Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00170)

Anand,

Please tell me the source of your information upon which you base your 
opinions. My information comes from 42 years of direct observation and 
involvement with TSA, and lessor time with the other Theosophical 
organizations in this country. That is, my information is first hand. I 
do not take seriously books or articles written to defend or condemn 
this or that Theosophical Leader or Theosophical Organization. I have 
the source documents from all organizational view points in my own 
library, have read them, and can draw my own conclusions.

The Theosophical Movement can never be ruined. It is alive and well, 
and has existed for millenniums before the advant of the Theosophical 
Society, and will continue for millenniums into the future. As the TM 
has always done, it continues to do its work in whatever form and 
through whatever organization, individual, or none at all. Truth does 
not flourish in atmospheres of cultish loyalty to organizations or leaders.

On the other hand, the Theosophical Cause--that is--the efforts made by 
the founders of the Theosophical Society has indeed been ruined. 
However, it is not the mistakes that may or may not have been made by 
William Q. Judge or Annie Besant or Robert Crosbie or Francia LaDue or 
Katherine Tingley or whomever else that ruined the Theosophical 
Movement. It is the bitter and cultish-like closed mindedness and 
resentments from too many present day members in any of the Theosophical 
Organizations (including Adyar) that continues to spew forth its poisons 
of bigotry, arrogance and pretentiousness which ruins the Theosophical 
cause. 
When Theosophists are willing to put the welfare of humanity above their 
petty organizational snibblings, they will on their own be able to 
unite into a true fellowship of workers for Theosophy. They won't need 
someone in "management" to merge them into any organization. 
That is my 2 cents worth. 
Jerry





Anand Gholap wrote:

> Jerry,
> Real problem as I see is there are more than three so called 
> Theosophical organizations. And members of them consider other 
> organization as competitor. America is very unfortunate as far as 
> Theosophy is concerned. Split did ruin Theosophical movement in 
> America to much extent. If you are in management, then why don't you 
> try to merge other small organizations in TSA.
> Anand Gholap
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> wrote:
>
>
> > Anand,
> >
> > One works cooperatively by collaborating with others on projects 
> which 
>
> > all parties involved feel are for the general good. The manner 
> which 
>
> > the project is carried out would be according to the agreed upon 
> > "policies or wisdom", as you put it, of each individual. 
> > To give an example: When I was invited to participate in the 
> planning 
>
> > committee for the Pasadena TS's 1988 networking convention, I 
> learned 
>
> > that their system of planning was for everyone to participate in 
> each 
>
> > step of the planning process, including the wording of letters and 
> > fliers. The Chairship was rotated at each meeting, so, sometimes 
> > members of other Theosophical Organizations (such as Adyar and ULT) 
> > chaired the meetings. Each chair had their own style of conducting 
> the 
>
> > meeting, and did so according to their own wisdom. The event was 
> very 
>
> > successful. 
> > An example where TSA rejected a proposal of collaboration concerned 
> > Point Loma Publications. Emmett Small, then President of Point 
> Loma 
>
> > Publications proposed to TSA that they co-publish a particular 
> > Theosophical book. I believe the book he proposed was "Wind of the 
> > Spirit." which is not about Theosophical doctrines, but 
> Theosophical 
>
> > wisdom. He received a reply from Dora Kunz who rejected the 
> proposal. 
>
> > The reason she gave was that the book is "too Theosophical." She 
> did 
>
> > not propose an alternative book for co-publication. 
> > If policies are of such a nature that they prevent work to be done 
> for 
>
> > the general good of humanity and prevent solidarity between fellow 
> human 
>
> > beings, then I suggest that such policies need to be reviewed. TS 
> > Pasadena's policy of involving everyone into the decision making 
> process 
>
> > and rotating the Chairperson ship in the meetings was a policy 
> which 
>
> > produced a very well run networking conference which everyone was 
> happy 
>
> > to have been a part of. TSA's policy of rejecting the co-operative 
> > publication of a Theosophical book on the grounds that it is "too 
> > Theosophical" raises questions in my mind. What is your opinion?
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anand Gholap wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jerry,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > No, the networking we tried to promote does not mean adopting 
> > > another 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > organization's policies. It means respecting other's 
> differences, 
>
> > > > extending a hand of fellowship, and working cooperatively with 
> > > others 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > who share the ideals of world solidarity. 
> > > When actions are guided by wise policies or wisdom then only they 
> > > become helpful to others. So when you say 'working cooperatively 
> with 
>
> > > others', what policies guide those actions is important. 
> > > Anand Gholap 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links