Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00392)

At 11:53 PM 20/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
>That Steiner refused to charter OSE branches in Germany is well documented.
>However, condemning his actions with the freedom of belief argument is a
sword that
>cuts both ways. After all Besant justified her founding of the OSE to
those who
>opposed her by saying that she was exercising her right to have her beliefs.
>Steiner was the General Secretary of the German Section of the TS, not the
OSE. He
>expressed his right to his beliefs by not recognizing Besant's new
organization.
>However, he continued his duties to the German TS lodges. If the German
people
>wanted to charter OSE Lodges, it would have made more sense for them to get
their
>charters through Besant, rather than obligating the General Secretary to
support the
>OSE against his beliefs. But Besant didn't see it that way, and exercised her
>beliefs by going after Steiner for exercising his. It is also well
documented that
>Krishnamurti disbanded the OSE in 1929. That was K's expression of his
right to his
>beliefs, which in this case were more in line with Steiner's. It seems that
>everyone got to express their beliefs, but only Steiner was penalized for
it. What
>is wrong with this picture?
>
>JJHE
>

When is an answer not an answer? When it fails to adress the subject at issue!
Point number one: OSE branches were not the issue at all, but Lodges of the
T.S. They are not the same thing. Steiner and his executive contravened
the fundamental philosophy of the T.S. by expelling members from the T.S.
Lodges if they had the temerity to join an entirely separate organization.
That and only that is the action that caused Besant with the full support of
her Council to issue two warnings and when those were ignored- withdraw the
charter.

Point number two: to claim that Besant was guilty of the same sort of
offence when she established the OSE is a distortion of the facts. All T.S.
members were free to join or not to join the OSE- all German T.S. members
were NOT free to join of not to join the OSE without fear of discrimination.
Every President of the Adyar T.S. has repeatedly emphasised, not once, but
numerous times the freedom of belief which defends al members. This freedom
decalaration is printed every month (in great detail) back of the cover of
The Theosophist magazine and reprinted in many others including Theosophy in
Austtralia magazine.


Point number three: the drawing of the conclusion that Krishnamurti
endorsed Steiner's policy on the ground that he did so by closing down the
OSE is again a distortion of the evidence brought to bear on the subject.
There is not the slightest logical connection between the two events.
Krishnamurti's reason for his action was that he found the whole matter of
his status and purpose amplified to the point of insufferability. The OSE
was an entirely independant organization from the T.S. and its members. The
act of closing down the OSE had no impact on the legal status of T.S.
members at all. It ought to be kept in mind that the OSE was a
semi-autonomous organization with its raison d'etre focussed entirely on
Krishnamurti as the vehicle for the Mahachohan and if he, the central figue,
foreswore his role then there was no reason for its continued existence. If
Steiner was not comfortable with the idea of freedom of belief and
association then his correct course of action was to resign from a society
for which this was the core principle.

Philip S. Harris