Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00801)

Friends, 

As thanks to one or two friends here we have had an intense debate about the ULT in the last few months, take a look at this article below. 

Carlos. 

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

A CHANGING  U.L.T.

by John Paul Rolston
[Reprinted with permission from Ergates, Autumn 1996.] 
Of necessity time rolls on and things change. All of us feel threatened or dismayed at times when we learn that the bedrock upon which we were standing moves beneath our feet. Change is inevitable in the Theosophical Movement, as it is in all things; but the kind of changes we sanction are of the utmost importance. 
There are those who would like ULT to hold strictly to The Way Things Have Been-only thus can the Teachings be preserved, they think. This is not only unwise, but fatal. To be truly orthodox is not to maintain the original form or method, but to hold to the original lines laid down. In this case, the lines were laid down for us one hundred years ago by the Masters and Their messengers. We must follow along those lines as things unfold, but we must not remain chained to the singular points on the line at which "our" events occurred, namely the advent of H.P.B., W.Q.J. and Robert Crosbie. We must move forward: static organisms die. 
Even during the lifetime of H.P.B. events in the world and the turning of the cycle necessitated changes, including changes to the constitution of the T.S. and the original Three Objects. For us today to follow the specific plans, methods, and forms of the old T.S., H.P.B., W.Q.J. or Robert Crosbie, would be foolish. Those were the activities of another time, another cycle. Rather, we must try to ascertain the meaning behind such plans, methods and forms, and adapt them to our time and needs. Surely their methods are of tremendous interest to us, for they are a blueprint of living the life and serving the Cause. At the same time, while principles remain the same, application does not. Short of an unambiguous letter from a Master, we are left to our own reason and our own understanding of the teachings, collectively as an Association. 
One may point to the fact that H.P.B. did not appear on the radio or television; so we too could shun the use of media such as television, computers, the Internet, video-taped productions etc. But everyone knows how short-sighted this would be. H.P.B. lived in a different time when certain technologies weren't available. We have the ability to go forward and use new methods. 
This idea isn't as obvious or widespread as one might think. Let us examine the books printed and sold by the ULT lodges. We see that we have developed a canon which closed with the death of Mr. Crosbie. No new authors have been printed (under ULT auspices) in 50 years, despite fine recent works by our best students, e.g. The Phoenix Fire Mystery. It is among the most important books in the United States today, quoted by scholars and used in classrooms worldwide. Yet while we sell it, no ULT lodge would agree to print it, and the authors had to turn elsewhere-squandering profits and recognition that would have served ULT well. Likewise with the biography H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston. 
The reasoning behind this situation is clear: to publish new books by authors besides the Founders would be to draw attention away from the Source Teachings, dilute the energy of the Movement, and risk misrepresentation of the philosophy. Who better can teach, we think, than our Teachers? The danger of distraction is very real and not to be played down. And yet, to remain frozen seems equally foolish, particularly as the English language evolves and the Source teachings become harder to understand by new generations. Already many newcomers (those without a good metaphysical background) find our most basic books difficult to grasp. 
Some long-time Theosophists may scoff at this notion, and insist that The Ocean of Theosophy, for example, is written in plain, clear English. These Associates may not have had the recent experience of working with the reading public. One newcomer to Theosophy in Oregon, an intelligent fellow holding a Ph.D., complained that the Ocean was written in archaic language and its meaning was opaque to him. Several educated visitors have said the same in San Francisco. For readers who doubt, let us look at the first few pages of The Ocean of Theosophy with the eyes of a newcomer to the lodge. 
The third sentence of the Ocean, page one, runs: 
Although it contains by derivation the name God and thus may seem at first sight to embrace religion alone, it does not neglect science x. 
For those who do not read Greek-and most people do not, nowadays- this sentence produces a blank. They do not know that theos means god, nor that sophia means wisdom. 
On page two we find a series of grammatically complex sentences, beginning with this one: 
The religion of the day is but a series of dogmas man-made and with no scientific foundation for promulgated ethics; while our science as yet ignores the unseen, and failing to admit the existence of a complete set of inner faculties or perception in man, it is cut off from the immense and real field of experience which lies within the visible and tangible worlds. 
This sentence, besides being long and complex, contains a host of perplexities for the new student. 
Which "religion of the day" is being described? Surely not Buddhism, growing quickly in the West. But what are "promulgated ethics" and what "scientific foundation" is meant? What is "our" science? Would this include homeopathy and acupuncture? Having introduced dozens of students to The Ocean of Theosophy over the course of many years, this writer assures the readers of Ergates that these questions are all too real for the beginner, and require copious explanations from a qualified guide: "In the 19th century x." 
This is not to criticize Mr. Judge or the value of The Ocean of Theosophy as a brilliant compendium of the teachings in a remarkably short space; still, it is sad but true that most high-school educated people are not up to the challenge of reading it with any clear understanding of what is being communicated. In short, new introductory books are desperately needed, perhaps composed of extracts of the Founders' easier writings accompanied by explanatory text, while the Ocean perhaps could be used as a mid-level textbook for those with a basic grasp of the teachings-for those who have developed the thirst for knowledge enough to wade through 19th century English. 
Certainly, many students who have read this far will have already picked up their pens to write a scathing rebuttal to Ergates re: the above (heretical?) analysis of the accessibility of the Ocean. But do not misunderstand: there is no doubt that the original books are the Source teachings, and we cannot allow ourselves to think that they should quietly slip into the background. 
Quite the opposite, the Movement draws its life and vitality from its Founders. Newcomers to a lodge or study group should be made immediately aware of the Founders, their works, and the basic principles of Theosophy. 
At the same time, propagation of works by students, if of value to the education of others, seems not only permissible but actually necessary. 
While each must make one's own use of the resources our Teachers left, it is extremely helpful that the teachings come to each inquirer in his or her own language and idiom. When we cease interpreting and applying the sources anew for each ever-changing cycle, they become dead, rote, and of purely ritual value. A true student of Theosophy knows the sources, but is able to restate the teachings smoothly and accurately in his or her own words. Why should not the public receive the benefit of this expertise in new printed (or electronic) forms? 
Besides the literature which we first hand to newcomers, other aspects of ULT bear scrutiny and perhaps change. What is our platform work like? Do we use the best pedagogical methods to educate our students? Last century, before television and even radio, the lecture was a popular means of entertainment and education. Today, many people feel turned off by hearing a long lecture. Psychologically, it puts the listener in a passive position, "under quarantine" as it were until the question and answer period. Yet much evidence suggests that people learn best when they are active participants, able to be part of the flow of dialogue and contribute to the give and take of proceedings. For this reason some lodges are experimenting with new formats-using a panel of people on the platform where different perspectives can be heard simultaneously; or even giving up the platform altogether and seating the group in a circle or square. 
The methods of outreach in ULT could stand examination as well. In this age of technology, ULT is just beginning to try out effective new means of communication. The New York lodge has staged successful ongoing broadcasts on public television, and recorded these panel discussions on video-tape: the tapes are available to any lodge, but many centers do not seem to own the necessary audio-visual equipment. A student in the Kent, Washington group has exerted tremendous effort to put up a "page" on the World Wide Web (an aspect of the Internet), with permission to include Theosophy magazine. This has the potential to reach literally millions of inquirers. Yet most associates do not seem to know how to access the Internet (meaning they are unable to direct others to get there either). Only one or two lodges have a computer system on site, capable of monitoring and directing Theosophical discussion. 
It is a bold new world compared to last century, when the teachings were re-presented once more. Things are different in our society in large part because of the efforts of the Teachers and their companions around the globe for over a century. Christian dogmas are fading; the materialistic science criticized in The Secret Doctrine has evolved into newer and slipperier shapes; Eastern religions make deep inroads in the West. 
And so it is time to take stock of our successes and failures, as well as the needs of the world. We must not try to hold to the methods of yesteryear, but as far as is possible, determine the movements and work of the Masters and the needs of the cycle today, and strive to help them onward. 
We are a living body, and must adapt to the world in which we ourselves have wrought change. What are today's societal needs, what are its problems, blind spots, errors, prejudices? Where and how will we be most effective? 
As ULT, we need not confine ourselves to the role of preservers only, passively awaiting those fortunate souls who pass through the golden portals of our lodges. We can be more organized, more focused, more pro-active in meeting the needs we perceive. Should we add to our list of publications? Should we make a map of each nation, target its cities, and set up weekend "seminars" in hotels or schools? Or confine ourselves to mass communication? 
Should we increase conferencing and joint projects with other groups, within and without the "Theosophical" movement? How about an annual convention? 
How can we best communicate our teachings, within our price range? How can we best preserve our teachings for the future? Etc. etc. 
ULT has been extremely successful in much of what it has done. Despite some inflexibility, spiritual pride, and even isolationism, we have kept the original teachings in print and in circulation, by publishing, lecturing, teaching, and studying. Our Associates have and continue to produce (privately) new works illuminating our history, our three objects, our philosophical teachings, and their relevance to modern problems. And we have established centers around the world as nuclei of brotherhood, study, and public inquiry. It is time now, at the end of the current cycle, to evaluate ourselves as critically and fairly as possible and see how we intend to carry out our mission-to the very large and diverse global village of the 21st century. 

[taken from: 
http://www.theos-world.com/archives/html/tw199611.html#ARTICLE0160 ]


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