Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00298)

To what extent are theosophical organizations and democracy compatible?
To what extent is theosophy compatible with organization and
institutionalization? I ask these questions as I am tangentially aware of the
concerns over the proposed change in by-laws as well as other larger issues.
Theosophy proposes an ultimate unity of material mentality and spirit.
Yet it also proposes a hierarchical gradation of spirit higheset to mental in
the middle and matter at the lowest. ALthough matter is ultimately spirit
and spirit is ultimatley matter there is in the process of evolution a seeming
arrow of time that points toward greater and greater organization and thus
greater and greater value for entities that can value.
Theosphy is based on semi-secret and secret teachings that have appeared
everywhere and all times throughout man's history. Many see Blavatsky as the
greatest recent teacher and have contineued the organization that she built.
She did not conceive of it as a church or else she would have made
herself head and set down a canon of ultimate authority. She seemed to choose
the then current parlimentary style of organization that seemed democratic and
advanced for that time.
Times change people change philosphies change worldviews change but
hopefully some nearly ulitmate truth remains unchanged which we could put under
the general title of "ancient wisdom" or theosophy. Theosophy will always
remain but the teachers and teaching institutions must change and evolve as
does everything else.
Of pressing concern is the current "triumph" of democratic and free
marketplace ideas vs. top down structured organizations such as Communism the
Catholic Church Islam Masonry? and such. America has never really been a
true democracy but a Republic with checks and balances of the various competing
factions.
Can the mob really be trusted or do we need the guiding wisdom of an
inner circle of trusted leaders in the know? Theosophy has no real membership
requirements and the membership is transient uncontrolled and individual
members may have no real contact with the teachings of Blavatsky at all.
Shouldn't those older and wiser and with more time than most your trully
for sure be entrusted with making certain the the current wealth of archived
materials remain intact and available for years and centuries even. An
individual's life is short and their membership shorter.
Do the Master's oversee the well being of the societies and inspire the
leadership to do the right thing with the burden of leadership? Isn't their a
hierarchy at work in everything in the world?
To this last question Ken Wilber would reply a definite YES!.
Everything has its place as a monad or holon as he calls it. Yet these holons
fit on a specific level within the hierarchy. The higher cannot exist without
the lower levels but the lower levels do not contain the higher they only
support it and become united with it as a latter new unity-monad-holon.
Thus the holographic paragigm is true in a way but is wishful thinking
if you think that a dewdrop really equals an ocean-in some ways yes but not in
all ways. Many similar dewdrops can make very different oceans.
But back to the original concern is democracy possible or and ideal?
Can the tail wag the dog? The dog can do without the tail but not without his
brain. All things are not always equal.
Yet we instinctively feel that all should have a voice an opportunity to be
heard. This one feels need not be changed. Why should the leadership have
things too easy? Shouldn't they be held accountable?
Shouldn't they trust the membership as much as the membership trusts them. Or do
they care about the amorphous faceless members that appear to them as burdens.
The Kern Foundation has continued to support the society to the extent
that its members contribute also. They often provide matching funds. The KF
seems to support a widening of membership and its contributions. To what extent
are the proposed by-law changes consistent with our overall mission?

Namste
Keith Price