Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00486)

JRC:

In the discussion regarding the rights of lodges versus the
power of Wheaton to conserve the T.S. assets I'm reminded of
a personal experience.

The situation was with the San Diego T.S. Regular Secret
Doctrine classes were held at a member's home for a number
of years. The lodge formed in the 1890's had accumulated
quite a number of rare books. Its library was kept at that
member's home.

I moved to Maryland and left the lodge. Two years later I
moved back and rejoined the lodge. I found out that the
member had quit the lodge and meetings were no longer held
at her house. A year before she had been contacted and asked
by someone to turn over the library to them. The lodge president
told her to hold on to the books and not release them. There
were a number of confused phone calls and the former member
somehow got pissed off.

It is now a year later and I've moved back to San Diego.
I'm now a lodge member again and write the ex-member thanking
her for storing the books for us and asking if there was a
convenient time when we could pick them up to store them
elsewhere. She never responded although she told a friend
that she might release the books if she were paid some money
for having stored them. She basically would not release the
books unless she was paid something insisting on retroactive
storage fees.

At different times that year I discussed the situation
with various T.S. officials but no one wanted to do anything
about it. The lodge eventually folded and I assume the
library was converted to the personal use of the ex-member
because it was never returned to the T.S.

This is a situation where long-term T.S. assets were lost
due to Wheaton not becoming involved enough in what was
happening.

>Actually I believe that from a larger view the proper
>paradigm may not be fixing a system before it is permanently
>broken but rather that of understanding that a required if
>painful and upsetting phase shift has been triggered by this
>dispute ... a phase shift needed for the TSA to live beyond its
>foundational generations and stabilize in a form in which its
>greatest service will be in the future rather than in its past:

The current dispute may widen the outlook of people in the TSA
but I'm not sure how Adyar's views will be changed. If Radha
believes that she's the representative of the Masters and acts
in an authoritative manner based upon that belief she won't
particularly care if members of the American Section want a
stronger voice in the T.S.

The change that has been happening in the T.S. and outside it
as well is the general attitude of networking. Members of different
theosophical groups are becoming increasingly open to finding
Theosophy in other groups and outside their T.S. and not looking
to national or international HQ for guidance.

>We began with *Masters* choosing the leaders who lead by
>something akin to Divine Right. ... with something like apostolic
>succession - and the leaderships ... have long operated almost as
>though they were running an *occult hierarchy*

There are different models for theosophical groups. Each model
appeals to different people. On one end of the spectrum you have
the Pasadena T.S. It has a succession from HPB to Judge Tingley
Purucker Conger Long and Knoche each considered the current
representative of the Masters and the current autocratic ruler of
the T.S. This type of sucession could be compared to a Tibetan
monastery where a succession of Lamas were considered the tulku
of a certain deity. The person is both an appointed representative
of higher powers and somehow overshadowed.

Another type of model is found in ULT. There we have autonomous
groups that exist for the study of Theosophy with a strong effort
to deemphasize the personal element and avoid organizational politics.
The ideal is fine but when the politics and rulership of the group
goes underground it can be more difficult to deal with.

A third type of mode is found in the T.S. Adyar. In this T.S. we
have the appearance of a democratic organization with elected
officials running the society. But again politics comes into play
and we've seen from the previous discussions on 'theos-l' all the
things that can happen.

>We are now perhaps for the first time having to face the fundamental
>contradiction between the Master-Chela and Democratic models of
>organization and IMO the leaderships both at Wheaton and Adyar will
>need to do some very deep-level re-examinations of attitudes ...
>because they are no longer considered "Masters" and the memberships
>are increasingly refusing to be their "Chelas".

The different forms of organization exist to serve different
purposes. The democratic form is not somehow higher or better
than any other. In Tibetan Buddhism there is a strong emphasis
on the importance of a Guru. With a bona fide spiritual teacher
one can study and learn and grow. It is possible that some forms
of theosophical groups in the west will evolve in the direction
of spiritual organizations.

When you mention that the membership of the T.S. Adyar is
increasingly refusing to be chelas of the organizational leadership
you're not making a case for gurus being unnecessary. What you're
saying and most would agree with is that the T.S. Adyar leadership
consists of fellow seekers on a par with us and not *bona fide*
gurus. We would not accord guru status to someone unless they were
in our eyes genuinely qualified.

The useful purpose that the Adyar T.S. may be evolving towards
serving is in being a western seekers' club. People will come to
it to share their personal ideas and experiences. It may become
a self-help society where everyone is on their own to tred the
Path. And that is fine. There are other theosophical Buddhist
and perhaps unnamed groups that exist to offer specific spiritual
training when people are ready and give the right knock.

In the Adyar T.S. there may be offered some comparative religion
and comparative philosophy. This may include as one example
religion or philosophy the theosophical tenants. Theosophy proper
may not have a strong position but may end up only being offered
as one item on the menu. The definition of Theosophy may remain
fuzzy with multiple variates of it being taught and a mass of
opinion added. The actual philosophy though will still be taught
elsewhere in its original form. And the philosophy can't ever be
lost since it is based upon but one of an on-going series of
projects of the Masters to change the thought life of the world.

>Its likely that the leaderships will no longer be able to *demand*
>anything from memberships that they'd better get rid of the
>attitude that voting is just a formality that they can decide
>what's "best" for the membership without even consulting the
>membership without bothering to even give them full information
>and just expect the membership to say "ok! as long as you think
>that's best!".

Each organization has its own agenda and is structured accordingly.
With the Pasadena T.S. if I understand it correctly the head of
the T.S. appoints the Cabinet and has near total control over the
society in a much more complete fashion than Radha could ever have
with the Adyar T.S.

Someone will join an organization because they want to participate
in what it is doing. If it is a democratic organization they have
certain expectations including that elected officers do not issue
orders and demand things of the members. If it is organized along
autocratic or theocratic lines the expectations are different and
one may follow the guidance of officials because of their spiritual
status.

Regardless of type of organization the officials need to keep
in close touch with the membership to continue to get feedback
in order to adjust what they do and do their work more effectively.

>IMO Theosophy will be *much* better off in the long run if
>we can accomplish this difficult shift so long as we have the
>courage to see it through.

The Adyar T.S. cannot both be a spiritual school with gurus in
leadership and a democratic organization of fellow seekers. Its
natural evolution is in the direction of the latter a democratic
seekers' club and the move in that direction should be supported.
If both approaches are insisted upon by different portions of
the membership a split is inevitable.

I would not though generalize this. The trend does not hold
true for all theosophical and spiritual organizations just for
the Adyar T.S. The trend does not show an evolutionary step forward;
it shows a form of specialization by the Adyar T.S. so that it can
become effective in doing *one type of spiritual work*.

I'd agree with you that new introductory materials need to be
written. But I'm not sure if what I might write would look anything
like what you're planning to write! I think that the best people
to write the generic introductory materials would be someone from
a ULT background if they leave out the Crosbie teachings regarding
such things as "impersonality". The introductions that you or I
might right would be to our favorite *variates* of Theosophy with
Besant/Leadbeater or Purucker/PointLoma slants.

The purpose of any introductary materials is the same as the
"Introduction" chapter holds to the book that it is in. It exists
to provide background materials necessary in order that the reader
can understand the chapters that follow. It paints the big picture
and prepares the reader for the more difficult ideas that follow.

-- Eldon