Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00192)

In a message dated 09/23/03 10:10:40 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

> Thanks, Leon; you have given me a satisfactory answer that I can pass
>on to others. Just a little comment:
>
>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> competent and learned theosophical student/teachers. All in all, I found
>> that the Lodge admirably serves its purpose of providing a facility and 
>> forum where serious students can study and question fundamental 
>> theosophy in the company of many wise teachers and companions. 
>> What other purpose should any theosophical Lodge have?
> 
> To expand upon the fundamentals? This is not to say that studying and
>questioning them is not a good cause in and of itself, and is why I 
>consider the various Societies to be more complementary than competitive
>(and, by the way, have often sent people who were interested in deeper
>study of the fundamentals to the ULT). While I do not believe in 
>unification of the various groups, I wish there was more cooperation 
>(such as I just received from you). Your explanation manages to resolve
>pretty much all the discrepancies I have heard in the stories (well, 
>except people being thrown out; is there any situation where people 
>might feel unwelcome, such as trying to cast Satan out of the group or
>bringing up the works of Leadbeater?).

"Expanding on the fundamentals" has already been thoroughly covered in the 
Secret Doctrine -- which is the major source of all theosophical study at ULT. 
The purpose of questioning them in group study, is to bring out answers based 
on the SD that are offered by more advanced students in their own words. This 
then leads to further questions and further references to the basic teachings 
of HPB, WQJ, the Masters and their teachers and disciples. I always felt that 
this was a most effective way to study theosophy -- i.e., in a group 
consisting of beginners as well as the most advanced students of theosophy. 
Sometimes, the beginners ask questions that when answered anonymously from within the 
group, gives those of higher knowledge even greater understanding and wisdom -- 
including the one who answered -- no matter what level he or she was coming 
from. 

Much of my own scientific understanding of theosophical metaphysics comes 
from asking apparently dumb questions about them in open meetings and listening 
to the various answers from a broad range of students. (Dumb meaning, so 
obvious that only a theosophical dunce would ask them.) Once, in such a meeting, 
one of my dumbest questions was answered by a visiting scientist/philosopher 
who was attending a ULT lecture for the first time. His scientific answer 
cleared up a deep contradiction related to Cosmogenesis that I was struggling over. 
We met after that meeting, and (when he recognized that I wasn't as dumb as 
my question:-) we became fast friends. He soon began a serious study of the 
SD with my help (since he was partially blind). And, in the course of our 
discussions over the following five years, I helped him reconcile theosophy with 
both his Buddhism (he was an initiated Lama of the Nyingmapa sect of Tibetan 
Buddhists) as well as his knowledge of nuclear and biophysics... And he, in 
turn, taught me, literally, mouth to ear (not only some of the ritual "magic" of 
the Nyingmapas) but gave me a deep understanding of the leading edges of 
quantum, relativity and string theories that I needed in order to correlate the 
metaphysics in the SD with modern and post modern science... And, that eventually 
allowed me to clarify my theories in words and diagrams. All consistent with 
the teachings in the SD, that could be understood by the nonscientists among us 
and applied in their practice of the heart doctrine and in their meditation.

As for "casting out Satan" from the group -- that usually takes care of 
itself whenever any of his messengers show up... By having some of the more 
perceptive students question their motives and concepts after their first negative 
comment. By probing deep enough into the words and actions of such satanic 
persons, by using quotes from HPB, its easy to show them how much they contradict 
fundamental theosophical truths. Once hearing that in front of an audience 
they are impelled to bow out quietly by themselves with their tails between 
their legs. I've seen it happen many times whenever a Christian proselytizer, 
dedicated theosophy basher, or militant "atheist" showed up at an advertised ULT 
Sunday night lecture, or sometimes joins in a theosophy study group. Of 
course, when they talk to their friends later, they always claim they were "kicked 
out" -- since, once exposed and stripped of their rationale and purpose, they 
can't wait to get out of the building before the end of the meeting.

Incidentally, ULT associates (either anonymous or card signed) don't have to 
have a Lodge in their local area to form a ULT study group. I organized one 
such group in South Florida for a couple of years, that was attended by a local 
Hindu guru and several of his disciples who also had their own religious 
study and meditation group (which I and other ULT people also sometimes attended). 
This Swami also occasionally lectured to us, from his advaitan standpoint, 
on karma, reincarnation and after death states, which were very enlightening 
(if not exactly consistent with theosophy, and which we argued about). He also 
read our palms and gave us advice based on our astrological signs -- some of 
which was quite helpful. (I couldn't see as how ULT could have any 
disagreement with any of that -- since, whatever side issues we engaged in, usually 
happened after we formally closed the Lodge meeting.;-) 

All I can say about "bringing up the works of Leadbeater" -- is that some of 
the concepts of metaphysical science that lie behind my ABC theory, and that 
I've brought up as answers to questions in ULT lectures and study groups over 
the years, could be attributed to him, or even to Bailey, Crowley, Gurdjieff, 
Ouspensky, etc., (all of whose metaphysics I have thoroughly studied). 
Whenever I quoted them directly, or inadvertently mentioned where those correlation's 
came from, no one ever told me that such works were forbidden material, or 
asked me to get out of the Lodge. What's true is true, no matter who says it. 
Right? But, wouldn't it be better (to prevent prejudice clouding our 
understanding) that the not yet "equal minded" or "self realized" student isn't told 
who the quoted author is? That's why, in ULT we always say

Of course, their books might not be in the ULT library (even if someone 
donated them) -- since such works are justifiably considered contradictory or 
controversial when compared to the unaltered SD and other writings of HPB and WQJ. 
And, why should newcomers to theosophy have them pushed in their face by 
cataloging them as theosophical books? But, I've never heard anyone at ULT say 
they couldn't be studied for whatever useful interpretations or alternate 
viewpoints of theosophical truths they might have. In fact I've discussed the 
possibility openly at ULT meetings -- that a good way to teach theosophical 
metaphysics is to actually quote from these books, and then show how quotes by HPB, 
WQJ, the Masters, and their disciples such as Wadia, Cranston, Head, Williams, 
etc., are all consistent with each other, yet directly contradict the "pseudo 
theosophy" of those other writers individually or collectively. I doubt if 
anyone at ULT will take me up on this for any direct group study, but maybe one 
of the independent scribes, like Dallas or Daniel, might consider collating 
such comparative quotes. (This could be a good way to give waffling beginners in 
theosophy a basis for choosing where they would like to start studying 
theosophy in a group environment.) 
Best wishes,

Lenny Maurer 
(as I'm known at ULT)