Dallas on "Anonymity"
Sep 17, 2003 08:19 PM
by Daniel H. Caldwell
Dallas on "Anonymity"
I have carefully read your previous emails on the above subject as
well as your email below.
You end your latest email with the following:
"If those are read the reason for anonymous work for THEOSOPHY that
characterizes the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS work ought to become
Dallas, you write of "anonymous work for THEOSOPHY" but if this is
the preferred method why didn't H.P. Blavatsky herself follow this
practice??? She could have signed her major works with "Student of
Truth" or "Compiler of Esoteric Teachings" or left her name off the
title pages. Instead she is listed on the title pages as:
Furthermore, one need only look at her magazines THE THEOSOPHIST and
LUCIFER. She did not enforce or insist on anonymous articles.
If "anonymous work for THEOSOPHY" or "anonymity" is the best or
preferred method then why didn't H.P. Blavatsky use that method?
Even Judge's most famous book THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY was published
under his own name.
And the author of the book THE FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER is identified as
And does the fact that Geoffrey Farthing, Geoffrey Barborka and Adam
Warcup (all serious and sincere students of Theosophy and Blavatsky)
append their names to their books on Blavatsky and Theosophy DIMINISH
in any way the value and worth of their books?
These above issues are not covered in what you write and beg for
"W. Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Wednesday, September 17, 2003
> Re: Principle of Impersonality = ANONYMITY.
> Dear Friends:
> I can only say that what I write below is as I, myself see it. It
> not satisfy.
> Concerning the "anonymity" of U L T, enough has been posted to
> that is exists AS A POLICY solely to prevent any personal
> UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS exists since 1909 (94 years) on this
> It presents the Philosophy, and not a "Person or Persons"
> or "interpreter" thereof.
> It therefore puts forward the original form in which the philosophy
> recorded. It avoids personal views, provides information in the
> of the Philosophy, and lets articles, notes, answers, etc. stand on
> their own merit -- something to be decided on by the readers
> In its application, it says, in brief:
> Let THEOSOPHY stand on its merits.
> Let no person or authority stand as a filter, lens or prism between
> ORIGINAL TEACHINGS and the modern student.
> The present inquiries are of benefit to us all. They strip away any
> mystery and focus on the purpose of anonymity as observed by the U
> This departure from the usual method of conducting an association
> publishing, has been objected to earlier, the same answers have been
> provided since then. As I see it, it is a policy now proved by 94
> of existence to be valuable, that will not be changed or dropped
> the pressure of curiosity or irony.
> The U L T does not seek a mass of new adherents, but it offers a
> to those students who desire to study, discuss and apply THEOSOPHY
> originally recorded.
> As an illustration, if we were attempting to watch an eclipse of
> we would shield our eyes by using very dark films or glasses. The
> "original teachings" are like these protective dark glasses. Behind
> stands the SUN of the Eternal Philosophy -- the eternal Laws of
> -- the "Sanatana Dharma."
> Probing further:
> We have in writing, in their original form teachings certified to be
> from Masters and HPB. We find reference to this collaboration
> the magazine The PATH, Vol.. 8, pp. 1-3; in the form of
> Masters gave to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden. Later, an independent
> was given by Master K H to Col. Olcott, PTS [LETTERS FROM THE
> OF WISDOM , 1st series, 1918, p. 54] This reads in part:
> "I have also noted, your thoughts about the "Secret Doctrine." Be
> assured that what she has not annotated from scientific and other
> we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or erroneous
> corrected and explained by her from the works of other theosophists
> corrected by me, or under my instructions. It is a more valuable
> than its predecessor, an epitome of occult truths that will make it
> source of information and instruction for the earnest student for
> years to come."
> The value of making these TEACHINGS available in an undistorted
> was understood by Mr. Crosbie. Thus, anonymity in U L T work was
> determined on to serve as a kind of prophylaxis, and, an antidote
> "authority." This includes the unmarked editing of H P B's writings
> after her death.
> Of what possible difference does it make who says anything? Whether
> this involves the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS, or any other group
> person? Does attaching a name to some writing invest it with
> If so is it personal or impersonal? Suppose a "nom-de-plume" were
> What then is the result? Further doubt and suspicion?
> I say: Has the thing in itself any worth? And have we THOUGHT
> it? And by worth, I define this as universal and eternal principles.
> Anything less, limits it, and adds to its uselessness in my esteem..
> Either the matter is worth considering on broad impersonal lines or
> is not.
> In any case, why not let Theosophy speak for itself, which is what
> LT work does as impersonally as possible.
> As for myself, as an "old" associate I have repeatedly said that I
> not a "spokesperson" for the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS. If I
> to answer these probes, it is because the principle of putting
> forward is to me supremely important. Other apparently have other
> and some are incomprehensible to me.
> I took in mind the need for offering reasons before you who
> have, accordingly published in the last week Mr. Crosstie's
> to the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS .
> Then I published H P B's WHAT IS THEOSOPHY and WHAT ARE THE
> If those are read the reason for anonymous work for THEOSOPHY that
> characterizes the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS work ought to become
> Best washes,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application