Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00074)

Whenever a group of people gets together to do something,
there's an organizational structure. People get into a
habit where they participate a certain way. Some become
followers. Others take a leadership role. We can even see
this in a discussion class, watching how people behave
from week to week.

Some theosophical groups have an explicit structure.
The Adyar T.S. has a democratic model, where its leadership
is voted into office. Some people have voiced concern that
the election process isn't as open and flexible as it should
be. The Pasadena T.S. has an autocratic model, where the
head of the Society is in charge for life, appoints the
cabinet that runs the T.S., and deligates all power and
responsibility. Some have been concerned that this does not
allow enough for individual initiative and innovation in the
society. The United Lodge of Theosophists has an "there is no
structure model" policy, which means that the people taking the
initiative and making the decisions are underground, somewhat
self-appointing, and not apparent to the ordinary associate
until asking old timers how things work in that society.
Some may be concerned that this lends for a hidden control of
the organization where all participants don't have an equal say.
Yet another theosophical group in the Netherlands is organized
as a school, and only invites to membership someone having taken
a year or two of introduction courses.

Each organizational model has some strengths and some weaknesses.
Theosophists, regardless of which groups they participate in,
should feel a sense of brotherhood with each other. They should
feel free to work, play, and enjoy life alongside members of
all the other groups, as well as with non-joiners who also love
the philosophy.

The best model, I think, for bringing about more unity within the
Theosophical Movement might be called "passive unity." In this
approach, everyone is listed in directories alongside everyone
else. There is an awareness of the other groups and an openness
to participate in the activities of those groups. This is different
than what I'd call an "active unity." With that approach, everyone
would be required to take some positive step to "join" some 
umbrella organization, listing service, website, etc., or to
"subscribe to" some "agreed upon" principles, which could be
endlessly argued over and debated. The passive unity approach is
best, I think, because everyone and every group is able to continue
being what they are. We just try to become more open to each other,
and respect the good that others are doing.

-- Eldon

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding@b...> wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
> The United Lodge of Theosophists began as a radical idea. It
> sought to provide a basis for students and inquirers to gather
> together to study and promulgate Theosophy, without having to
> worry about organization and structure, or elections and
> officers - the "personality" of the world.
> 
> Frank answers:
> That is exactly the problem with the ULT and why the founder Robert 
Crosbie
> was kicked out - the unfitness und unreadyness to recognise the 
duties and
> the wide spread of such poisonal, twisted thinking over the decades 
is on of
> the main reasons why the structure und organization of the whole 
theos.
> movement - whether ULT, Adyar, Pasadena - today is nothing else 
that a dead
> body, a parody of the original TS.
> 
> How can this wrong thinking of a single individual and his 
unfitness to
> follow the clear instructions of the Masters and their messengers 
be a good
> thing or even an example which we should follow. We should learn 
from the
> past and not be proud about the mistakes of some unlucky 
individuals. If
> there is no one who cares for organization then there will be chaos.