Re: The Silence of ULT
Mar 05, 2007 03:23 PM
by Mark Jaqua
Well, Leon, I think you are projecting your
good motivations just as you accuse people of
projecting their bad ones.
The 6 million is controlled by just a few
people in LA - not the whole ULT (I used to have
a card, by the way) - and it is tooooooo much! You
could build a thousand houses in Zambia for that -
and why not????? It is NOT theosophical to have
this unused asset around, for an "organization"
that purports to be Theosophical. To me they are
no longer bonafide theosophists, as a representative
group of ULT - they are second rank in my mind now,
and perhaps outright phonies.
And of course, as everyone knows, Frank is nuts.
- jake j.
>8b. Re: The Silence of ULT
Posted by: "firstname.lastname@example.org" email@example.com leonmaurer1
Date: Sat Mar 3, 2007 6:06 pm ((PST))
All you deprecators of ULT appear to be a bunch of ignorant fools...
all your untheosophical hatred and rancor on rumors and innuendoes by
propagandists who call themselves theosophists, along with other
the true and unadulterated original theosophical teachings laid down by
ULT will be alive and kicking so long as there's an associate or anyone
willing to enter their Lodges and partake of knowledgeable
along with vast library facilities and classroom-lecture halls that
needs of independent students of theosophy worldwide. All free, and
any who wish to learn the fundamental truths of theosophy given out by
original teachers and founders of the Movement -- without and
than what each student themselves determine. In fact, there is no
to even become a signed associate since, even that is voluntary and
like all the other affairs of the lodges, their associates or their
governance. Pehaps if the world would model itself on that sysyem of
would be a much better place.
Everything these independent ULT Lodges offer to independent students
theosophy are entirely free, and all contribution are strictly
course, each independent Lodge needs sufficient money to build and
facilities. Where that comes from is only through voluntary
As for the money accumulated by the Theosophy Company from the sales of
publications at cost through the Lodges, and through commercial
for reserves to cover the costs of their printing facilities and
-- except those volunteers who contribute and *consensually* share in
management -- What business is that of anybody else? Why shouldn't
ULT have the
same rights of privacy as any one of us?
And, none of you know how many needy people have been supported by the
associates who volunteer to do so anonymously. Only some of us who
helped, or have requested help for others know who those benefactors
So, from here on, be careful how you judge the action of others before
judging your own prejudices ignorance's and gullibility's.
>10. ULT assets
Posted by: "firstname.lastname@example.org" email@example.com
Date: Sat Mar 3, 2007 6:41 pm ((PST))
firstname.lastname@example.org notes that people in the ULT voluntarily contribute
the costs of its activities. He then claims that these same people
?consensually? share in its management. The former process I
and admire. The latter process is a mystery to me and, since the ULT
appears unwilling or unable to answer any questions about its structure
and organization, perhaps Leon can do so.
Let?s suppose a group of people who may or (as Leon points out) may not
Associates of the ULT gather to hold meetings in its name. Can anyone
this? Can I set up a local group of my friends, call it a ULT meeting,
start collecting money in the name of the ULT? Or does such a group
require approval and, if so, given that the ULT claims to have no
organizational existence or officials, who can possibly give that
approval? Who receives and controls the money? Who opens, and in what
name, a bank account? In most jurisdictions, opening a bank account for
association requires at least a constitution with resolutions by the
members approving signatories to the account, and, in many cases, some
form of incorporation is also required.
Let?s suppose the group buys a building in which to hold meetings and
establish a library. In whose name is the title to the building? Who
actually legally owns the property, and how are they chosen or
Obviously, someone owns ? for example ? the extremely valuable property
the ULT in London: who is it? How and by whom were they chosen or
appointed? I assume that (if I was in London) I could use public
to find out at least the identity of the owners.
It?s fine to say that none of this is anyone?s business, but any group
that collects money from the public should surely be open to some form
scrutiny. Does the ULT ? in whatever form ? claim tax exempt status? If
so, every taxpayer (not to mention the State) has an interest in
that the benefits of tax exempt status are not being misused. It could
? and I?m not suggesting this in the case of the ULT ? that the whole
thing is a money-making operation benefiting a few individuals. How
anyone know that if the whole situation is shrouded in mystery?
I can easily find out (indeed the relevant organizations will readily
me) who are the legal owners of my local (Adyar) TS lodge building,
Masonic lodge, Roman Catholic cathedral, Anthroposophical Society
bookshop, St Vincent de Paul hostel and Liberal Catholic Church. They
tell me who owns and controls the property and the money, and how they
were appointed and by whom.
Will the ULT be similarly open?
Dr Gregory Tillett
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application