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

Re: More on ULT anonymity

Sep 21, 2003 11:32 AM
by wry

Hi. I only have a minute, but this message caught my attention. Here is a
good question for any one interested to ponder? In order to be a
"theosophist" is it necessary to think of oneself as a "theosophist" or to
even know of the existence of this organization? It seems to me that a
genuine "theosophist" and all this implies would have a conscious aim (am I
wrong?) and very important work to do. How we frame what we are doing, the
language we put around it, circumscribes it in such a way as to create
certain possibilities and/or limitations,.Technically it probably does not
matter if a person is anonymous or not, as it depends on what one is doing.
If a person could get killed for an act, he may choose to be anonymous, or
if he could ruin his reputation (like Herm), he may choose to not let us
know who he really is.

Let's say ignorant people and even pigheads and authoritarians begin to take
over a certain organization, not necessarily theosophy. Do intelligent
people use all their precious time and energy to fight pigheads? Maybe, if
this is just beginning to happen, but what if it has already happened? Or
what if it doesn't even matter? We must bear in mind that it may be an
inherent quality of the organization itself that allowed (allows) this to
happen. This is not to say that the some of the greatest, most exquisite
spiritual writings of humanity, such as The Gospel Of John should be thrown
out the window because ignorant people have taken over Christianity, but
that people of knowledge might and do simply pack up shop and move
elsewhere. This does not necessarily mean they do not call themselves
Christians any longer. It means that they do not waste their precious time
on this earth arguing with pig-headed, authoritarian, ignorant Christians
who deeply and sincerely believe that what they are doing is good.( Indeed,
it IS good-- to them.) It is time to pack up shop. Why can some people not
do this? It is a hard situation, and between each human being and his God,
but it is always difficult to make such a shift. Thankfully, it is a
requirement, or everything we would do would just be a repetition and fall
under the power of "the dark lord." How do we escape this power? It is
through a conscious act of invocation, not of a deity, but of our own inner
self, call it a master if you like, but it only obfuscates something simple,
rising to a situation of relationships in a way that is original. Is this
not true? Those of you who are already living in such a way or are beginning
to, will know who you are, but each of us can take the first step. It is in
our nature to explore. But what discovers the new direction? It is a
spontaneous intelligence, which by an act of conscious correlation,
reorganizes material, by making a more accurate alignment. In each moment,
that realignment is new, as things are always changing. It is a living act.
Of course it is so easy to get stuck. This happens to all of us, but when we
see it, and know it for what it is, the dark lord or whatever, mechanical,
the tendency to repeat rather than create, there is joy, and many doors
begin to open up. Is this not true?

For an individual in personal transition, to take a major step (out of a
much loved and familiar framework) is an act of passage and there is nothing
trivial about it, as it involves the tower of everything that was previously
held to be meaningful falling down. Sometimes we cannot do it. It seems
impossible, but we have to do it anyway. It will be done by he who wills it.
This does not necessarily mean we are ABLE to will, but that in the
solution of a big problem is a creative restructuring that involves the
death of what 'I" "thought." Remember, "the dark lord works through
thinkers". It is so easy and perfect to do it that way. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <>
To: "Theosophy Study List" <>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: More on ULT anonymity

> 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
> updestroying Theosophy of HPB and her Masters."
> Daniel comments:
> I believe that we have a very good point here and I
> hopeothers 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 theMasters?
> 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:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
> List URL -
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

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