Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01424)

Daniel,
First about that the "ULT has no official or centralized policy". It 
is a "myth" as you say, Daniel. They, the leading ULT-people 
(most "privates" in the ULT don't really know what is going on, and 
what it's all about), can't say that in front of mirror, if they 
have any shame left in their bodies, without knowing they are lying. 
If one compeer for example with the TS Pasadena, so have they far 
less with official or centralized policies, then the ULT.

But there is a problem with what Mr. Aveline is saying and writs 
about the ULT. He is sometimes precenting his most private opinion 
and those is often clearly not the same as the opinion of the ULT in 
Los Angeles (as what he is saying about the so called Point Loma 
Societies, which the ULT is very much hostile against). But in many 
other cases is he repeating like it was some kind of mantra, 
official ULT-myths, as the one above. Another one it that, that the 
ULT isn't a society. The ULT is fulfilling every possible criterion, 
to be that.

You wrote:
"Dallas asserted that the ULT doesn't engage in politics like the 
other Theosophical organizations do."

I wonder how the former Secretary General of the ULT (in an 
organisation that is no organisation, and have no officers) felt, 
when I wrote that? We al know that that nether was or is true. 

One of the reason for way the ULT-people don't want "outsiders" to 
talk about and exam them, is that they consider them self to be the 
only true theosophists, and al other theosophical societies and 
groups are more or less under negative influences (from the Brothers 
of the Shadow, astral illusions etc). They stand above al others, 
and now other then them really knows what is true theosophy.

The ULT is hiding behind the "declaration", hence they is not 
following what that document is saying. 

When I studied Psychology of Religion at the University of Lund 
twelve years ago, this kind of behaviour was called sect tendencies. 

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Ek,
> 
> I will direct this posting to you but others may also be
> interested.
> 
> Notice Mr. Aveline's KEY statements in what he writes below:
> 
> =============================================================
> The ULT has no official or centralized policy about what it 
defines 
> as side-issues. So you can't, as I can't, talk about ULT's party 
line 
> about any other theosophical organizations. All you can do is to 
> quote from here and there, as anyone can. Especially from 1925 and 
> from 1950 editions of "The Theosophical Movement" -- which, by the 
> way, is a great, a superb book.
> =============================================================
> 
> The statements I call attention to are:
> 
> ===========================================================
> The ULT has no official or centralized policy about what it 
defines 
> as side-issues. So you can't, as I can't, talk about ULT's party 
line 
> about any other theosophical organizations.
> ===========================================================
> 
> Here we see Mr. Aveline actually propagating one of the myths of 
the 
> ULT.  He says the ULT has no official or centralized policy and he 
> apparently wants us to believe therefore they have no policies...
> period.  But anyone who has spent anytime studying the ULT knows 
that 
> the organization does have policies --- maybe not "official" 
whatever 
> Mr. Aveline may want that word to mean.  But they have policies 
and 
> they are followed and even enforced.
> 
> I guess he is trying to tell people that we can't talk about ULT's 
> party line like we can talk about other  theosophical 
organizations 
> because the ULT doesn't have a party line.
> 
> If this is what he is trying to convey to us, then this reminds me 
of 
> a contention made by the late Dallas Tenbroeck. 
> 
> Dallas asserted that the ULT doesn't engage in politics like the 
> other Theosophical organizations do.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Daniel
>