Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00077)

Hi Katinka,

Reading your post reminded me of something about HPB and her work. 
She was working under the direction of the Master. She did what she 
was told to do, in all things affecting the work she was asked to 
undertake. This work was and is far too important, crucial even, to 
the future of humanity, to be pursued in any haphazard manner, as it 
inevitably would be by anyone who didn't have the consciousness of a 
Master. HPB fulfilled the directions given her faithfully, but only 
she knew, in many cases, what they were, and even she may not have 
always known the reason for them. Only a superior 
intelligence/consciousness could fully see what was needed when and 
why. We, from our perspective, distant in both time and relationship 
to events of a century or more ago, may find many things difficult to 
understand or accept. But if have faith in the underlying truth of 
theosophy, and any respect for the tremendous sacrifice, courage, and 
devotion required of one such as HPB, we can allow for the 
possibility that we may not really have the right to judge her or her 
actions. We have inherited the fruits of her amazing efforts, and we 
have a responsibility to try to make them a living reality, if we 
will.

All the best,
Adelasie

On 11 Sep 2003 at 9:46, Katinka Hesselink wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> To work impersonally probably means something very different from what
> Dallas thinks it does. HPB was impersonal in the sense that she didn't
> just publish her own thoughts and ideas and knowledge, but also that
> of people who opposed her. She was impersonal in the sense that she
> did not take the opportunity to make a decent pay (writing for a
> Russian magazine), because she had work to do for the TS. But she was
> obviously not impersonal in the sense of being anonymous. In fact,
> when one looks up the word anonymous in the Collected Writings CD-rom
> one comes across many references where she complains that people write
> to slander her, without telling her who they are. This kind of reminds
> me of the slander in some ULT publications, where also a name is
> missing. The clearest quote I could find on HPB's policy on anonymous
> letters is the following:
> 
> >> We have received several communications for publication, bearing 
> on the subjects discussed in the editorial of our last issue, "Let
> every man prove his own work." A few brief remarks may be made, not in
> reply to any of the letters—which, being anonymous, and containing no
> card from the writers, cannot be published (nor are such noticed, as a
> general rule)>> CW vol. 8, p. 295
> 
> HPB was courageous enough to stand for what she believed in and sign
> her name to it, clearly realizing how dishonest it looks to not sign a
> name. When there isn't a name, nobody can be held acountable. This is
> understandable in situations where religious freedom itself still
> needs to be fought for, (as unfortunately in some places there still
> isn't religious freedom), but in the US, where the ULT is largest,
> this isn't exactly necessary. So what is left is the impression that
> the ULT makes of cowardice its policy. 
> 
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > 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 . . .>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>