Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00145)

A quick perusal of the Boston Lodge program reveals only one 
Theosophical class, on Friday night, and no public programs on 
Theosophy, per se, that is, directly dealing with HPB or the 
Mahatma's, within her tradition, for the next three months. Not to 
be sectarian, but if that's how the group regards "Theosophy" proper, 
then better to call itself something else and be honest about 
it....By your fruits, so shall you be known.

The problem, as I see it, is that of a lack of knowledge of Theosophy 
proper, and a resultant readiness to equate anything that 
mentions "masters" with Theosophy. The reason that Theosophy is able 
to stand on its own is its tradition of bringing things together from 
different places and encouraging everyone to examine vigorously for 
themselves, which is why it can produce thinkers and scholars from 
GRS Mead (Gnosticism) to Ernest Wood and Christmas Humpherys 
(Buddhism). Later traditions differ in the insistence on blind faith 
in following this or that leader. That's why a Bailey or Claire-
Prophet will never bring anything new to the table, because they 
can't give what they don't have.

This is also why the work of people like David Riegle and Daniel 
Caldwell is so important to the movement.

Joe

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph P. Fulton" 
<jpfulton314@h...> wrote:
> Bart,
> 
> Some additional background may help in understanding why perhaps 
the 
> Boston Lodge got it's charter yanked...and this might rankle some 
> Adyar folk, and y'all ULT'ers out there will be without something 
of 
> a clue here.
> 
> The 80's were a very tumultuous time for Wheaton. Dorothy 
Abbenhouse 
> was elected as a "safe alternative" to the "revolutionary minded" 
(by 
> the old guard) Bing Escudero (perhaps with good reason, we'll never 
> know). A number of Lodges and Study Centers were very pro-Bing and 
> had formed loose alliances at the time. Both Abbenhouse 
> administrations were tied up in dealing with the situation, which 
was 
> always in the background no matter what else was happening. This 
> caused something of a bunker mentality at Wheaton resulting in a 
> defensive posture regarding the Bing Escudero situation. At this 
> time, Adyar was also very sensitive to incursions by Bailey groups 
on 
> the various sections and Boston just happened to be at the wrong 
> place, at the wrong time, in the wrong circumstance. I don't know 
> what the exact program was, perhaps a few monthly programs from 
that 
> era would be helpful to peruse to see what the balance was. In any 
> case, from what I know of the general attitude at Wheaton, someone
(s) 
> must have been making one hell of a ruckus in Boston at the time 
(as 
> I understand, the lodge was pretty well split), because HQ does not 
> want to hear about the troubles in an individual group, and by the 
> time it gets there, something has gone badly out of control. 
There's 
> something that's not being said here, I strongly suspect...
> 
> Having Bailey on the program is no sin, especially for a public 
> group, or to use the lodge for meetings with prior agreement, but 
> there are organizations out there to promote Bailey and her work 
and 
> it is wrong for them to consciously try to hijack a TS group for 
its 
> assets just the same as it would be wrong for it to happen likewise.
> 
> Otherwise, the story of the Boston Lodge is a fascinating tidbit in 
> the history of the modern Theosophical movement. Thanks for 
everyone 
> who is putting in their two cents worth.
> 
> Joe
> 
> P.S. I was Ohio Federation Pres. in late 80's, early 90's and we 
had 
> no problem keeping our VP's busy <grins>. 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> > Zack Lansdowne wrote:
> > > In Dec. 14, 1992, Dorothy Abbenhouse, National President of the 
> TSA, sent a
> > > letter to the Theosophical Society in Boston (TSB) that stated 
in 
> part: "The
> > > charter of the Besant Lodge, a branch of the Theosophical 
Society 
> in
> > > America, is hereby revoked and withdrawn, effective 
immediately. 
> All members
> > > of the Besant Lodge are hereby designated members at large. 
> Pursuant to the
> > > terms of the Bylaws of the Theosophical Society in America, you 
> are hereby
> > > directed to cause ownership of all property, real and personal 
or 
> otherwise
> > > over $200.00 in value, to be transferred into the name of the 
> Theosophical
> > > Society in America."
> > 
> > For the sake of completeness:
> > 
> > I have heard both sides of the story. I have heard nothing 
> but good 
> > things about the Independent Theosophical Society of Boston, by 
the 
> way. 
> > Have you ever seen RASHOMON (if not, off topic, it is a REALLY 
> great 
> > film)? Well, it has NOTHING on this story. Both sides have 
> demonized the 
> > other, but the people I have met and/or corresponded with on both 
> sides, 
> > I feel are good, decent people. It is one of the reasons why I 
have 
> > currently refused all requests to run for office in the TS 
> (although I 
> > freely admit that, when I was VP of the Northeast Federation, my 
> entire 
> > set of accomplishments consisted of keeping the seat warm).
> > 
> > However, there is one fact that the documents back up. 
> According to the 
> > TSA bylaws, if National wants to dissolve a Lodge, they must 
inform 
> the 
> > Lodge why it is being dissolved, and give the Lodge 6 months to 
> either 
> > change its behavior, or explain why it should not be dissolved. I 
> have 
> > read a cc of the letter sent by National to TSB, and it contained 
> no 
> > mention or even implication of Alice Bailey. However, the TSB 
> refused to 
> > even communicate with National for that 6 month period. In my own 
> > opinion, that alone was grounds for dissolution, in clear 
violation 
> of 
> > the 1st Object.
> > 
> > The Board of the TSB was upset. Based on their point of view, 
> they had 
> > good reason to be upset. They believed that the fix was in, and 
> nothing 
> > they could do would prevent their dissolution. I, personally, 
> don't. But 
> > by refusing to even discuss the issue, they took what I consider 
to 
> be a 
> > low road, and made the lawsuit inevitable. At the risk of 
sounding 
> like 
> > Ramadoss, I believe that if the Internet backchannels of 
> communication 
> > were widely available at the time, the Lodge would never have 
been 
> > dissolved in the first place.
> > 
> > Bart