Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00179)

Sept 21 2003


RE: WHY PUBLISH "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS ?" --   
More on ULT anonymity


Dear Friends:


One need only consider the change of time. It is a matter of History,
really.

When the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY was under the guidance of HPB and as it
was laid out in democratic form, names etc., were used, as well as
"pen-names" for the authorship of articles as was customary then.

By 1912 most of the "original Teachings" in article form were out of
print, buried in libraries among the "old magazines," and unavailable to
new students. The main books had been re-edited and were no longer
entirely complete or "original." One need only compare those with the
originals (as in proof reading) to have the differences stand out. At
that point the student begins to wonder. Why? He asks.

The U L T was started in 1909. Its DECLARATION covers the whole matter
of it constitution, purpose and work, as one may see if it is carefully
read. Its objective, if that can be attributed, is to restore to current
use , and make easily available to all the "original teachings." 

It began publishing THEOSOPHY magazine in 1912.. Things had changed HPB
was no longer on the scene to fine-tune things in the THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT .  

The "literature" of original Theosophy had been printed but was by 1912
largely out of print. Even H P B's major writings had been altered in
reprinting them.

UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS brought the "original teachings" back into
view. It let them stand on their own merit. It reprinted the major
books in their original form for the same purpose, and let them stand on
their merits.

Comments, questions, answers and studies, made by students were left
unsigned so that readers could evaluate them on merit and not because of
who wrote them.

Reviewing the impact on the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT as a whole, after 94
years of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS work, one finds that in the
past two decades the various THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES that publish, have
gone back to offering the "original teachings and writings." They are
now being made available to new members, and the task of explaining the
reasons for differences from the "originals" is minimized, or
eliminated.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H. Caldwell [mailto:danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:36 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World 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 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
of his STUDIES IN THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Is this
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
Masters?

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
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------
"...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:

hpb.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/