Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00033)

=>ULT's "principle of impersonality" -
is it based on anything suggested in the
original writings? ULT will not even respond
to letters. Was Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge
....... or even K.H. or Morya "impersonal"
in such a way? No they decidedly were not.
They Personally anwered correspondence and
in a human and personal way. They didn't
sign themselves "The Theosophical Society".....
They signed their correspondence "H.P.B.",
"Olcott," "Judge," "K.H." or "M."


Well said. The rhetoric of the ULT as I have seen over the years by its most 
prominent online writers is jesuitical.
They use the technical terms in a lower, personal sense.
Not answering serious questions is very personal, not impersonal.
It is impersonal to answer, even when I don't like the question or the 
questioner and when there is the possibility to enlighten a situation.
To darken a situation, to cover up as a general rule is evil.

Some "theosophists" here assured me that it is a good expression of reaching 
an alleged "impersonal level" when members of the same lodge to not greet 
each other on the street!
The evil Frank was watched on the street, talking to a fellow-theosophist, 
so there can be no doubt that Frank is a dugpa, who tries to destroy the 
work of HPB!
Frank, the most wanted theosophist