Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00112)

Monday, September 15, 2003


Dear Katinka:

Speaking for myself and as an observer of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT and
of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS policy in action for the past 60
years, allow me to repeat and emphasize.

The essential purpose of the U L T is to focus student's attention on
the original teachings of Theosophy. It is restricted in this by its
DECLARATION (copy sent to you already.).

It adopted policy of anonymity is to avoid any kind of personal
authoritarianism. It refuses and avoids standing in front of THEOSOPHY
as a kind of filter or lens; and it aims to let the writings and
teachings of Theosophy speak for themselves.

The idea is to always place THEOSOPHY forward. 

All are free to study and discover for themselves if it deals with TRUTH
and FACTS or not.

Individual associates, such as myself, write and place our names
publicly when U L T needs to be explained. Discussion of personalities
and authorities detracts from such direct study.

An "association" is NOT an organization. It does not deal in libel or
slander. Accordingly, I again request that you withdraw or modify
suitably your charge that it slanders. It can take no such action.

Sincerely,

W. Dallas TenBroeck,

An Associate of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS 
dalval14@earthlink.net


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

Let me offer for you to read these pages, preliminary to starting the U
L T -- to be found at the end of the book THE FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER
(Robert Crosbie)

-------------------------------------------------

WHY UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS 



[ The following preliminary memorandum was drawn up by Robert Crosbie
anticipatory to the formation of The United Lodge of Theosophists." It
was sent to many individual theosophists on November 17, 1908.]



TO ALL OPEN-MINDED THEOSOPHISTS     


When the Messengers departed from this scene, all that was left here was
the Message (exoteric and esoteric), and its students of more or less
proficiency in the assimilation of that Message.

With the altruistic example of the Messengers and the inspiration of the
Message, the Theosophical Society should have been able to stand alone
and united.

Unfortunately, history tells another story; disintegration began at
once, and still goes on, and a grand opportunity to impress the world
with the spirit and life of the Message has been lost, through neglect
of the essentials and pursuit of non-essentials.

The First Object-the most important of all-the others being
subsidiary-has been lost sight of in its direct bearing upon all the
changes and differences that have occurred. "To form a nucleus of
Universal Brotherhood without any distinctions what ever" was, and is,
the key to the situation. Let me quote a few sentences from H. P. B.'s
last message to the American Theosophists in April, 1891:

"The critical nature of the stage on which we have entered is as well
known to the forces that fight against us, as to those that fight on our
side. No opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking
advantage of mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of
augmenting difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and
every means the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our
Fellows thinned and thrown into disarray. Never has it been more
necessary for the members of the T. S. to lay to heart the old parable
of the bundle of sticks than it is at the present time; divided, they
will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on
earth able to destroy our Brotherhood. * * * After all, every wish and
thought I can utter are summed up in this one sentence, the
never-dormant wish of my heart: "BE THEOSOPHISTS, WORK FOR THEOSOPHY."
		
These were prophetic words-but the warning was not taken.
It now remains for those who are able to take the words that express the
never-dormant wish of her heart as the key-note of the present and
future:

"Be Theosophists, work for Theosophy," 

and get together on that kind of a basis; for these are the essentials.

The unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and
however situated, is SIMILARITY OF AIM, PURPOSE, AND TEACHING. The
acceptance of this principle by all Theosophists would at once remove
all barriers. A beginning must be made by those whose minds have become
plastic by the buffetings of experience. An agreement between such is
necessary; an assembling together in this spirit.

To give this spirit expression requires a declaration, and a name by
which those making the declaration may be known.

To call it The Theosophical Society would be to take the name now in use
by at least two opposing organizations. To even call it a Society has
the color of an "organization"-one of many, and would act as a barrier.
The phrase used by one of the Messengers is significant, and avoids all
conflict with organizations, being capable of including all without
detriment to any. That phrase is: 

THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS


Members of any organization or unattached, old and new students, could
belong to it without disturbing their affiliations, for the sole
condition necessary would be the acceptance of the principle of
similarity of aim, purpose, and teaching. The binding spiritual force of
this principle of brotherhood needs no such adventitious aids as
Constitution or By-Laws-or Officers to ad- minister them. With it as
basis for union, no possible cause for differences could arise; no room
is found here for leader or authority, for dogma or superstition, and
yet-as there are stores of knowledge left for all-the right spirit must
bring forth from "Those who never fail" all necessary assistance. The
door seems open for those who would, but cannot see a way. Any
considerable number, living, thinking, acting, upon this basis, must
form a spiritual focus, from which all things are possible.

Local Lodges could be formed using the name and promulgating the basis
of union, recognizing Theosophists as such, regardless of organization;
open meetings; public work, keeping Theosophy and Brotherhood prominent;
intercommunication between Lodges, free and frequent; comparing methods
of work of local Lodges; mutual assistance; furtherance of the Great
Movement in all directions possible; the motto: "Be Theosophists; work
for Theosophy."


THE WAY TO UNITE IS TO UNITE-NOTHING PREVENTS IF THAT IS THE DESIRE.

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




[ The following explanatory statement drawn up by Robert Crosbie for the
information of all theosophists, was made public concurrently with the
foundation of "The United Lodge of Theosophists" and the adoption of its
DECLARATION by himself and the seven original Associates, on February
18, 1909.]

The United Lodge of Theosophists is an integral part of the Theosophical
Movement begun in New York in 1875. It is-as the name implies-an
Association of Theosophists irrespective of organization, who are bound
together by the tie of common aim, purpose and teaching, in the cause of
Theosophy.

Theosophy, being the origin, basis and genius of every Theosophical
organization, forms in itself a common ground of interest and effort,
above and beyond all differences of opinion as to persons or methods;
and being the philosophy of Unity, it calls for the essential union of
those who profess and promulgate it.

This Union does not mean a sameness of organization or method, but a
friendly recognition, mutual assistance and encouragement among all
engaged in the furtherance of Theosophy.

The Teacher, H. P. Blavatsky, declared that "Want of Union is the first
condition of failure," and in her last message to the American
Convention in 1891, said: "Never has it been more necessary for the
members of the Theosophical Society to lay to heart the parable of the
bundle of sticks, than it is at the present time; divided, they will
inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth
able to destroy our Brotherhood. 

I have marked with pain . . . a tendency among you to allow your very
devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion. . . . No
opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of
mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting
difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means
the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows
thinned and thrown into disarray."

There are a number of Theosophical organizations in existence today, all
of them drawing their inspiration from Theosophy, existing only because
of Theosophy, yet remaining disunited. The nature of each organization
is such, that unity cannot be had on the basis of any one of them; hence
a common basis should be taken if the success originally purposed is to
be attained.

The need of such a basis with a broader view of the Movement, is the
cause for the present Association-the United Lodge of
Theosophists-composed of Theosophists of different organizations, as
well as those belonging to none. This Lodge, having no constitution,
by-laws, officers or leader, affords in its Declaration a common basis
of Unity for all who see the great need of it, and seeks their
co-operation.

Holding to its motto: 'There is no Religion higher than Truth," it seeks
for the truth in all things, and beginning with the history of the
Theosophical Movement, sets forth herein some facts with their
inevitable deductions, for general information and consideration.

There is no question anywhere as to who brought the message of Theosophy
to the Western World, nor is there any reason to believe that the
Messenger, H. P. Blavatsky, failed to deliver all that was to be given
out until the year 1975-- the time stated by her for the advent of the
next Messenger.

While she lived there was one Society. After her departure, dissensions
arose, resulting in several separate organizations. The basic cause of
these divisions is to be found in differences of opinion as to
"successorship," even where other causes were in evidence. No such
question should ever have arisen, for it is abundantly clear that H. P.
Blavatsky could no more pass on to another her knowledge and
attainments, than could Shakespeare, Milton or Beethoven pass on theirs.

Those who were attracted by the philosophy she presented, or who were
taught by her, were followers or students, of more or less proficiency
in the understanding and assimilation of Theosophy.

Once the idea of "successorship" is removed from consideration, a better
perspective is obtainable of the Movement, the philosophy, and the
principal persons-past and present-engaged in its promulgation.

We have the declarations of her Masters that she was the sole instrument
possible for the work to be done, that They sent her to do it, and that
They approved in general all that she did. That work not only includes
the philosophy she gave, but her work with the relation to others in the
Movement; and where a relation is particularly defined-as in the case of
William Q. Judge-wisdom dictates that full consideration be given to
what she says.

H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge were co-Founders of the
Theosophical Society in 1875 They were colleagues from the first and
ever remained such. When H. P. Blavatsky left America-never to
return-she left behind her William Q. Judge to establish and carry on
the work of the Theosophical Movement in America. How well that work was
done is a matter of history.

H. P. Blavatsky departed from the body in 1891; William Q. Judge some
five years later. He never claimed to be her successor; on the contrary,
when asked the question, he said: She is sui generis-she can have no
successor;" the fact being that both he and she were contemporaneous in
the work, he retaining his body for some five years longer in order to
complete the work he had to do.

The work of these two cannot be separated if the Movement is to be
understood. The evidence of the greatness and fitness of William Q.
Judge, as a Teacher, is to be found in his writings-a large and valuable
part of which has become obscured through the organizational dissensions
before spoken of. These writings should be sought for, and studied, in
connection with those of H. P. Blavatsky. That study will lead to the
conviction that both were great Teachers-each with a particular
mission-that each was sui generis, that their work was complementary,
and that neither of them had, nor could have, any successor.


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


THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS

DECLARATION:      

The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of
Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical
organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical
Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences of
individual opinion.

The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing
and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side
issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the Fundamental
Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification in
practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the SELF; a
profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood.

It holds that the unassailable basis for union among Theosophists,
wherever and however situated, is similarity of aim, purpose and
teaching," and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws nor Officers,
the sole bond between its Associates being that basis. And it aims to
disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance of Unity.

It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service of
Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or
organization, and;

It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its
declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and
otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.

"The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet
belongs to each and all."


[ Form to be signed by those who desire to become associates of U L T ]


Being in sympathy with the Purposes of this Lodge, as set forth in its
"Declaration," I hereby record my desire to be enrolled as an Associate;
it being understood that such association calls for no obligation on my
part, other than that which I, myself, determine.


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:mail@katinkahesselink.net] 
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 10:33 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World ULT and the Theosophical Movement (the books)

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 anonymously.

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 anonymity 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 organization 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:
> 
CUT