Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00158)

Here is the editorial that was published in Canadian Theosophist on the
issue of termination of the charter of the Canadian Section.

mkr
=========================

EDITORIAL

Earlier in this issue, I have given the story of our
Excommunication by Adyar. When I first opened and
read their letter, last February, my first reaction was How
stupid can they get?" I had spent much of my time in 35
years in business checking with others or answering
where others were checking with me as to intent of
instructions in various business matters. One always
checks and double checks to minimize errors, to retain
clients and provide a reliable service. This is a business
basic, checking meaning and intent. I referred this and the
excommunication fact to a respected Director on my
Board, and his reply was that Adyar has done some
amazing things and here was another example. The
persons last fall who sent the copy of by-law changes to
Adyar, had earlier shown both fear of change in another
manor, (as well as the by-law changes) and misread in the
change proposals an additional intent to break from their
most desired Adyar, where there was no such intent at
all, an act of gross misinterpretation. By acting on this
unwarranted fear, these two persons, ironically enough,
caused the break away, done this time by their beloved
Adyar, not by the Executive here. So their fear both
became and

caused a self-fulfilling prophesy. By reacting without
checking, the Adyar council "Jumped the gun, ...". as a
national president in a neighbouring country said to me.

     There is nothing wrong with our by-law changes.
The revisions were worked on for a year by members of
our Board with experience in business matters including
by-laws. As was said in the set of explanations sent to all
our members prior to the Annual Meeting, the by-law
revisions were but to reflect reality; things change over
time, so should our by-laws, to reflect our evolution.

     Looking at the Minutes of Adyar's Dec - Jan.
Council meeting, one notes an undertone of complaint
that the re-emerging Russian theosophical movement has
proceeded without asking permission from Adyar, has
members that are not registered with Adyar, nor had
Adyar been asked to charter Russian lodges, and the
Russians operate on Rules not presented to Adyar for
approval. The Russian groups would be wise to stay
separate. Rather than be glad that theosophy can function
in Russia again, there seems to be that additional
compulsion that all must be under the Adyarian
wing/thumb (choose one). There we have the
authoritarian tendency that has become the bad habit. For
the cause of our break, it is easy to see a resentment for
some remarks earlier in these columns, coupled with an
autocratic tendency. The reasons are easy to see, but I do
not intend to give a lesson in psychology here. The
personality problems of some on the General Council
should not be the problems of national Sections and
lodges. We are better off separated.

     After the excommunication notification was sent
to our members, I expected some letters to come in what
I would call the spontaneity period, where people pick up
pen to write importance with a worldly place or power is
an error both of judgement and of focus of attention.
Place worshipping is an error to be grown out of, not
into, be it the Vatican, Mecca, or Adyar.

     If Adyar is to control the by-laws of Sections, as
they seem to want to do, then their Rules should (but do
not) contain a full set of rigid guides for such purposes, if
the resultant "acceptable" Sections' by-laws are not to
seem to be bent or controlled by whatever is the current
prevailing whim of the Adyar Council. The objection to
no mention of "parent society" is just such a whim, might
not have been the whim of a Council in the past, or in the
future with other members. Pouncing on "no parent
society" when the Rules have no such requirement is
specious, and one looks to other reasons as the real
reasons, if reason is to be assumed to have prevailed on
Jan. 1, 1992. I would be interested to know how many
other Sections and lodges in the world are also deficient
in that they did not have "parent society" in their bylaws.
Adyar will have to amend their Rules to make this
mention in by-laws a must.

     While they are at it, there is another change
needed to correct a long standing error of judgment. I
assume our readers are adults. Some years ago a title was
chosen for the world head of the E.S., namely, Outer
Head, implying that there was an Inner Head, a Master,
that the Outer Head was in contact with. This was a most
unfortunate choice of titles, because of prior use of these
terms. There should have been some checking.
Theosophists over the years have been regarded at times
with ridicule by the great unwashed general public, so
why give them another opportunity? For hundreds of
years the toilet on a sailing ship was called The Head"
and usually is to this day. The sailors used a convenience
at the bow or head of the ship, which was the outer
Head; while on large ships and galleons the captain and
high officers used a sheltered inner Head. To call the
head of the E.S. a ship's toilet is rather disrespectful, to
say the least, and this is the interpretation of that title to
the many who have nautical knowledge. To call a Master
a toilet is an insult. I did not invent these titles, I am just
pointing out facts. I would greatly doubt that any Master
has ever contacted an Outer Head in this century, so the
insult inherent in "Inner Head" would be more theoretical
than actual. While we are at changes, the Objects
themselves could be changed, to reflect the reality of
what goes on in this society, by adding a Fourth Object:
To pursue the first three objects of the Society without
ever notifying any Official of the member's address
change(s).

       ***