Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tt00005)

In a message dated 9/7/97 1:03:22 AM, Dallas wrote:

> Let the ULT flourish on its moral worth alone. Its work, and the
> knowledge it gives out, depends on no other names than those of
> the true teachers, H.P.B. and W.Q.J. Associates must learn to
> look to them, to point to them, and to the "Masters" whom they
> served. Nothing else will restore the Movement. Unity is the
> key note of this attemtpt, and living persons, if made prominent,
> will detract from that. So we will keep names out of
> consideration, the really earnest will then judge by the fruits,
> not by persons.

This is one of the most famous and fundamental passages of the
movement known as the United Lodge of Theosophists and therefore
I think it bears examining. As the paragraph states, names are
to be kept out of consideration, so it matters not whether Robert
Crosbie or any other great eminent thinker wrote it: the question
before us is -- does this attitude work best for the movement
today, or does it set up a hindrance?

Here is my personal opinion, and I must emphasize that obviously
I speak for myself and not for any coalition of students and
certainly not for ULT as a whole. (Though many attempt to do so,
in truth no one can speak for ULT, an association of AUTONOMOUS
centers of work).

My opinion is that by keeping TOTAL anonymity we turn off our
co-workers who are not ULT associates and so dissipate good work
that could travel farther among Theosophists and in the world.
No other Theosophical group uses total anonymity, nor did our
Founders use anonymity except for special occasions. Mr. Judge,
a man of dozens of pen-names, was not afraid to use his own name
in most instances, particularly when it was a question of moral
fortitude and not philosophy or doctrine.

The writer of the above paragraph -- who shall of course remain
"nameless" (catch the irony here because we all know who
originally wrote it) was working in a different time, when
cataclysmic personalities were destroying the movement in their
clamour for media attention and claims of Masters' sanction.
Little of that is going on today outside the realm of Elizabeth
Clare Prophet. No one student or coalition of students has the
public ear, no luminaries are attempting to further a schism.

Rather, Robert Crosbie's original dream in founding the ULT has
finally come true: on all sides there is a louder and louder call
for **UNITY** among all the Theosophical families. The only
obstacles preventing that unity are (1) past battles which
continue to wound us (2) the skandhas or living tendencies that
through inertia continue to drive us apart and (3) the individual
idiosyncrases each sect of the movement has developed during
these nearly 100 years apart.

Yet who among us relishes our separateness? Does anyone say
"Let's keep up these divisions because they really further the
work?" I have heard scarcely anyone say this in all my years as a
Theosophist. Rather the question is not IF but HOW we should be
united. Formal union seems less desirable than practical and
spiritual union. And one of the obstacles to spiritual union is
this strange individual idiosyncrasy that ULT has developed with
anonymity.

As long as ULT students keep up their mechanical, literalized
emphasis on "anonymity" (even though all educated students know
who most of the movers and shakers are within ULT ...) other
students will feel put off. This kind of limited anonymity,
carried to excess (as in EVERY article in Theosophy magazine,
even to the degree of covering up the authors of COPYRIGHTED
material !) creates more friction that it assuages and should be
stopped.

Emotional and intellectual anonymity is not the same as literal
anonymity.

True anonymity is one of impersonal ATTITUDE and non-attachment
(in the Buddhist sense of the word) and not one of hesitation in
taking responsibility for what one says and writes. True
anonymity is not conveyed merely by hesitating to sign one's
name; in fact this mechanical anonymity may often hinder deeper
detachement due to the self-satisfaction that it brings.

Yet certainly there is a time even for literal anonymity, perhaps
as in an impersonal statement of Theosophical doctrine in an
article or a book.

Certainly if one stands to benefit financially or in public
image from an exposition of Theosophical doctrine, literal anonymity
should reign. Why?

Because in truth it is wise to avoid building up a personal
following with others. The Masters ever avoided doing so, as did
HPB and WQJ. Theosophy is no personality contest, or financial
investment, like nearly everything in the so-called New Age.

But in their daily affairs, among their friends and co-workers,
while discussing Theosophy in small groups and at lodges, the
emphasis on anonymity in ULT is quite ridiculous. I have been at
lodge meetings with 5 people, 2 of whom were on the plaform
giving talks, and still everyone was referred to in impersonal
terms as "the speaker" and "the questioner." What spiritual group
on the planet does this? The Masters themselves refer to each
other in dear personal terms, as in "my compassionate brother
K.H." etc.

Perhaps some will say that constant and total anonymity is a
spiritual goal to be striven for, and thus we should endure the
ridiculousness of appearances in the meantime. I say no -- if
anonymity gets in the way of true brotherly love and teamwork and
mutual esteem, I say it is better to leave it go. The co-workers
I've met among the T.S. Pasadena people and among the U.L.T.
association and among all the independent workers who belong to
all or no groups -- these deep and amazing friendships have all
been based on a mutual recognition of dedication, ability and
high principle. One need not pretend the personal doesn't exist
in order to allow the highest in us, the immortal Ego, to shine
through.