Re: Trust Problem
Dec 13, 1996 07:50 AM
by John R Crocker
On 13 199512 Richtay@aol.com wrote:
>
> If there is ANY need for "control" from the top of the T.S. then we have a
> problem. The way to lead IMHO is not by force or legal proceedings but by
> excellent and persuasive example and moral worth.
Yes.
> So if Wheaton or Adyar want others to conform to their wishes if they feel
> a need to lead and direct the Theosophical Movement then let them lead by
> example by argument by persuasion and by demonstration that such-and-such
> works.
Yes!
> But let there be no high-handedness manipulation slander or force. This
> is not only unbrotherly but hinders individuals from growing into their own
> Buddhic consciousness which is the personal ability to discriminate wrong
> and right and to approach one's own personal ULTIMATE AUTHORITY -- the Self.
YES!
> How can another dictate to us how that can be accomplished? Suggestion only
> never force.
*YES*!
> Rich
Upon much we have great differences Rich but you frame the heart of the
orginizational matter here IMO. TSA HQ I think would have no need to
resort to political and bureaucatic methods of control if the moral force
it generated established an appropriate tone throughout the Society. It
faces now a crisis of legitimacy brought about by its own behaviour ...
behaviour often selfish rather than altruistic concerned with protecting
turf rather than the growth of Theosophy overly secretive about not
occult secrets but about its *finances* ... doing a *major* revision of
its Bylaws and keeping it hidden until almost the last moment -
but all this really is secondary to a more primary level: If HQ
Board Members and Officers saw themselves as *facilitators of a large
family of spiritual equals - whose respect had to be earned who it is an
honor to serve and whose voices were to be *genuinely* listened to*
much of the ridiculous politicing would be renedered unnecessary. Instead
the attitude towards the membership seems to be that of people who
believe they stand above the members they serve who actually operate as
though the membership *cannot be trusted* with information with money
or even to freely *vote* do not all the restrictions being placed on who
can run for board & officer positions implicitly state that the
membership can't be trusted not to elect completely unsuitable people?.
William Blake I think somewhere described the spiritual world as
"a democracy of kings" - and this I believe is the attitude with which
to serve as a board member or officer of a spiritual organization: as
though every member were *royalty* ... fully capable of governing their
personal kingdoms but still willing to listen to those who would
facilitate the communications between themselves and others - but *not*
willing to listen to those who approach them with the attitude that they
are *serfs* being "permitted" a certain degree of freedom so long as they
operate within parameters imposed from above but who are also expected
to simply accept that they need rules and regulations to keep them from
making bad choices and hurting themselves and their organization.
IMO the *last* Theosophist who possessed the spiritual and moral
force to get away with behaving as HQ is now behaving was HPB - and she
never behaved that way.
-JRC
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
