Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00325)

JHE:

>I believe that members of the TS indeed have a responsibility to
>speak up when they see an injustice and to make an honest effort
>to discern the issues and to vote.

In reading over the discussion over Wheaton and theosophical
politics I've been wondering what we should do about things.

>From what I've read on theos-l I'm led to wonder if the TSA itself
is in the same danger as any lodge. If it changes its bylaws could
it be as subject to being shut down by Radha?

If we want more independence the place to start would be in
Wheaton itself. If it could protect itself legally from Adyar
assert its autonomy and grant the same right to its branches
then things would be safer for the future. If there is too
much centralized control there's always the danger that someone
will eventually come along get into power and mess things up.
This is regardless of the trust we may have in the current
leadership.

But what happened the last time the American Section asserted
autonomy in the TS? Olcott expelled it. Judge was the head at
the time and ended up the international president of YATS Yet
Another T.S. <frown>

What is the purpose of centralized control? I'd assume to maintain
some form of ideological purity. This is because of the open nature
of the groups where no particular belief is required of members
nor program of study imposed upon groups. Groups like Tibetan
Buddhist sects preserve their philosophy from generation to generation
by formalizing it into a dogma and by having a class of experts
learn it and pass it on.

There seems to be a mixed message in theosophical groups. On
the one hand we're told we can beleve in anything that we want.
But on the other hand if we say something too different we're
likely to get shunned or in some cases shown the door.

I'd tend to see any conflict as being over two possible roles for
theosophical groups. In one role we have a well-defined body of
theosophical doctrines. The purpose of the group is to promulgate
these teachings although it is done in an open manner with no
required beliefs. Members are considered students of the philosophy.

In the other role we have no well-define body of doctrines but
rather have a "seekers' club" where everyone gets together to
assist each other with their personal quests. The organization does
not exist to promote any specific doctrines. Everyone is free to
read study and share whatever they find of interest. The
theosophical literature has no special status either at the
platform or at the printing presses.

Both types of organizations serve useful purposes. They could
readily exist side-by-side. I'm not sure though how well a single
T.S. can accomplish both at the same time. Perhaps our various
theosophical groups can specialize in different directions each
filling some important need.

For any problems that we may have with Wheaton I'd suggest
an approach that focuses on providing positive feedback. We
can provide useful ideas along with our reasons for them. This
may be saying the same thing that we might otherwise have said
in harsher words. A confrontational approach gets people to
raise barriers become defensive and stop listening. A different
manner of communication with tact can be more powerful in
getting a message across.

Apart from any discussion of specific things we've seen and
not liked could we discuss and come up with a list of
positive suggestions for changes in Wheaton's policies and
how the T.S. might better be run in the future?

-- Eldon