Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00032)

> Yet when I've closely examined & asked questions about ULT founder's
claims,
> numerous ULT associates accuse me of defamation of Mr Crosbie's character.

When I've closely examined and asked questions about Mr. Green, his
background, affiliations, and motives, he has always declined to identify
exactly what started his pursuit of the ULT, and upon even pointing this
out, he has accused me of being "untheosophical".

Just want to remind everyone that we *still* don't know if he is, or was a
member of a TS organization, what university he is doing his "dissertation"
for, or why he continues to post messages like this current one (which
clearly are not required for a university dissertation.)

> The distinct message these ULT associates give is that while it is
perfectly
> acceptable for ULT organisation (through its theosophical history book) to
> defame Mrs. Tingley & other well-known theosophists, no one should
> investigate or question the claims of Mr Crosbie.

The ULT has a book that Mr. Green takes issue with. Of course, the *vast*
majority of ULT books, discussions, meetings, and posts concern not
individuals, but the *ideas* in Theosophy. They are far more likely to focus
time and energy on races and rounds, the sevenfold nature of principles, and
the potential development of the human than on what Mr. Crosbie, or Mr.
Judge, or HPB did or did not say. The distinct message Mr. Green gives is
that the important part of Theosophy, the thing we should all focus on, is
not its philosophy, or the comparative study of religion, philosophy, and
science, but rather, on the minute details of the personality squabbles that
exist in every organization on earth.

>
> I believe if Mrs Blavatsky was here today, she would be first to call this
> behavior by ULT & some of its associates as unfair & untheosophical.  When
> I've brought above to attention of ULT associates corresponding with me,
> they've sidestepped issue.

And you certainly know what sidestepping an issue is all about.

Brought up what issue, that fact that *your* belief is that HPB would act in
a particular way?

>To me this is behavior of cultists, not seekers
> of truth.

Hhhmmm ... so the act of ignoring your negative opinion of one of their past
leaders, and ignoring your judgement of them as "unfair & untheosophical" is
"cultish" in your world? They actually have the guts not to behave according
to your specifications? Not react as you want them to? Guess what, walk into
virtually any organization on *earth*, act like you are acting, and you'd
pretty much get the identical response. Must be terrble to live in a world
jammed so *full* of "cults".

>Though relatively new student to theosophy, I find this behavior
> revolting & stain on theosophical ideals enunciated by Mrs Blavatsky & Mr
> Judge.

Actually, if you believe the Mahatma Letters are from actual adepts, and you
read the volumes written by HPB, there *is* a central principle that all of
them kept attempting to re-iterate throughout there lives: *Focus on the
philosophy, not the pettiness of personality*. In fact this trait, so common
amongst western civilization, was considered in the writings of the adepts
to be one of the most significant factors *preventing* westerners from
gaining the right to access their wisdom. It continually frustrated them. If
you read HPB and the Adepts *thoroughly*, you'd probably understand that
were you to go up to her and try to make the case you'd been making
voluminously here lately, she probably would actually "sidestep" the issue,
and hand you Judge's "Ocean of Theosophy" or something ... not because you
are right or wrong, but because to *focus* at that level is to utterly miss
what she, and the Adepts, were about ...her entire focus - and the entire
focus of the Masters - was always the *philosophy*. The *ideas*. Not the
petty wranglings of personalities. They *always* exist. But they are
meaningless next to the Wisdom. -JRC