RE: [bn-study] RE: FW: RE: Tony & Dallas on "Impersonality and Anonymity"
Sep 23, 2003 08:48 PM
by W. Dallas TenBreoeck
Sept 23 2003
Re "Original Teachings"
Again let me say that what I write is my responsibility, and I write for
myself. and my point of view. I am not a spokesman for the U L T, but
have been a long time "associate" and an observer of its work and
progress. I endorse its freedom, and support its work whole heartedly.
When I wrote that (which you ask about - below) I had H P B and Judge in
mind. Both were accredited by the Masters. The rest of the writers
(Masters apart) were not. But as you rightly say they did write
valuable things as aids for students.
How shall they be valued? Each student must do that on his own. (the U
L T does not have any "conditions" other than those embodied in its
The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT is eternal, and includes, H P B says, all
ancient philosophies and theologies as evidence of its presence and that
it formed their basis. The "Ancient Source" ( S D I 272-3 makes that
clear to me).
If, in general, you refer back to the period almost immediately
following Jesus' ministry, you find the highly respected Gnostics and
their work, mostly obliterated by some early church "fathers." We might
think of making a comparison between them and the various students and
societies, bodies, etc,. interested in Theosophy -- are we not somewhat
like the Gnostics?
To me, the modern THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT is that which starts with
H P B and the writing of ISIS UNVEILED, followed by her many articles,
The SECRET DOCTRINE, The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, The VOICE OF THE SILENCE,
GLOSSARY (unfinished), TRANSACTIONS, etc... Those, (to me) provide us
with the "original teachings" for this era of re-printing and
And it is in those writings in reprint, historically, that can be seen
by 1909, those that were the most affected by changes, made presumably,
(but not always indicated) by her literary successors. Those
"successors" are presumed to have intended to make HPB's writings more
accurate in various ways, known and determined by them. But when those
are not indicated or explained, the modern day student is unaware of the
fact that those reprints are no longer presenting to them a copy of
"pure HPB." But you know this as well as I do.
The UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS tried to reverse this condition.
Has it been successful? Well, in the past 10 years or so, most of the
"Theosophical Societies or bodies" that publish, have issued exact
copies of the "originals." Their members can now have an easier access
to those originals again.
The U L T, as you may read from Crosbie's explanations that I recently
printed to explain it (and its DECLARATION,) was founded to make sure
that HPB's works were preserved as she had written them. (Reprinted
below.) That was enough as they stand on their own merits, but, needed
to be given a new life, a reincarnation ?
The rest of the material (other than the MAHATMA LETTERS themselves) did
not receive the Master's certificate.(PATH Vol. 8, pp. 1-3).
No one prevents students from reading and using those sources. So again
we are back, as I see it, to the student's discretion.
As far as I can discover, the U L T makes no rules about those, (those
would be unenforceable anyway), but, it does say what it is focusing on
in its reprinting program, and the study it encourages.
I have been to many a lecture or study class in which material from
those writers you mention, and the writing and statements of others have
been quoted and used. Take , as an instance, the magazines THEOSOPHY
(Los Angeles), and THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (Bombay). If you have
followed them, you will see that many reports have been made in them,
down the years, on current discovery and discussion that has relevance
to the subjects discussed in "original Theosophical sources."
The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT as you rightly observe is not static.
Hope this helps clear your queries.
Mr. Crosbie's explanation and introduction to the U L T
[ The following preliminary memorandum was drawn up by Robert Crosbie
anticipatory to the formation of The United Lodge of Theosophists." It
was sent to many individual theosophists on
November 17, 1908.]
TO ALL OPEN-MINDED THEOSOPHISTS
When the Messengers departed from this scene, all that was left here was
the Message (exoteric and esoteric), and its students of more or less
proficiency in the assimilation of that Message.
With the altruistic example of the Messengers and the inspiration of the
Message, the Theosophical Society should have been able to stand alone
Unfortunately, history tells another story; disintegration began at
once, and still goes on, and a grand opportunity to impress the world
with the spirit and life of the Message has been lost, through neglect
of the essentials and pursuit of non-essentials.
The First Object-the most important of all-the others being
subsidiary-has been lost sight of in its direct bearing upon all the
changes and differences that have occurred. "To form a nucleus of
Universal Brotherhood without any distinctions what ever" was, and is,
the key to the situation. Let me quote a few sentences from H. P. B.'s
last message to the American Theosophists in April, 1891:
"The critical nature of the stage on which we have entered is as well
known to the forces that fight against us, as to those that fight on our
side. No opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking
advantage of mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of
augmenting difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and
every means the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our
Fellows thinned and thrown into disarray. Never has it been more
necessary for the members of the T. S. to lay to heart the old parable
of the bundle of sticks than it is at the present time; divided, they
will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on
earth able to destroy our Brotherhood. * * * After all, every wish and
thought I can utter are summed up in this one sentence, the
never-dormant wish of my heart: "BE THEOSOPHISTS, WORK FOR THEOSOPHY."
These were prophetic words-but the warning was not taken.
It now remains for those who are able to take the words that express the
never-dormant wish of her heart as the key-note of the present and
future: "Be Theosophists, work for Theosophy," and get together on that
kind of a basis; for these are the essentials.
The unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and
however situated, is SIMILARITY OF AIM, PURPOSE, AND TEACHING. The
acceptance of this principle by all Theosophists would at once remove
all barriers. A beginning must be made by those whose minds have become
plastic by the buffetings of experience. An agreement between such is
necessary; an assembling together in this spirit.
To give this spirit expression requires a declaration, and a name by
which those making the declaration may be known.
To call it The Theosophical Society would be to take the name now in use
by at least two opposing organizations. To even call it a Society has
the color of an "organization"-one of many, and would act as a barrier.
The phrase used by one of the Messengers is significant, and avoids all
conflict with organizations, being capable of including all without
detriment to any. That phrase is:
THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
Members of any organization or unattached, old and new students, could
belong to it without disturbing their affiliations, for the sole
condition necessary would be the acceptance of the principle of
similarity of aim, purpose, and teaching. The binding spiritual force of
this principle of brotherhood needs no such adventitious aids as
Constitution or By-Laws-or Officers to ad- minister them. With it as
basis for union, no possible cause for differences could arise; no room
is found here for leader or authority, for dogma or superstition, and
yet-as there are stores of knowledge left for all-the right spirit must
bring forth from "Those who never fail" all necessary assistance. The
door seems open for those who would, but cannot see a way. Any
considerable number, living, thinking, acting, upon this basis, must
form a spiritual focus, from which all things are possible.
Local Lodges could be formed using the name and promulgating the basis
of union, recognizing Theosophists as such, regardless of organization;
open meetings; public work, keeping Theosophy and Brotherhood prominent;
intercommunication between Lodges, free and frequent; comparing methods
of work of local Lodges; mutual assistance; furtherance of the Great
Movement in all directions possible; the motto: "Be Theosophists; work
THE WAY TO UNITE IS TO UNITE-NOTHING PREVENTS IF THAT IS THE
[ The following explanatory statement drawn up by Robert Crosbie for the
information of all theosophists, was made public concurrently with the
foundation of "The United Lodge of Theosophists" and the adoption of its
DECLARATION by himself and the seven original Associates, on
February 18, 1909.]
The United Lodge of Theosophists is an integral part of the Theosophical
Movement begun in New York in 1875. It is-as the name implies-an
Association of Theosophists irrespective of organization, who are bound
together by the tie of common aim, purpose and teaching, in the cause of
Theosophy, being the origin, basis and genius of every Theosophical
organization, forms in itself a common ground of interest and effort,
above and beyond all differences of opinion as to persons or methods;
and being the philosophy of Unity, it calls for the essential union of
those who profess and promulgate it.
This Union does not mean a sameness of organization or method, but a
friendly recognition, mutual assistance and encouragement among all
engaged in the furtherance of Theosophy.
The Teacher, H. P. Blavatsky, declared that "Want of Union is the first
condition of failure," and in her last message to the American
Convention in 1891, said: "Never has it been more necessary for the
members of the Theosophical Society to lay to heart the parable of the
bundle of sticks, than it is at the present time; divided, they will
inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth
able to destroy our Brotherhood. .
I have marked with pain . . . a tendency among you to allow your very
devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion. . . . No
opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of
mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting
difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means
the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows
thinned and thrown into disarray."
There are a number of Theosophical organizations in existence today, all
of them drawing their inspiration from Theosophy, existing only because
of Theosophy, yet remaining disunited. The nature of each organization
is such, that unity cannot be had on the basis of any one of them; hence
a common basis should be taken if the success originally purposed is to
The need of such a basis with a broader view of the Movement, is the
cause for the present Association-the United Lodge of
Theosophists-composed of Theosophists of different organizations, as
well as those belonging to none. This Lodge, having no constitution,
by-laws, officers or leader, affords in its Declaration a common basis
of Unity for all who see the great need of it, and seeks their
Holding to its motto: 'There is no Religion higher than Truth," it seeks
for the truth in all things, and beginning with the history of the
Theosophical Movement, sets forth herein some facts with their
inevitable deductions, for general information and consideration.
There is no question anywhere as to who brought the message of Theosophy
to the Western World, nor is there any reason to believe that the
Messenger, H. P. Blavatsky, failed to deliver all that was to be given
out until the year 1975-- the time stated by her for the advent of the
While she lived there was one Society. After her departure, dissensions
arose, resulting in several separate organizations. The basic cause of
these divisions is to be found in differences of opinion as to
"successorship," even where other causes were in evidence. No such
question should ever have arisen, for it is abundantly clear that H. P.
Blavatsky could no more pass on to another her knowledge and
attainments, than could Shakespeare, Milton or Beethoven pass on theirs.
Those who were attracted by the philosophy she presented, or who were
taught by her, were followers or students, of more or less proficiency
in the understanding and assimilation of Theosophy.
Once the idea of "successorship" is removed from consideration, a better
perspective is obtainable of the Movement, the philosophy, and the
principal persons-past and present-engaged in its promulgation.
We have the declarations of her Masters that she was the sole instrument
possible for the work to be done, that They sent her to do it, and that
They approved in general all that she did. That work not only includes
the philosophy she gave, but her work with the relation to others in the
Movement; and where a relation is particularly defined-as in the case of
William Q. Judge-wisdom dictates that full consideration be given to
what she says.
H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge were co-Founders of the
Theosophical Society in 1875 They were colleagues from the first and
ever remained such. When H. P. Blavatsky left America-never to
return-she left behind her William Q. Judge to establish and carry on
the work of the Theosophical Movement in America. How well that work was
done is a matter of history.
H. P. Blavatsky departed from the body in 1891; William Q. Judge some
five years later. He never claimed to be her successor; on the contrary,
when asked the question, he said: She is sui generis-she can have no
successor;" the fact being that both he and she were contemporaneous in
the work, he retaining his body for some five years longer in order to
complete the work he had to do.
The work of these two cannot be separated if the Movement is to be
understood. The evidence of the greatness and fitness of William Q.
Judge, as a Teacher, is to be found in his writings-a large and valuable
part of which has become obscured through the organizational dissensions
before spoken of. These writings should be sought for, and studied, in
connection with those of H. P. Blavatsky. That study will lead to the
conviction that both were great Teachers-each with a particular
mission-that each was sui generis, that their work was complementary,
and that neither of them had, nor could have, any successor.
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:25 AM
Subject: [bn-study] RE: FW: RE: Tony & Dallas on "Impersonality and
<<<Let me try to make a few things clear.
. . .
2 It [ULT] has no leaders or spokespersons. It endorses
but the "Original Teachings of Theosophy" -- books and articles written
H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge. Their worth is inherent and innate in
The ULT endorses no. 2? It is very questionable that the "Original
Teachings of Theosophy" consist only of books and articles written by H.
Blavatsky and Wm Q Judge.
What about Subba Row, for example? Damodar? The Mahatma Letters?
Esoteric Buddhism, in which teachings of that nature
are given out for the first time.
Where is the evidence in the Theosophical teachings to support what the
ULT endorses in number 2, that the original teachings of Theosophy are
books and articles written by H.P.
Blavatsky and Wm Q Judge. Subba Rows' Notes on the Bhagavad Gita. I
certainly couldn't consider them as being less than anything Wm Q Judge
wrote, and it is likely that I have spent more time studying the
Subba Row than those of Wm Q Judge.
Dallas, why commit yourself to a statement like that in no. 2?
[DTB] What I wrote I did on my own responsibility. UNITED LODGE OF
THEOSOPHISTS makes no rules of any kind.
Just because the ULT endorses it, it doesn't mean it is right, and
hopefully it is not a condition of belonging to the ULT.
DTB Certainly not. Not a part of the DECLARATION. No hidden rules
The Theosophical Movement is something that I understand to have been in
time of Plato, not something that started in 1875. When did it start?
Didn't Theosophy come with the dawning of time? So when did the
DTB In India it is called the eternal doctrine
That footnote on page 2 of the PROEM: "Plato proves himself an Initiate,
when saying in Cratylus that [[theos]] is derived from the verb
"to move," "to run," as the first astronomers who observed the motions
the heavenly bodies called the planets [[theoi]], the gods. ..." For
ULT to endorse original Theosophy is one thing, but then to define
Theosophy as books and articles written by H P B and Wm Q Judge is quite
[DTB] It defined what it was going to do in regard to the modern
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT and its part and work.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application