Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00074)

Hi all,

To work impersonally probably means something very different from 
what Dallas thinks it does. HPB was impersonal in the sense that she 
didn't just publish her own thoughts and ideas and knowledge, but 
also that of people who opposed her. She was impersonal in the sense 
that she did not take the opportunity to make a decent pay (writing 
for a Russian magazine), because she had work to do for the TS. But 
she was obviously not impersonal in the sense of being anonymous. In 
fact, when one looks up the word anonymous in the Collected Writings 
CD-rom one comes across many references where she complains that 
people write to slander her, without telling her who they are. This 
kind of reminds me of the slander in some ULT publications, where 
also a name is missing. The clearest quote I could find on HPB's 
policy on anonymous letters is the following:

>> We have received several communications for publication, bearing 
on the subjects discussed in the editorial of our last issue, "Let 
every man prove his own work." A few brief remarks may be made, not 
in reply to any of the letters—which, being anonymous, and containing 
no card from the writers, cannot be published (nor are such noticed, 
as a general rule)>>
CW vol. 8, p. 295

HPB was courageous enough to stand for what she believed in and sign 
her name to it, clearly realizing how dishonest it looks to not sign 
a name. When there isn't a name, nobody can be held acountable. This 
is understandable in situations where religious freedom itself still 
needs to be fought for, (as unfortunately in some places there still 
isn't religious freedom), but in the US, where the ULT is largest, 
this isn't exactly necessary. So what is left is the impression that 
the ULT makes of cowardice its policy. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> Tony,
> 
> You bring up a good point below. 
> 
> "Impersonality" and "anonymity" may be the policy 
> and method of the U.L.T. but it was NOT the policy 
> of the original Theosophical Society.
> 
> Madame Blavatsky apparently failed to understand
> what Dallas writes about because she added her
> own name to her major works as well as to most
> of her articles. !! :) Why didn't she issue
> her works anonymously?
> 
> Again, impersonality and anonymity may be the policy
> of "Theosophy" magazine (the major ULT organ) but
> it was not HPB's policy in editing her two magazines
> THE THEOSOPHIST and LUCIFER. She also invited and published
> contrary and diverse views in her magazines which apparently
> the ULT publication avoids.
> 
> Too bad HPB didn't live long enough to know about
> the ULT policy and practice.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <alpha@d...> wrote:
> > Dear Dallas
> > 
> > You write:
> > 
> > <<<A wise one observed: " .if some human beings know the 
> existence of the
> > most important message to the world in untold centuries, and 
bring 
> the
> > fact and the message to their attention, leaving it to be 
accepted 
> or
> > rejected without drawing any attention to themselves, [then] an 
act 
> of
> > self-effacement has been performed in order that the Message may 
be
> > judged on its own merits.the "anonymity" adopted was for the very
> > benefit of .all who desire to obtain that message at first hand 
> with no
> > intermediate distractions.we desire most of all to place the 
> Message of
> > Masters in the hands of those who wish to learn and know, without
> > attracting attention to ourselves or seeking any distracting 
> notoriety.
> > 
> > The policy and methods of U. L. T. were instituted to avoid
> > personalities altogether . . .>>>