I notice, you have no qualms about attacking RC for his alleged 
crimes against the TS organizations, nor making prejudicial attacks against 
all ULT students (as if they were members of some racial group that was 
inferior to the racial group you are a member of). 

It's too bad that you still cannot "realize" or understand that ULT is not an 
organization, corporation, or legal "entity" (which you confuse with the 
Theosophy Company -- that is so -- although NOT a "dictatorial" one, since 
its officers and managers ARE elected). But, ULT is an "association" of 
independent students, many of whom have, on their own (and privately within 
their own inner "temples") may have gone much further and deeper into the 
occult esoteric teachings and practices underlying theosophy, than you can 
ever know from the superficial viewpoint you have taken concerning this group 
of theosophical students. There's much to be said about the ancient Hermetic 
teaching "to dare, to try, and to remain silent." It's also quite obvious, 
since ULT is NOT an entity in itself (as ARE the various TS organizations) -- 
that your accusations about their (ULT) "lying" as well as asserting that 
they (ULT) promulgates a distorted type of theosophy likened to 
"Theravadans," and that they are also thinking like "communists" -- is 
setting up a "straw man" that puts your accusations and arguments in the 
realm of empty headed, if not vindictive, nonsense. 

ULT has been well explained by Dallas and others, including myself... And, 
"your accusations" against RC, ULT and its associates (that started this 
whole dialogue, along with your use of a typical propaganda ploy of 
reflecting back to those who are answering you -- as if we were the accusers) 
-- are totally groundless. 

Isn't it obvious to you already, that ULT is NOT an "entity" in itself, nor 
an "organization," nor a "dictatorship," but simply an abstract framework (or 
"Lodge") within which students can -- through access to the original 
teachings of theosophy (along with ALL the underlying ground of ancient 
occultism upon which it stands) -- practice and study independently, as well 
as govern themselves, individually, as well as in small open member study 
groups, by simple unanimity or consensus? And, that the sole guidelines that 
they (the individual associates) have accepted for such study and practice is 
unequivocally stated in the ULT "Declaration" -- which they have accepted 
without coercion of any sort, including involuntary dues and collections. To 
treat ULT as a governing entity, you might as well accuse the building that 
houses the ULT lecture halls, libraries, and classrooms, or the separate 
company that publishes its foundational books, of determining the curricula 
of "self devised" independent study and practice of "self determined" 
individual students that freely and independently goes on within and without 
its walls. It appears that theosophical idealism and your historical and 
personalized pseudo theosophical materialism seem to be as far apart as fire 
and water.

Those who think that theosophy has to be expanded with "new" interpretations, 
which may or may not be (and sometimes isn't) consistent with the truly 
ancient (and complete) teachings of occultism pointed to in all of HPB's and 
WQJ's writings (if not stated directly) -- are operating at the extreme of 
personal hubris. (Leadbeater, Annie Besant, and others, if not yourself -- 
NOT excepted.)

As a fed points of long past and unproved contentions, or accusations, to 
foment tension, apprehension, and dissension, does one no honor. Especially, 
when those points relate to people who are long dead and can't speak for 
themselves, or concern innocent student theosophists who have no interest in 
organizational politics or differences of personal opinion.

(Some further notes below in the body of your provocative letter.)


In a message dated 08/05/01 12:37:04 PM, ringding@blinx.de writes:

>>Your "master race" philosophy of labeling people -- not of your self
>>righteous ilk, who may need theosophy to help them reach "self
>realization,"
>>and in the process, strengthen their character -- as "weak" or "neurotic,"
>>and excluding them as worthless members of our theosophical brotherhood,
>is
>>in direct violation of theosophical principles that prove "universal
>>brotherhood" is a "law of nature." It is also in direct contradiction
>to
>the
>>objects of the Theosophical Movement that, right from the beginning,
>regarded
>
>Leon, let me quote what Dr. Stoke's has to say about that matter (O.E.
>Library Critic, June 9, 1920, second to last p.):
>
>"The Theosophical Society was not founded, if we are rightly informed,
>for
>the purpose of getting as many different sorts of people as possible
>together under one roof, although it is open to all. It was founded with
>the
>design of promulgating the knowledge and the practise of certain fundamental
>truths and principles, absent from or forgotten by the world at large.
>Once
>given these principles, it was left to itself to act on and to guard them;
>it was placed on its good behavior. No spirit of tolerance or of neutrality
>can be allowed to go to the extent of allowing it to be shifted into other
>or reactionary paths; every influence not in agreement with them must be
>held in check."
>
>He expressed it in the very same way I also understood it.
>
>>Any other idea that its the organizational form or its leadership that's
>>important, rather than the individual, smacks of the same sort of ersatz
>>theosophical distortions propounded by Hitler in his Mein Kampf. Theosophy
>>has no room for nazism, or those that parrot their ideas of dictatorial
>>government, and use their propaganda techniques to foment dissension with
>the
>>aim of destroying groups that don't agree with the "parrots'" dictatorial
>and
>>fascistic "politics." (It doesn't deserve the distinction of calling it
>>"philosophy"). So, start acting like a real "theosophist," or go form
>your
>>own dictatorial non-theosophical political party in another forum.
>
>Amazing. Can you give me any proof what Hitler's book has to do with
>Theosophy? I have an original edition of that book and I would be glad
>to
>help you out with quotes. Or is that just another example of your invented
>accusations?

What accusations? That reference was only used as a metaphorical example -- 
since it is well known that Hitler was a student of occultism before he wrote 
Mein Kampf, and that he twisted the teachings in the Secret Doctrine (which, 
there is evidence he studied while a student in Munich) with reference to the 
Aryans as well as the Hebrews, to justify much of his nazi "master Race" 
philosophy, as well as the extermination of the Jews. 

>As you accused several times Katherine Tingley as a dictator too, have
>you
>for this any proof? I think you have some more information in the back,
>otherwise you as a good Theosophist would surely not accuse another person
>with that qualification.

I made no personal accusations of Tingley. The reference to "dictatorship" 
is explained in my commentary above.

>Thank you for reminding me of being a good Theosophist, although I for one
>claim nothing to myself in that direction. But I am quite sure that anyone
>who is suffering from paranoia and likewise illness can be no good
>Theosophist.

But a study of theosophy could very well serve to reverse such mental 
illnesses. Who are you to judge, then, whether someone who is so suffering 
cannot become a "good theosophist"? 

>And I am very satisfied with this theos-talk list, I canceled long ago by
>membership in the pseudo-theosophical mailing lists on Blavatsky Net, which
>are censored and controlled by ULT'ers and present a very rigid, perverted
>form of Theosophy. 

Now, that's a bold "accusation" that has no basis in fact. Its like the pot 
calling the kettle, black. Get real! If the teaching of Blavatsky and Judge 
are the non-perverted theosophy that students in ULT are studying, how are 
they to know whether or not the interpretations of the later so called 
"theosophical teachers" haven't perverted it? My studies of the writings of 
some of these "teachers" and so called "messengers" (based on occult 
understandings long before I studied the SD, and compared them to its 
teachings) show obvious perversions. That's good enough for whatever 
opinions I may have (speaking for myself, that is, and not for ULT) as to the 
quality of the later teachers and their theosophical "addendum's" and 
interpretations.

>I like this theos-talk, because here free discussion and
>exchange of information is allowed, f.e. in which way ULT'ers lie since
>decades, in which way the ULT since decades with an untheosophical, biased
>and personel mind persecutes the original Theosophy and their messengers.
>If such cover ups, open questions and critic about hypocrisy, lies and
>slanders makes you on and you cannot hear it as it is against your belief
>system, your rigid form of your misinterpretation of Theosophy and you
>rather want peace for your soul than the truth and information flow - why
>then do you left not this list? I have no problem with that list.

More off the wall accusations and personal opinions? What's eating you -- 
that you have to bring up matters that have nothing to do with theosophical 
students (you are accusing of all kinds of nefarious acts) who are present 
and past associates of ULT and follow, then and now, only its guidelines as 
presented in its Declaration?

I have no problem with this list (as I have no problem with the BN lists)... 
Since, theos-talk allows me to call a spade a spade, and counter 
non-theosophical personal opinions and accusations pertaining to 
personalities, organizational or historical matters that do not directly have 
any reference to theosophical study or schooling (which the BN online study 
groups are handling very well). To compare this list with the BN study lists 
is like comparing apples to oranges. This list makes no claims to be a 
theosophical study group -- as does the online study lists, and ULT students 
that follow its declared principles based on the original teachings of 
fundamental theosophy, along with the advice of the "founders" and their 
Masters on the methods of theosophical study for both beginning and advanced 
students. 

When such are ready for the more esoteric and occult areas of theosophy, they 
will certainly find it by their individual "self devised and self determined 
efforts" through their own Master within. Even HPB decried being identified 
as an "authority." So, what justifications give the later teachers the right 
to take on that role for themselves? Or, are you now taking on the hubristic 
role of deciding what is or is not the "politically correct" method of 
theosophical study and practice?

LHM