Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00185)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MarieMAJ41@... wrote:
>
> Regarding the ES , I think that it was originally started in part 
to do work of the 3rd Object of the Society. That object has been 
downplayed, and now only ES members are working on that. The outer 
members don't even ask about the 3rd object, so well has that?been 
ghosted and obfuscated.
> 
> Marie


I would guess that many "outer" members have their own private ways 
of working on the third object, but have given up on the TS being of 
any assistance in that regard.  Just looked up definitions of 
corruption and conflict of interest to get a better handle, and the 
bottom line of corruption is use of a public position for private 
gain.  The TS is a public body, the ES is a private one consisting of 
about 2@ of the membership of the TS the last I heard. As Anton notes:

> There's a problem with ES. ES is considered a closed order, where 
the members take some vows which they don't disclose to the outer 
world. Let's suppose that among them there is a vow of loyality to 
the head of organization.If the president of TS is a ES member, the 
ES head can order him something and the president shall act not 
according to the interests of the members which democraticly elected 
him, but to the orders of the ES head.

PJ: Precisely.  Of course ES members will just flatly deny that such 
a conflict could ever occur, because they are "working for the good 
of the TS."  But-- the good of the TS according to a private secret 
definition that just happens to think *whatever* the ES does is good 
for the TS!  Because they form a spiritual link to the Masters, I 
suppose.

> This problem was "elegantly" solved in TS by combination of 
president and ES head offices. It makes the president free of any 
outer control, as he is a head of both organizations.

PJ: Olcott never took any such vow to obey the ES OH, but the offices 
have been problematically combined more often than not since Besant 
succeeded him.   

> Two other possibilities: (1) dissolve ES or (2) make provision in 
the Rules that TS higher officers cannot be members of ES, are more 
hard to put into practice, for (1) ES can continue to run secretly in 
spite of its dissolution; and (2) the candidate can hide the fact of 
his membership in ES, which ES won't disclose.
> 

PJ: One further consideration.  I listened to an interview of Radha 
online and she strongly insisted that the TS had no dogma, no 
requirements other than acceptance of the objects.  Of course no 
mention was made that all real power is held by ES members who very 
definitely have a belief system and set of practices the rest of us 
are not privy to.  As well as a spiritual leader who is to be obeyed. 
So it isn't just the private/public conflict that is a problem, but 
also the religion/not religion conflict.  Which to my mind means that 
the ES is fundamentally and inherently in conflict with what the TS 
proclaims itself to be.  A public group that explicitly repudiates 
being an exclusive religion is secretly dominated by a private group 
that practices and promotes an exclusive religion.  This will always 
be a source of trouble until some corrective action takes place.