Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00091)

Ann wrote:

> Maybe if the LCC had not existed, I would not exist either. Perhaps I
would
> have turned to drugs, alcohol or who knows what. IMHO, every group that
works
> with a sincere heart, can do good in the world. Even if they do not happen
to
> agree with your personal opinions or philosophy.

Well, (excuse my language) a DAMN good point. I needed to hear that. At the
same time, while acknowledging a group have served some people well, we can
acknowledge that it has served others poorly, and perhaps has some serious
issues and problems to work out.

Ann:

> What is your ideal
> theosophical organization? What ideas would it be founded on? How would
it be
> structured? Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? What would
> membership be based on? Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being
studied?
> What works would it emphasize? What do think should happen to the ES? What
> would you do to make HPB easier to understand? How would you make
theosophy
> more acceptable to the intelligentsia and those with "real power"?
>
> Also, in what ways do you think theosophy would be different if Judge would
have
> succeeded HPB? And finally, what would you do if another group of
theosophists,
> who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization?
Whoooopps! A WHOLE lot of questions. I will answer -- tentatively -- to
those I have an opinion on.

My ideal Theosophical organization is one that has as little organization as
possible, at least in terms of "power" relationships. The more team-work,
the better, but "top-down" stuff is difficult for me. (Maybe it works for
others, I'm just stating MY ideal.) Even U.L.T. could do with less
"organization" IMHO.

This un-organized organization would be founded on the principles of
Theosophy laid down by the Masters, study the original teachings first,
secondary works second, and leave people perfectly free to read WHATEVER THEY
WANT TO while emphasizing the "source material" for group meetings. (Unless a
number of folks wanted to organize their own separate groups for study of
non-source material.)

Membership would be voluntary, very cheap or free, without election or vote.
 I see no need for a headquarters, let every lodge be its own headquarters.
 Some lodges may have more resources of people and money, but that shouldn't
give them more power.

HPB is not hard to understand if you read her with a group that has some
background and promotes a spirit of free enquiry and supports a diversity of
opinion (not silent censorship).

What makes Theosophy appeal to the masses as well as the intelligentsia is
being able to demonstrate, IN PRACTICE, high ideals, a coherent philosophy,
and EVIDENCE and REASONS for why certain things are taught.

We have a good idea of what the T.S. would be like if Mr. Judge succeeded
HPB, because he DID succeed HPB for the Point Loma group. And with VERY few
complaints it seems they do an absolutely MARVELLOUS job of keeping the
source material available, in print and in circulation, while allowing people
to think for themselves.

There are tons of rival Theosophical groups, there is nothing to be done
about it except go on with the Work as one sees it and try to work as
brothers with everyone. This doesn't have to mean saying in public "I like
and agree with everything." YOu can have disagreements and work together as
a team. Every organization will have diverse opinions within itself,
relationships with other groups are no different.

I don't belong to the Adyar or Pasadena T.S. organizations (yet) but I have a
lot of "team-mates" in each and I treasure our team-work. In no other way, I
suspect, will Theosophy (as we have it) survive the 21st century. The
Masters would have to "mop up" and start again, building upon whatever
remains could be made to serve.

Rich