Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00425)

I agree that an answer is not an answer when it fails to address the issue.
However, since my post was attached to Ramadoss' comment concerning "the
fundamental policy of TS -- freedom of belief...", I thought it obvious that my
comment was addressing this issue. If I were addressing your issue concerning
"Lodges of the TS", I would have attached your comments concerning this and
answered you.

As for my so called "distortion of facts," if you reread my statement below, I
think you will find that I never wrote that Besant was guilty of "the same sort of
offense" as Steiner. Rather, I made the point that both Besant and Steiner were
both exercising their beliefs. Your accusation that I'm concluding that
"Krishnamurti endorsed Steiner's policy" is in itself a distortion of what I
actually wrote. My meaning here is very much on the surface. Reading new meanings
into what I actually wrote will bring no further insight. I'm simply saying that
both Krishnamurti and Steiner "in this case" were in agreement that the OSE should
not exist. IMO the facts that K. closed the OSE and Steiner expressed his
disbelief in the whole thing do bear out this conclusion.

Now that you have discounted my comment to Ramadoss because it was not responsive
to your issues, and have raised new points of your own, I have a question
concerning one of them: You say that Steiner expelled members for joining "an
entirely separate organization." What is your documentation for this information?

JJHE


Philip Harris wrote:

> 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
>
>