[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

More on ULT anonymity

Sep 21, 2003 09:35 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell

One student recently wrote to another:

"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." 

Daniel comments:

I believe that we have a very good point here and I hope
others will address it. 

Where in HPB's writings and the letters of the Master
do they enunciate "anonymity" along the lines followed
by the ULT? That is the first question (it seems to
me) that should be addressed.

Plus why should Blavatsky students who do not follow
this principle of "anonymity" be in effect helping to
strike "at the very basis of the [Theosophical]
Movement and end up destroying Theosophy of HPB and
her Masters"? 

Personally I certainly do not want to see the
Theosophy of HPB and her Masters "destroyed". 

OBTW, I see that the Theosophy Company in India put
B.P Wadia's name on the title pages of the 2 volumes
helping to lead us down the path toward the
destruction of the Theosophy of HPB and her Masters?

I would ask ULT students:

Have you read the writings of Geoffrey A.
Farthing, Geoffrey A. Barborka, Adam Warcup and Doss
McDavid? All four of those writers are sincere and
serious students of Blavatsky's teachings. Their
books have been very helpful in understanding many of
HPB's teachings. 

In fact for me, their works have been an impetus to
delve deeper into HPB's writings. Are ULT students contending
that because these authors added their names to the
titles pages of these books, that they are in fact
helping to destroy the Theosophy of HPB and the

In summary, "anonymity" may be a good method of
publicizing Theosophy but is it therefore the BEST or
the PREFERRED method? I fail to see that it is the
ONLY right method and I base that on my own study of
HPB's writings and the letters of the Masters.

I can understand why Robert Crosbie might have thought
that anonymity was a method that should be pursued (in
1909-1919) in light of all the claims and
counterclaims of Annie Besant, Katherine Tingley and
other persons who claimed to be in contact with the
Masters after HPB's death.

But Farthing, Barborka, Warcup and McDavid do NOT make
such claims. They are simply students who are trying
to share some of their studies and insights with other
students and who are encouraging readers to pursue the
fascinating ideas and teachings in HPB's own works.

Daniel H. Caldwell

"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at 
their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and 
hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2
You can always access our main site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application