Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00122)

Well, wrapping up in a single response, a reply to several postings...

The ES appears to be rather moribund at this point. The center at 
Krotona is still operating, although the membership is aging rapidly 
and there appear to be few who are willing to submit to its rules, 
revised by Annie Besant, in complete defiance of the 1900 Letter.

Regarding the Bailey followers. My impression is not about so much 
whether someone studies Alice Bailey or whoever. The problem is of 
wanting to hijack a local group and make it their own. Having been 
extensively involved in public TS work, I have seen the Bailey 
(Arcane School) "meme" several times and it can be quite predatory. 
If a Bailey group wants to take over a Theosophical Lodge, throw out 
the Three Objects, which are the foundation of PUBLIC theosophical 
work, and substitute a steady diet of AAB then, yes, they need to be 
expelled. I would say the exact same thing for any other intruding 
group with any specific creed. At the risk of contradicting myself, 
however, there even exceptions to this. The other side of the coin 
is having a local group that has been around since the beginning of 
the Yuga and doesn't want to do anything and doesn't want to go out 
of existence either. In Wheaton we always referred to these groups 
as meeting on the astral plane. As far as I'm concerned, if another 
group moves in and takes over their organization, well, so be it. 
Like Lee Iacoca said, "lead, follow, or get out of the way." As a 
Federation Pres., I ran into these situations routinely, and each has 
their own flavor. If you have a healthy group, then an incursion of 
a group of (fill in the blanks) folk is almost always a healthy 
thing. You need the difference of ideas and the contrast to provide 
life to the group. And if those moving in are wanting just to take 
over, they'll be on their way before long anyway.

One of the most interesting lessons in the Theosophical movement is 
watching how the various leaders handled conflicts. HPB was a master 
of conflict management. Rarely did her and Olcott expel someone, and 
never for difference of opinion. They chose active engagement, and 
that's because they were strong people. Stainton Moses would not 
have stood a chance in Besant's or Tingley's TS, being a spiritualist 
and all, but with Blavatsky's framework, his ideas were engaged and 
challenged and wrote about in the pages of the Theosophist. Freedom 
of thought means the freedom to disagree, too. One of my favorite 
programs in the Akron Lodge, which was/is inhabited by a large 
contingent of bhoot-daks was to find an old Alan Kardec book and 
compare the spiritualism that Blavatsky argued against (with her 
comments, of course) with how spiritualism was practiced at the 
time. There were more than a few surprised folk in the group. It 
was fun, and the bhoot-daks, well, they enjoyed it, too!

In complete contradistinction to a takeover, if someone wants to set 
up a lodge for the study of Astrology, Buddhism, or Bailey for that 
matter, under the aegis of the TS, if the section and HQ is willing 
to issue the charter, so be it. Regarding public Theosophical work I 
have to admit to not being a "purist" at all, the only basic 
restriction being the agreement with the Three Objects. The public 
work of the TS is to promote Universal Brotherhood, not Occultism. 
Occultism, like many other habits is best done in private or in an 
otherwise appropriate setting (tongue-in-cheek - well, almost).

I did programming in two large lodges in the 80's and 90's and it was 
a blast! It was a wonderful opportunity to examine Theosophy from 
different angles and to introduce people to us who normally wouldn't 
walk through our doors. We established contact with various ethnic 
religious communities and local social service organizations and at 
the same time used our experiences to enrich our strictly 
Theosophical studies, which we always made sure that there was time 
for. There is no more wonderful thrill to me than to see a TS group 
act as an active, living entity in the promotion of Universal 
Brotherhood in its community and if the opportunity presents itself 
again, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. Sure, there's the mundane 
stuff, getting the publicity out, writing the newsletter, updating 
the website, getting the refreshments, making sure the arrangements 
are all set and so on, but it's well worth it. Karma Yoga, I tells 
ya <grins>. 

And so it goes...

Joe

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Katinka Hesselink wrote:
> > Still, one of the issues is how much freedom do individual 
sections 
> > have? Do they have the right to only study and discuss Alice 
Bailey 
> > for instance? Do they have the right to exclude people for 
wanting to 
> > study HPB? Do they have the right (in short) to be sectarian?
> 
> Technically, they do NOT have the right to be sectarian; that 
would be 
> a violation of the 1st Object. But the International Bylaws were 
not 
> based on the President considering him or herself a spiritual 
leader, 
> and gives the President the ability to unilaterally dissolve a 
section, 
> without any requirement to give a reason, a power that is very open 
to 
> abuse.
> 
> A Lodge or Section should not be excluded for allowing people 
from a 
> specific religious background to be members. But they SHOULD be 
excluded 
> for REFUSING to allow them.
> 
> > It used to be the case, in the time of Olcott and Blavatsky that 
> > there were sections set up which were devoted to studying only 
one 
> > aspect of the wisdom tradition. The Buddhist Society started as a 
> > lodge in the TS, devoted to studying and spreading Buddhism. The 
same 
> > was true for the organisation which was started by Anna Kingsford 
and 
> > her coworker (I forget both the organisation that sprang from 
that 
> > and the name of the co-worker). In The Netherlands there used to 
be a 
> > lodge for artists only. Nobody used to mind that sort of 
specialism. 
> 
> The American Section has a rule that a Theosophist can only 
belong to a 
> single Lodge. But they created a pseudo-Lodge: the so-
called "National 
> Lodge". I had discussed with John Algeo the possibilty of creating 
> similar groups for specialized interests within the Theosophical 
Society 
> a number of years back within the current bylaws.
> 
> The problem with specialized groups is lack of potential 
membership. If 
> there are 4-5 Lodges in a city, there is not a problem with a Lodge 
> becoming specialized. But if there is only one Lodge in a 
geographical 
> area, and that Lodge is specialized, there are often not enough 
people 
> to justify the creation of another Lodge, which means that anybody 
not 
> interested in that particular specialty is screwed.
> 
> Bart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But now each lodge is supposed to have the same broad outlook 
that 
> > the society as a whole has. Which is impossible, because it 
either 
> > means studying 'theosophical' literature only - or it means 
jumping 
> > from one subject to another and never being able to dive into 
> > something deeply. Now Buddhism for instance is a lifetime study, 
just 
> > like Blavatskyan Theosophy is. So the insistence on lodges to be 
> > unsectarian actually causes the TS to be sectarian. Only those 
> > interested in so called theosophical literature can join. 
> > 
> > And I think this started (in official policy that is) with Annie 
> > Besant getting rid of Steiner on the grounds that the German 
Section 
> > did not have the right to refuse members on religious grounds 
[that 
> > is: being a member of the Order of the Star]. I used to agree 
that 
> > Besant was right - freedom of thought was paramount in the TS. 
But he 
> > didn't refuse them membership of the TS, nor did he prevent them 
from 
> > setting up their own lodges and sections of the TS, in order to 
study 
> > say what Krishnamurti wrote in those days. To be sure this is a 
> > correct version of events, one would have to dive into the 
archives 
> > at Adyar - I hope somebody takes up that project and gets 
permission 
> > to do so. 
> > 
> > Katinka
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> > theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > 
> >>Hi Bart and all,
> >>
> >>My views are just my views:
> >>
> >>When we talkm about Denmark - I have to say that my knowledge 
tells 
> > 
> > me
> > 
> >>different. I live in Denmark you know.
> >>The reason why Denmark was excluded - was because of their heavy 
> > 
> > leaning on
> > 
> >>the teachings of Alice A. Bailey. But as I understand it - The 
> > 
> > Theosophical
> > 
> >>Society has changed its policies on the Alice A. Bailey issue 
> > 
> > through the
> > 
> >>years depending on who was sitting at the driverseats in 
different 
> > 
> > sections.
> > 
> >>True ?
> >>
> >>
> >>from
> >>M. Sufilight with peace...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> >