Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00192)

M K Ramadoss wrote:
> 
> At 09:58 AM 4/22/97 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> 
> Bart:
> 
> >Are you saying that it is the policy of the Theosophical Society that
> >if the observed facts disagree with one's politics, then the observed
> >facts are incorrect?
> 
>    Please give some example of "observed" "facts" you are referring to.

	I am asking a question, not making a reference.

> >Also note that when
> >people gain power in organizations, they frequently end up working
> >against the principles of the organization to maintain their power.
> >That, for example is one of the dangers that the Mahatmas point out in a
> >paid clergy.
> 
>    Once more the Mahatmas have been right on their observation.
> 
>    I am very glad that you brought it up. I do not know if you have seen my
> posts surrounding what happened to Krishnaji. 

	I have. Being ignorant about the matter, I chose not to comment.

>    There is more to the irony of the situation which very few in TSA know of.
> 
>    One of the Trustees of K Trusts (who was a party to the litigation) is
> now on the Board of TSA as well as a Trustee of Theosophical Investment
> Trust which manages the Investments of TSA.

	Now here's the thing. The way I work is that, if I knew the name of the
person, I would directly ask him or her what the story was. 

>    It is with the background of the above historical matter, that I voiced
> great concern about the way the new bylaws of TSA read. In effect, the BOD
> of TSA can one day shut down TSA, sell all the property and put the proceeds
> into the Theosophical Investment Trust.
> 
>    Once this is done, no one, you or me will have any say in or even know
> what is going on in TIT and they have no legal requirement to disclose
> anything to anyone.

	As I have mentioned in the past, the solution is to try and get THOSE
laws reformed. My personal problem with the new bylaws was that it is
easier to dissolve a Lodge than it is to throw out an individual member,
and the new bylaws take away a major part of the disincentive to
dissolve a Lodge. But the solution is to make it harder to dissolve a
Lodge. And, if what you say about the TIT is true, then we should take
action to increase its accountability. BTW, there are definite limits on
how the property of a dissolved Lodge may be used.

>    I have been shouting on this issue to deaf ears ever since the bylaw
> changes were published. Do you know when I asked for a copy of the Trust
> Document and the Bylaws of the Trust, I am yet to receive them after almost
> more than a year. Secrecy of the Trust has already started. Nothing
> surprises me anymore.

	Have you asked Nathan Greer (National Secretary) or Elizabeth Trumpler
(chief librarian at Wheaton)?

> > In the case of the Theosophical Society, the problem is
> >clearly one of funding. Traditionally, we have been funded by
> 
> MKR:
> 
>    I will post a detailed msg on this in next couple of days. Keep tuned in.

> >fear of offending the big contributors (frequently unnecessary, in my
> >opinion; the big contributors whom I have met tend to be far more
> >theosophical than they are given credit for).
> 
> It quite some time ago I stopped measuring who is theosophical or who is not
> theosophical and to what degree.

	I used the term "theosophical" in the sense of willingness to accept
that others have their own opinions, which is just as valid as their
own.

>    It is not uncommon to find the usage of "untheosophical" and "un
> brotherly" as code words used in theosophical circles to deal with those
> with whom one does not agree with either on doctrines or on administrative
> policy/philosophy.

	I generally think of the following opinions as "untheosophical":

	1) That someone whose genetics would make them capable of producing
fertile offspring with other humans is less than human.

	2) That there is only one path to the Truth.

	3) That anything that is not observable with our senses or detectable
with our instrumentation does not exist.

	4) That anything that IS observable with our senses or detectable with
our instrumentation does not exist.

	In the case of the contributors, I believe that the 2nd opinion I
mentioned was being attributed to them.


	Bart Lidofsky