Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00048)

Tony,

You bring up a good point below. 

"Impersonality" and "anonymity" may be the policy 
and method of the U.L.T. but it was NOT the policy 
of the original Theosophical Society.

Madame Blavatsky apparently failed to understand
what Dallas writes about because she added her
own name to her major works as well as to most
of her articles. !! :) Why didn't she issue
her works anonymously?

Again, impersonality and anonymity may be the policy
of "Theosophy" magazine (the major ULT organ) but
it was not HPB's policy in editing her two magazines
THE THEOSOPHIST and LUCIFER. She also invited and published
contrary and diverse views in her magazines which apparently
the ULT publication avoids.

Too bad HPB didn't live long enough to know about
the ULT policy and practice.

Daniel




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <alpha@d...> wrote:
> Dear Dallas
> 
> You write:
> 
> <<<A wise one observed: " .if some human beings know the 
existence of the
> most important message to the world in untold centuries, and bring 
the
> fact and the message to their attention, leaving it to be accepted 
or
> rejected without drawing any attention to themselves, [then] an act 
of
> self-effacement has been performed in order that the Message may be
> judged on its own merits.the "anonymity" adopted was for the very
> benefit of .all who desire to obtain that message at first hand 
with no
> intermediate distractions.we desire most of all to place the 
Message of
> Masters in the hands of those who wish to learn and know, without
> attracting attention to ourselves or seeking any distracting 
notoriety.
> 
> The policy and methods of U. L. T. were instituted to avoid
> personalities altogether . . .>>>
> 
> Was this the policy of the "Theosophical Society" under the 
founders: HPB,
> Col. Olcott (don't lets forget him), W Q Judge, and others?
> 
> HPB did push herself forward without regard for herself (including 
her
> personality) and suffered the terrible consequenses of such an 
unselfish
> act. There was no anonymity there. And so did WQJ. And so did 
Col.
> Olcott. With such a mission how could she/they but attract 
attention to
> herself/themselves? Are you feeling critical of her for doing 
that in
> quoting the above opinion? Should she be criticised for that? 
Without
> that sacrifice, we may never have got to hear of Theosophy. She 
was honest
> about her personality === those clothes the inner HPB was wearing 
for that
> incarnation. There is nothing wrong in those who are strong in 
true
> Theosophy, and are prepared to stand up and be counted in their 
unbounding
> love for Theosophy.
> 
> Best wishes and with great respect
> Tony