Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00321)

>MKR wrote:
>
>>5. The National Board and or Adyar can shut down the Section.
>>Once this is done, all charters of lodges and study centers are
>>automatically cancelled, which immediately triggers seizure of
>>assets. Etc.


>Einar Here.
>
>In all this debate on the TS and TSA, I think we have to
>recognize the fact that "The Theosophical Society, Adyar" is an
>international body, having its sections and branches throughout
>the world. When you join the TS, you really join TS Adyar, an
>international society. You can then choose to be a member
>of a certain Branch, within a section (the "default" choice), or
>you can be a member at large, of a Section, or you can be (under
>certain conditions, I believe) attached directly to the
>headquarters in Adyar without belonging to any section or branch
>at all.

JHE
Is someone disputing this?


EINAR
>Because its an international society, the powers to rule are
>naturally ultimately vested in the International Government of
>the Society, the General Council and the International
>President.  Sections and branches are then naturally only
>practical subdivisions of the one Society, with their "limited"
>freedom of government, as long as the "general guidelines"  set
>by the General Council and the Bylaws of the International
>Society or National Sections are not grossly violated.

JHE
Yes. And the recent American Section bylaw changes were designed
to better conform to the changes being made at the international
level.  Is someone disputing this?

EINAR
>We can of course criticizes the handling of the powers vested in
>the various elected governments within this structure, which has
>after all handed the TS to us through the 120 odd years of
>sailing through rough sea, but we have to recognize that they
>are elected to take hand of these powers, it's their "Duty" to
>rule and keep the Society running properly.

JHE
'Their `Duty' to rule"?  Now there is a slip that reveals the
true situation.  In a democratic organization, which the TS
purports to be, the duty of the elected officers is to be
custodians to the will and needs of the membership.

EINAR
>There has been some discussion among members in some sections,
>whether there should be some other, more modern, or more up to
>date structure of government within the Society. The former GS
>of the English Section wrote an interesting article of a
>"network structure" that would have no hierarchy of power, but
>to be built up as groups of services interacting and cooperating
>freely out of some necessity, without any authority. He used the
>Internet as a model.  Its an interesting Idea, but I'm afraid
>that it's still an Utopia, and will be for some time to come.

JHE
By any chance, have you inquired into the reasons why that person
is no longer the General Secretary?

EINAR
>Regarding the Denmark incident, I really don't know the lot, but
>to my understanding the group began revolving solely around one
>person, the GS in office, and did do very little "theosophy" in
>the usual term of the word. In another words, it had become a
>"CULT" around a single person's ideas and believes (mostly
>around his alleged spiritual powers and prophetic visions I
>believe). When the "old" members turned to the headquarters to
>see if something could be done, the Section was simply changed
>into an independent association by "lawful" voting, and all the
>assets from a century of theosophical activities were
>"confiscated" by the new "Theosophy Association".
>
>The few old members had simply nothing to say in this matter and
>stood empty handed on the street, so to speak.

JHE
Is this the official Adyar version of the story?  Concerning "old
members", are you suggesting that your judgement of this incident
is based upon age or length of membership of the people
involved?--that a member of twenty years has, perhaps, twice the
authority of a member of, say, ten years?  Assuming for a moment
that the situation in Denmark was exactly as you described, where
in the National or International bylaws does it say that the
majority of the members in a Section do not have the right to
have faith in "a single person's ideas and beliefs"?  Seems that
this is exactly what happened during the days of Annie Besant.
And by the way, what do you mean by "`theosophy' in the usual
term of the word"?

EINAR
>Anyone can have their own idea on who's rights was maintained or
>not in this case, but from the standpoint of the International
>Society this was a clear "theft", lawfully or not.

JHE
I'm sure it was a "clear `theft'" from the standpoint of the
International Society.  They sure spent a lot of money to prevent
it.  But from the standpoint of better than 90% of the membership
of that Section, and from the standpoint of Danish law, justice
was served.

EINAR
>I also know that a similar incident was just avoided in Ireland
>few years ago, involving a considerable amount of assets, nearly
>lost to a handful of "enthusiastic" newcomers.

JHE
I would like to hear more about that.  Which Lodge, and when was
it founded?  What was the issue?

EINAR
>I hope this will cast some light on matters

JHE
It does.


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


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