Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00638)

I think Bill has asked very simple and fundamental questions and I hope we
hear simple straight answers.

When the disenfranchisement move was discovered, what shocked all the
members from around the world, was the fact that it was so super secret that
even long-time members living and working at Adyar or Olcott or other
National Centers did not even have the slightest idea that it is in the
works. The shock was all the more pronounced because TS is not a secret
organization and any of its activities are also not secret.

Some have argued that it was a "proposal"; on the face of it, it was NOT.
The clear intent was it to be considered in the GC meeting in December and
probably the GC quartet who submitted it had enough votes to pass it. It
would have been a coup but for the help from Internet (which is fortunately
not under the control of any GC member), all of us ordinary members would
have been in total darkness.

It is also very sad that not a single GC member or the well known
theosophical "leader" who supported one candidate or the other and teach and
lecture and write and explain theosophical classics, rose up and openly
protested the attempt of the Quartet to seize control of the nomination and
election of the president.

Now the GC members have the monopoly of nominating the candidates for
president; and with the Quartet's plan, the GC will also have the monopoly
to elect the president, in effect make the president a puppet of GC, doing
away with the sacred voting rights given to the members world-wide more than
a century ago.

As I had written earlier, one of the serious consequences of the above
episode is that many members lost the trust in their elected leaders. No
leader who cannot command the full trust of members can effectively lead.
This is all the more so in TS where we expect everyone to live up to very
high moral and ethical standards.

M K Ramadoss
MKR777_at_GMAIL.COM

THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH

Anton's website link for discussions on TS related matters:

<http://teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/After_Convention_2008.htm>




On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM, t_s_theosophist <THEOSOPHIST@webtv.net>wrote:

>
>
> A REPLY TO WARWICK KEYS' COMMENTS
>
> Warwick Keys the National President of the New Zealand Section of the TS
> gave his version of the recent Adyar General Council meeting. You can view
> it on the TSA website..
>
> (click link)
> <
> http://theosophical.ning.com/forum/topics/the-2008-adyar-convention?id=2060685%3ATopic%3A9509&page=4#comments>
>
>
> ---------------
>
> I OFFER A REPLY TO MR. KEYS.....
>
> REPLY TO WARWICK KEYS' COMMENTS.
>
> Warwick, the fact that change is needed to update the Society is not an
> issue of disagreement. I think that many members would support healthy and
> needed changes.
>
> The aspect of our dis-agreement is the METHOD by which a few sought to
> impose radical changes in the Society in a clandestine and urgent manner,
> without the knowledge or consensus of the membership. THAT IS the aspect of
> disagreement.
>
> Such radical changes that were proposed should have been presented to the
> membership for dialogue and discusion to arrive at some type of consensus.
>
> Members have a RIGHT to Know and voice their opinions about these matters
> which so radically change the operations of the Society.
>
> Did you have the consensus of the New Zealand Section on these proposals?
>
> Did Madame Kim-Diu have the consensus of the French Section?
>
> If so, very well.
>
> The membership of the American Section knew NOTHING about these proposals.
>
> NO consensus was solicited, and there was no dialogue.
>
> This all gives the appearance whether legitimate or not that there was
> secretive and clandestine collusion among you to
> impliment a planned agenda. An agenda designed by whom?
>
> Whether or not you had the legal authority to do this is beside the point.
> The point IS that you had a MORAL responsibility to consult the membership
> and solicit a CONSENSUS of opinion about how the membership felt conserning
> such radical proposals.
>
> If You did this with your Section, very well, bravo to you.
>
> This was not done in the American Section.
>
> Many of us came to The Theosophihcal Society becaue we did NOT like being
> dictated to by supposed "Authorities."
>
> So by WHAT authority did the backers of the controversial proposals act? It
> wasn't by membership consensus. Who is assuming the authority to dictate and
> enforce unknown and clandestine proposals? Tell us please.
>
> There is an ethical and honorable way to go about proposing changes needed
> that was NOT adhered to in this situation.
>
> Whether legitimate or not, it does give the unsavory appearance of a
> political ploy.
>
> Fraternally;
>
> William Delahunt
> Orlando, Forida, U.S.A.
> Member of the TS since 1969
>
> ========================
>
> INFORMATION LINKS
>
> Keep Up To Date On The Discussion of These Issues....
>
> After the General Council Meeting 2008
> (click link)
> http://teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/After_Convention_2008.htm
>
> Time for Healing and Creative Solutions
> (click link)
> http://teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/Healing_Time.htm
>
> -------------------
>
> It Is Important That Members Should Talk To Each Other, and increase The
> Lateral Communication Among Ourselves.
>
> LET'S TALK
>
> Click this link to begin the journey and Dialogue...
>
> (click link)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TSDIALOGUE/
>
> -------------------
>
> Share These Links With Your Lodges And Groups And Other Theosophists You
> Know Of.
>
> =========================
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]