Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00107)

Katinka,

You wrote in part:

"Now I don't know whether the writer(s) of the books 
called 'The Theosophical Movement' were members of 
the ULT. So I should take back my assumption that 
they were. Perhaps other people here do know of evidence 
one way or another? And since the ULT has no board, no
official controlling agency - the publication of the 
books can never be tied to the organisation other than 
that major players in the ULT field may or may not 
have been involved in its writing." 

According to Michael Gomes, the editor [principal writer??]
of the 1925 ed. of TM was John Garrigues. This is
also my understanding. He is considered as the "leader"
of the ULT and President of the Theosophy Company during 
that time-period.

In fact, most of the material in this 1925 ed. appeared
in the pages of Theosophy Magazine in the early 1920s.
This magazine is considered a ULT magazine and is circulated
and sold at ULT lodges.

In the 1951 ed. of TM, it is stated that the volume
was written by the editors of Theosophy Magazine.
Theosophy magazine is published by the Theosophy Company.
of Los Angeles, CA. My understanding is that the
editor or principal writer of the 1951 edition was
Henry Geiger. 

If you physically go to the United Lodge of Theosophists
in LA, you will find the 1951 ed. of TM and as well
as Theosophy Magazine being sold on their book tables.
At least this was the case on my visits. Plus the book
is listed on the TC website and is also in their printed
catalog. Who approved its inclusion on the website and
in the TC catalog?

Who okayed the sale of the TM book at the ULT headquarters?

Katinka, I'm sure that if you brought copies of my HPB book or
of Murphet's HPB book to the ULT headquarters and tried to place
them for sale on their tables, some person (in charge) would
tell you no, you cannot do that. Then you could ask, who
approved the sale of the TM volume? Why is this volume
for sale on the ULT premises?

It is my understanding that the leading "associates" and
"leaders" of ULT wrote the two TM histories. And both
volumes have been sold by Theosophy Company and sold thru
the ULT headquarters in Los Angeles. 

Daniel








--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Well, it seems like a nice coincidence to me. 
> * ULT policy is anonymous writers. See Sylvia Cranston (not her real
> name, though her real name is out there)
> * ULT websites and people recommend (and publish online) the books
> Theosophical Movement.
> * The Theosophical Movement is written anonimously.
> 
> Now this is at the very least a highly suspicious set of
> circumstances. And it is precisely this sort of situation which 
makes
> me say that anonimity as a policy is a bad idea. Because this way
> there is nobody who is responsible. See the below mail. 
> 
> Now I don't know whether the writer(s) of the books called "The
> Theosophical Movement" were members of the ULT. So I should take 
back
> my assumption that they were. Perhaps other people here do know of
> evidence one way or another? And since the ULT has no board, no
> official controlling agency - the publication of the books can never
> be tied to the organisation other than that major players in the ULT
> field may or may not have been involved in its writing. 
> 
> It is reminds me of a magic tric. You know you are being fooled, but
> you can never quite say how it was done. 
> 
> You say:
> > Your opinion of the book is one thing. But you are making a 
guess and
> > an assumption in presuming that the "UNITED LODGE OF 
THEOSOPHISTS" took
> > responsibility for either of those books. Nowhere does it say so 
in
> > either book.
> Now this isn't completely correct. My big problem with ULT policy is
> precisely that anonimity is a recipy for NOT taking responsibility. 
So
> in that sense this whole story is characteristic perhaps. But I'm
> sliding into inuendo myself here, so I should stop. 
> 
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W. Dallas TenBroeck"
> <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> > Saturday, September 13, 2003
> > 
> > 
> > Re: Your post of Sept. 13 2002.
> > Implication of slander to U L T.
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Katinka:
> > 
> > 
> > I must still protest your characterization of the "U L T" based 
on the
> > material published by others who are unknown, which we are 
discussing,
> > since the "U L T" is uninvolved, and it did not publish those 
books.
> > 
> > Let me explain so as to be clear:
> > 
> > You mention the book The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. The first edition 
was
> > titled The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925), and was published 
in 1925
> > by E. P. Dutton, New York. This book went out-of-print. A new 
book was
> > published in 1951 by the Cunningham Press, Los Angeles and is 
titled The
> > THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950). I am not sure if you have 
seen that.
> > It is still in print.
> > 
> > Both are published anonymously. Neither of them was published 
over the
> > imprimateur : "U L T." 
> > 
> > Your opinion of the book is one thing. But you are making a 
guess and
> > an assumption in presuming that the "UNITED LODGE OF 
THEOSOPHISTS" took
> > responsibility for either of those books. Nowhere does it say so 
in
> > either book.
> > 
> > The narration of historical events covered by documents stands 
available
> > from several sources. There are excellent archives at the 
THEOSOPHICAL
> > SOCIETY in Pasadena, Mr. D. Caldwell, Mr. M. Gomes and Mr. E. 
Pelletier,
> > etc. all have similar but independent archives. Those are 
available,
> > and we can all read those documents and follow their sequence, 
and draw
> > our conclusions. 
> > 
> > Opinions may differ. We are now reviewing these matters many 
years
> > later, and the authors are not available for discussion, hence we 
are
> > now speculating as to their motives. But, it is important to 
note that
> > the "U L T" is not involved. Hence your characterizations are not 
fairly
> > aimed at it.
> > 
> > As I see it, Theosophy Company recommends those books because they
> > provide a documentary chronology. In my opinion your remarks 
employing
> > the name "U L T" ought to be withdrawn. Properly, you may direct 
them at
> > the unknown authors, but not at "U L T."
> > 
> > As I said, it is my understanding that U L T "policy" is defined 
by the
> > DECLARATION of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS (of which I sent 
you a
> > copy). It did not publish those books. Neither did "Theosophy 
Company."
> > 
> > 
> > The events of the "Judge Case" are well covered by documents. The 
parts
> > played by individuals, privately and publicly are made clear by 
the
> > nature and handling of those documents. Again, our present 
opinions may
> > be different, but they have to remain speculative at this time.
> > 
> > I find no basis for your calling "U L T" either slanderous or 
indulging
> > in innuendo. It seems to be your opinion and is not based on 
facts, I
> > therefore protest what you write. You are being unfair to the U L 
T in
> > my esteem.
> > 
> > The sample taken from the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925) 
published in
> > 1925 (p. 457) relates to the opinion of the author(s) (?). 
Again, "U L
> > T" is not involved.
> > 
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > 
> > Dallas
> > 
> > ===================================
> > 
> > Hi Dallas,
> > 
> > I don't think we misunderstand each other. I do think we strongly
> > disagree on matters of policy in theosophical organisations and
> > interpretation of HPB's work. 
> > 
> > The book "The Theosophical Movement" contains much that could be 
seen
> > as slandering Besant and Olcott. Unfortunately, any quote will be 
out
> > of context as the work is so full of both quoted letters and such 
as
> > well as innuendo. The latter is what I am complaining against. The
> > fact that this book was published anonimously makes it very hard 
to
> > say: this person did that wrong. Or at the time of writing it,
> > correspondence with that person on subjects like, have you looked 
at
> > that document, why haven't you looked at that side of the story. I
> > understand the ULT-policy, I just note that it wasn't HPB's 
policy and
> > that therefore (and for all the reasons mentioned before) the ULT 
may
> > want to consider changing it. Unfortunately the ULT has no 
governing
> > body so that nobody could make the decision to change something. 
> > 
> > As for the quote. Here goes a random one: 
> > 
> > p. 457 The Theosophical Movement (1925, E.P. Dutton&Company, 681 
fifth
> > avenue)
> > 
> > "Now, having traced the successive moves of Mr. Judge, and having
> > followed Mrs. Besant's successive positions on the chessboard, it 
is
> > necessary to review Col. Olcott's share in the strategy and 
tactics of
> > the rapidly culminating manoeuvres. We have shown him in his "Old
> > Diary Leaves," in his Presidential Adress, in his letter to the
> > American Section Convention of 1893, in his part in the "White 
Lotus
> > Day" celebration at Adyar on may 8, 1893, in his use of Mr. 
Sturdy as
> > a pawn, and Mr. Walter R. Old as a more important piece through 
which
> > to make his moves."
> > 
> > This suggests a negative motive in both Olcott and Besant. The
> > biography of one of the persons mentioned here as a 'piece through
> > which to make his move' has been completed recently (Walter Old - 
see
> > my website. I am not going to give the URL another time. Searching
> > google for Sepharial will sufice). That biography makes Walter Old
> > very much his own person. Not a pawn in a conspiracy against 
Judge. 
> > 
> > Personally I think it rather preposterous to think that Judge, or
> > Besant or Olcott were parts of plots. They may have disliked each
> > other, they may have made mistakes and those mistakes and 
dislikes may
> > have built up to create or at least partly cause the whole
> > Judge-affair. But that doesn't mean anyone of those people had a
> > conscious motive to create something of the sort. And that is 
what is
> > being suggested here. 
> > 
> > Katinka
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]