Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00196)

Sept 23 2003

Dear Peter:

Thanks for your observations and questions.

It is quite true that I used some characterizations of my own devising,
and my "feelings" show.  

I have a deep respect for the work of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
and keeping the original teachings alive.  

Impersonality (hence anonymity) is a keystone value (as I see it) in
students doing work for THEOSOPHY and the future its existence and
presence may influence. You are right this factor is not mentioned, but
in practice it was found valuable to apply it: LET THEOSOPHY STAND ON
ITS OWN FOR EVALUATION.

The idea is to avoid any influencing of a reader or inquirer. And, to
give them entire freedom to decide on the intrinsic value of what they
read and think about, it translates to: "never influence them with a
"name" other than those of the original Teachers."

On the public access of the Internet, with a great deal of thought and
also effort to overcome my own reluctance, I decided to attach my name
to what I said, thus making myself solely responsible for what was
offered. 

The "cross-posting" arises because in my esteem, some of the matters
discussed have relevance far and wide. They illustrate the wide scope of
actual laws and forces at work. I try to protect interlocutors by
erasing those parts of their addresses as would lead to others
confronting them other than through a group posting. 

Over that past few months there have been inquiries into the UNITED
LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS, its work and who does it -- unimportant, to me,
so long as THEOSOPHY is put forward. And further, as I see it, its
"safety" lies in "no names, no personalities." 

I take it for myself that THEOSOPHY, its verification and use are
collectively, our true objective. Then our study of the "original
literature " is our primary work if not all-consuming.

And I hope this explains my writing and statements.

Best wishes as always,

Dal

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



-----Original Message-----
From: peter.m 
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:06 AM
To: 
Subject: [bn-study] On the way "anonymity" and "impersonality" is being
discussed

Dear Dallas and Ramprakash,

Thanks for your replies, to me and others. So there is no
misunderstanding,
or hopefully less misunderstanding, let me first say, my experience of
ULT
has been largely good. I very much admire the work it has done over the
years in keeping the writings of HPB, in the original form, available to
the
world at large. It has been a great achievement and undoubtedly has
played
a major part in the current revival of HPB’s works which one observes on
many bookshop shelves. In fact, as a result of the good experiences I
have
had with ULT associates, and feeling in sympathy with their objectives
as
set out in the Declaration, I became an associate a few years ago. I
shall
put the Declaration below, so that others might see what agreeing to it
entails. Beyond that, I do not belong to any Theosophical organisation.

I am surprised to read some of the comments you have both made regarding
the
intentions of people who have asked straight forward questions about the
issue of ‘anonymity’, ‘personality’ and ‘impersonality’ as put forward,
apparently, by ULT.

Dallas, you have characterised those questions as:

>> “The ‘hunt’ is on again, for the anonymous theosophists of U L T.<<

Ramprakash, you have suggested that those who question the ULT view (or
is
it yours’ and Dallas’ views?) on impersonality and anonymity are but
"critics and fault-finders", "doubting Thomases" who wish you to
"pander" to
them. You also seek to raise the fear that just by asking these
questions
it creates the danger of "striking at the very basis of the
[Theosophical]
Movement and end up destroying Theosophy of HPB and her Masters."  
You further suggest that those of us (whom you also call friends,
interestingly) who have asked questions on this issues “are so highly
critical of this policy of the ULT [they] want its Declaration of
principles
of Association dismantled, and have it merged into mainstream TS”.

I'm not sure I understand what is the basis for such remarks?

Importantly you wrote:  

>> in all these exchanges--pro- and anti-ULT--that the disputes and
arguments are centred round MEANS AND METHODS and not Theosophy per se…?
<<<<

This may be so, I grant you, with regards the "per se", but your
statement
appears to me to be but another way of blocking thoughtful inquiry.

How did this topic of ULT and Anonymity come to be on this list
(bn-study)
in the first place? As I recall, the topic did not originate on this
list
at all, it came as one of Dallas's many cross postings from another
list.  

So, it seems a rather strange situation to me. One I feel very
uncomfortable with. The people who are being criticised for discussing
ULT
and anonymity did not even begin the dialogue on this list, it was
Dallas.
And to compound the issue, on the one hand you both chastise us for
even
bothering to want to ask questions and challenging what you write, and
on
the other hand Dallas, my good friend, you *continue* to cross post
messages
on ULT and Anonymity to this list.

Who are the people who have asked questions on this list about ULT and
its
view on anonymity? It was Reed, Larry, myself and Daniel. I think
perhaps
Bill made a brief comment to the effect that Crosbie was happy to put
his
name to his book. Rodolfo has offered his own valuable experience of
ULT.

I felt that Reed, himself a ULT member, asked a really good question
about
anonymity and personality, in the light of the understanding of many ULT
associates. It was a question that invited us to think about practical
theosophy and the seven principles. I don't believe we really fully
explored what he was raising.

It has been repeatedly said that the whole issue of anonymity is
enshrined
in the ULT Article of Declaration and thus it is beyond questioning.
Interestingly, there is no reference to anonymity in the Article (see
below).

Regards,

Peter


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