Dear discussion members,
>From the point of view of how much I have done with, and for Theosophy, I am
least qualified to write to this discussion list. I have known about
Theosophy for quite a few years but, because I considered my experience and
understanding not yet up to the level of "not getting lost like a
fundamentalist" in such an all extensive and inclusive system of beliefs, I
have procrastinated by experiencing, aligning and drawing conclusions about
life from alternative sources.
Always however, my guiding light has been "Prove all things, hold fast that
which is true".
Observing the judgments and evaluations made on this list regarding the
administration, organisational establishment and resulting consciousness
expansion (or otherwise) of Theosophy, I feel that maybe there is a
contribution I can and should make.
Democracy as we know it is based upon one of the lowest forms of judgment;
almost completely uninformed opinion, plus ticks made on pieces of paper. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with, and in fact is in complete opposition to,
the meticulous process of evaluation needed to achieve anything, especially
the determination of who is the best possible next president for the
Theosophical Society.
By judgment I mean arbitrary and insufficiently substantiated opinion. By
evaluation I mean exhaustively validated and eventually (after viewing from
many preferably opposed viewpoints) the unavoidable conclusion that a
particular conclusion is the most highly valid one of all.
Only such a detailed process as this is appropriate for the selection of a
Theosophical Society president. Only a Theosophical Society central
organisation consisting of people who think along such undemocratic but
infinitely more effective lines is appropriate for such a selection.
When the TS was launched, the powers behind thought it best to have a
democratic organization. Had they thought a Popery would be best, then such
a form would have been in place. (As a matter of fact, the 1900 letter
warns of a Popery) The later type of setup might work well in a setup where
every member is bound to unquestioned allegiance to follow the orders of
the leader. Such a setting is not unusual in organizations. A democratic
setup can function effectively when every member knows where the
organization is heading and enthusiatically follows a charismatic leader.
There is no substitute for voluntary motivation fired up by enthusiasm.It is necessary to assure the membership that proposed presidents (and all
others chosen to occupy positions of importance) are meticulously evaluated
against Theosophical Principles over many years and evaluated again in
present time by an effective central organisation.
It is necessary for the membership to know that all posts are filled in this
meticulously evaluated manner (I assume, but do not know that they are) and
for the membership to receive from the central organisation, for their
wholehearted endorsement a detailed and meaningful listing of the specific
features, characteristics and attributes of the candidate, so that the
members may determine the situation for themselves and so that they may have
enough confidence to formally confirm their agreement with the central
organisation regarding their selection of a president.
The basis of evaluation applied to all officers within the society should be
formally documented and routinely used as an ongoing published standard of
excellence. Then the specification of features, characteristics and
attributes routinely demonstrated over many years by each candidate for any
post will mean something to the membership.
Such mis-leading historically focused statements and divisive questions
regarding "What respected leaders are referenced as thinking, saying or
doing", "Which Theosophy",
Valid questions answered by "Candidate Specifications" might for instance,
include: In which ways does the candidate routinely demonstrate the
application of Theosophical principles in the areas of administration,
execution and continual improvement of the type of work for which he or she
is the recommended candidate ?
regards
John Lester
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kier [mailto:dennw3k@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 12:57
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World TS(Adyar) - Election of President
Before she was elected to the post the first time, Krishnamurti had a
talk with her, and persuaded her to run for that office.
The story is in one of the Krishnamurti biographies. I don't recall
which. Perhaps someone who was closer to Krishnamurti recalls where
the reference is?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@netfeed.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World TS(Adyar) - Election of President
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eldon B Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World TS(Adyar) - Election of President
>
> Eldon:
>
> Interesting that you are using "which Theosophy" as a criteria for
judging
> the success of a Adyar TS President. I did not think about it in
those
> terms. I was interested in what she has done that would suggest to
me her
> values (i.e. her character). Who she is related to, her education,
and past
> positions of authory she has held, tells me nothing of this.
>
> --jhe
>
>
> > Jerry:
> >
> [snip]
> > In judging the success of a Adyar T.S. President, we'd
> > need to decide first according to which variant of
> > Theosophy we'd judge the success. Then we'd need to
> > see if the work was faithful to that view of the world.
> > Then we could say if things were done for the best.
> > Of course, we're operating at an advantage, looking back
> > over the past 20 years, with our hindsight of what
> > actually happened in the world.
> >
> > My only disappointment with the election is that
> > there weren't at least two candidates. I'd like the
> > opportunity to think that I had some choice in the
> > process, between more that one person with more than
> > one approach to running things. As long as there's
> > only one candidate each time, why bother to have an
> > election? The President could simply be President for
> > life, like in the Pasadena T.S.
> >
> > -- Eldon
> >
> > At 10:01 AM 4/13/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Well, it is an impressive description of the positions of power
she has
> held
> > >and who she is related to. More impressive to me would be a
description
> of
> > >what she has done for the Theosophical Movement in the last
twenty
> years.
> > >--jhe
> > >
> > >From: <ramadoss@infohwy.com>
> > >To: <Ramadoss@infohwy.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 8:08 PM
> > >Subject: Theos-World TS(Adyar) - Election of President
> > >
> > > > Today I received the ballot for the International President of
> TS(Adyar).
> > > > Along with the ballot was a slip of paper with the bio of the
only
> > > > candidate, Mrs. Radha Burnier. It states...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
