Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01525)

I'm sorry to hear about all of the politics that yourself and others 
have to grieve over.  Right now, I'm just attending a few of the 
courses so I can learn new things, paying the suggested non-
membership donations for each individual session that I attend.  I'm 
not really desirous to get involved in the political power structure 
of the organization.

I've been glutted in the past with corporate politics in the 
workplace (United Parcel Service) and religious politics in the 
Christian fundamentalist church, having held hyper-productive 
leadership positions in each.  Notwithstandly, I've come to the 
point that, if I wish to change the world around me for the better, 
seeking organizational positions of power is one of the least 
effective ways to do it.

I now believe that we most effectively change the world around us 
strictly apart from organizational positions of authority.  We each 
have enormous powers at our disposal already, whether we realize it 
or not, in the content of our words and actions towards the people 
in our most immediate proximities, whether it be for good or ill.  
We effect changes that we don't even know about through our 
contructive and/or destructive actions coupled with our positive 
and/or negative words, building up the world or destroying it, 
freely and at large.

Whereas, those who reside in organizational positions of authority 
become more slave to political structures than they often realize, 
forgetting the outside world around them, and being sifted by the 
winds of such politics.  And this goes against anything remotely 
resembling spiritual and/or mystical enlightenment.  In fact, it is 
a departure.

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > "Nevertheless, I have from the beginning, consistently refused 
to 
> > join the ES, LCC or Co-Masonry, which are necessities for those 
who 
> > want to rise through the political ranks.  Yet I have a pretty 
> > comprehensive collection of Blavatskian and post-Blavatsky ES 
> > documents here and know all of their ES "secrets" which others 
have 
> > taken years and years to have been given in return for their 
loyalty 
> > to the leadership."
> > 
> > So you seem to be saying that they've been a bit political to 
say 
> > the least.  But the same could be said of any incorporated 
business 
> > or religious organization.  Do you feel that they actually did 
> > something bad or wrong?
> 
> 	The way I see it, the management in the TS has been getting 
steadily 
> more oligarchical. It is not physically difficult for an outsider 
to 
> become part of the oligarchy, but, in order to do so, they have to 
> become, well, part of the oligarchy. I'm not as certain that 
membership 
> in the coMasons, LCC and ES are all necessary; I think it's in the 
other 
> direction: the kind of people the oligarchy wants are also the 
kind of 
> people who would join those organizations (I have pointed out, 
quite 
> openly, the hypocrisy inherent in belonging to the both the  LCC, 
an 
> organization that thumbs its nose at the 1st Object, and the ES. 
And the 
> rules of both the coMasons and the ES specifically prohibit 
showing 
> favoritism to members of the respective organizations, which 
brings the 
> level of hypocrisy even higher). Be that as it may, I have also 
pointed 
> out a number of things which have been done in the past few years 
to 
> strengthen the oligarchy.
> 
> 	First is the discouragement and blocking of those who are 
not "in" to 
> be able to communicate with the membership. The membership list is 
> available to those already serving on the board, but forbidden to 
> anybody else, giving a major leg up to those who the existing 
board 
> members wish to encourage, and a major barrier to those who aren't 
on 
> that list. A number of attempts that have been made in the past to 
> create direct communication between lodges have been quietly 
discouraged 
> by Wheaton, as well (including two projects of mine; one to have 
lodges 
> physically near each other share lists of speakers willing to 
travel, to 
> create local versions of the "national speakers" program, and the 
other 
> is the theoslodges list, which was supposed to be to create a 
> backchannel of communication between those active in lodges).
> 
> 	Then, there is the move towards eliminating lodges 
altogether, 
> encouraging people to be "members-at-large" (something that used 
to be 
> discouraged). As I have mentioned before, National has even 
created a 
> pseudo "National Lodge" (which is not a lodge at all).
> 
> 	In addition, there has been the combining of districts, so 
that 
> somebody who, in spite of the efforts of National, builds up a 
local 
> reputation, STILL can't get elected to the Board.
> 
> 	The major difference between the TS Adyar and the other 
Theosophical 
> Societies is that the TS Adyar is, theoretically, democratic on 
> organization. The blocking of communication, and the constraints 
put on 
> any member running for office who is not in favor with those 
currently 
> in office, is definitely against the spirit of the organization.
> 
> 	Bart
>