Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00100)

Daniel, 

Well, I can't read your mind either. So, forgive me if your constant 
haggling over these matters by you and others who always seem to agree withyou, and 
that always appear to come down to an apparent negative attitude about ULT and 
it's different methods of operation and teaching as compared to the TS. 
-- leads me to believe that there is some sort of vendetta being carried out 
against ULT, it founder, its methods, and its associates -- as if they all 
were pariahs from the theosophical movement.  

I'll try to explain this in more detail below where I will attempt to 
describe how and why I came up with the phrase "disgruntled organizationalists" 
(which was really said more or less tongue in cheek at the time -- since this whole 
area of discussion of inconsequential although clarifying editing of the VOS 
that is not pertinent to the study and practice of theosophy itself, seems 
kind of humorous to me. :-)  

In a message dated 10/07/03 11:46:13 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon, you wrote:
>
>"This whole discussion does nothing but obscure the 
>teachings of fundamental theosophy, still sounds 
>like a vendetta against ULT and WQJ by certain 
>disgruntled 'organizationalists'. . . "
>
>I replied:
>
>"Please be more specific, WHO are the 
>disgruntled 'organizationalists'?? Do you 
>refer to me? To Tony? To Peter?"
>
>Leon, you then replied in turn:
>
>"No offense intended. If the shoe fits, wear it. 
>If not, forget it. :-)"
>
>Leon, I have looked up the terms in the dictionary
>but it is NOT clear to me why you felt the need
>to bring up the phrase "certain 
>disgruntled 'organizationalists'. . . " or exactly
>what it means.


>You even put in quotation marks the word: 
>organizationalists. You must have had
>some idea in your mind especially to add
>the word "disgruntled".  
>
>If you really believe Peter, Tony and I are
>"disgruntled 'organizationalists'" then don't
>be shy, call a spade a spade if that is the case.
>
>All I ask is that you explain exactly
>what you mean by this phrase. I can't read
>your mind.
>
>As written without further explanation, the
>phrase reads like an "ad hominem" remark possibly
>thrown out by you to distract attention from the issue
>being discussed.
>
>Daniel

Well, since this discussion seems to follow on a long discussion about ULT, 
its non organizational character and methods, and its reliance on original 
works of HPB and WQJ, as well as the defection of Robert Crosby from the TS... 
And, since WQJ's rendition of the VOS came into question, when I thought the 
whole argument had been settled... I assumed that these new concerns (which 
"appeared" [to me] to be a continuation of the original attacks on the ULT and its 
associates) were closely related, and also "seemed" to be part of a continuing 
vendetta designed to discredit them.  

Since you seem to be saying that's not so, I apologize for what you think is 
my "ad hominem remark possibly thrown out to attract attention from the issue 
being discussed" -- about which I feel my position was made perfectly clear-- 
and which you, apparently, refuse to answer. It also tickles my funny bone 
to hear you complain about what you assume might be an apparent ad hominem 
remark, with another ad hominem remark. :-) 

In addition, it also "seemed to me" that such complaints originated from a 
few people who believed in TS organizations as the only way to carry on thework 
of theosophy (thus, I coined the word "organizationalists" to describe them). 
And that, therefore, judging by your and their digs into ULT, they could be 
"disgruntled" because of ULT's founder's defection from the TS, as well as 
ULT's apparently (to them) disorganized methods of operation, its ignoring (and 
discrediting) of the reedited and doctored HPB books (that were among the TS' 
basic offerings to students) by Besant and Leadbeater, et al., plus ULT's 
reliance on those writings of WQJ (who also was persona non grata to those TS 
followers of Besant). As a result of this line of thought, the phrase, "disgruntled 
organizationalists" came to mind as a concise and colorful way to indicate my 
feelings about why this whole brouhaha suddenly came up about the 
inconsequential and mostly clarifying editing of the VOS preface by a trusted "colleague" 
(and fellow Adept) of HPB (long before Besant came into the picture and 
misled HPB into trusting her). I hope this clears up your mind about my choice of 
words, and why I (and most ULT old timers, I assume) cannot fault WQJ for any 
editing or clarification he made on or about HPB's writings that were or were 
not directly related to her actual teachings or translations. 

The only problem I'm left with now, is why you ignore commenting on my 
arguments (in favor of WQJ's transcription and minor editing of the VOS that are in 
direct opposition to your and others' arguments against them) and continue to 
harangue me with this apparently defensive and repetitive, cross examining 
smoke screen indicating your personal concern about who exactly I was referring 
to? What does that have to do with the pertinent comments I made regardingthe 
Judge transcription of VOS? 

As I said before, I had no one particularly in mind, other than those who 
took sides with you in what "appears to me" to be your and their continuing 
gripes about ULT, WQJ and Robert Crosby. So again, all I can say is, I have no 
arguments against anyone personally in particular... But, with respect to my 
questioned phrase, I repeat, "If the shoe fits, wear it. And if not, forget it." 
:-)  

So, please be assured that whatever inference I made along those lines are 
strictly my own personal opinion, and have no relationship to the argumentsput 
forth regarding my views about the editing of the VOS -- which you, 
apparently, are avoiding commenting on and, seemingly (to me), covering them up with 
this smoke screen of concern over personalities. (If that can be taken as 
another ad hominem remark... Well, all I can say again is, "What's good forthe 
goose is also good for the gander." :-)  

Best wishes,

Leon