Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00104)

> 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"?
> >
> Rich: 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.

Lewis:
 You raise two interesting points here.
 1) What do we consider our "resources"? 2)How do we define
"power"?
 The need for a "center", I think, is a fundamental law of
nature. Whether that center needs a clearly defined circle around it
depends on its stage of evolution. To use the chick and egg analogy,
the shell protects the embryo until the development reaches a stage
at which the shell no longer protects and instead limits growth.
 On the other hand, in Isabel Cooper Oakley's book on St. Germain,
I read that he refused to organize all the disparate groups he was
working with into a single large entity because it would then come to
the attention of the church and be torn apart. He felt is was better
they worked in small groups until they grew strong enough to
withstand the attacks. Seems somewhat contradictory, I know, but both
concepts seem relevant to the TS.
 We are working in small groups now and the organization(s) are
young in comparison to the organized religions of the world. We are
still in an early developmental stage which would benefit from a
"center" around which to coalesce, and a protective shell inside
which we can grow, working in small groups provides some anonymity
for our own protection.
 Resources (in terms of people and money) are in short supply,
which inhibits the physical growth. But there is lots of mental
"resources" ie. all the literature we have to study which feeds a
rich intellectual life. A necessary precondition for the evolution of
the movement. We are looking for growth on the physical and not
recognizing the mental and emotional preparations that are going on.
As our thoughts become more clear, then our emotional and physical
growth will become more vital. All the various groups need to find
ways to increase the "resources" needed to promote growth.

 llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu