Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tl00115)

At 08:01 PM 11/9/1998 -0800, Eldon B Tucker wrote:
>The question of "esoteric succession" is not really a
divisive issue -- as I see it -- since I expect the 
Masters work through whoever works for the cause, and
not because of someone's rank, position, or claims to
esoteric ties. This being so, it's not important to
fight others to win universal acceptance of someone's
particular claim "to be the one and only, real,
genuine thing," if there was such a thing.

Hopefully in the future, the Point Loma and Pasadena
Theosophists can work side-by-side for furthering the
spiritual work and promoting the esoteric philosophy.

This situation is a case where those in the Adyar T.S.
could learn from history -- the Point Loma history --
seeing the problems and dynamics involved when groups
are organization along the teacher/teaching model, as
opposed to the study-hall/read-your-own-book model, or
one of many other types of models.

The important thing that the Point Loma Theosophists
learned -- and members of any group can learn -- is that
any one group isn't "the only show in town," and that
the work goes on, if you're sincere in heart and dedicated,
regardless of if the leadership of a particular theosophical
group appreciate you or not.<

-- Eldon
-----------------------

Your information and observations are very helpful to understand some of
the history as well being very timely.

The intersection of the teacher/student model with that of the democratic
model, the former forming the part of the secret side of action, coupled
with the who is the true successor teacher seems to have caused some of the
problems with theosophical' organizations.

Also certain additional factors occur to me. We have the entrepreneurial
type vs the organizational/military hierarchical type of individuals.The
former type will never be comfortable with the latter type of organization
and vice versa. In addition, the prevailing world-wide condition compared
to that of the Victorian/colonial era. Today there is demand for more
freedom and openness and a democratic approach and less of appeal for the
Victorian/colonial type hierarchical (need to know secrecy) approach. Added
is the modern electronic and communication technology that is changing the
landscape. 

It appears that any organization which wants to succeed in its mission, has
to keep up with the changing times and modify its approach towards its
mission. Using wrong approach at a wrong era cannot but lead to dismal
results, even leading to bankruptcy and disappearance of the organization.

Some of the thoughts expressed above are based on my first hand experience.
I have seen how the Victorian/colonial model is easily and comfortably
accepted in the East and compared to what I see today in the USA. The
entrepreneurial vs organizational/military hierarchical model, I have seen
in action. The former is able to act quickly and efficiently and creatively
and get results with minimal resources. The latter is capable of a very
large and massive effort or a where a large capital investment is needed.

The future of the organizations may ultimately depend on how well they
adapt to the changing conditions. On the other hand, a collection of
individuals networking towards a common ideal can achieve results in spite
of or ignoring organizations. It would be interesting to revisit this
subject, say 10 years from now to see what all has happened in the meanwhile.

mkr