Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00670)

Friends, 

Since there has been so much discussion -- not my initiative -- about the ULT here at Theos-talk, we might as well listen to what Mr. Robert Crosbie has to tell us about it. 
The document below has been taken from the ULT website in Sweden,  at 

http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/   . 

Best regards,  Carlos. 
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[ Following explanatory statement drawn up by Robert Crosbie for the information of all theosophists, was made public concurrently with the foundation of "The United Lodge of Theosophists” and the adoption of its DECLARATION by himself and the seven original Associates, on February 18, 1909.]
The United Lodge of Theosophists is an integral part of the Theosophical Movement begun in New York in 1875. It is—as the name implies—an Association of Theosophists irrespective of organization, who are bound together by the tie of common aim, purpose and teaching, in the cause of Theosophy.
Theosophy, being the origin, basis and genius of every Theosophical organization, forms in itself a common ground of interest and effort, above and beyond all differences of opinion as to persons or methods; and being the philosophy of Unity, it calls for the essential union of those who profess and promulgate it.
This Union does not mean a sameness of organization or method, but a friendly recognition, mutual assistance and encouragement among all engaged in the furtherance of Theosophy.
The Teacher, H. P. Blavatsky, declared that “Want of Union is the first condition of failure,” and in her last message to the American Convention in 1891, said: “Never has it been more necessary for the members of the Theosophical Society to lay to heart the parable of the bundle of sticks, than it is at the present time; divided, they will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth able to destroy our Brotherhood. .I have marked with pain . . . a tendency among you to allow your very devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion. . . . No opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows thinned and thrown into disarray.”
There are a number of Theosophical organizations in existence today, all of them drawing their inspiration from Theosophy,
                                                                                                   [412]
existing only because of Theosophy, yet remaining disunited. The nature of each organization is such, that unity cannot be had on the basis of any one of them; hence a common basis should be taken if the success originally purposed is to be attained.
The need of such a basis with a broader view of the Movement, is the cause for the present Association—the United Lodge of Theosophists—composed of Theosophists of different organizations, as well as those belonging to none. This Lodge, having no constitution, by-laws, officers or leader, affords in its Declaration a common basis of Unity for all who see the great need of it, and seeks their co-operation.
Holding to its motto: ‘There is no Religion higher than Truth,” it seeks for the truth in all things, and beginning with the history of the Theosophical Movement, sets forth herein some facts with their inevitable deductions, for general information and consideration.
There is no question anywhere as to who brought the message of Theosophy to the Western World, nor is there any reason to believe that the Messenger, H. P. Blavatsky, failed to deliver all that was to be given out until the year x time stated by her for the advent of the next Messenger.
‘While she lived there was one Society. After her departure, dissensions arose, resulting in several separate organizations. The basic cause of these divisions is to be found in differences of opinion as to “successorship,” even where other causes were in evidence. No such question should ever have arisen, for it is abundantly clear that H. P. Blavatsky could no more pass on to another her knowledge and attainments, than could Shakespeare, Milton or Beethoven pass on theirs.
Those who were attracted by the philosophy she presented, or who were taught by her, were followers or students, of more or less proficiency in the understanding and assimilation of Theosophy.
Once the idea of “successorship” is removed from consideration, a better perspective is obtainable of the Movement, the
                                                                                                     [413]
philosophy, and the principal persons—past and present—engaged in its promulgation.
‘We have the declarations of her Masters that she was the sole instrument possible for the work to be done, that They sent her to do it, and that They approved in general all that she did. That work not only includes the philosophy she gave, but her work with the relation to others in the Movement; and where a relation is particularly defined—as in the case of William Q. Judge—wisdom dictates that full consideration be given to what she says.
H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge were co-Founders of the Theosophical Society in 1875 They were colleagues from the first and ever remained such. When H. P. Blavatsky left America—never to return—she left behind her William Q. Judge to establish and carry on the work of the Theosophical Movement in America. How well that work was done is a matter of history.
H. P. Blavatsky departed from the body in 1891; William Q. Judge some five years later. He never claimed to be her successor; on the contrary, when asked the question, he said: She is sui generis—she can have no successor;” the fact being that both he and she were contemporaneous in the work, he retaining his body for some five years longer in order to complete the work he had to do.
The work of these two cannot be separated if the Movement is to be understood. The evidence of the greatness and fitness of William Q. Judge, as a Teacher, is to be found in his writings—a large and valuable part of which has become obscured through the organizational dissensions before spoken of. These writings should be sought for, and studied, in connection with those of H. P. Blavatsky. That study will lead to the conviction that both were great Teachers—each with a particular mission—that each was sui generis, that their work was complementary, and that neither of them had, nor could have, any successor.         


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