Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tt00027)

I have followed with great interest the discussion about
anonymity, personality and impersonality, centered about ULT and
Robert Crosbie's sage advice. What strikes me is how in accord
everyone seems to be with regard to the principles set forth by
Crosbie, yet how different our applications of those principles!
On Sept. 11, Rich summed up the crux of the discussion: "We
should not mistake [Crosbie's] METHOD for his PRINCIPLE." Crosbie
certainly hoped the de-emphasis on personality would help
students go ahead with their work, and not pay too much attention
to whether they were being personal or impersonal (I think I
could find a quote to that effect). Yet, I doubt if Crosbie
himself ever wanted his methods to be adapted and carved in
imperishable stone!

There seems to be room for all sorts of different applications,
based upon principles and tempered by brotherhood and common
sense (two of the best "Principles" I know of!) This discussion,
for instance, would be silly if no one signed their names to
their comments. :-) When reading in a small study group, it's
more than nice to call on "the next person on the couch" by first
name, rather than some such silly phrase. And, in many public
forums, away from the familiarity of closely-knit groups (where
the norms and conventions often go unstated for years), audiences
expect to hear the name of a speaker, and in fact, will ASK if it
is not announced! None of these conventions, in and of itself, is
either "personal" or "impersonal." It is how we use them that
makes them warm and human, or cold and detatched. I think
William Q. Judge would agree that varying applications of
principles are called for. In an article entitled "Methods of
Theosophical Work," published in the "Path" for August, 1891, he
wrote:

> H.P.B. always said--following the rules laid down by high
> teachers--that no proposal for theosophical work should be
> rejected or opposed provided the proposer has the sincere motive
> of doing good to the movement and to his fellows...[T]hey often
> desire to begin some small work for the Society, and are
> frequently opposed by those who think the juncture unfavorable or
> the thing itself unwise. These objections always have at bottom
> the assumption that there is only one certain method to be
> followed.

Mr. Judge goes on to cite several examples of healthy
differences of opinion within a Lodge, and the value of certain
"unwise" efforts. He concludes his article:

> But no one method is to be insisted on. Each man is a potency in
> himself, and only by working on the lines which suggest
> themselves to him can he bring to bear the forces that are his.
> We should deny no man and interfere with none; for our duty is to
> discover what we ourselves can do without criticizing the actions
> of another...Therefore, if any member proposes to spread the
> doctrines of theosophy in a way that seems wise to him, wish him
> success even if his method be one that would not commend itself
> to you for your own guidance.

I have quoted more than I had intended, but WQJ writes so wisely
and so well, it seemed a shame not to share it.

Regards to All,

Wes Amerman