Adyar ES, ULT and Dr. Tillett
Dec 19, 2006 07:44 AM
I have no reason to say that Dr. Tillett should visit the ULT or not. It is up to him. I just said he does not seem interested in visiting it, or in building a dialogue with the ULT. Let alone knowing anything about it -- beyond financial and bureaucratic matters.
Historical importance of the ULT can be assessed by its contribution to the theosophical literature published since 1909, and by the fact that its subtle influence can be felt in the movement, at least by those who will pay attention to things.
Yet I see Dr. Tillett looks at the ULT at the financial and real state level.
In fact, the way we look at things shows who we are, or what is in our minds.
Dr. Tillett has been useful with his texts on Adyar's materialistic illusions, but his lack of real information on the ULT -- a Theosophy-centered informal network of people -- is overwhelmingly great. This is because he is used to work at the bureaucratic levels of reality, which may work with the part of the Adyar TS which he studied.
But he misunderstands the Adyar ES as much as he deludes himself about the ULT.
Data:Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:18:18 +1100 (EST)
Assunto:Theos-World Getting to know the ULT?
Carlos' statements about the ULT continue to confuse me.
Apparently the ULT has no organization and apparently therefore no
headquarters, But I should visit the ULT in Los Angeles. Why Los Angeles?
Is that where the headquarters that do not exist are to be found? I've
visited the very pleasant premises in London and met very pleasant people:
they just couldn't or wouldn't answer any historical questions.
Carlos says I should read ULT publications. Well, I've done that. They
don't provide any real historical information on the ULT.
To obtain basic historical data on other organization I don't need to "get
to know" them. If I want to know about Microsoft or the Roman Catholic
Church or the Adyar TS I can (a) read their web sites, (b) read their
publications or (c) send a letter or an e-mail. I might or might not
accept the material provided as credible, but material will be provided.
Incidentally, the Theosophy Company does have a structure, organization
and officers, and a headquarters. It is a corporation registered in
California (Number: C0115989), originally incorporated on September 10,
1925. Its official address is 245 West 33rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007.
Its Agent for Service of Process is West H. van Horn of the same address.
Perhaps some Californian friends might like to search further in the State
corporate record to identify office holders, assets and such. The
corporation is run by a board of seven trustees. How are these appointed?
Can I presume that this corporation owns the ULT building (if not
headquarters) in Los Angeles? After Crosbie's death, John Garrigues was
apparently President of the Corporation, succeeded after his death in 1944
by Grace Clough followed by Henry Geiger. It has been claimed that a 1938
case a court ruled that the U.L.T. was a business belonging to John
Similarly, there is The Theosophy Company – New York Inc, a not-for-rofit
body incorporated in New York, with its address at 347 East 72nd Street,
New York, NY 10021. Can I presume that this corporation owns the ULT
building (if not headquarters) in New York?
Likewise, there is the Theosophy Company Limited (Company Number 00239143)
of 62 Queens Gardens, London, W2 3AH, England, a private company, limited by guarantee with no share capital. Can I presume that this corporation owns the ULT building (if not headquarters) in London?
There is also the Theosophy Company (India) Private Limited at 40 New
Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020, India.
What is the relationship of the Theosophy Company/ies to the ULT? How are
the members/directors of the Companies appointed?
Equivalent information is readily available in relation to, for example,
the Adyar TS.
Dr Gregory Tillett
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application