Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00563)

Bill
      What you are over looking in my response about the TM and non-organization, is that I am commenting as a "free agent", not outwardly affiliated to any ULT, while remaining completely aligned with the sense behind the founding of ULT. Now, having been around the country a bit, and seeing for myself the operation of other Lodges, it's become quite apparent, that even though the original intent of the founder, Robert Crosbie, was to have groups of students and no actual organization with by-laws and officers-it's soul bond being devotion to to the original teachings/Mahatmas as presented through HPB and Judge, none the less, the group dynamics tending towards hierarches, etc. has actually had the impact of bringing dogmatic thought and this congregationalism I mentioned, into these Lodges.
      Having said that, it is also clear to me, that the thesosphical movement, if it is seen as that movement whose intent is to bring the unalloyed thoughts and philosophy of the Mahatmas into the world scene, in doing so requires an organised, at least systematic approach to make this presentation possible. But, this is true of our culture, not neccesarily so in other cultures or in the ancient world of lesser materialistic and less compartmentalised culture or community. I feel that this is a correct assumption if one looks at our culture as the by product of the blockage of the inner man, so that to get community and culture acomplished, the personalities of our day need structure. This being a by-product of stunted imagination and the poor ability to manifest needs and accomplishment through the application of "will". Therefore more focus through assistance of organised wills, is required for us. 
      Now, if other students of ULT feel similarly, I suppose that's fine. My intention is not to be original, but to call attention to the fact that even ULT needs a system of checks and  balances, as has failed in the Adyar and TSA, through which the original outpourings can stay fresh with the application of open mindedness by its participants. This means that organization needs to be less important than the reason they have come into existence. In fact they need to be seen as vehicles, like our personalities. To that end, I don't feel that Theos-talk is experiencing a ULT-Adyar confrontation. I feel it is experiencing the natural difficulties and sufferings of students as they, on occasion, wake up to the fact that there was an original and clean outpouring of wisdom (yes through atmittedly imperfect folks) which has become muddied up though power plays and pretension under what ever name.  
   
  Steve

Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@earthlink.net> wrote:
  Steve,

Thanks for your comments. I am interested in your view of the TM as a 
non-organization. Would not a Movement without organization be a bit 
helter-skelter? In some sense, this seems similar to Dallas' and other 
ULT member's contentions that they are not an organization either. 
Perhaps I am stuck in my thinking here, but I see an organization as 
being defined by what it and its membership do more than by what they 
say. I think this is the case in most definitional instances. For 
instance, one can hardly expect a person to say that he is a racist, but 
his actions may very well say what he vehemently denies (perhaps even to 
himself.) I believe that some members of the ULT see themselves, in 
large part, as the one true center of the TM and they have organized and 
are now acting in accordance with that vision. That the structure (see 
5a below) of their organization is "behind the scenes" exchanges of 
communications only serves to define them as a more private and less 
public organization, but it does not relieve them of the dangers 
inherent in any organization. The chief of these dangers is 
group-think. This phenomenon should be studied by all who declare 
themselves members (or associates) of a non-organization group. As your 
experience shows, "all groups become congregations to some extent." 
Here is the definition I am using: 
*or·gan·i·za·tion* Audio pronunciation of "organization" 

( P ) *Pronunciation Key* 
(ôrg-n-zshn)
/n./

1.
1. The act or process of organizing.
2. The state or manner of being organized: a high degree of
organization.
2. Something that has been organized or made into an ordered whole.
3. Something made up of elements with varied functions that
contribute to the whole and to collective functions; an organism.
4. A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an
association: a benevolent organization.
5.
1. A structure through which individuals cooperate
systematically to conduct business.
2. The administrative personnel of such a structure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*organ·i·zation·al* /adj./
*organ·i·zation·al·ly* /adv./
[Download Now 

or Buy the Book ]
Source 
: The 
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



Steven Levey wrote:
> Dear Bill
> 
> I agree with you regarding your statement about the Universal Wisdom being on a roll without the existing groups or societies, but, the Theosophical Movement, even though we and others have run the term "theosophical" into the ground, is by definition today's movement, and I feel that it includes all applications of the Universal Wisdom. 
> Sure this is just my perspective, and you may find cause to dispute because of that, but the meaning theosophical and Universal Wisdom are technically indentical. Also, there is no reason to tire of the term theosophical merely on the basis of how it has been abused and consistantly run over. This is like refusing to use words like soul or religion because they have been so disfigured. Hell, I can hardly look at the Bible, and my first reaction to one who brings it up, is one of distaste. I have to forcefully remind myself of what HPB and others have put forward (and my own study has revealed), that it is merely what it is on the one hand (neither Holy nor only worldly), and as deep as many texts, when non-dogmatically understood.
> Finally, I don't see Carlos nessesarily fronting for an organization, since as I said, I don't see the "TM" as an organization but today's perspective on the Universal Wisdom. True Carlos and I disagree about the need of Groups to do this, and my own finding of the dangers inherent to group dynamics as regards the cause of dogmas, and the materialization of the Universal Wisdom. My experience shows that all groups become congregations to some extent. Just some views.
> 
> Steve
>
>
> 
> 



Yahoo! Groups Links








			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]