Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00611)

>Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>>
>>More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over
>>and over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic
>> organization.  Ordinary members might occasionally get elected
>>to one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a
>>tight group and the ES is over that.
>

MKR
>     Thanks for your feedback.
>
>     Is this not the kind of situation that Olcott being a smart
>lawyer and man with a lot of practical experience and common
>sense and one who cared so much for the TS he helped to build,
>feared that may happen down the road, when the ES was getting
>formed?

JHE
Yes. I think this situation turned out to be exactly what Olcott
feared most.  He agreed to support HPB's formation of the ES
under the proviso that it not be connected with the TS.  Probably
because Besant became the sole head of the ES in 1895, Olcott did
not support her as his successor to the Presidency.  To have
Besant as both the President and the Outer Head creates exactly
the Popery the 1900 letter warns against and what Olcott most
feared.  Of course, after Olcott was dead, a miraculous "account"
of the Masters appearing at Olcott's death bed, telling him that
they want Besant to succeed him seems to be a little convenient
for my taste.  The story sounds very solid on the surface--two
eye witnesses and all--but falls apart upon close examination. 
But the story won Besant's election, so it served its purpose. 
When Ernest Wood ran against Arundale in 1934, Jinarajadasa and
Leadbeater favored the latter.  Besant was dead.  But
Jinarajadasa, "in the interest of truth" (he explained), had a
letter published, written by Besant, saying that the Masters
wanted Arundale.  George Arundale, of course was married to
Rukmini.  Her extended family has been in control of Adyar ever
since--Jinarajadasa's presidency and John Coates' short
presidency notwithstanding. 

MKR
>
>     I would welcome anyone on theos-l, who can convince all of
>us here that the above reading of the situation is *NOT* true.
>We have, it appears, a *emperor* has no clothes situation!!!
>     
>     Your mileage and direction may vary, but would like to know.
>
>M K Ramadoss
>

JHE
Yes, I would be very interested in such evidence. 

MKR
> 
>PS: Again as I revisited the 1900 letter from Master KH, his
>comment to
>AB about popery and unnecessary secrecy seems to fit in, IMHO.

JHE
You might also look at letter 19 in Jinarajadasa's collection of
letters.  This is the one that fell on Olcott's head while he was
on a ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean.  It was written
during the heat of the controversy over the formation of the ES. 
Considered with the 1900 letter, I think the two letters throw a
great deal of light on these matters.

AB
>What is distressing about the Librarian is that owing to his
>having to sleep in a Salvation Army Hostel where they throw
>everyone out for the daytime, he had been allowed over many
>years to use the Lodge premises during the day, and thus had
>long term use of the facilities (heating, kitchen, etc.) which
>on the face of it was a very "theosophical" and compassionate
>attitude on the part of the Lodge. 
> 
>So they threw him on to the street (figuratively speaking) just
>as the local temparature dropped to 3 to 5 degrees below
>freezing.  And this is a man who can almost recite verbatim the
>info on root races, rounds, chains, etc. 

JHE
I've seen this kind of pathology before.  A common scenario I
have noticed that leads up to these fall outs is the presence of
a knowledgeable and progressive member who threatens those in
control of the Lodge by advocating major changes that would make
the Lodge more attractive to the public.  On the other hand, I
have noticed that most Lodges are extraordinarily tolerant of and
welcome marginal personalities that would have been shunned in
other social circles.  This is done in the name of Brotherhood. 
I think that a more important difference is that marginal
personalities are not a threat to take over the Lodge.  They also
have the added advantage of driving away the more capable and
socially adept people who might have otherwise joined.

I don't know the nature of your situation outside of what you
described, but it fits the above pattern.  The key (but usually
hidden) dynamic almost always concerns control issues.   

AB
>So far as I am concerned, the Bristol Lodge of the Theosophical
>Society in England is everything a theosophical lodge
>subscribing to the three objects should never be allowed to
>become.  They also avoid, so far as I understand the law on
>these matters, paying local taxes (rates) by presenting
>themselves locally (Bristol) as a "Religious Denomination of 
>Theosophists."  I understand other lodges in England also do
>this. 
> 
>How a Society which professes allegiance to no creed can allow
>such claims to exist is beyond me.  In the first edition of "Key
>to Theosophy" a judge even ruled that by its own definition, the
>nature of the Society via its objects prevented it from being
>regarded as a religious organization.  Not surprisingly perhaps,
>this section is omitted from later editions. 
> 
>Whilst I am still nominally a member of this disgraceful
>organization, I no longer consider myself to be a part of it,
>and now regard it with nothing but contempt. 

JHE
The New York Lodge had a similar issue some ten years ago.  The
city went after the Lodge for property taxes, which are a lot in
Manhattan.  The solution was to try and register the TS as a
religious organization.  It seems that the TS holds to very high
principles, but they become very secondary when money and power
are involved.  


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