Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00022)

Alexis writes:

>It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one
>person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any
>negative references to a person who is a vital ingredient in why
>the T.S. is where it is today. Now, in my own discussions
>regarding theosophical history, I really need to refer
>occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you
>suggest that we do? I avoided mentioning him for the longest
>time, to avoid irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was
>stupid on my part to do so. How can we talk at all if certain
>topics are verboten?
>
>
>Please comment:
>cordially
>alexis

JHE
      Hi Alexis.  It seems that Liesel is not the only one who
objects to anything being said about CWL that might be taken in a
negative light.  In the past, two or three theos-l members
protested when I and others have discussed forbidden subjects.
There were still others who did not like us having these
discussions, and in some cases informed me privately of this.
Then there were others, who just quietly disapproved. In my
opinion however, I much prefer Liesel's expression of hostility
(though it be passive aggressive) over the political black-
balling games played by the powerful few in Adyar and Wheaton.
But it is not theosophical ideals that get in the way, but their
institutional application.  The ideals of the TS concerning the
freedom of members are:

1. The freedom of opinion.  Members are allowed to express
whatever opinion they wish, as long as they do not limit the
rights of other members to also express their opinions.

2. Members cannot have their rights and privileges as a member
abridged for simply expressing minority opinions.

3. Members are not bound to accept the teachings or opinions of
any theosophical leaders, from HPB downwards.

      On the other hand, how these ideals have been actually
carried out has IMO created a pathological double standard within
the TS.  I think the classical example in theosophical history
was in 1914 when many TS members protested against Annie Besant
for building Liberal Catholic churches on theosophical property,
publishing the ~Herald of the Star~, and promoting Krishnamurti
as the returned Christ, and for promoting co-masonry in the TS.
Besant answered in her own defense that her actions and decisions
were within her rights as a member of the TS, because she was
exercising her freedom of expression of her religion.  She
believed that K. was the returned Christ, and she was doing
everything in her power to promote this.  She did not require any
TS members who did not agree with her to support her efforts.
      A few years later, the Sydney Lodge decided to exercise
their freedom of opinion, and would not permit CWL to lecture at
their Lodge.  Based upon the Australian police investigation of
Leadbeater, the members came to believe that CWL was an immoral
man, and did not wish to be associated with him.  Keep in mind
that CWL was not a member of the Sydney Lodge, and there were
other local lodges that did allow him to speak.  Also, CWL was
acting as an international lecturer at the time.  But Besant did
not see the issue of lodges deciding upon which international
lecturers they wished or did not wish to host as a legitimate
exercise of opinion, but rather as an act of unbrotherliness.
Therefore she canceled the charter for the entire 800 member
Sydney Lodge.  The above kind of thinking is still in effect
today.  Therefore, the three ideals stated above are implemented
in the following form:
      All members are free to express whatever opinion they wish,
as long as those opinions are in harmony with the opinions and
policies of the leadership of the TS.  When an opinion is not in
harmony with the opinions and policies of the leadership of the
TS, then the expression of those opinions is an act of
unbrotherliness.  Therefore, members expressing such undesirable
opinions are subject to censorship and/or expulsion.
      Therefore Alexis, as a member of the TS, you are mistaken to
think that you have the right to say anything negative about CWL.
You also do not have the right to critically discuss theosophical
history.  These are not among your freedoms.  If you persist,
Liesel and others have the right to go after you and to punish
you in any way that they can.  You are only free to make
statements in support of the status quo (which Liesel represents
in this case).  Criticism of, or acting outside the interests of
the status quo is an act of unbrotherliness, and an abuse of
those freedoms granted to you by the TS.
      If you persist in this abuse, you will be marginalized--as I
was twelve years ago.  However, after I was marginalized, I
discovered that there is only so much that they can do to you.
In my case, Olcott stopped publishing our Lodge activities in the
AT, and withdrew all support from our Lodge.  For several years,
I was not mailed a copy of the AT.  They also stopped asking me
to participate in any activities at a national level.  I remember
just before I became persona non grata, they had asked us to go
on tour holding classes for their outreach program.  We accepted
the invitation.  Then a few months later, we received a letter
expressing their regret that we had declined to participate.  As
for voting, this is also the second election in a row where I
have not received a ballot.  I have found out that other than
spreading false information about undesirable members, the above
is about all they can do to any member.  In post modern
terminology, it is called "marginalization."  In my case, it no
longer matters what they do to me.  We continue to hold our
theosophical activities.  Members of all of the theosophical
organizations as well as independents continue to come to them.
Of course there are a few members who have told us that they
cannot come to these activities or publicly associate with us for
fear that "Olcott will close the doors on them," but that is
their issue.  Personally, I feel sorry for these people, because
as I see it, they have been "bought."  And the price they pay for
being "in favor" with Olcott is their personal freedom of
expression.
      In the end, Olcott's marginalization of April and I has
worked out very well for both Olcott and for us.  We don't
interfere with the power elite, and they don't interfere with us.
We are free to continue promulgating theosophy and work for the
TM without having to follow Olcott's rules, and without having to
be embarrassed by their history and reputation.  Yet, we remain
as members.  Therefore we still have a vote (when they send us a
ballot).  Though we cannot use their resources, we discovered
that we don't need them anyway, and have developed considerable
resources of our own.  In the long run, I believe that our
marginalization has turned out to be more of a loss for them than
for us.
      So, Alexis, if you don't fear the consequences of having
complete freedom to speak according to your own conscience, then
jump in--the water is fine.

JHE
The disinherited

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------