Re: Theos-World RE: [bn-study] Re: anonymity
Sep 21, 2003 03:57 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
Hi all of you,
My view is, that when an organization are not making its students aware of
at least the following views and the problems of "the reading and teaching
using the dead-letter" - it may run into problems:
I am back at square one.
Try reconsidering this email which I posted july 2003 - (sorry about the
Let the student be aware of these issues.
Feel free to learn.
Is ULT present in Denmark ?
I would like to become a member.
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: [bn-study] Re: anonymity
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter.m
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:34 AM
> To: email@example.com
> 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
> to protect, study, exemplify and disseminate IMPERSONALLY Theosophy pure
> 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
> danger of creating a 'them and us' aura around the whole topic and
> 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
> before, but now unseen.
> It can be a really good way of keeping an organisation running on
> principles. In the case of ULT, it has done a great deal of good work,
> still does.
> Anonymity can also be a defensive screen, a way of not revealing how
> decisions get made, which particular personalities have influence over
> does or does not happen within an organisation. Such a screen can
> both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly, outsiders are never able to
> discover who is accountable for anything within the organisation.
> within an organisation the doctrine of anonymity and impersonality may
> 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
> the inner group that people feel the must consult with first before
> any decision, just to make sure they are not doing anything that might
> 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
> 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
> adherents, HPB, Judge, Olcott, many of the Chelas, etc etc, all put
> names to what they wrote? They took responsibility for the views they
> 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
> [Theosophical] Movement and end up destroying Theosophy of HPB and her
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application