Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00325)

Einar said

>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 directlyto the
headquarters
>in Adyar without belonging to any section or branch at all.

I have been wondering about exactly this point.  I would actually beg to
differ with you on this.  When I joined, I specificlly joined my local lodge
which was going through a vibrant phase at the time.  I doubt I would have
joined other lodges in Australia and am still less likely to have joined
Adyar.  So whatever the technicalities are, what is the human motivation?
We hear next to nothing about Section at out Lodge, and even less about
Adyar, and our program is unique in the world (even though it is not unique
enough).  This is very different from my joining of AMORC, in which I knew
from the outset that I had joined an international body.  I know the
perpective of the Lodge is very local.

I was also womdering about the money.  We are very wealthy, but Iwonder if
the bequests which set up our wealth were made to our local Lodge, Theosophy
in Australia, or International Theosophy.  I don't know the answer to this,
but again I suspect that it would have been to our local Lodge.  The
autonomy was a very big point of the early days, and I seriously wonder if
we would be half as wealthy as we  are now had bequests to be made to Adyar
rather than locally.  I am researching just how autonomous we now are in
Australia as a result of Doss's comments, and I am sure that our membership
will be more than a little distressed if we are in the same situation as the US.

Its a curious point.

>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.

We are governed by Australian Companies Law.  So although Adyar may
over-rule Secton and Section may over-rule local, the Australian Securities
Commission has the last say in areas which infringe upon Australian
Companies Law.

>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.

Einar, I understand where you are coming from with this, but you (and Adyar)
seem to have an innately hierarchical view of the world, and see those
elected as masters rather than servants.  The original society was set up as
a "bottom up" approach, and until recent times has been exceptionally
(financially) successful at this.  I wonder if it's success started to
decline when the true egalitiarian principles began to be eroded?  We may
not need to look to a completely new management model, but a variation which
is true to the original intentions.

>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".

How is this group faring now?  This is normal bogey man stuff, but is it
possible that this group was actually facing up to the changes which have to
be made if the TS is to survive into next centruy.  This is a genuine
question - I dislike the egotistical guru like leadership myself, which is
why I hate to see it infiltrating the TS in the guise of Blavtskyism,
Sinnettism, or Leadbeaterism (particularly the latter two who I see as
thoroughly nasty patriarchs of the worst kind).

Christine


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