Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00170)

Saturday, September 20, 2003

Re: U L T and Anonymity

Dear Peter:

You kindly wrote me and Ramprakash.

Let me offer some ideas on this that might clarify things. On the other
hand it may mystify them further for some. But that is their business,
not mine.

As I see it 

The primary idea in U L T of not using names was to avoid anyone
standing in front of THEOSOPHY. THEOSOPHY was to be presented. Articles
(in the magazines) and talks were thus to receive no names.

Now what do I see:

The "hunt" is on again, for the anonymous theosophists of U L T.  

I mean those elusive individuals that "hide," "shamefully" and "without
courage," behind "U L T" ? [And presumably, want to be allowed their
privacy.]

Look at the nature and stream of recent questions, and comments. The
exterior appearance has little relation to the interior IDEALS ( of
THEOSOPHY) and practical work done for it. 

>From my observation:

Those individuals (that have adopted and supported the DECLARATION of
the U L T, and work in and through it, desire to study and broadcast
original Theosophy, unmolested and unpestered. What does it matter to
anyone else? Curiosity has a lot of masks ! 

For 94 years since 1909 the U L T has been a kind of refuge for those
who want to study the original teachings of Theosophy and make them
available to others. And is likely to continue indefinitely so long as
people see the need for an impersonal presentation of the ORIGINAL
message and teachings of Theosophy. It is like the touch-stone.
Everything can be compared to it. Is there a danger there? If so to
whom?

There may be a vague "danger" to those who want to promote their own
versions of Theosophy. Also there are a number of persons who seem to
think Theosophy consists of a lot of superficial and mysterious goings
on, and especially with the activities, faults, failures and successes
of persons associated with Theosophy.  

The interesting thing is that anyone can join the U L T as an associate
and discover (?) what they seek, quite easily, if they want to work for
Theosophy and the practical ways U L T has devised over 94 years to make
those ideals practicable and realizable. They can find out if they want
to. No questions are asked of anyone. All workers are welcome.

There are individuals who look and read the story of people who
participate in the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- and, call such observations:
"history." But a distinction between the philosophy of THEOSOPHY taught
by the Masters, and the pseudo-theosophy of various personalities
associated with the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT of the past 128 years -- since
1875 -- has to be made. The doings and writings of various persons
(including myself) are NOT symptomatic of Theosophy. As a student of
THEOSOPHY you know that well.

There is, as a result, a great deal of misinformation floating around,
and the names of those who work for Theosophy (through the U L T or
other bodies) have no bearing on that in my esteem.

Mr. Daniel Caldwell has just provided us with Dr. J. Santuchi's opinion
about the "new teachings" issued by prominent "theosophists" and members
of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY -- I mean, by some of those who in time,
"succeeded" H P B and Olcott in the Adyar THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. Some of
these are seen to have actually issued contradictions to HPB's
teachings, and even started a "church." Did you read his
contribution?

As far as U L T is concerned, if those who work in it, and who
understand and appreciate it, cease, individually from upholding it, if
they "down tools" so to say, it will gradually dissolve, fade and
disappear. There will be no volunteers left to do the minimum work
needed. End of U L T.

You see, it (U L T) is only the exterior embodiment of idealism. It
looks and operates as an "organization" does,. But, strangely, it is not
an "organization" in the accepted sense, -- no "boss" or "bosses." Or
better still, every volunteer assumes whatever "hat" is needed to get
things done. The coordination is by a cooperative consultation. It has
no "leaders," and no "minorities" or "majorities" or voting. But there
is a lot of substantial work just to keep the publishing and the
discussions and the promulgation going.  

The "organizational" aspect of all that, is shouldered by volunteers
(associates) who have great impersonal determination, and who always
and regularly CONSULT with each other to find the best way of doing
things. Those who have time, offer it to these activities. But they are
not "employed. or supervised."

It seems that people cannot understand the lack of "drive for
membership" in the U L T . A "refuge" for student/teachers does not
seek for more "associates," they seek it -- if they sense a need for it
themselves.

Of course an opportunity to study and discuss the Message of the
MAHATMAS as sent through H P B is offered by the ULTs. All meetings are
public ones. 

The whole secret is that there is no secret. Those who become
"associates" are free of any coercion. They make their own rules. They
decide the limits and depths of their participation and support. And
above all they work cooperatively. Any work, time, and money is a gift
from them -- to perpetuating the ideals embodied in those original
teachings -- for others, now and later, to profit from, as they have so
far. They pass it along. 

No questions are asked of any associate and no requests are made for
help or service, it is they who have to ask for an opportunity to assist
if they want to. Any associate can reveal their name if they choose to.
It is all a matter of ideals, of trust, and of principles for which each
individual is independently responsible. It like a kind of "spiritual
family." But that's not the real description of it.  

How do spiritual Souls, under the Laws of Cycles, Karma and
Reincarnation, meet and work together ? How can people discuss the
Laws and rules of the Universe, its periodical appearances, the nature
and purpose of our Earth and the many civilizations that have existed,
risen flowered, and disappeared?  
I see no relation between that work, and seeking to discover who is
there to do it.

Best wishes,

Dallas


================

-----Original Message-----
From: peter.m 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:34 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net

Subject: [bn-study] Re: anonymity

Ramprakash writes in regards to ULT:

>>> In any case you cannot satisfy critics and
fault-finders but our concern is not to pander to the doubting Thomases
but
to protect, study, exemplify and disseminate IMPERSONALLY Theosophy pure
and
simple as recorded by HPB and WQJ, the two Messengers.<<<<

Hi Ramprakash,

I think it is unhelpful to caste people in that light because they ask
questions about ULT and question the notion of anonymity. I feel it has
the
danger of creating a 'them and us' aura around the whole topic and
implies
that if anyone questions what Dallas or you says about ULT they must be
acting from a purely negatively personal basis, or are just ignorant.

Anonymity does not necessarily do away with personality. Perhaps all it
does is sweeps the issue under the carpet where the personality operates
as
before, but now unseen.  

It can be a really good way of keeping an organisation running on
impersonal
principles. In the case of ULT, it has done a great deal of good work,
and
still does.

Anonymity can also be a defensive screen, a way of not revealing how
decisions get made, which particular personalities have influence over
what
does or does not happen within an organisation. Such a screen can
operate
both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly, outsiders are never able to
discover who is accountable for anything within the organisation.
Inwardly:
within an organisation the doctrine of anonymity and impersonality may
act
as a lever where workers are led to believe it is not appropriate to
question decisions, or even ask who made them, how were they arrived at
& so
on. In the meantime, certain personalities do make the decisions, or
become
the inner group that people feel the must consult with first before
making
any decision, just to make sure they are not doing anything that might
be
disapproved of, out of line etc.

>>> Declaration is no invention of Crosbie. On the contrary he only
assembled the principles or the Lines of Theosophical Study and Work
enunciated by the Masters, HPB and WQJ extensively in their writings and
communications.<<< 

I'm not sure this addresses the points that were made about anonymity.
Is it
not the case that in HPB's time people, students and teachers, critics
and
adherents, HPB, Judge, Olcott, many of the Chelas, etc etc, all put
their
names to what they wrote? They took responsibility for the views they
held
and shared. This seems reasonable to me. I don't see why it should
necessarily end up (to use your words) "striking at the very basis of
the
[Theosophical] Movement and end up destroying Theosophy of HPB and her
Masters."  

Regards,

Peter