Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00106)

Hi,

Well, it seems like a nice coincidence to me. 
* ULT policy is anonymous writers. See Sylvia Cranston (not her real
name, though her real name is out there)
* ULT websites and people recommend (and publish online) the books
Theosophical Movement.
* The Theosophical Movement is written anonimously.

Now this is at the very least a highly suspicious set of
circumstances. And it is precisely this sort of situation which makes
me say that anonimity as a policy is a bad idea. Because this way
there is nobody who is responsible. See the below mail. 

Now I don't know whether the writer(s) of the books called "The
Theosophical Movement" were members of the ULT. So I should take back
my assumption that they were. Perhaps other people here do know of
evidence one way or another? And since the ULT has no board, no
official controlling agency - the publication of the books can never
be tied to the organisation other than that major players in the ULT
field may or may not have been involved in its writing. 

It is reminds me of a magic tric. You know you are being fooled, but
you can never quite say how it was done. 

You say:
> Your opinion of the book is one thing. But you are making a guess and
> an assumption in presuming that the "UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS" took
> responsibility for either of those books. Nowhere does it say so in
> either book.
Now this isn't completely correct. My big problem with ULT policy is
precisely that anonimity is a recipy for NOT taking responsibility. So
in that sense this whole story is characteristic perhaps. But I'm
sliding into inuendo myself here, so I should stop. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W. Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Saturday, September 13, 2003
> 
> 
> Re: Your post of Sept. 13 2002.
> Implication of slander to U L T.
> 
> 
> Dear Katinka:
> 
> 
> I must still protest your characterization of the "U L T" based on the
> material published by others who are unknown, which we are discussing,
> since the "U L T" is uninvolved, and it did not publish those books.
> 
> Let me explain so as to be clear:
> 
> You mention the book The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. The first edition was
> titled The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925), and was published in 1925
> by E. P. Dutton, New York. This book went out-of-print. A new book was
> published in 1951 by the Cunningham Press, Los Angeles and is titled The
> THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950). I am not sure if you have seen that.
> It is still in print.
> 
> Both are published anonymously. Neither of them was published over the
> imprimateur : "U L T." 
> 
> Your opinion of the book is one thing. But you are making a guess and
> an assumption in presuming that the "UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS" took
> responsibility for either of those books. Nowhere does it say so in
> either book.
> 
> The narration of historical events covered by documents stands available
> from several sources. There are excellent archives at the THEOSOPHICAL
> SOCIETY in Pasadena, Mr. D. Caldwell, Mr. M. Gomes and Mr. E. Pelletier,
> etc. all have similar but independent archives. Those are available,
> and we can all read those documents and follow their sequence, and draw
> our conclusions. 
> 
> Opinions may differ. We are now reviewing these matters many years
> later, and the authors are not available for discussion, hence we are
> now speculating as to their motives. But, it is important to note that
> the "U L T" is not involved. Hence your characterizations are not fairly
> aimed at it.
> 
> As I see it, Theosophy Company recommends those books because they
> provide a documentary chronology. In my opinion your remarks employing
> the name "U L T" ought to be withdrawn. Properly, you may direct them at
> the unknown authors, but not at "U L T."
> 
> As I said, it is my understanding that U L T "policy" is defined by the
> DECLARATION of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS (of which I sent you a
> copy). It did not publish those books. Neither did "Theosophy Company."
> 
> 
> The events of the "Judge Case" are well covered by documents. The parts
> played by individuals, privately and publicly are made clear by the
> nature and handling of those documents. Again, our present opinions may
> be different, but they have to remain speculative at this time.
> 
> I find no basis for your calling "U L T" either slanderous or indulging
> in innuendo. It seems to be your opinion and is not based on facts, I
> therefore protest what you write. You are being unfair to the U L T in
> my esteem.
> 
> The sample taken from the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925) published in
> 1925 (p. 457) relates to the opinion of the author(s) (?). Again, "U L
> T" is not involved.
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ===================================
> 
> Hi Dallas,
> 
> I don't think we misunderstand each other. I do think we strongly
> disagree on matters of policy in theosophical organisations and
> interpretation of HPB's work. 
> 
> The book "The Theosophical Movement" contains much that could be seen
> as slandering Besant and Olcott. Unfortunately, any quote will be out
> of context as the work is so full of both quoted letters and such as
> well as innuendo. The latter is what I am complaining against. The
> fact that this book was published anonimously makes it very hard to
> say: this person did that wrong. Or at the time of writing it,
> correspondence with that person on subjects like, have you looked at
> that document, why haven't you looked at that side of the story. I
> understand the ULT-policy, I just note that it wasn't HPB's policy and
> that therefore (and for all the reasons mentioned before) the ULT may
> want to consider changing it. Unfortunately the ULT has no governing
> body so that nobody could make the decision to change something. 
> 
> As for the quote. Here goes a random one: 
> 
> p. 457 The Theosophical Movement (1925, E.P. Dutton&Company, 681 fifth
> avenue)
> 
> "Now, having traced the successive moves of Mr. Judge, and having
> followed Mrs. Besant's successive positions on the chessboard, it is
> necessary to review Col. Olcott's share in the strategy and tactics of
> the rapidly culminating manoeuvres. We have shown him in his "Old
> Diary Leaves," in his Presidential Adress, in his letter to the
> American Section Convention of 1893, in his part in the "White Lotus
> Day" celebration at Adyar on may 8, 1893, in his use of Mr. Sturdy as
> a pawn, and Mr. Walter R. Old as a more important piece through which
> to make his moves."
> 
> This suggests a negative motive in both Olcott and Besant. The
> biography of one of the persons mentioned here as a 'piece through
> which to make his move' has been completed recently (Walter Old - see
> my website. I am not going to give the URL another time. Searching
> google for Sepharial will sufice). That biography makes Walter Old
> very much his own person. Not a pawn in a conspiracy against Judge. 
> 
> Personally I think it rather preposterous to think that Judge, or
> Besant or Olcott were parts of plots. They may have disliked each
> other, they may have made mistakes and those mistakes and dislikes may
> have built up to create or at least partly cause the whole
> Judge-affair. But that doesn't mean anyone of those people had a
> conscious motive to create something of the sort. And that is what is
> being suggested here. 
> 
> Katinka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]