RE: Theos-World Discussion of ULT, etc.
- Thanks Eldon:
Hereafter, except in special cases, as I wrote I will be
concerned with the philosophy.
Those who desire to probe other things may write direct to the
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@...]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:12 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Discussion of ULT, etc.
I notice that Alwilli and you wrote to both the
basic BN list and theos-talk, so I'll reply to
At 05:30 PM 8/6/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Monday, August 06, 2001Although there was some criticism of the ULT, most of
>Your points are well taken.
>These lists and exchanges were erected by and for those who
>wanted to study and investigate THEOSOPHY.
>It is only in the past 6 weeks we have had a flood of inquiry
>into the affairs of those whose prime duty and attention was to
>the preservation of THEOSOPHY and the discussion of the main
the discussion seemed to be regarding how it operates,
with a concern that it might be made more effective in
Some comments were from nonmembers. Other commentary came
from long-time workers, like Rich Taylor. Unfortunately,
only part of the discussion appeared on the mailing lists,
giving most people an incomplete picture of what was said.
In our discussions, sometimes we were level-headed. Other times
we were angry, flippant, or confused. When we were less than
ideal in our interactions, we've provided ourselves opportunity
to learn from our mistakes and grow.
>I am one of those who rose to the defence of the associationsEach of us, associate or not, had our own impressions of
>which have offered THEOSOPHY for study.
what was going on. You may have seen yourself rising to
the defense of the ULT. I saw it as a healthy reexamination
of who we are and where we are going -- as individuals and
>I intend to devote my time to the study aspect of the workActually, I would say than when we examine ourselves,
the groups we belong to, the way we are treading the Path
and seeking to help the world, we are doing an important
part of our studies. Self-examination or self-reflection
is one aspect of bring the theosophical teachings into
practical focus in our lives.
Nothing is static, unchanging, forever fixed in life.
When we reexamine our basic assumptions about life with
innocent eyes, we gaze on a reality that our minds often
hide from us. This freshness of open inquiry should be
a cornerstone of any theosophical group -- ULT or not --
and it's not sufficient to restate a long-standing formula
of theosophical work.
If it were possible to come up with an ideal formula for
doing theosophical or spiritual work, the Sons of Will and
Yoga, the Dhyani-Chohans, would have given it to the
Elect of humanity many millions of years ago, and we would
be following it faithfully to this day. Certainly they
would be the most qualified to formulate such a plan.
But it is not true. Our methods of action are constantly
in a state of flux. They have to be as dynamic as life
itself, lest we encounter stagnation and spiritual death.
Who did what to whom 80 years ago matters not. What's
important is what we do to one another today. There is
no superior organization, historic lineage, specific
theosophical approach, nor pattern of theosophical work.
The important thing is the fire of mind and warmth of
>Now, if a subject or questions are going to be asked on theI
>Philosophy, the Metaphysics and the Practical aspects of
>Theosophy -- as it might be called: Theosophy in daily life --
>will contribute thoughts and answers.It's all the same subject. It's all in how we tell it.
Storytelling was an important part of spiritual teaching.
History is a form of storytelling, if done right, and can
impart as much a sense of wonder and awe to the listener
as any abstract metaphysical dissertation.
We all may fall short at times in putting that "something
extra" into our words. A philosophical discourse may come
across too dry, too lifeless. A historic account can be
conveyed in a manner that puts people to sleep. Or we may
accidentally put the wrong ingredients into our sharing,
unintentionally enraging others! Many things can go wrong.
What's important is that we keep trying, in our sharing
of what we've been fortunate enough to meet with in this
lifetime. It should be considered a blessing to have come
across part of the Mysteries, even if outside temple doors.
>Best wishes,More comments follow ...
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:51 AM
>Subject: Theos-World Discussion of ULT, etc.
>I'm a fairly recent reader of these lists.
>When I joined, enjoined by the spirit of enthusiasm and awe of
>discovery of a profound and plausible alternative philosphy to
>establishment stock view, there was no inkling of the
>undercurrents of a
>roiling - in cases bitter, sometimes, between the lines, even
>vicious, albeit outwardly polite - contest between different
>"guardianships" of Theosophy.
>I trust I was naive and only looking for fellowship and
>or help in understanding, the more practical expectation.
>that may be, I was completely, unpleasantly, surprised by theActually, human nature being what it is, I'd expect you to
>I am now daily subjected to.
>You should ask why?. I should reply that contentious debate on
>topic is acceptable so long as it might contribute to a better
>understanding of this or that by a vigorous diamond-cutting and
>buffing process of ideas resulting in a more polished and agreed
>definition of this or that.
find the whole spectrum of emotions come into play in any
spiritual movement. Especially on a mailing list, where things
appear anonymous -- you don't see someone else's face as you're
writing to them -- people can get a bit out of hand. This
provides a good opportunity for people to deal with their
anger, intolerance, impatience, and prejudice of others. It
also provides an opportunity for us to bring our ideas to a
higher degree of clarity, as we are challenged to write for
a wider range of people than we might meet at some group
we might go to.
>It is also necessary when any of the various wells wherein weadduced
>succour might be adulterated or even poisoned from without.
>However, even if we are used to drinking from one fount and see
>someone drinking from another, very similar but different, is
>difference alone legitimate cause to suspect: 1. that that fount
>impure; 2. that those that drink from it are insincere?
>In my view, so far, no incontrovertible evidence has been
>toThe fact that there are signs of impurity, e.g. problems arising
>settle the question one way or the other.
in people, may be a good sign. Like the dross rising to the
top in a cooking pot, more problems may surface in our lives when
we've made a sincere effort to begin our own spiritual evolution.
If you find a group where everyone is as mild-mannered and
lacking in innovation as a heard of sheep, you've found one where
the true fire of spirit has yet to be kindled. Such a group may
show a false sense of harmony as the flock orderly moves about,
but it's not giving birth to the future leaders of humanity.
>In addition, this constant bickering about historical detail,us
>individual interpretation and the like, distracts and detracts
>allIt's a challenge to us and the angrier ones to work through
>from the deeply more difficult questions that demand our focused
>Certain of the exchanges are replete with vengeful argument;
>surely not an example in any forum; far less in a forum
>uphold such noble ideals as those espoused by Theosophy?
the differences and reach an understanding. How we tread others
on the mailing list is a microcosm of how we treat people in
the real world. Is there really any effort to understand
others, or just a tendency to judge and condemn?
>On the other hand the debate might still hold value, since theseThat has been proposed in the past. When theos-l was the
>conflicts must, by Karma if nothing else, be settled.
>To this end, I suggest that a new list be created for
>that everyone invested in that debate keep their postings there;
>everyone who would follow it join that list so the rest can
>undestracted on their quest to unravel the exceptional, dense,
>though incomplete explanation" presented to mankind by HBP and
only list, and historic discussions were getting too heated,
it was suggested that they moved to theos-roots. A third
list, theos-buds, was to be used for non-historic discussions.
The main list, theos-l, was for "general chat" where anything
goes. People got tired of looking at many different lists,
and started cross-posting to all of them. Then everyone settled
back again on theos-l again. People would simple use <DELETE>
for messages on topics they didn't like.
When there were too many personal attachs on theos-l, theos-talk
was founded. Later, because that was unmoderated and could
include any topics, the Blavatsky Net lists were founded as
moderated study lists, to allow for focused study on specified
>alwilliYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to