Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00312)

At 07:48 AM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<<<<
>I refer to your comments about the Esoteric School (E.S.) which you
characterize
>as the "Eminence gris" of the T.S.  Although not an E.S. member myself, not
>having felt the need for it in my own spiritual discipline, I have in general
>had the greatest respect for theosophists who wish to dedicate themselves to
>service to the T.S.  It was my understanding that it is just this that is, or
>should be, the motivating factor for E.S. membership, and not some misguided
>personality driven need to have a connection to the Masters (Illuminati)
through
>such membership.

Sy: I completely empathize with your position. I, for one, am certain that
Helena Blavatsky was probably an "entry level" illuminata and that H.P.B.
was a high level illuminatus and that they were indeed in contact with
others of that class of intelligences. I have been involved in Theosophy
some twenty three years or so (in and out) and I have never seen any even
slight evidence that others connected with H.P.B. Esoteric Section" were so
connected. I am pretty sure William Quan Judge was also so connected and
while I much admire many of the things he wrote I am not so inclined to
believe that Gottfried de Peruker was so connected. As to the "average"
member, I have known and cared deeply for many E.S. members because they
were kind, loving, and sincere people, but I am much afraid that others of
the membership are primarily motivated by ego, and "spiritual ambition"
which can only be described as an oxymoron. If what's going on at both Adyar
and Olcott is a valid indication, the E.S> (as a group) is manipulative and
elitist and dishonest.Dishonest in that they conceal their activities under
a veil of euphemism and secrecy. This disenfranchisement, for example, is
completely antithetic to the entire sense of American Democratic norms. The
question that must be asked, of course, is who does this exclusionary
activity serve?
>
>I am beginning to wonder if you may not be correct about your current
>characterization of the E.S. and perhaps its leadership.  It appears to me that
>E.S. leaders may be abusing their standing to manipulate good and loyal people,
>through threat of expulsion and with it some nonsense about being abandoned by
>the Masters, if they do not toe the line as set down by the E.S. leaders.  I
>find it difficult to otherwise explain the nonsensical rationalization put out
>to justify the retroactive disencfrachisement of TSA members from voting in the
>current national election, as well as the earlier illegal attempt to abrogate
>the autonomy of TSA Lodges through flawed bylaw changes.

It all seems part of a long-range plan. First they broke the power and
influence (such as it was) of the area "Federations" and then they have
begun to destroy the autonomy of both Lodges and National Sections. As a
Lawyer you are far more aware than I am of the speciousness of ther
reasoning in the expulsion of the Canadian Section. I very much doubt if
anyone can see any reasonable explanation for Radha's rejection of the
eagerly returning Russians. And those are Helena Blavatsky's  own people
(and mine too). Any reasonably unbiased and objective outside observer would
be forced to think that either Radha and the other members of the E.S. are
out to destroy the society completely, or, and I rather think this to be
more likely, they are trying to drive everyone who is not inclined to join
the E.S. away from the society so that it becomes simply a tiny, tightly
controlled, power group cult. For what purpose this is being done, I have no
idea. I do know this, I am as sure as I am that I'm sitting here at the
keyboard, that the present E.S. has absolutely no connection with the adepts
or illuminatii or Mahatmas, nor has it had since May 8th 1891. This I
believe is proven by their activities. "By their fruits shall you know them".
>
>As President of a Lodge with 120 members, 3 of whom are E.S. members, I have a
>responsibility for all our members including those who choose to also
>participate in the E.S. I know the current thinking of the E.S. members who are
>in our Lodge.  We could undoubtedly have more E.S. enrollees from amongst our
>membership, but we need to know wny. We need to know the agenda of the E.S.  I
>would very much like to hear from other E.S. members about the role of the E.S.
>in its relationship to T.S.A. or for that matter any other theosophical
umbrella
>groups if you are inolved in any others.  Here are some questions about the
E.S.
>
>Do you seek to and effectively control the T.S.(Adyar) and the T.S.A. both of
>whom are headed, coincidentally or not, by E.S. members?
>Are you truly dedicated to service to the T.S.?
>If so, what does that service mean?
>Do you see yourself as a kind of elite within the T.S.?
>Do you see other T.S. members who are not also E.S. members as less than equal?
>Are you unflinchingly loyal to an E.S. hierarchy?
>Are you willing to abrogate the 2nd & 3rd declared objects of the T.S., to
>protect the E.S.?
>For example, would you expel a T.S. Lodge for studying the Alice Bailey or Sai
>Baba teachings?
>
>I would appreciate a thoughtful dialogue on the role of the E.S., especially
>from those who participate in it. In my one on one questions to members and
>officers of the E.S., I feel that I have largely gotten obfuscated
>answers.
>
>Sy Ginsburg, President
>The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida
>
Sy: You are the President of what, from my experience here in Northern
California is a really hugh Lodge. You deserve much more in the way of
respect for that Lodge than you are getting. This "voting ploy" has
effectively decimated the influence of your lodge and its members.This is
entirely unacceptable in all Democratic norms. As to your questions to "the
management" vis a vis the E.S. Based on both past and current history I
cannot hope you will receive an honest answer. They will euphemize and yes,
lie. One need only view the Bowdlerization and total revision of The Key To
Theosophy that they are currently perpetrating in the pages of The
Messenger. I think your questions, if they are not simply ignored, or if not
ignored then "spin doctored" out of all resemblance to your intention. I am
certain, for instance, that at least Radha would happily reject a Lodge or
even a whole section for "studying Alice bailey or Sai baba". I offer you my
best hopes for success but I must say that those of us who have the future
of the theosophical movement strongly in our hearts have an absolutely
sysyphissian job ahead of us. But as Saint Paul is said to have said: "It
worth to fight the good fight", by which of course, that adept simply meant
"strive for what's right" and not actually "fight" in the physical sense.

good luck

alexis d.
>