Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00252)

Some years ago the Charter of Canadian Section was cancelled. This is not
the first time that a Section's Charter has been cancelled. Usually members
outside the affected country generally does not know of such actions until
years later. There have been discussions about Canadian Section. Here is an
excerpt from the Canadian Theosophist, July-August 1992, which may interest
some of you.

======================

Excerpted from Canadian Theosophist --JULY-AUG., 1992

    [The following article is a slightly revised  version of a letter sent
earlier to all members of the Theosophical Society in Canada, and presented
here for the information of our non member readers.]

    The T.S. in Canada has been excommunicated on Jan. 1, 1992 from Adyar,
by Adyar. Whatever ties or links of affiliation we have had with Adyar have
now been completely severed. Adyar claims that we did the "disassociating",
but it must be clearly understood from the outset, and which will be shown
hereunder, that Adyar did this excommunication or disassociating, and from
the beginning, last fall (1991 ) did nothing else with respect to us but to
accomplish the breaking of all ties with us, and, to date of preparing this
for publication late May, has done nothing but maintain the break. I was not
informed of the break until Feb. 12/ 92, in a very short letter from the
International Secretary, Mr. Hugh Gray. I have had nothing further directly
from Adyar since.

    I will now give the events which led up to this affair. At the last
annual meeting of our members, in September 1991, we amended our by-laws as
per a notice sent to all members in August, which also had explanations for
the changes. The amendments were passed at the meeting, with no problem. The
next legal step for me was to submit these changes to the Canadian
Government for approval. Since we are a federally chartered corporation, we
are subject to the Canada Corporations Act. The government has the last say
in all matters.

    Sometime in the fall, a Western E.S. leader sent a copy of the by-law
changes to Adyar, exactly as I predicted would be done. This person in the
past, regarded another change our Board had proposed as being a step to
break with Adyar, which was completely illogical, and never thought of or
contemplated by our Board. One can assume that a similar fear was operative
last fall. No break with Adyar was contemplated at any time by our Board, in
the year that it took to work on the by-law changes, nor were any breaks
suggested in the by-law changes, and as has been stated publicly, a break
with Adyar cannot be done by us through those by-law changes, it is entirely
the wrong method, Ä but Adyar can and did break from us, with one of the
by-law changes as the excuse. I have no doubt but that a letter accompanied
those by-law changes on their trip to Adyar, and can safely surmise that
some alarm was expressed. Kindly note that Adyar did not write to me upon
getting those things from our western E.S. leader, to ask for details, or
clarification, or if the western E.S. leader was mistaken as to our intent.
I repeat: to this day, late May, as I rewrite this, I have had nothing
directly from Adyar except the brief letter received mid Feb. that told us
that the break was in effect.

    I did not send a copy of the by-law changes to Adyar last fall for
several reasons:

    1. We are not required to do so by law;

    2. Adyar has no say whatsoever in the promulgation or approval of our
by-laws as a Canadian Corporation; and to this end, but ignored so far by
Adyar, their Rules make an allowance where the laws of another country
should cause an exception to be made to the application of their Rules.

    3. I would never send a copy of the by-laws as passed by our annual
meeting to Adyar, or anywhere, until the Canadian Government had approved
them. Until the Canadian Government passes judgment, the bylaws amendment as
passed by our members is but a memorandum of intent lo change. I received
the Government's approval (except for a minor point) on the same day I
received the notice of excommunication from Adyar, Feb. 12,1992.

    4. If there is autonomy of Sections, as is claimed, there is no need to
send copies of by-laws, and any such requirement in Adyar's Rules should be
deleted as being contradictory to autonomy.

    Mrs. Burnier, in an indirect letter, claims that she could not and would
not act on our situation until the General Council met in late Dec. 1991.
Fine, but she or co-workers should still have written to me for
clarification of intent. Again, the Feb. letter was the only one ever
received. Much later, writing through an intermediary, Mrs. B. states that
we failed to send a copy of the by-law changes, and tends to say that this
might be a forgivable fault, as long as the document is amended to her (or
her Council's) liking. Earlier, in February, I wrote to Hugh Gray stating
what is largely covered in the previous paragraph, above, to wit: Adyar does
not have any legal say in our by-laws. Conveniently overlooked by Adyar is
the fact that they did get a copy of the by-law changes, as I knew they
would, in a manner that saved us the postage. But, as I have pointed out
earlier here, such a copy did not yet have the approval of the Can.
Government, and therefore had no validity then.

    On getting the by-law changes last fall, the Adyar vice president, who
had the task of examining all by-laws of all sections, spotted where we had
deleted the phrase "parent society" and this deleting was found
objectionable by Adyar.

    The "parent society" mention was deleted for reasons given to all our
Canadian members last August in the by-law change notice. I reprint the
(August) reason here: "Old wording creates a conflict position with
Corporations Act, as deleted word suggests another body owning controlling
interest, such as a majority of shares, which is not the case. Only members
shall have an interest in this corporation which is without shareholders.
This change in no way affects our affiliation with any other T.S.
organization." (I should have added then, "unless the other organizations
decide to change our affiliation ").

    The "parent society" was left out and should remain out for a number of
other reasons:

    1. It is not required to be in by-laws by Adyar's Rules. No doubt they
will amend this oversight in their inevitable Rules changes for this year.

    2. It is not required by Canadian law.

    3. There is no such thing as a, or the, "parent society" and for this we
have the authority of H.P. Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge, whose statements will
be quoted below.

    4. The words "parent society" should never have been, and need not have
been, put in the by-laws in the first place, 17 years ago. Had this been
left out, nothing in that respect could have been noticed last fall, and
this present situation would not have come about.

    5. There is supposed to be autonomy of lodges and Sections. This is
stated by Blavatsky and Besant. One finds it also in various T.S. magazines,
and if not hypocrisy, should therefore be upheld without exceptions by
Adyar. Recent history shows that it has not been upheld.

    Blavatsky said "There is no longer a "Parent Society"; it is abolished
and replaced by an aggregate body of Theosophical Societies, all autonomous
.." (H.P.B. C.W. Vol. Xl, p. 381).

    Wm. Q. Judge, when asked about "Parent Theosophical Society, and ... the
meaning of the term, and to what is it applied?" answered: "At present there
is no meaning in the name, and its use a source of error; it should never
have been used. If there is in existence a"Parent Society", then it is the
Aryan [Theosophical Society] because its charter members are the only ones
left here of the first branch ever formed, while Mme. Blavatsky and Col.
Olcott are the founders of this branch, which became the Aryan after their
departure. But as the whole Society is composed of its branches and
unattached members, and as each person who joins either through a Branch or
at large - thereby becomes a member of the whole Society, there can be no
"parent Society." It is advisable that this term be discarded altogether, as
it has no reason for its existence, and no meaning in its use." (From a
reprint in "Echoes of the Orient", The Writings of William Q. Judge, Vol.
II, p.440.)

    Annie Besant also stated that "A National Society, or Section is
autonomous, ..."

    Theosophy came to Canada via A.E.S. Smythe 101 years ago. Smythe
emigrated to Canada from Ireland, and on the boat he met W.Q. Judge, who
convinced him of the merits of Theosophy. Our first charter came via Judge,
as head of the American Section then. Judge split with Besant and aligned
elsewhere. Besides what H.P.B. and Judge had to say about "parent society"
there is another problem, and valid reason for not using this phrase: if
there were a "parent society" for the T.S. in Canada, then is it the Aryan
T.S. (which no longer exists) or the theosophical organization that Judge
shifted to after his split, or the present T.S. in America, (which group
took over from Judge, and from which the T.S. in Canada derived in 1919)?
One has only one real parent (or in biology, two). A foster parent is not a
real parent. At best, Adyar could be only a foster parent. We in Canada have
always leaned to H.P.B. for an authority, so there is no parent society and
therefore no foster parent.

    A.E.S. Smythe always held, as with Judge, his mentor, that a Section and
a lodge was autonomous with a loose affiliation with other like theosophical
groups, and all the Canadian General Secretaries have always been given this
rule of Smythe's, and upheld it, often to the chagrin of those in far places
over the past 101 years, and with this tradition, I have found no reason to
take a different path, and in this current affair, I have but followed
Smythe's footsteps.

    When I received the letter, Feb. 1 12th that noted our excommunication,
I immediately sent off a letter of explanation of our actions, said that
there was never any intent by our Board via the by-law changes to break from
Adyar, suggested that they had acted rashly on the fear mongering
information from their E.S. Canadian informant, I acknowledged that the
break was in place, at Adyar's doing, and invited/awaited a reply, which
never came. I wanted to allow them the 24 days for mail each way plus some
time to further discuss this matter among themselves, before breaking the
news to our members. I restate that Adyar has done nothing other than to
make this break from us, commencing last fall, and to maintain it. They will
claim otherwise, when it appears unflattering to appear to have done what
they did. They have also been apprised of H.P.B.'s stand on "parent society".

--------------- end of part 1 of 2 -------------


------------------------------