[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: "Bosses" Comment to Dallas

Sep 23, 2003 02:46 AM
by W. Dallas TenBreoeck

Sept 23

Dear Ed:

Your observation re "bosses" is of course correct.

In the U L: Ts older students in study and knowledge of Theosophy, when
participating give information about the location of key passages.

Those who have been in U L T a long time support it and usually do the
most volunteer and supportive work. But in itself that gives no
advantage to them. And more active associates willing to give time,
work, thought, speaking and writing ability, and energy are needed. They
have to volunteer. That does not make them "bosses." At least not in my

I am of the opinion that personalities are unimportant so long as the
work is done. Any name placing usually degenerates into
"other-reliance." It is "Higher SELF-reliance" that is needed.  

For newcomers to work and to assist, such matters are unimportant, and
the primary work is to individually acquire a working knowledge of
Theosophy and then apply it. It is giving, and not taking that is the
rule in U L T.

U L T has adopted and applied successfully the "no names" policy for 94
years. And this is designed to keep THEOSOPHY up front all the time. You
will see that this is following the DECLARATION of U L T .

So ?  

Best washes,



-----Original Message-----
From: Griffin E
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:38 PM
Subject: "Bosses" in U L T -- Comment to Dallas

I think that the ULT is a fine organization that does good work. The
many people who volunteer their time and energy make a true difference
in the world. I myself am an associate.
There is one comment that you made though that I do disagree with.
You wrote:

You see, it (U L T) is only the exterior embodiment of idealism. It
looks and operates as an "organization" does,. But, strangely, it is not
an "organization" in the accepted sense, -- no "boss" or "bosses." Or
better still, every volunteer assumes whatever "hat" is needed to get
things done. The coordination is by a cooperative consultation. It has
no "leaders," and no "minorities" or "majorities" or voting. But there
is a lot of substantial work just to keep the publishing and the
discussions and the promulgation going.  
I have attended meetings in the NY, Philadelphia, San Diego (and very
very rarely in LA a few years ago) lodges - and there is one thing that
is distinctly obvious - that is that there are "bosses" - they are
called "senior students". No matter what you call them they are still
"in charge" of the conversations. These "senior students" are the
leaders - whether they themselves use the term or not.
Please do not get me wrong. SOMEONE has to be in charge and guide the
conversations - teach new students - etc. The fact that the senior
students ARE leaders is not bad at all. Many times new people would
look quizically around when people would say that there are no leaders -
and they would point out the obvious fact that, "You say that there are
no leaders but X, Y and Z are the ones who always moderate the
conversations, pay the bills, sell the books, etc.". 
While I applaud the ideal of impersonality and the ULT - I also think
that the obvious contradiction of having "senior students" run
everything and yet saying that there are no leaders confuses new people.
It might be better to say, "Yes, such and such usually runs this and
that but we STRIVE to be as impersonal as possible. They do it because
someone has to and it needs to get done. We try to focus on the
teachings and not the personality presenting the teachings."
Better to get rid of the "there are no leaders" line and replace it with
"we strive to focus on the teachings and not personalities".
Just some thoughts...
-Ed Griffin

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application