Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00211)

Sept 25 2003

Dear Larry, Daniel and Friends:

I wish to apologize to you for seeming to omit answering you. And in
doing this, I also wish to apologize to others to whom I was unable to
answer directly. It was intentional -- mentally I included an answer to
you in a general providing of information. My excuse ? Incapacity, and
also time scarcity for me - and also, because I still lack energy --
so I have used the medium of some of those "long quotes." If you erased
them unread you may have missed the answers and explanations offered
there by the original writers. 

I must assume you wish to find out what the "Theosophical" answer is,
and I try to provide that using others' words rather than my own. Which
could be misconstrued.

Let me repeat, please. I am alone responsible for what I write. I am
quite probably not the best sample of a "U L T associate." I don't try
to copy others or to conform to any selected standard. Why should I?
But I try to be as clear and as helpful as I can.

If the U L T and its policies are asked about I try to provide what I
myself have learned of those, then to make it as impersonal as possible,
I have quoted at length some times from HPB and WQJ as well as from Mr.
Crosbie in their own words - so that others would be free to go there
and check those out. And of course, as you say, I have also offered my
views on those subjects.

As I see it, and have explained, my practice of "cross-posting" is not a
sin (to me). Why? If one is trying to spread Theosophy, then when good
illustrations and interesting questions arise, (and since the Internet
is open to all) I send copies of answers out to several groups (to
illustrate Theosophical principles or practice - as I see it) and of
course, I do not know if others there, also happen to be members
thereto. Likewise I also receive I also receive multiple answers.

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

I have a deep respect for THEOSOPHY. I find the work of the UNITED
LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS in keeping the original teachings, and worthy of
being kept alive. 

Impersonality has been a basis for the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
work, (hence anonymity, as a part of that, keeping present personalities
"out of it"), I believe that is a keystone value (as I see it) in
students doing work for THEOSOPHY (and keeping themselves in abeyance,
so that the future of THEOSOPHY and its existence and presence may be
uninfluenced by their "names." NO PERSONAL FLOWING TO BE ALLOWED TO
DEVELOP.
[Hence I declare all I do is on my own.] . this factor is not mentioned
in the DECLARATION, 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." Hence I try to do
that, and when I have an opinion I label it as such.

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. In quoting and using
"cross-posting" 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. 

I posted earlier two articles first written by HPB to lead the first
issue of THE THEOSOPHIST (Oct. 1879 - Bombay): WHAT IS THEOSOPHY/ and
WHAT ARE THE THEOSOPHISTS? 

If one keeps in mind what HPB says then the matter ought to be clearing
up.

This what I think is significant abut THEOSOPHY. It serves as a basis
for Nature as she lives, and managers all things concurrently -- we
find her using clear and defined LAWS in her operations (KARMA). It
also gives a survey of historical events in Nature - in the past of our
selves, our World, and our Universe. (Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis).
In doing this latter work some of the theories and hypotheses of modern
scholars are show to be erroneous, and explanations are offered for
those errors. (See ISIS UNVEILED, and SECRET DOCTRINE).

These facts illustrate the wide scope of actual laws and forces at work.
HPB in her many articles offers more details of these.

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. And, the continued and
repetitious presentation of THEOSOPHY and its fundamentals. " 

I take it for myself that THEOSOPHY, its verification and use are
collectively, our individual and 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.

As to the difference between HPB and WQJ's writing for their magazines
and signing their names (and their "pen-names"). That was the format of
the time they wrote in, their magazines, and the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
was constituted (as HPB notes) on a democratic basis with By-laws,
elected Officers, and a voting membership. UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
did away with this paraphernalia and operates as an association where
equal say prevails and the organizational work is done by volunteers.
Its magazines present time and again reprints of "original articles,"
and when up-to-date information is provided it is unsigned. The Editors
take full responsibility and their names are published under local laws.


Hope this clears up as much as can be done.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: larry 
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:55 PM
To: 
Subject: On the way "anonymity" and "impersonality" is being discussed

Dear P--- ,

I don't think we will ever get this leopard (Dallas) to change his
spots. Only Reed can end his cross posting. Dallas will continue as he
will, writing his endless monographs that most of us will continue to
scan or ignore.

What I find of interest is that this seems to be Dallas' private
interpretation of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS Declaration and how
to repond to to. We don't see other ULT associates acting in such a
fashion. Not Wes, not Jerome, not even Ramprakash!

Interesting also is the fact that Dallas has chosen to ignore my
comments altogether as if I am now some apostate ULT'r not worthy of
comment. 

Of further interest is that while Dallas is so defensive of ULT and
anonymity, he himself signs his own moniker to each and every piece he
writes. His collected writings must rival Crosbie's by now. 

At least we got a good discussion concerning personality from all this.

Larry 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]