Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00193)

Hi MS,

I'll put my comments inside your message after your comments and questions 
below.  

LHM
--------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/10/03 10:57:26 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:

>Hi Leon and all of you,
>
>My views are just views and nothing else:
 
Glad to hear it. So are mine. As is, I suppose, everyone else's who speak on 
this forum. As was HPB's and WQJ's. The only interesting thing is that 
their views were presented as also the views of the Masters (along with allthe 
Chohans that came before them). In any event, we were told even to question 
their views. So, that's what we should be doing. Right?

>1.
>Allright according to you - I must be seriously mistaken - because I won't
>keep the book The Secret Doctrine as my Bible !
>I disagree !

Not seriously mistaken. Only somewhat (possibly thoughtlessly) mistaken.  
But that can be easily rectified. :-) 

Nobody (leastwise ULT associates) expects anyone to keep the Secret Doctrine 
as their "Bible"... But simply, to use it as their unadulterated reference 
source of pure theosophy and the basic teaching of what they should be studying 
and questioning... So as, when they thoroughly understand it with complete 
conviction and trust in the Masters and Adepts who wrote it, they can promulgate 
it to any questioner who asks them what it means, or broadcast it widely to 
anyone who will listen... Preferably, in their own words, and even along with 
funny stories and parables that might emphasize a fundamental principle or a 
metaphysical concept.  

Maybe it also would be good for us to understand that the Secret Doctrine is 
not the Heart Doctrine -- but is the Eye Doctrine that teaches us the 
metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis that underlies and gives credence to 
the Heart Doctrine -- which is thoroughly explained and taught as a practical 
yoga in the Voice of the Silence.

>What I am talking about is the inadequacy of the books presented as the
>main books on the ULT website !

Where's the inadequacy? HPB never said that those books were the be all and 
end-all, or cut in stone. She said they were just to be taken as a theory 
that might give us the fundamental basis of finding out the ultimate truthsfor 
ourselves. Besides, for a thorough conception of the fundamental principles 
and associated truths of theosophical metaphysics and its explanation of the 
involution and evolution of spirit and matter through Cosmogenesis and 
Anthropogenesis (that was perfectly known and defined by the ancients eons before any 
modern religious guru set foot on this Earth) -- what other fundamental books 
would you suggest? (At least for us Western Language readers.)

>The front page must be a mistake if any. It exclaims the following purpose:
>
>"To spread broadcast the teachings of
>Theosophy as recorded in the writings of
>H.P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge"

Where's the mistake? Who else but HPB first recorded the direct expression 
of fundamental theosophy to the modern world as taught by the ancient Masters 
of Wisdom? Isn't the continuation of that first exposure the only purpose for 
which the ULT was founded? Isn't its aims and purposes and its ends in view 
made perfectly clear in its Declaration? If we agree with them, doesn't that 
make us free to join in the process of learning, discussing and teaching (or 
"spread broadcasting") those truths to the uninitiated, along with other free 
and independent associates? If not, we certainly are free to study somewhere 
else.  

So, aren't these teachings the fundamental roots of what each of us can base 
our individual search for truth on, and use as a teaching reference, as well 
as serve as the guide for our fulfillment of the three objects of the 
Theosophical Movement? What other books (excepting those referenced in theSecret 
Doctrine along with those books and articles by HPB and WQJ that further explains 
and clarifies the SD) do we need for that? 
>
>This is NOT Theosophy proper, - Leon !
>I have to disagree with you.

What is "theosophy proper" -- if not everything that HPB gave us based on 
fundamental principles? And, what's wrong with student's of theosophy starting 
from that beginning, and making sure that everything that follows, or came 
before, is consistent with them?  

Could we understand any of the mistakes made by those that came after, such 
as Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, Prophet and others, if we didn't thoroughly have 
absorbed the teachings in the SD, as well as in all the subsequent writings 
of HPB and her fellow Adept, WQJ -- both of whom, guided by the Masters, 
explained all of the SD's mysteries and their ramifications in meticulous detail?  

>What ULT do - in their chambers - thursday or saturday afternoon - might
>be good and sweet. But the badly presented website sticks like glue.
>
>Blavatsky would never agree on such an - idolatry - presentation.
>Remember - this was just one example.
>
>The declaration - It calls Theosophy a movement doesn't it ?
>Blavatsky said it wasn't a movement - didn't she?

Maybe you should carefully read the Declaration again and tell us where it 
called theosophy "a movement"? And, what are they supposedly "idolizing"? As 
for Blavatsky, all I remember her saying was that theosophy is the "synthesis of 
science, religion and philosophy," and that the Theosophical Movement was the 
action plan, using theosophy as its basis -- to spread this teaching 
throughout the world in order to eventually bring it to a state of true universal 
brotherhood.  

Thus, the American founders -- who espoused liberty, equality and 
brotherhood, fought a revolution, and wrote a Declaration of Independence and a 
Constitutional bill of rights to help achieve such aims -- were also an integral part 
of that movement. Acting as independent yet unified associates in a common 
cause, they were also of the same caliber of those independent theosophical 
"activists" (true free--masons or independent thinkers and builders) today who 
become ULT associates -- for the simple reason that those kind of theosophists 
cannot join any ostensibly theosophical or religious organization whose 
constitution and leadership limits their independent freedom of study or actions 
(whether social, political, militaristic, or otherwise). In our view, the founding 
fathers of America were associates of the ULT -- even before it existed as a 
physical Lodge. Since every statement in the ULT Declaration is based on the 
thoughts and actions of HPB, I don't think she would object to anything in it 
or associated with it. In fact, if she were around today, I'm sure she would 
be one of its associates, and, as a volunteer like every other associate, up on 
the Platform, lecturing.

>What I am against is, that most Theosophical groups or offshoot-branches
>together with TS manages to present Theosophy - in a manner - 
>where the readers are not made Properly aware of the limitations of idolatry,
>the physical structure of the particular group, the wrong doing in keeping
>The Secret Doctrine or any other collection of books as a pet-Bible.

>Shouldn't this be avoided - so much more in these days and times - of the
>information-age ?

>Isn't it more important than ever - because of the existence of the
>Internet - and the new evolution-stage of mankind since 1875 ?

Absolutely. It's all there in both HPB's and WQJ's writings. But that 
certainly isn't a description of ULT. It has no Bible other than its Declaration of 
its intents and purposes, as well as its "ends in view." And, all of its 
associates are (or should be) perfectly in tune with this modern age which gets 
its information through the electronic media as well as books -- that, due to 
the Internet and the digital publishing world, are more prolific than ever 
before in human history.  

Speaking of the "new evolution stage of mankind"... I've already met (and 
helped teach) a number of newly evolved 6th sub racers who are either independent 
theosophists or associates of ULT. Some of them are actively working as 
public figures, vigorously promulgating or spread broadcasting the fundamental 
teachings of theosophy, as well as the ideas of equality and brotherhood through 
their creative works, or social service activities. One of them is currently 
bringing these teachings around the world in his public concerts of Master 
quality singing, dancing and multi instrumental virtuosity in his own solo opera 
-- which is the only "language of this age" easily understood by every culture 
and nationality. (In fact, he has recently done several standing ovation 
"prayformances" in one of the major cultural centers in Sweden.) Incidentally, 
the only books he carries around with him are those recommended as fundamental 
by both HPB and WQJ. It's a fact that practical theosophy, and the "spread 
broadcasting" of its teachings comes in many colors and styles of presentation.  

>2.
>Sorry about that Leon.
>I guess the wall looks pretty bad now, - my mistake.

Yes... But what are you sorry about? Other than that you seem to be mixing 
apples with oranges, and can't seem to get straight the difference between ULT 
and all other old theosophical and neo-theosophical organizations (i.e., some 
of the various branches and offshoots of the TS, Bailey's Arcane Group, 
Steiner's Anthroposophy, Prophet's Church Universal and Triumphant, etc. ).The 
difference between them and ULT -- is that they split apart from Theosophy to 
splatter it all over the walls -- while ULT simply turned back to the Wisdom 
Teaching of the Ages, and started anew from the fundamental base at the beginning 
given out by HPB.

>But, I was referring to the lectures at ULT - which appaerntly are
>emphasizing - what ULT calls the main teachings (i.e. Blavatsky and Judge).
>Because of this appearnt emphasis - there is no free Theosophy - at ULT.
>The intentions may be good and true - but the facts are facts. (Now, I am not
>an expert on ULT, so please tell me if I am mistaken.) 

Have you heard any of the lectures at ULT? How do you know what they are 
emphasizing? If you have, you would know that those lectures don't emphasize and 
rest on anything but the fundamental truths of theosophy. And where else can 
those truths be found than in the original teachings that first exposed 
(published or "spread broadcasted") them to the world at large -- in the words of 
the Masters (including Krishna, Hermes, Thoth, Buddha, Christ, etc., and all 
others that have followed in their footsteps)? Without those original books by 
HPB that consolidated all these teachings together -- how else might a 
theosophical student confirm that what a lecturer says in his own words is consistent 
with the truths of fundamental theosophy? Certainly not in any theosophical 
book that followed after HPB's and WQJ's... (Including all the books of 
Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, Prophet and other pseudo theosophists.) But nothing is 
stopping us from reading those others and finding out their discrepancies and 
distortions for ourselves -- and, then, telling others, both outside and 
inside of theosophy who ask or need to know what is the real truth.  

>I have a clairifying question:
>Do ULT ever make lectures devoted only to Alice A. Bailey and her
>teachings, - extracting something of value from the Bailey books ?

I Don't know, since all lodges are independent of each other (as is each 
associate) and can do as they please. But, I doubt any of us would. And, why 
choose Bailey -- who twisted (similarly to Besant and Leadbeater) fundamental 
theosophy into a Christ based theology that, in many respects, contradicts HPB 
and the Masters? Wouldn't that cause great confusion among new theosophists who 
want to learn what's correct, not argue over the distortions made by others?  

But, interestingly, I once made a talk on the three fundamental principles to 
a small group of students at a ULT lodge in California I visited, and quoted 
specific passages from Bailey's books, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Hubbard's 
Dianetics (as the Bible of Scientology) and compared them to the SD -- in order to 
make a point about how fundamental theosophy can be distorted for personal, 
religious, racial, economic, or political reasons. The question and answer 
period after my talk was very interesting and confirmatory, since some of the 
people in the audience were familiar with the books of Bailey and her Arcane 
Group, as well as those of Hubbard and Scientology. So, ULT, apparently, is as 
free and open, as far as individual study goes, as each associate chooses it to 
be. (But, I doubt if you'll find any of Bailey's books in its libraries, nor 
hear any of her teachings mentioned in its open public lectures -- except 
disparagingly in passing, perhaps, as I did. :-)  
>
>Else I agree with you - the members are very free at ULT, and that is
>perhaps why I will become an associate to ULT.

Great. That's true. Freedom of thoughts and ideas is the keyword for all 
independent associates of ULT... And, I'm sure you'll be welcome with open arms. 
(Even if you tell them they are all wet, like I've done from time to time. 
:-) But, generally, I've found that most lecturers at ULT's public meetings 
know what they are talking about, especially for newcomers and beginning students 
-- since they make it a policy to back up whatever they say with references 
to the Secret Doctrine, and other writings of the founders of the TM in this 
age. 

>3.
>Small favours you say. I think you don't know what you have in your hand
>while agreeing with me on this.
>All what falls from the sky is holy - right ?

Not necessarily. Sometimes they wipe out entire cities. (And, I'm sure 
those that dropped them thought they were on a holy mission.) Remember, someone 
rightly said, "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions." So, let's be 
careful what we say and how we say it, as well as what we do and how we do it.  
Who or what is there to censor us? For example, Aliester Crowley said, "Do 
as thou wilt is the whole of the Law." And, although many theosophists think 
he was a renegade black magician -- that statement is not much different from 
Blavatsky's and ULT's belief in individual choice and freedom of thought and 
action (within limits, of course, of what is right and proper, according to 
theosophical principles and the Heart Doctrine, so as not to harm anyone). I think 
that says it all -- as to what's holy and what is not that falls from the 
sky. 

>...And I will reveal, that it is not money, - but rather some feathery
>fartilizer deliverances. (smile...)

That's a good one... :-) But, there could be a lot of foul smelling crap 
that goes along with it. <grin> 

>4. ULT whispers in the wind
>a)
>It has a website ! - So it tells a tale, doesn't it ?

Yes... Whatever we each can see in it. But, I see a quite straightforward 
statement of what it is and what are it's aims, purposes and ends in view. As 
for whispering in the wind, perhaps it's we who are doing it -- but not 
necessarily ULT or those that follow its guidelines to the letter... And that means, 
to carry its teaching outside of the classroom and these limited forums, and 
give it to the world in whatever manner we each see fit. So, you can do it 
through the stories of your Sufi teachers, as I do it through my scientific 
interpretations of theosophical metaphysics, and Dallas does it through his 
references to HPB, WQJ and the Masters and his comments on them -- while others do it 
their way -- using whatever books and references they see as appropriate for 
their audience. In any event, as I see it -- ULT has nothing to say about any 
of that -- since as a non organized association with no officers or 
directors, it has no one to speak for it –- other than its Declaration. 

>b)
>I have read it. At least I think it was the right one.
>But, I think other parts of their ULT-website are somewhat in conflict
>with the anicent Wisdom teachings - and what we call the
>Militant-Blavatskian-Theosophy. One does not spread any particular books.
>One culls the good one find in each !

What parts? And, what is "Militant-Blavatskian-Theosophy"? I thought that 
theosophy was a philosophical and metaphysical teaching of fundamental truth (or 
at least a guide toward finding it for ourselves) -- not a call to arms. 
Didn't Blavatsky say that its not our job to follow what she did, but to find our 
own way of expresssing theosophy -- after we have learned it thoroughly and 
achieved self realization?  

Besides, since when does ULT advocate "spreading books." All it says is that 
it's aim is to "spread broadcast the teachings of theosophy as RECORDED by 
HPB and WQJ." Who else is there, and what other books are there that has done 
just that -- directly through and from the mouths of the Masters? All the rest 
of the neo- and pseudo-theosophical writers who came after her are just 
Johnny come lately's -- each with their own personal interpretations of what HPB 
and WQJ originally wrote down -- right out of the horses mouth. Isn't thatall 
there is -- up to the fourth turn of the key -- with the rest up to our own 
inner understandings and interpretations, which we must, as HPB pointed out, put 
in "our own words" in the "language of this age"?  

Haven't you caught on to that yet? Didn't Blavatsky say, "follow the lines 
I've laid down, do not follow me"? And, didn't the Buddha essentially say the 
very same thing? So, why should Blavatsky's way or Buddha's way be our way?  
Especially, in this entirely new era of human crisis -- which she prophesied, 
but never told us how we should handle it -- other than her admonition to try 
to get all humans to understand the truths of karma and reincarnation, and 
thus, have a firm basis upon which they can "form a Universal Brotherhood of 
Humanity without distinctions of ... etc., etc., etc." 

Consider this. In the last 100 year half cycle of the (actually) 200 year 
full cycle of the theosophical movement, there was no open teaching (as in 
Blavatsky's half)... And, the founders of the "New Order of the Ages" had to use 
military force, a compromised constitution, and a contrived governmental system 
of checks and balances to establish the basis of brotherhood in America.  

Certainly, now, after the teaching phase of HPB has been absorbed by all true 
theosophists, there must again be some sort of direct, and perhaps, militant 
action. But, what form that action takes is strictly up to us -- as 
individual theosophists who should have, by now, achieved "self realization" -- and 
would have to figure out, for themselves, what they must do to continue the 
Movement on its forward path. What better aim, is there, than to "spread 
broadcast" those teaching (as HPB said) "in the language of our age." She also said, 
we should each be able to write a New Secret Doctrine in our own words (and 
symbols). But, did she tell us that the truths that others can read (with both 
sides of their brains in perfect conjunction) "in, around, and behind" those 
words -- should be any different from those parts of the truth she gave us?  

So, in this overall picture, what's the use of any other books that say the 
same things she said -- only twisted or watered down and directed toward the 
limited group of students, sanghas, or religious followers they are teaching?  
Theosophy, in its original presentation by HPB and the Masters, is far greater 
both intellectually and spiritually, and far more all encompassing and all 
unifying than that. 

>c)
>Suppose I get my information about ULT from various source - not all of
>them are to be revealed - because that could be spiritually unhealthy, what
>will that mean to you ?

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about? ULT has only one 
written Declaration. And, that says it all. Whatever other information you get 
is strictly limited to the perceptions and opinions of the individuals who 
tell them to you. We can't help it if some members of ULT try to make it over in 
their own image. :-) Fortunately, since the Declaration is the only 
statement governing ULT that is cut in stone -- they don't get very far. And, as for 
those outside of ULT... What do they know about the facts of the matter?  
There's not much weight in opinions, is there?  

>d)
>Who are those Militant Theosophists ? I would like to know more about
>them.

Like all associates of ULT they like to remain anonymous. Therefore, they can 
only be known by their fruits. When you encounter such fruits, take a bite 
out of it and find out for yourself who planted them, and how you can help them 
grow. In my life I have come across many independent theosophists with 
active real world projects, who I have recognized as doing such, and have helped 
them move forward however I could. Sometimes anonymously, as a matter of fact 
-- like a good word here, and a gentle push there, or a bit of good advice that 
helped them get closer to achieving their goals -- whatever they were (so 
long as they were theosophical).   

>Theosophy militant - has to me more to do with - changing the no ongiong
>"business as ususal" and "head under the arm" Theosophy - and making -
>a true Blavatskyan opposition to the Alice A. bailey groups, who Needs it.

That, to me, is a waste of time and energy. It's far better to be for 
something, than against anything. Isn't it a basic principle of theosophy to be 
"equalminded" and not for or against anything? If so, then theosophists 
shouldn't be proselytizers and converters -- like the Catholics and other enforced 
belief religious organizations. Socrates never argued with anyone or triedto 
convince anyone of anything. All he did was ask the right questions that made 
those he disagreed with eventually contradict themselves. (Unfortunately,  
that got him to eat the Hemlock -- but that's another story.)  

Better, to teach theosophy directly, as it really is to everyone equally, 
using the Socratic method whenever possible, and let the chips fall where they 
may, than to try and directly change the beliefs of those who are brainwashed to 
have blind faith in a charismatic leader and his/her Bibles and worship their 
"idols." That's what "spread broadcasting" means. And, sometimes, even that 
approach can drop a chip on the head of a wavering Baileyite and change 
his/her mind.      

But, each to his own method. And if you wish to take militant action to 
convert the Baileyites, that's your choice. But, I don't see as how ULT can take 
any part in it... Since, what any associate does or says outside of the lecture 
hall and the classroom, is strictly his own business.    

>This is one part of what I will call Theosophy militant. There should be
>no corrupt-political issues involved here.

As I already said, Theosophy per se is not militant, nor is theosophy ULT, or 
any other group or organization, nor is it the Theosophical Movement. In a 
nutshell, it is nothing more than a teaching of the truths of the absolute and 
relative existence and involution/evolution of the Cosmos and Man, along with 
the fundamental principles that govern their existence, as well as the 
universal moral and ethical imperatives that they imply and are the basis of.  
Where's the "militancy" in that? Therefore, why should ULT and its purposes have 
anything to do with militant action or any other sort of action? Karma is our 
individual responsibility, isn't it?

>e)
>The directing/marketing members of ULT are not in a great majority beloning
>to such a group. If they were - the ULT would look different. The website
>would be one place, that would look different.

There is no such thing as a directing/marketing member of ULT. Everything is 
purely voluntary. Besides, nobody is trying to sell anything, so why would 
their be a need to have a different looking web site? The one up there was 
probably done by a volunteer at the parent lodge in LA - who may or may notbe a 
professional web designer. (But, as a professional designer myself, I thinkit 
looks pretty good and serves its purpose adequately.) Besides, why would 
anyone care about what it looks like? ... As long as it says what ULT stands 
for, and offers a means to get information about it, as well as distribute the 
books it publishes -- which, whatever they are, have to be books that fall 
within the scope of its Declaration (i.e., those that HPB and WQJ recognized as 
being consistent with their fundamental teachings of theosophy). Anything wrong 
with that?  

>f)
>Agreed. Some of the "stirs" in the world could actually come from - a ULT
>member or associate. But I was talking about ULT in general and its Public
>Relation activities.

There are no public relation activities of ULT. The web site is taken care of 
by the LA parent lodge. And, the different bulletins of each Lodge around the 
world are designed and printed voluntarily by one or more of their local 
associates. So what has ULT to do with making "stirs in the world." (It doesn't 
even try to stir its associates to do anything -- other than volunteer to help 
and teach others. :-) But, since it publishes Theosophy Magazine, a lot of 
stirring can be done there by its voluntary editors and writers. Maybe you 
should read some of it and find out for yourself how stirring or militant some of 
them are. BTW, www.wisdomworld.org has been publishing its archives for many 
years, and there's lots to be learned there. BTW, that site was founded and 
is compiled by a ULT associate, voluntarily, and has no direct affiliation 
with the publisher. But, in his way, he is militant to the extent that he 
"spread broadcasts" the theosophical ''teachings publicly, and acts positively and 
independently promoting his own economic ideas in accord with theosophical 
principles.     

>g)
>You wrote:
>>"None of us ever talk about
>> our association or hang a Theosophical symbol around our necks and 
>> pinned on our jackets, or carry a card listing our memberships in 
>> anything. :-) "
>
>My answer:
>This is exactly why you or ULT are not Theosophical. But, it is also why
>you or ULT are Theosophical.

That's more double-talk. Since when do symbols or labels make one 
theosophical or not theosophical? Besides, you took that statement out of context, and 
your comment on it is, therefore, senseless. My original statement could be 
taken as a sardonic sideways reference to some ostensibly theosophical 
organizations that sell theosophical pins, pendants and rings and print cards that 
identify its officers and directors, etc. 

>You see, the necklace is trouble - yes.
>
>But not talking about it is bad. You should talk about when it is
>spiritually proper.

This makes no sense whatsoever. More double-talk? 
>
>Blavatsky did NOT act like that. She was Theosophy through and through.

Act like what? What are you talking about? What has Blavatsky got to do 
with advertising or not advertising a non organization? The problem here, I 
think is that you do not properly understand American English or it idioms,and 
therefore have no understanding about what I meant, by not talking about or 
wearing labels (I mean advertising) that we are associates or not. And that was 
said in context of the previous comments, etc., etc., that had nothing to do 
with being theosophical or not. I'd be interested in knowing how you know how 
Blavatsky would act or that she was "Theosophy through and through"? And, what 
does that mean in your mind?  

>h)
>Leon - Can you explain how ULT manages to escape being an organization?
>If ULT is not an organization - then it should delete its sentence on its
>front page - where it exclaimes the following purpose:
>
>"To spread broadcast the teachings of
>Theosophy as recorded in the writings of
>H.P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge"

I think we have already explained this. I hope you finally understand what 
it means. And, also the difference between an "organization" and an 
"association" that has no officers, directors or by-laws.

>This is a limitation of theosophy - the wisdom tradition - as it is and
>has been through the ages.

Totally wrong. It is actually an expansion of theosophy -- since it follows 
the exposure by HPB and WQJ of the most ancient Wisdom Tradition to the 
uninitiated for the first time in human history -- with the sanction of theMasters 
of Wisdom, up to the highest Chohans. This was a historic change in the 
policy of the great White Brotherhood since the fall of Atlantis. And, some of us 
theosophists today, as associates of ULT, are the only ones left to carry on 
that legacy exactly as it was planned at the beginning of the "Theosophical 
Movement" some seven Centuries ago by Plotinus and Porphyry. Wake up and smell 
the roses -- and, start studying real unadulterated and religiously untwisted 
theosophy -- instead of relying on those who promulgate a watered down and 
subtly twisted non-theosophical, theology or theogony in the old religious guru or 
priest-crafty manner. Maybe you should go back to fundamentals, and read 
Blavatsky's Question and Answers on Theosophy, before making such pronouncements 
about the Wisdom Tradition.

There's far more to theosophy than just parables and metaphorical stories 
like the rabbi's, Priests, and Dervishes preach -- which, in this modern age of 
instant gratification and communication, goes in one ear and out the other of 
the bulk of this new world's educated people who are not orthodox practitioners 
of any religion. Therefore (speaking only for myself and others of like 
mind) those of us in ULT or outside of it, who understand this new reality,have 
no interest in reaching or militantly converting those orthodox religionists. 

The one's whose minds we need to change through "spread broadcasting" the 
fundamental teachings to the world at large, are that "bulk" of others who have 
no interest in your or my religious teachers of the old schools -- who never 
could make anyone understand the fundamental metaphysical realities of karma and 
reincarnation -- without blind belief in God and his revelations, or faith in 
the Guru. That old age is dead, and until you realize it you may never 
understand the aims and purpose, or ends in view of ULT -- that must be exactly 
those of HPB, WQJ and the Masters who guided them.  

>But I agree that the ULT are better than most theosophicals around the
>globe - in avoiding being an organization. (smile...)

Oh, so you finally got it. But, if that's all you think ULT is, then why join 
it?  

>i)
>When the facts will Penetrate my head ?
>You ask ME be to be your sweet and dandy fortune-teller ???
>
>No Leon - I know what you are up to - you are about to trick me into asking
>you to give me money so that I can tell you the future, right ? (smile...)
>
>It won't work Leon. I won't tell you - and certainly not you - when this
>will penetrate my head.
>
>(...a huge smile - morphs the Sufilight - head...)

I see. I'm glad for you. :-)

>5.
>Membership.
>Great Leon !
>
>I am much more happy now, when I know how to become a member, and
>how free ULT is compared with most of the other theosophical groups !
>
>What do the readers from Theosophical Society (Adyar) or Pasadena have
>to say about that ?
>
>Arn't ULT just great ?
>Or are they missing the Externalization of the Hierarchy at the United
>Nations ?
>
>You can relate this email to the other email to Leon mailed at Theos-Talk
>shortly before this.
>
>I am just doing my little stunt on creating a "stir" in the world just
>like Blavatsky did.
>
>I am against business as ususal as we watch in the different theosophical
>groups - or socalled non-organizational groupings.
>
>Keep up the good work.

Thank you, I will. Glad to hear that you are doing your thing. But, 
stirring up this little group doesn't have much to do with stirring up the world -- 
unless you can convince us your way is better than ours. Somehow, I doubt if 
any one of us can give us much more than HPB already gave us. All we can do is 
try to put it in a "language of this age" that everyone can understand, and 
hope it stirs them to turn from their wrong views and the direction they are 
going, and head toward an ultimate "Universal Brotherhood" that throws out all 
the old forms, and brings all people closer to their union with the one Spirit 
in all. 

>from
>
>M. Sufilight with peace and love...

With best wishes for good karma for us all ... in helping fulfill HPB's, 
WQJ's and the Master's dream.

Leon


>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>
>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:08 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophy, brotherhood, prayer and political
>
>action.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>> In a message dated 10/07/03 5:19:37 PM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk
>
>writes:
>
>>
>
>> <<Hi Leon and all of you,
>
>> W. Q. Judge said, that crystallization of the teaching should be avoided.
>
>I
>
>> agree.
>
>>
>
>> Now if this is what ULT are doing when they teach Theosophy - then
>
>allright.
>
>>
>
>> But I have my view - and it is that the Teachers at ULT doesn't- because
>
>>
>
>> they can't, the reason being, that they stick - too much - to a limited
>
>>
>
>> number of books as valid wisdom teaching.>>
>
>>
>
>> What ever gave you that idea? Haven't you read any of the discussions
>in
>
>> recent months about the ULT and its non-organization and lack of any
>
>agenda that
>
>> limits what students can study or talk about? If you don't think the
>SD,
>
>as
>
>> originally written, is the fundamental basis of all valid theosophical
>
>wisdom,
>
>> then you are seriously lacking in your understanding of the real meaning
>
>and
>
>> purpose of the theosophical movement in the world today. What makes
>you
>
>believe
>
>> the associates of ULT are "limited to any (particular) number of books"?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> <<There is an audience - there are teachers. The audience has a spiritual
>
>need
>
>>
>
>> for a certain spiritual teaching - and they won't get it at ULT for
>
>certain
>
>>
>
>> obvious reasons.>>
>
>>
>
>> What are those "obvious reasons"? Or, are you just blowing wind about
>
>things
>
>> you apparently know nothing about? Have you ever been in the Library
>of a
>
>> theosophical Lodge? Have you ever seen the books that are on sale in
>
>their book
>
>> stores? Have you ever heard any ULT associate tell another that he can't
>
>> read any book he chooses to supplement his understand of the fundamental
>
>ideas
>
>> presented in the SD and other writings of HPB or William Q. Judge? What
>
>kind of
>
>> nonsense are you talking about? Where does those off-the-wall opinions
>of
>
>> yours come from?
>
>>
>
>> <<The audience also have a Want for teaching. What they Want is not always
>
>>
>
>> what they spiritually Need to be taught.>>
>
>>
>
>> What has that got to do with anything?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> <<What the students can get from ULT is - reading the original works
>(at
>
>least
>
>>
>
>> to a certain degree). And thanks so very much for that.
>
>>
>
>> This is important ! And here we can agree.>>
>
>>
>
>> Thanks for small favors. :-)
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> <<Blavatsky made a - stir in the world, in fact world wide. This is
>
>>
>
>> Theosophy - proper and even Militant !
>
>>
>
>> ULT - only wishpers in the wind !>>
>
>>
>
>> How can ULT whisper in the wind -- since it never has anything to say,
>
>except
>
>> in its Declaration? Have you ever read it? If, so, where do you get
>the
>
>> information you have about ULT? I know a quite a few of theosophists
>who
>
>are
>
>> associates of ULT that are as militant as HPB -- and maybe even more
>so.
>
>How do
>
>> you know which theosophical militants out there (if you know of any)
>are
>
>> members of ULT or not? And, how do you know that some "stirs in this
>
>world" are
>
>> not the result of someone who is a member of ULT. None of us ever talk
>
>about
>
>> our association or hang a Theosophical symbol around our necks and pinned
>
>on our
>
>> jackets, or carry a card listing our memberships in anything. :-) Only
>
>people
>
>> in the TS, Masonic societies or members of religious organizations do
>
>that.
>
>> And ULT is no organization. When will that fact penetrate your head,
>so
>
>you
>
>> stop making such outlandish statements?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> <<The members of Theos-talk was offered to be members of ULT in an email
>
>here
>
>> at Theos-Talk some days back.
>
>>
>
>> I offered to become a member in an email.
>
>>
>
>> I havnt received an answer yet.
>
>>
>
>> This is not allright with me.
>
>>
>
>> All you have to do to become an associate is to read the Declaration,
>
>obtain
>
>> or print out a copy of the Membership card -- which you can find at
>
>> www.ult.org or at any ULT Lodge... And sign and mail it to the parent
>
>Lodge in Los
>
>> Angeles, or you can go to any Lodge, anyplace in the world, and sign
>one
>
>there.
>
>> It's as easy as that, since the associate card says the following:
>
>>
>
>> "Being in sympathy with the purposes of this Lodge, as set forth in its
>
>> "Declaration," I hereby record my desire to be enrolled as an Associate,
>
>it being
>
>> understood that such association calls for no obligation on my part,
>other
>
>than
>
>> that which I, myself, determine."
>
>>
>
>> (Notice, it doesn't say anything about what the Lodge expects from you
>
>other
>
>> than what it says in the Declaration. Of course if you are not in
>
>sympathy
>
>> with that, don't sign it.)
>
>>
>
>> Or, you can bypass that altogether, believe in your heart that you are
>an
>
>> associate, and then go to any Lodge to study and use whatever facilities
>
>it has
>
>> to assist ANY student, signed up associate or not, who walks in the
>
>door -- 
>
>> without any questions or discrimination as to who you are and what you
>are
>
>doing
>
>> there. I've never been asked at any Lodge I ever visited, and even
>
>lectured
>
>> at, whether or not I was a signed up member. Why would ULT associates
>
>ever
>
>> think of that? And, even when I don't attend any Lodge meetings (which
>I
>
>haven't
>
>> for the past ten years or so) I still am an associate. BTW, in case you
>
>don't
>
>> understand the card, there are no dues or anything else required to be
>or
>
>> maintain your association. All that only depends on, is what's in your
>own
>
>mind.
>
>>
>
>> Have you gotten it yet?
>
>>
>
>> Best wishes on your search for enlightenment though whatever means you
>
>choose.
>
>>
>
>> Leon

>