Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00039)

Frank writes:

   <Some "theosophists" here assured me that it is a good expression 
of 
reaching an alleged "impersonal level" when members of the same lodge 
to not 
greet each other on the street!>

    Well, isn't that about as idiotic 
as one can get.  Was it a NY ULT group or 
another that used to meet in "shirt and 
ties only?"  (Doors closed at 1 minute after 
the hour, No talking, 13-1/2 minutes for 
opening reading, 17 minutes for individual 
comment in alphabetic order, 1 minute for 
blowing noses, 3 minutes for gong 
and silent meditation, 3 minutes for 
leaving premises in single file....)

    Brought to mind is the teacher's 
chastizing of Sinnett in the MLs 
for turning his nose up at a 
chela's grubby appearance.

                 - jake j.

-----------

>4. Re: The Silence of ULT
    Posted by: "Frank Reitemeyer" ringding777@online.de </ym/Compose?
To=ringding777@online.de&YY=92825&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sor
t=date&pos=0> 
frank_reitemeyer
    Date: Thu Mar 1, 2007 4:32 pm ((PST))

=>ULT's "principle of impersonality" -
is it based on anything suggested in the
original writings? ULT will not even respond
to letters. Was Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge
....... or even K.H. or Morya "impersonal"
in such a way? No they decidedly were not.
They Personally anwered correspondence and
in a human and personal way. They didn't
sign themselves "The Theosophical Society".....
They signed their correspondence "H.P.B.",
"Olcott," "Judge," "K.H." or "M."

>Well said. The rhetoric of the ULT as I have seen over the years by 
its 
most prominent online writers is jesuitical.
<They use the technical terms in a lower, personal sense.
<Not answering serious questions is very personal, not impersonal.
<It is impersonal to answer, even when I don't like the question or 
the 
questioner and when there is the possibility to enlighten a situation.
<To darken a situation, to cover up as a general rule is evil.

<Some "theosophists" here assured me that it is a good expression of 
reaching an alleged "impersonal level" when members of the same lodge 
to not 
greet each other on the street!
<The evil Frank was watched on the street, talking to a 
fellow-theosophist, so there can be no doubt that Frank is a dugpa, 
who tries to destroy 
the work of HPB!
<Frank, the most wanted theosophist

=========

<Re: The Silence of the ULT


    <Well, Maybe ULT-LA is silent not 
because of any philosophic principle - 
but because they are big Phonies! That 
6 million in the bank really woke me up 
on that.  The teachers said "gratitude" 
is one of their prinicples - well, 
stuck-in-the-mud scholar or not, Blavatsky 
Theosophists owe Tillet a debt of gratitude 
for his "Elder Brother" book - and by not 
even demeaning their phoney-royal presences 
to even respond...... ULT-LA breaks this 
principle.  (Those few money-people who are 
still there.)


    <ULT's "principle of impersonality" - 
is it based on anything suggested in the 
original writings?  ULT will not even respond 
to letters.  Was Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge 
....... or even K.H. or Morya "impersonal" 
in such a way?  No they decidedly were not.  
They Personally anwered correspondence and 
in a human and personal way.  They didn't 
sign themselves "The Theosophical Society"..... 
They signed their correspondence "H.P.B.", 
"Olcott," "Judge," "K.H." or "M."

     <This dead cult has held many theosophist 
in a mental prison for too long, by their 
artifical and not-based-on-the-teachings 
approach.  Better to let the dead bury the 
dead and proceed forward with Theosophical 
work on a more healthy, realistic, and human basis.


          < - jake j.

--------------

<7a. The Silence of the ULT
    Posted by: "gregory@zeta.org.au 
    Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:01 pm ((PST))

<I suspect few readers will be surprised to note that I have received 
not a single acknowledgement, let alone reply, to any communication 
to the 
ULT. I presume that the authorities (which it does not have) of this
organization (which it isn't) have decided (which they can't since 
they
don't exist) that silence is the better response.

<I am therefore no better informed as to whether ULT archives exist 
and, 
if so, where and under whose control.

<Since it appears be impossible to obtain any information from the 
ULT,
presumably it is impossible to know whether any claim made by or about
that non-organization is true or false.

<A curious situation indeed!

<Dr Gregory Tillett



Messages in this topic (3)
______________________________________________________________________
__

<7b. Re: The Silence of the ULT
    Posted by: "leonmaurer@aol.com </ym/Compose?
To=leonmaurer@aol.com&YY=56983&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=d
ate&pos=0>" leonmaurer@aol.com </ym/Compose?
To=leonmaurer@aol.com&YY=56983&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=d
ate&pos=0> leonmaurer1
    Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:22 pm ((PST))

<And that's just the way it was designed to be.   ;-)   To keep all 
you 
historians who are not interested in the teachings, but only their 
organizational trappings, and personal peccadilloes, in the dark so 
as to prevent all 
the infighting that has so destroyed all past and present 
theosophical 
organizations in their efforts to spread broadcast the teachings of 
HPB, WQJ and their 
Tibetan Masters, and to fulfill the objects of the Theosophical 
Movement.   
Hooray for the scattered independence of ULT associates and all its 
lodges 
that teach each other but don't keep public records or have any 
headquarters to 
keep them in even if they had them. :-)

<Prof: Leon Maurer
<a.k.a. Lenny the loner
-----------------


<7c. Re: The Silence of the ULT
    Posted by: "Drpsionic@aol.com 
    Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:33 pm ((PST))

>Well, you see the anonymity of the ULTers makes communication among 
them  
relatively difficult as none of them have any idea who is going to 
say  
anything.
 
>But that's ok as all they do is quote Judge.
 
<Chuck the Heretic

==================