Re: Theosophical Friends
Dec 23, 1996 08:06 PM
by M K Ramadoss
> On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
> > >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the
> > TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the
> > TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it.
> Well, that certainly would be welcome - but I doubt it. From my
> experience with the AT, Quest, and the TPH, exerting control over the
> parameters and content of discussion is close to an obsession. Of course,
> to those who wish of their own accord to remain within the approved
> boundaries, no limitation appears to exist - but those who have tried to
> genuinely stretch the boundaries have almost to the person come to
> understand how well defined and *enforced* they are.
> I don't think you were here last year when the By-law "revisions"
> were being put to a "vote" in the Wheaton TS. Most of the Society simply
> read the AT - and the presentation in *that* would have made it appear as
> though there was only mild concern about the changes, and that they really
> were only to "clean up" things ... that is, that they were merely minor
> housekeeping changes. On this list however (which contains members from
> all the different Societies ... Adyar/Wheaton, Point Loma & etc., and a
> range of opinion from the most conservative to the most radical) there was
> a *huge* debate ... and in the view of at least some, at least a couple of
> the changes were far more than simply housekeeping, but were a significant
> step in the further consolidation of power by a faction that now runs HQ.
> The "debate" that was permitted in the AT was little other than a
> token discourse ... were the same debate that took place here been
> permitted in the AT, or would a considerably larger number of members been
> on this list, the Bylaw revisions may well have gone down in flames, and
> even if they passed, it would have been a *helluva* lot closer. In fact,
> they even *broke* the Bylaws governing the process by which changes to the
> Bylaws must be made - a fact brought clearly to light (by several
> different listmembers who are attorneys) on this list ... but certainly
> not something publicised in the AT ... and - I'd be willing to bet - not
> something that would be permitted to be a thread on a moderated newsgroup.
> Point is, the people who designed and wanted the changes - and who
> *benefitted* from them, are the same people that controlled what did and
> did not go into the AT ... and the people who will now be moderating the
> newsgroup. If they do not permit free and open discussion in the organs
> of communication they do control, I certainly would not expect them to
> suddenly change their ways in the formation of a new avenue.
It is my understanding that Krishnamurti Foundation of America set up
an officially sponsored/approved maillist which fell on its face fast.
It was succeeded by a maillist from Berlin, West Germany set up by an
interested individual with no official or financial support from KFA. It
I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals
who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. The Adept who warned
AB in His 1900 letter about this is really foresighted. It is said that
sometimes even Gods cannot help undo the foolish actions of men and
women. This is my 2 cents worth of opinions. Your mileage and direction
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application