Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00178)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> wrote:
> It's a great concern to me that a policy of "ignorance is bliss" 
> or "ignore it and it will all go away" seeming to be a part of a the 
> society's way of dealing with the CWL/NeoTheosophy issues.

Hi,

You can broaden that concern, because as a general rule spiritual
organizations adopt an unwritten policy of "never admit a mistake." 
Radha would not make an outright claim of infallibility for herself or
any previous TS presidents. But as long as it is taboo to acknowledge
in print that any of them ever made a mistake there is an implicit
denial that they did. Surely to encourage and promote CWL the way
Annie Besant did was mistaken on several levels, and you are right to
say that:

> A state of co-dependence has developed in the society imho and lack 
> of support for the freedom of speech of those who point out the 
> difference between the CWL and HPB/Mahatma's this is outrages beyond 
> belief.

They can speak freely, just not in TS publications or in its programs
(and this doesn't apply to local lodges necessarily.) But how much
support for freedom of speech to criticize actions by earlier leaders
is found in ULT or TS-Pasadena? In the latter case, no one would ever
claim infallibility for Tingley, Purucker, Conger, or Long. But
neither will any criticism of them be found in the publications or
programs of the Society. (In my opinion, Tingley's pathological fear
of masturbation which led to putting children in quasi-straitjackets
was just as unhealthy as CWL's opposite position on the subject.)
Neither will ever be admitted to have had any flaws. Nor will ULT
publications or programs ever allow any criticism of Robert Crosbie or
his successors, or the secret esoteric section within ULT, or
especially of Judge and the circumstances surrounding his alienation
from Olcott and Besant. And none of the organizations will accept the
idea that HPB or her Masters ever made a mistake. She herself
predicted and deplored this state of affairs at the close of The Key
to Theosophy. 

You wrote:

> (Unless I am mistaken and can be given some positive assurance that 
> this is not the case)
> Does freedom of thought and freedom to compare different traditions 
> in the societies publications exist in the Societies mandate? 

As well as freedom to question or deny the Masters' existence, or
propose alternative belief systems as superior to that found in HPB's
writings. Yet the original TS allowed and encouraged that kind of
freedom, e.g. in the cases of Hume and Kingsford respectively.

> The hypocrisy of this state of "organizational culture" should be 
> unacceptable for any theosophical student no matter how you feel 
> about CWL.

As should the refusal to admit (in other than a vague hypothetical
way) the possibility that any leader ever made any mistake be
unacceptable within any Theosophical organization no matter how you
feel about HPB, Olcott, Judge, the Masters, etc.

> I hope one day the society can not be so tied to a dogma and guru 
> worship that it will be able to become that which it was meant to be 
> with open Socratic dialogue in all its publications.

If there had been any forward movement in intellectual freedom in the
Theosophical movement in recent years I'd share that hope. But it
seems a vain one from all I've seen.

> The irony is that the Theosophy in Australia magazine has just 
> published an article that criticizes the Secret Doctrine quite 
> strongly and to that I say GREAT!!! that's the true theosophical 
> spirit.

Not likely to be found in Adyar or Wheaton publications. Some of the
national section journals are quite a bit more independent.

> But why oh why not CWL ??? 

When you know that logic and evidence are against your position, you
suppress discussion of the subject. 

On a final note, I'll mention my experience with ARE in which I let my
membership lapse a couple of years ago. Not because of any
disagreement with the association's activities or emphases which I
generally support, nor due to any disagreement with its philosophy. 
The governing board made a disastrous decision in 1998 to Christianize
the organization, fire the executives and replace them with more
fundamentalist-leaning types, and other ill-advised moves. After a
couple of years of declining membership, financial crises, and
vigorous member protests, the board fired those executives and
returned the organization more to its original universalist
perspective. While I was happy with this, there was never ANY public
acknowledgment that anything whatsoever had gone wrong. No
transparency about the process, no accountability by the board, no
addressing of past mistakes. As someone who has spent a career
working with nonprofit boards, and actively served as a board member
of several other nonprofits, I could not countenance this lack of
accountability and transparency. All the boards I ever served on or
under *had* to be transparent and accountable, invite the press and
members/citizens to meetings, and such. ARE, like the TS and other
spiritual groups, is run by a board that neither practices nor even
hypothetically endorses transparency and accountability. That's an
insurmountable objection for me.

But at least in the case of ARE, secrecy is an ad hoc organizational
principle. With all the Theosophical organizations, it's a
fundamental element of the belief system that secrecy is appropriate
and inevitable for a spiritual elite. That invites anyone who gets
any position of authority to imagine him/herself part of a spiritual
elite and therefore entitled to secrecy and immune from accountability.

Cheers,

Paul