Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tl00157)

>>From previous discussions, I'm given the impression that ES members are
>somehow unconscionable and arrogant.  With communication increasing in
>power, perhaps there should be more balanced point of views, especially
>when they are reaching ignorant ears like mine.
>Thoa :o)

Emerson once said that you can have truth, or repose, but you can't have
both. The masters, as they presented themselves in the Mahatma Letters, did
*not* seek "balance", they sought *truth* ... there is an infamous letter in
which KH says that 2/3's of the world's evil is caused by priesthoods ....
certainly *not* a "balanced" viewpoint, and in fact to many quite insulting
and "unbrotherly"    ....      but apparently from their point of view
"brotherhood" means something far different than "being nice and not
upsetting anyone", and "truth" often did not appear "balanced" according to
the polite, conventional social sensibilities of a particular time and
culture. What does "balance" mean, as you use it? Does it mean that a
person who has had nothing other than a negative experience with the ES
ought to keep quiet about it, or *pretend* that there was some positive to
"balance" it with?  That for every person that relates a negative story
about an encounter with the ES, there should be someone that relates a
positive experience? What if for every person that *had* a positive
experience, there were three that had *negative* experiences ... what if
that were the *truth* of the matter - should it be ignored or avoided in the
name of "balance"?

What if a "priesthood" now *controls* the TS, a priesthood that organizes
itself with the community of some ES members ... and that priesthood, and
the policies and attitudes it generates is *responsible* (for instance) for
the fact that membership in the US has dropped by between a quarter and a
third in less than a decade? You may wish to contemplate an additional
thought: That these TS Internet lists are *themselves* the way a "balance"
of sorts is reached - as the American Theosophist ... the magazine that was
*supposed* to be the forum for *members*, is now *entirely* dominated by one
man - who permits no criticism or questioning of his policies whatsoever to
be distributed to the membership - even though discontent is intense and
growing among the membership- is it any suprise then that when a few
Theosophists get access to this medium that Wheaton *cannot* control, that
what may appear to be a surplus of seemingly critical writing appears ...
that in fact the surplus *here* is *caused* by and indeed a means of
*balancing* the total supression of its sentiments through "official"
channels?

I remember when the last bylaw revisions of the TS were proposed ... and
presented in the official publications as little more than "housekeeping"
changes that no one needed to be concerned about. I remember seeing how they
were presented through those "official" channels ... they were proposed,
explained, one or two extremely minor critiques were permitted, and even
those were then answered ... creating an entire scene that presented the
revisions as little more than bureaucratic minutae that no one felt very
strongly one way or another about. It seemed suprising to me that they would
pass with a goodly majority of the vote, until I realized that those
publications were *all* the vast majority of the membership saw. Now on
*this* list not only weren't they seen as minor housekeeping changes, but
were the subject of a very long, intense and heated debate between staunch
defenders and opponents, a debate in which an enormous number of facts came
to light about some past activities of the Wheaton leadership, and it became
very clear that after the changes power would be even more centralized than
it already was. Its likely that few defenders or opponents had their minds
changed by the debate, but it was the *actual* debate - and I suspect if the
entire membership had been witness to *that* debate, instead of the
intensely spin-doctored pablum that was presented in the AT, the vote would
have been far far closer, and in fact the revisions could very well have
been defeated.

Yes, Thoa, with communication increasing in power, I *agree* that a more
"balanced" perspective needs to be achieved - but please convey this then to
*Wheaton* ... the balance required is not for the 100 or so people of these
lists, who have an opportunity to see both the supporters and opponents of
anything concerning the TS or ES ... but the (now slightly less than) 4000
members of the TS who *don't* ... who will only be presented with a
carefully sanitized version of any TS policies, and will hear nothing at
*all* about the ES, and will be at times *delibrately* mislead about the
fact that any controversy or criticism even exists, let alone what the
nature of it is. The power of communication is increasing *wonderfully* and
in the very near future those leaders of *any* organization - indeed, any
*nation*, that attempt to stay in power by *controlling* information will
find their foundation of power suddenly melting as quickly as ice in the
warm Montana springtime sun (in fact its happening already all over the
place).

What you've seen on this list is what people think and feel ... and as
regards the ES, we've had several stories of a negative nature, and one
person speaking in support - but no one has been prevented from speaking
their point of view ... you certainly may conclude that the resulting
evidence is inaccurate, or that the sample set of those on this list are not
representative of the TS as a whole, but probably no one on this list is
about to not speak their mind out of concern for presenting a balanced
picture to the "ignorant" - they'll probably just tell the ignorant to put
forth the effort to educate themselves, to vigorously investigate with their
own energy, and evaluate the information based on their own standards ...
its kind of the truest spirit of Theosophy, where "There is no religion
higher than truth". (Plus, I hardly think you're "ignorant" ... (-:).

Of course, if you *do* attempt to pursue the truth of many matters, if you
*do* try to get the information necessary to *do* an accurate evaluation,
you run the risk of being politely called "selfish" (proving that someone
can be both nice and arrogant at the same time) - and it probably is worth
it to examine that ... but take that particular form of "selfishness" in the
context the Masters presented it: They *did* say that it was a form of
selfishness to think one had the right to *their occult secrets* - secrets
they had taken vows to protect and done incredible work to earn - but this
has virtually nothing to do with a legitmate, dues-paying member of an
organization operating under the IRS determination of "non-profit and
publicly supported" in the United States, wanting to know whether a private
group of individuals is running the organization behind the scenes
(regardless of whether their intentions are "good"), wanting explanations
when the leadership suddenly "discovers" new goals or objectives or deeper
meanings in the Objects of the Society, or wanting copies of Federal tax
returns - these are not occult secrets being demanded by an unqualified
chela; it is *not* selfish to want such information, but is in fact not only
selfish and arrogant, but in some cases actually *illegal* for the
*leadership* to *withhold* it.

Personally, I *believe* the purpose of the TS is the full actualization of
the Three Objects in human civilization; I *hypothesize* (with a
considerable body of evidence to support the hypothesis - my research is
producing some interesting results from unexpected quarters) the existance
of a group of people and a set of attitudes both in and surrounding the
current leadership that are not only not furthering the manifestation of
those Objects, but indeed standing in the way of it; that in *empirical
terms* are slowly but surely *destroying* the TS (we've gone from 6000 to
4000 ... when will people discover there is a crisis ... when we hit 2000?
1000?).

I believe it possible that the "evil" spoken of by KH, the functional
equivilant of a *priesthood* willing to use institutional *authority* to
impose *parameters* on the search for truth, has taken root at the very
center of our Theosophical Society. (And it makes *no difference* whether
they are "well intentioned" or "nice" ... many of the people governing the
priesthoods of the world are well intentioned and nice - but that apparently
produced no alteration whatsoever of KH's opinion).

You may not believe this perspective is "balanced", but I believe it is the
*truth*. And of course if you or anyone else has opinions or evidence or a
belief in an alternative truth, you are fully free to present it here. And
perhaps a wider range of the truth, an awareness larger than all of our
individual perspectives, will arise out of the vigorous discussion between
alternative views of earnest Theosophists (which may in fact be precisely
the sort of environment *intended* by the Masters when they created the TS).

However, if you do wish to post something, to engage in the discussion from
what you consider a more balanced point of view ... please contemplate the
fact that (according to evidence so far received) at least 3/4, and possibly
as many as 9/10's of the officers and board members of the TS *are* ES
members, and while we *are* free to have this discussion here, we would
*not* be permitted to at Theosophical Headquarters, could not do a
seminar/discussion session about it at a Summer Convention, nor publish even
a word of it in any official publication of the American TS ... and I
believe this fact *profoundly* dishonors the founders - who actually seemed
to believe that the phrase "There is no religion higher than truth" ought to
be *genuinely lived*.

Lux et Veritas, -JRC