Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00221)

Daniel,

Since I took much time away from my voluminous correspondence on more 
interesting subjects of science and philosophy, to try and answer Tillet's query 
thoroughly -- after being fed up with all the lies and false innuendoes about ULT 
posted by various critics, historians, and Neo Nazis over the past years and 
months -- I will attempt to answer your prosecutorial leading questions in the 
context of your implicative letter below...

In a message dated 3/10/07 12:24:19 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

> Leon,
> 
> You write quite a long posting!  But my eye was attracted to this
> statement of yours:
> 
> "...an association that isn't organized...."
> 
> And yet in the long description you give that
> follows this statement, you in fact describe
> an "association" that in fact is "organized".
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by the word
> "organize" but much of your description suggests
> an "association" that is ORGANIZED.
> 
[LM] "ORGANIZED," in the sense I used it, means having a constitutional 
directive and a legislative and executive governing structure based on written 
rules and regulations that are administered by a designated hierarchy of officers, 
directors, and managers -- either appointed or elected.   

In the case of ULT and its branches -- while their voluntary "ASSOCIATION" 
appears to be organized, as they follow certain guidelines set down by its 
founder(s) and overseen by the Parent Lodge in LA -- each independent ULT branch's 
activities are guided solely by VOLUNTARY conformance with the methods of 
operation and consensual governance suggested by the founder(s) based entirely on 
the "Declaration" common to all "independent" ULT branches, and voluntarily 
subscribed to by all its individual "Associates."   

However, none of that implies that such Lodges are "ORGANIZED" in the same 
sense or manner that ALL Theosophical Society's carry out their business... 
Either through dictatorial, hierarchical, and/or parliamentary governance -- 
funded by profits from the sale of books, badges and trinkets, solicited 
contributions, and membership dues collected by a central ORGANIZATIONAL headquarters -- 
with dictatorial powers over all its branches.   Q.E.D.

> And you also declare:
> 
> "Nor will you find anyone who is unwilling to tell you anything they
> do know (when asked directly) about the inner workings that maintains
> the unity of the individual lodges throughout the world...."
> 
> Is this true?
> 
[LM] Have you any evidence that it is not?
> 
> Some time ago on Theos-Talk the following was posted by Mr. Carlos
> Aveline:
> 
> =============================================================
> This is the answer I just received from ULT-Los Angeles:
> 
> "The doors of U.L.T. are open to everybody. If an historian has any
> question, he can either call this number 213- 748-7244 or come and
> visit the Lodge in Los Angeles: from Monday through Friday, from
> 10:00 a.m to 4. p.m."
> 
> In the ULT there is not an 'officer in charge', so to say. But Dr.
> Tillett may write as an example to Dennis at: info@... .
> =============================================================
> 
> Therefore Gregory Tillett addressed a series of questions to Dennis
> at the ULT in Los Angeles and as far as I know up to the current time
> Gregory has NOT received any reply whatsoever.
> 
> Why?
> 
[LM] For that, you will have to ask Dennis or Aveline (who only gave Dennis' 
name as an example, BTW).   Asking me such obviously "leading questions" with 
implied innuendoes will get you nowhere. ;-)

> So I ask:
> 
> Is it true what you write????
> 
> "Nor will you find anyone who is unwilling to tell you anything they
> do know (when asked directly) about the inner workings...."
> 
> ??????
> 
[LM]   Certainly.   Since there are no requirements by ULT for anyone to 
withhold anything they know about the inner workings of the association at any 
level...   Other than what they, themselves, determine IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN 
BUSINESS. So, please don't blame ULT for the decisions of its independent 
Associates.   :-)
> 
> Will you now suggest that Dennis doesn't know anything??? 
> 
[LM] How the hell do I know what Dennis knows?   I never heard of him before 
you brought him up.   
FYI, Most of your dialogue with Aveline has been automatically trashed by my 
spam filter right from its beginning -- since my interests lie in other 
directions.   
> 
> Dennis was also directly asked in an email.  Or does that not count: 
> asking by email?
> 
[LM]   Your leading and prosecutorial aggressive interrogatives are getting 
very tiresome.   
> 
> There are numerous other statements of yours which raise all sorts of
> questions.
> 
> For example, you write:
> 
> "As it is, ULT is the only free and independent worldwide network of
> theosophical lodges that continue to follow the original intentions
> of the initial teachers and founders of the Theosophical Movement in
> America...."
> 
> ONLY???
> 
[LM]   Do you know of any other "free and independent worldwide network of
theosophical lodges" that do?   

If so, please tell us, or find a better example to ask your backhanded 
questions about.
> 
> Why do you exclude the Pasadena Theosophical Society from this
> statement of yours?
> 
[LM] Because I know nothing about them, except that they are ORGANIZED in a 
way that ULT isn't... And as ALL theosophical Society's are -- which are NOT 
"free" or "independent."   
> 
> From your whole posting it appears that there are certainly some
> rules and some kind of "organization".
> 
> Surely the following description by you shows that there
> is "organization" and also RULES and also those WHO ARE IN CHARGE and
> who make decisions just like in any other organization:
> 
[LM] Yes, but ULT is not "organized" "like any other ORGANIZATION"... And, no 
one is "IN CHARGE" except by consensual agreement of each branch Lodge's 
Associates in open meeting, to accept "voluntary" leadership of any activity 
proposed to and engaged in by each such branch Lodge, as an independent group.   
This includes teaching courses, library management, property maintenance, non 
profit book sales, administrative duties, lectures, curriculum, etc., etc., 
etc.... With all of it handled by *voluntary* contributions, group discussion, and 
consensual agreement alone.   

Since each branch Lodge is entirely independent, and can only accommodate a 
relatively small group of Associates, this type of decentralized self 
governance is highly efficient and practical -- while maintaining a totally democratic, 
independent, and free society of dedicated theosophists worldwide.   A true 
model of a *Universal Brotherhood* in actual practice. Q.E.D.

> ==========================================================
> ...I imagine we can easily figure out that any group of theosophy
> students can set up a ULT Lodge... Provided they get approval from
> the board of trustees of the foundation that holds the original
> charter of the parent lodge in Los Angeles established by Robert
> Crosbie under the legally trademarked and copyrighted ULT name and
> Declaration registered in California, and with the US Patent Office
> and Internal Revenue Service as a not for profit eleemosynary
> corporation.
> 
> Such approval would certainly require a sufficiently large study group
> working under the methods outlined by the founder, and governed by
> the ULT Declaration, for a considerable period of time, and with
> sufficient voluntary funds and/or common property to provide a lodge
> meeting place and register locally as an "independent" United Lodge
> of Theosophists under a non profit eleemosynary corporation charter
> identical to that of the of the original ULT foundation. Also, the
> location would necessarily have to be in a different jurisdiction
> and at a sufficient distance from any other Lodge.
> ==========================================================
> 
> Moving on....
> 
> You also write:
> 
> ============================================================
> Although I know almost as little as anyone else about the inner
> workings of, or who holds and manages the buildings and facilities in
> the score or more ULT associate groups throughout the world... I
> do know why they need no bookkeepers....
> ============================================================
> 
> No bookkeepers???  Goodness gracious!!!
> 
> I would certainly hope that at least the Theosophy Company LA has at
> least one "bookkeeper" to keep track of the million of dollars that
> they hold in the corporation!!
> 
> Etc. etc.
> 
[LM] And what has that sly and slippery innuendo have to do with the ULT?    
I never said that the trust or eleemosynary corporation holding any money 
donated to or earned by the independent TC sales of their publications through 
normal commercial distributors, like Amazon for instance, or through ULT branches 
at cost, doesn't need bookkeepers,    Your remarks are either because you 
didn't understand what I was talking about, or you have an ulterior motive in 
shooting down the credibility and integrity of ULT and its associates.   If the 
latter, why don't you tell us who your Master is?   

And, if you have any evidence that ULT or its Associate companies have acted 
in any way unethically or illegally, I wish you would either state them 
directly, or get off your high horse prosecutorial course of alluding and 
implicational questioning that apparently, slyly attempts to discredit ULT in favor of 
the TS... And SHUT THE HELL UP.   (And, pardon me if I can't be polite to those 
who use such underhanded tactics to sow dissent and foment deprecatory rumors 
about a perfectly innocent and useful theosophical school and open 
association of independent student-teachers such as the United Lodge of Theosophists and 
its independent branches and study groups worldwide.)   
> 
> As I read and reread your posting, I ask myself:
> 
> "Why all this bending over backwards to prop up the contention
> of '...an association that isn't organized....'????"
> 
[LM]   And why all this bending over backwards and sly, prosecutorial 
twistings by leading questions, innuendoes, and other implicative tricks, apparently 
to discredit ULT --and, by inference (to those list members who are not 
familiar with your personal beliefs) HPB and WQJ -- since the "spread broadcasting" 
of their teachings, besides fulfilling the three Objects of the Theosophical 
Movement and basing everything they teach on the three fundamental principles, 
are the underlying purposes and ends in view of the United Lodge of 
Theosophists as stated in their Declaration?   

Considering all that, along with my knowledge and conviction of the immutable 
truths of ancient theosophy and its scientific philosophy and metaphysics -- 
why else would I try to set the record straight and vigorously defend ULT in 
public forum against all its unknowing detractors?   The most insidious, and 
least credible, being those theosopists and pseudo theosophists who think the 
later, self aclaimed gurus and leaders of the various Theosophical Societies 
knew more than the original TS founders and the Masters who informed them.   

Restating theosophy understandably, in the "modern language of this age," is 
one thing... Reinterpreting and/or changing it to suit the religious beliefs 
and personal agendas of those later leaders, is quite another thing altogether. 
 Therefore, in my view, Robert Crosbie was right in turning his back on them, 
and following the lead of his mentors, the original founders of the TM, to 
carry out their mandate for setting up an association of independent students of 
theosophy, such as ULT, that could serve as a nucleus of universal 
brotherhood, as well as a school of fundamental and true theosophy, as all the Masters 
knew and taught it in the Secret Doctrine, with the help of HPB.   

So, what Jesuit or Dugpa ax might you be grinding -- even 
unknowingly?...??????? </:o]=

Leon 
(a.k.a. Lenny in ULT circles)
> 
> Daniel
> 




**************************************
 AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


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