Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00087)

Richtay writes:

> But I have to agree with Eldon, and disagree with Gail Stevenson
> and Philip Harris, that the desiderata of unity are not so easy
> or self-evident; nor are the forces pulling AGAINST unity to be
> categorically labelled as ignorant and invalid.

When we revived the Theosophical Networking Movement thirteen
years ago, I don't think there was more than perhaps one or two
among us who gave any serious thought to the ideal of unifying
the Theosophical organizations back into one organization again.
Organizations are like people in that they have identities,
histories and egos.  Merging ones identity into a greater one
means the letting go of that ego--a task rarely done by humans
and even more unlikely for an organization.  Rather than unity of
the organizations, we were hoping that the organizations would
learn to seek with each other a unity of purpose.  This was the
public position I took at the 1984 networking conference, and
still hold today--that the organizations ought to begin a
dialogue seeking for ways to work together on projects that they
all can agree will be for the benefit of the Theosophical
Movement.  It turned out that this suggestion was taken up more
by individual Theosophists than the Organizations.  Dozens of
Networking conferences were organized by individuals over the
next four or five years until the idea fell out of fashion.
There were also about six different networking magazines at the
time, but only one of these is still extant.

So, an important lesson that came to me from the 1984 experience
was that changes are made by members--not the organizations.  The
Organizations could make whatever ego saving explanations they
liked and try to explain the changes in ways that made them look
best.  But in spite of the machinations, when the newer members
learned that there were other Theosophical organizations to
explore, and when the older members met the leaders of the other
organizations, listened to them, and found that "the enemy" were
real human beings just like them.  A real change happened that
all of the Organizational politics in the world could not stop.

Older members will recall that since 1984 tremendous changes have
come about among the members of the various organizations.
Theosophists of one organization visiting other organizations is
a common occurrence today, and newer members must think that it
was always that way.  Believe me, it wasn't.  Most of the
organizations have been changed by their members' enthusiasm over
networking.  Three of those Organizations are more open to the
visitations of Theosophists from other organizations, while a
fourth denies that barriers between the leaderships of these
organizations existed in the first place.

Therefore, I believe that progress has been made over the last
thirteen years, and perhaps the discussions about networking here
on Theosophy Talk is evidence of even more progress.  However, I
think there is still another step to take.  Members ought to
become aware of the past, of what brought about the dissentions
and breaks in the first place.  Members need to discuss these
events--not to prove that one Theosophy is right and another
wrong--but to seek to understand the views of others so as to
better understand their own.  When members search and find their
own truths, it frees them from being dependent upon the
institutionalized truths pushed by the Organizations.

There are several positions individuals can take in the attempt
to create a meaningful dialogue.  One can say that we should
forget about all of that old history and just concentrate on
those "wonderful teachings of Theosophy" and the "ideal of
Brotherhood." But whose Theosophy? Whose ideal of Brotherhood?
The unspoken assumption of course is "Theosophy the way I think
of Theosophy and Brotherhood the way I think of Brotherhood." On
the other hand, there are some who are honestly unaware that
there are different schools of Theosophy and different notions of
Brotherhood (Substitute "Solidarity" if you find the word
"Brotherhood" sexist).  More common are those who are for the
most part ignorant of the philosophical differences between those
schools.  For these people, it is understandable why they can
honestly wonder why we don't get along.

Another position is to say that "we should bury the past and
think about the future." But whose future? Any future is the
product of its past.  Burying the past is another word for
denial--for pretending it never happened.  An organization can no
more deny the events that made it than can individuals deny their
own past.  Buried events always have a way of resurfacing,
because keeping the past under the surface is just another form
of a lie.

I realize that many Theosophists are not ready for this kind of
discussion.  Some will choose to be offended; some will choose to
act out passive aggressively; and some will choose to filter out
the whole discussion.  That is their loss.  There are others who
are ready to face the unpleasant aspects of the healing process.
Should they be silenced by those who prefer denial? I suggest
that when the object is to seek truth, we will all find
unpleasant facts and rude awakenings, but we will be better
people when we can admit to unpleasant truths and prefer them to
living pleasant lies.