Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00087)

I still believe there an untapped role for Internet based "organization"
 supplemented by meetup group. Finally it all amounts to each of us
transforming with the help of understanding theosophy.

MKR

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:56 PM, robert_b_macd <
robert.b.macdonald@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> My mistake, Cass. Your concern over the expulsion suggestion, reminded me
> of a post that I had read previously on theos-talk concerning an Australian
> who had been expelled from the Society. I had assumed, given your apparent
> discomfort with the idea, that it had been you -- a stupid assumption.
>
> I am not sure I know what you are referring to as far as the esoteric group
> and Radha are concerned. Probably none of my business anyway.
>
> Decision by consensus vs. some one individual taking responsibility. That
> one can be argued about forever. Plato's "Republic" certainly looks at the
> positive and negatives.
>
> As we both know, I assume, this is purely an intellectual exercise at this
> point. I have not the temerity nor the naivety to believe that there will be
> any change in any of the current Theosophical Societies nor am I interested
> in establishing a new one. I am sure that the members of a new Society would
> possess the same human weaknesses that have destroyed the currently existing
> societies. All the rules in the world are not going to prevent that. If
> Blavatsky and Judge failed, I certainly could do no better. What the
> exercise does do is try to identify where we have gone wrong and how it
> might have been prevented were a new society to be established. We have over
> a 100 years of failure to explore.
>
> That being said, as theosophists, it is not our duty to dwell on human
> weakness, but rather to inspire each other to do better. I assume this is a
> forum that encourages the practicing of theosophy in some of its more nobler
> aspects? I could talk all day with what is wrong with people, but would
> rather look to see what can be made right.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bruce
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, Cass
> Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
> >
> > For the record Robert I have never had a bad experience with
> > the TS in Melbourne - in fact the opposite - and I have the
> > utmost respect for all who took the various tutorials.
> > It was suggested that I might be interested in participating in
> > a more esoteric group but decided against it as I felt I wasn't
> > ready.  I was invited to meet Radha Burnier and join the group
> > for Tea which I did - and my first impression of Radha was
> > that there was very little spiritual about her - which disappointed
> > me as my expectations led me to think that she would have been
> > more brotherly than I found her to be.
> >
> > I don't believe that one should have carte blanche decision making
> > capabilities - that every decision should be reached by consensus.
> > If a consensus cannot be reached the decision is to be deferred.
> >
> > I was under the impression that you were considering the
> > establishment of a society completely autonomous from the existing
> > TS - but it seems that you are contemplating a takeover of the
> > already established TS.  If this is the case I can see mountains of
> > problems that even a master wouldn't challenge.  I don't know
> > once an egg is broken can one put it back together again?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Cass
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: robert_b_macd <robert.b.macdonald@...>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 6 April, 2009 12:18:29 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Questions for Keith - straight to the point I
> hope
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Cass,
> >
> > The testing I am referring to is what is sometimes called "pledge-fever"
> . It is simply an occult process whereby an opportunity to test new found
> wisdom is attracted to the individual by the individual's own higher Self.
> The Self tests the self, and the self knows in his own heart whether he has
> passed or not. If not, he will be tested again in the future, as long as he
> continues forward. It is really not anyone else's business. The aspirant for
> membership should be made aware that this is going to happen so he knows
> what he is getting himself into. I am just saying there should be full
> disclosure to the aspiring member.
> >
> > As far as excommunication is concerned, two-thirds of the lodge have to
> agree on this. Certainly there may be better ways to deal with disruptive
> influences, and I am certainly open to suggestions. Certainly, if the member
> is motivated for revenge, perhaps he should rethink whether theosophy is the
> right path for him. Certainly, a bad experience with a lodge is going to
> leave a member bitter. If I remember correctly, you had an experience along
> these lines, perhaps you have some insight into this particular dynamic and
> how it could be handled.
> >
> > > As far as the leadership is concerned I would suggest that the main
> criteria is for a voluntary non-paid position - subject to election every
> two years - certainly no longer - any decisions taken could be by member
> reforendum administrated by voluntary unpaid chorum. All positions are up
> for grabs every two years.
> >
> > Limited voluntary terms would probably be a good thing. It would limit
> the damage by bad leadership, but on the flip side it would limit the good
> that might be done by a capable leader. What are you referring to by way of
> "any decisions taken"? Certainly you are not advocating a leader be totally
> hamstrung from deciding anything? My purpose was to limit the damage that
> could be done by leadership by making them beholden at every step to those
> in power at a lower level. There are no rules the international body could
> impose on any body below it in the hierarchy, etc. The individual member
> would have to agree on anything that would infringe on his autonomy. There
> would not be a lot that the leader could do other than fix buildings and
> inspire others.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it is also important to question our motives and our agenda
> > >
> > > Cass: My sentence on Initiation was in response to this and I ask the
> question - who will do the testing?
> > >
> > > Robert: Individuals seeking membership should be made aware that
> theosophy is not for the feint of heart. They will be tested by their own
> spiritual Self as they progress, the Lodges they belong to will be tested,
> Sections will be tested and the International Society will be tested. They
> are expected to stand firm and fight through all these tests by themselves
> or together with others. The tests will never be anything that they cannot
> personally handle if approached with courage and the wisdom that one has
> acquired to that point. If they are unable to do this, then they should be
> encouraged not to become members.
> > >
> > > Robert wrote: All I said is that a lodge is a dynamic body with a life
> of its own. It has to be able to decide whether an aspirant for membership
> in the Society is right for their own lodge. Naturally, we want lodges to
> accept people, even difficult people, and learn through that experience.
> However, at some point they have to be able to say: "no this person has
> proved too disruptive within our lodge, it would be better for him to follow
> independent study or build his own group with like-minded individuals. "
> When a lodge says this they cannot have a higher authority second-guessing
> them. Can this be abused? Of course it can. That is why the member is not
> expelled from the Society, only from the lodge. In fact, in a well-run
> National Section, I think that Section should help the member to build a new
> lodge if he wants that experience, or he could continue with individual
> study as a Member-at-large.
> > >
> > > Cass:  I ask who then decides if an aspirant is right for a particular
> lodge?  An excommunicated  disruptive aspirant will be motivated towards
> revenge
> > >
> > > As far as the leadership is concerned I would suggest that the main
> criteria is for a voluntary non-paid position - subject to election every
> two years - certainly no longer - any decisions taken could be by member
> reforendum administr ated by voluntary unpaid chorum.  All positions are up
> for grabs every two years.
> > >
> > > Have you thought about how membership fees would be spent?
> > >
> > > Cass
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: robert_b_macd <robert.b.macdonald @...>
> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 6 April, 2009 10:54:44 AM
> > > Subject: Theos-World Re: Questions for Keith - straight to the point I
> hope
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cass, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > the more rules one has the more one leaves
> > > > the rules open to others interpretation.
> > > > If one wishes to establish a new direction then one must be clear
> > > > on its principles - to study and disseminate the works of HPB and
> > > > those authors who are clearly neo-platonic in nature.
> > >
> > > I agree. That is why I tried to start with a statement of general
> principle followed by rules to limit the power of the various political
> bodies, leaving the individual theosophist with the most power and hopefully
> the president with the least. If I somehow missed doing this I would need
> you to clarify that point.
> > >
> > > > When one appoints a leader - one then must deal with the
> > > > 'pick me' 'pick me' politics that goes along with it. "There is no
> > > > society higher than truth" !
> > >
> > > Again I agree. However, at a lodge level I would hope fellow members
> would know other members best and be able to choose age and wisdom over
> youthful 'pick me' politics. Also, if the leader position is one of duty and
> work and very little power, again it will discourage those seekers after
> power from pursuing the position. I am not sure how you would ever prevent
> power-seekers from going after leadership roles unless the roles were
> basically impotent. A good and wise leader can get a lot done in an impotent
> position, a bad leader can do very little damage.
> > >
> > > > Your criteria for membership rests on the society's or a group of
> > > > individuals 'opinion' on whether or not a soul is ready for
> initiation.
> > > > One man can never see into another man's soul.
> > >
> > > I don't think I mentioned initiation anywhere. All I said is that a
> lodge is a dynamic body with a life of its own. It has to be able to decide
> whether an aspirant for membership in the Society is right for their own
> lodge. Naturally, we want lodges to accept people, even difficult people,
> and learn through that experience. However, at some point they have to be
> able to say: "no this person has proved too disruptive within our lodge, it
> would be better for him to follow independent study or build his own group
> with like-minded individuals. " When a lodge says this they cannot have a
> higher authority second-guessing them. Can this be abused? Of course it can.
> That is why the member is not expelled from the Society, only from the
> lodge. In fact, in a well-run National Section, I think that Section should
> help the member to build a new lodge if he wants that experience, or he
> could continue with individual study as a Member-at-large.
> > >
> > > > This chelaship notion that one man can infer it on another to me is
> nonsense.
> > > > It may have been a necessary link in the establishment of the TS but
> in hindsight
> > > > even with the masters at hand in those days - did any of these chelas
> achieve success?
> > > > In my naive opinion anyone seeking chelaship is seeking theosophy for
> the
> > > > wrong reasons and are only hoping to find the fast lane and most
> expedient
> > > > way to climb ahead of those that follow.
> > >
> > > Again, I am not sure where the idea of chelaship is coming from, you
> will have to clarify that. I don't disagree that theosophists should be
> seeking to serve, not become chelas, nor do I think that people should be
> out expecting to become chelas. Also, if each member is autonomous, I am not
> sure who is inferring what on who?
> > >
> > > Cass, I am not sure that we are at odds in principle, perhaps my
> execution in putting my thoughts down was poorly done. However, that is what
> this venue is for, I hope, developing and clarify ideas.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your response,
> > > R. Bruce
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@ ...>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With respect Robert, the more rules one has the more one leaves
> > > > the rules open to others interpretation.
> > > > If one wishes to establish a new direction then one must be clear
> > > > on its principles - to study and disseminate the works of HPB and
> > > > those authors who are clearly neo-platonic in nature.
> > > >
> > > > When one appoints a leader - one then must deal with the
> > > > 'pick me' 'pick me' politics that goes along with it. "There is no
> > > > society higher than truth" !
> > > >
> > > > Your criteria for membership rests on the society's or a group of
> > > > individuals 'opinion' on whether or not a soul is ready for
> initiation.
> > > > One man can never see into another man's soul.
> > > > This chelaship notion that one man can infer it on another to me is
> nonsense.
> > > > It may have been a necessary link in the establishment of the TS but
> in hindsight
> > > > even with the masters at hand in those days - did any of these
> chelas achieve success?
> > > > In my naive opinion anyone seeking chelaship is seeking theosophy for
> the
> > > > wrong reasons and are only hoping to find the fast lane and most
> expedient
> > > > way to climb ahead of those that follow.
> > > >
> > > > Cass
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > > From: robert_b_macd <robert.b.macdonald @...>
> > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, 6 April, 2009 5:55:38 AM
> > > > Subject: Theos-World Re: Questions for Keith - straight to the point
> I hope
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Anton,
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering how a modern Theosophical Society might be created
> today. I started putting down ideas and came up with the following outline.
> I felt it was worth putting out there as a more formalized constitution
> embodying some of the ideas put forward on this and other forums. For those
> who are interested:
> > > >
> > > > Theosophical Society 2010
> > > >
> > > > If theosophists in 2010 were to create a new Theosophical Society,
> how would they go about this task? The following is an outline as to how
> this might be approached.
> > > >
> > > > First, it would be best to understand the guiding philosophy of what
> we are setting up so that it would help inform the rules below. The most
> important principle to understand about the New Theosophical Society is that
> the autonomy of the individual member is sacrosanct. The only authority any
> member is to follow is their own inner voice. Any work they do with groups
> will be done on a voluntary basis. The autonomy of the individual Lodges or
> Study Groups is protected against the Sections to which they belong, the
> autonomy of the Sections is protected against any international governing
> body.
> > > >
> > > > All individuals seeking membership into the Society will understand
> that they are entering onto a path of rapid spiritual development and the
> more effort they put into the discipline, the more rapid will be that
> development. A side effect of spiritual advancement is what is sometimes
> referred to as "pledge fever". Individuals seeking membership should be made
> aware that theosophy is not for the feint of heart. They will be tested by
> their own spiritual Self as they progress, the Lodges they belong to will be
> tested, Sections will be tested and the International Society will be
> tested. They are expected to stand firm and fight through all these tests by
> themselves or together with others. The tests will never be anything that
> they cannot personally handle if approached with courage and the wisdom that
> one has acquired to that point. If they are unable to do this, then they
> should be encouraged not to become members.
> > > >
> > > > There will be no Esoteric Section or similar type body. Those wishing
> to study the ES instructions as presented by H.P. Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge,
> will do so on their own, taking all prudent precautions and remaining quiet
> about the whole affair as stressed by the instructions.
> > > >
> > > > There will be no Church or public or private ritual associated with
> the Theosophical Society.
> > > >
> > > > Individuals will be invited to join the Theosophical Society who are
> sympathetic to the motto of the Theosophical Society, sympathetic to at
> least one of the three objects of the Theosophical Society, and not
> irrevocably antagonistic to any of the objects of the Theosophical Society.
> > > >
> > > > Motto: There is no religion higher than truth.
> > > >
> > > > Three Objects:
> > > > 1.To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without
> distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
> > > > 2.To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and
> Science.
> > > > 3.To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent
> in man.
> > > >
> > > > The Theosophical Society has no dogma, but it has a doctrine. The
> doctrine is the written work presented by H.P. Blavatsky after forming the
> original Society, the written work of William Q. Judge, those doctrinal
> letters received from those men called Mahatmas during the life of H.P.
> Blavatsky, and those works sanctioned by either Judge or Blavatsky as being
> in harmony with Theosophy. This doctrine is what new members are encouraged
> to study. As theosophists, they are allowed to study anything that they
> perceive to be in harmony with the motto and the three objects. None of the
> doctrine, in whole or in part is a dogma of the Society. The Society
> worships no objective gods and consequently can have no dogma. The member,
> being autonomous, will decide what beliefs they will adopt.
> > > >
> > > > RULES
> > > >
> > > > 1.Every member of the Theosophical Society is autonomous.
> > > > 2.Any individual wishing to join the Theosophical Society will have
> to be associated with a lodge or study group for at least one year prior to
> joining the Society and must be invited to join the Society by a willing
> member of that lodge or study group, and only after a year of association.
> If an individual wishes to join the Society but is not in proximity to a
> lodge, that member will contact the closest lodge and be put in contact with
> a member who could help the aspirant with a study course and be there to
> answer any questions for a period of one year.
> > > > 3.Anyone who after a year of association is not invited to join a
> lodge, or anyone who has spent a year in guided self-study, can then ask the
> National Section for the country in which they live to become members at
> large.
> > > > 4.Any aspirant can be accepted into a lodge or study group after a
> two thirds vote by the entire membership. No lodge or study group is
> obligated to accept as a member someone they deem to be inharmonious with
> the lodge.
> > > > 5.A study group is a group of 3 or more members who meet regularly to
> study theosophy and practice what they have learned in their private lives.
> > > > 6.A lodge is 7 or more members who meet regularly to study theosophy,
> practice theosophy in their private lives, and promote theosophy in their
> community in whatever way they deem appropriate and in harmony with the
> constitution of the Theosophical Society. It will be the lodge leader's duty
> to liaise with the National Section and encourage the lodge to aid the
> National Section in any way that seems wise and fit.
> > > > 7.The only power the lodge or study group has over the members of
> that lodge or study group is to have absolute authority over who and who is
> not a member. There is to be no outside recourse. Any sitting member can be
> expelled after a two-thirds majority vote by the entire membership. Any
> expelled member still remains a member at large.
> > > > 8.The leader of any lodge will be decided by the members of that
> lodge according to the lodge's bylaws which are to be based on local laws
> and customs.
> > > > 9.A National Section is defined as the governing body of 7 or more
> lodges usually, but not always, confined to the borders of a single nation
> state.
> > > > 10.A National Section will be comprised of a governing body of at
> least 7 board members, none of which come from the same lodge and one of who
> should be a member at large. It will be the duty of the board members to
> chose a leader for the National Section according to the bylaws of the
> National Section, bylaws that are to be in harmony with local laws and
> customs.
> > > > 11.Board members of a National Section are expected to have a good
> command of theosophical doctrine.
> > > > 12.A National Section is responsible for promoting theosophy in the
> nation or nations for which it is responsible. In whatever way this
> promotion is conducted, its prime motivation will be for the creation of new
> lodges, aid in increasing membership in existing lodges, and for interacting
> with Society at large on behalf of the membership of that Section. It will
> also have the duty of running an individual study course for members at
> large. Additional duties, such as the maintenance of Section property, etc.
> will be determined by the nature of the office of the National Section and
> as detailed in its bylaws. It will be the National Sections duty to liaise
> with the International body.
> > > > 13.The National Section will always defer to the wishes of the local
> lodge or lodges when promoting Theosophy in their communities.
> > > > 14.The National Section can expel any member at large by a two thirds
> majority vote of the entire board. Once expelled from a National Section, an
> individual ceases to be a member of the Theosophical Society. That
> individual has no recourse for appeal.
> > > > 15.The International Governing Body will be comprised of a governing
> body of at least 7 board members, none of which come from the same Section
> and one of who should be a member at large. It will be the duty of the board
> members to chose a leader for the International Governing Body according to
> the bylaws of the International Governing Body, bylaws that are to be in
> harmony with local laws and customs.
> > > > 16.Board members of the International Governing Body are expected to
> have a good command of theosophical doctrine.
> > > > 17.The International Governing Body is responsible for promoting
> theosophy in all nations. In whatever way this promotion is conducted, its
> prime motivation will be for the creation of new lodges, aid in increasing
> membership in existing lodges, and for interacting with Society at large on
> behalf of all theosophists. Additional duties, such as the maintenance of
> International property, etc. will be determined by the nature of the office
> of the International Governing Body and as detailed in its bylaws.
> > > > 18.The International Governing Body will always defer to the wishes
> of the local Section when promoting Theosophy in their countries.
> > > > 19.The members of the Theosophical Society understand that those
> progressed men referred to as Masters or Mahatmas, in no way sanction this
> effort. They understand that any sanctioning of this effort by Masters or
> Mahatmas will be determined by the effort and wisdom shown by the members of
> this organization over time. These Mahatmas or Masters are not expected to
> descend to our level, we as a Society are expected to rise to theirs.
> > > >
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Anton Rozman" <anton_rozman@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ramadoss,
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't use any public elections in the today world as a model
> to seek after. Rather it should be the other way round if the TS would
> respect and apply in practice the principles which underlie its
> Constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the elections of the TS officials the leading
> constitutional principle is to elect those persons who will execute commonly
> accepted policy at best of their possibilities. Therefore no personal
> contest of candidates is designed. Their ability to contribute to the work
> of the Society is meant to be the only prerequisite which qualify them for
> the nomination. Therefore the whole election and voting process is designed
> in a way to exclude the promotion of any partial or personal interest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, we know that through the history the TS didn't succeed to
> assert these principles and that it rather represented a battlefield of
> various partial and personal interests. They especially burst out in
> daylight in rare moments when more then one candidate has run for the office
> of the President as it was the case last year.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my opinion these partial and personal interests can flourish
> because of the absence of commonly accepted Society's policy which in turn
> is due to the members' willingness to give up their individual creativity
> and freedom and subdue themselves to various hierarchically structured
> organizations which co-exist with the TS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, in my view, the solution is not to be found in the
> transparency of the contest of potential candidates but in the regaining of
> each individual member power to contribute to the work of the Society and in
> the learning of art of collaboration and of reaching consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, if I try to address your thoughts more directly then I would
> try to give answer to the following question: who has and what is the
> interest to have the partial voting results available before the conclusion
> of the overall voting process. From the part of members it is probably only
> to calm down their impatience and curiosity. From the part of running
> candidates it is probably only to have room to try to change unfavorable
> course of elections. And you can even the availability of the information to
> all candidates only if you block the information otherwise there will be
> always one candidate in a better position then other.
> > > > >
> > > > > Warmest regards,
> > > > > Anton Rozman
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How the sections' voting results are handled/processed brings up
> a serious
> > > > > > transparency issue brought about the electioneering that took
> place last
> > > > > > year. Once a world-wide deadline is established, if each section
> has the
> > > > > > same deadline, the results from each section should be made
> public as
> > > > > > soon as the votes are tallied in each section. The same deadline
> applying to
> > > > > > all sections is meant to prevent one section's results
> influencing any other
> > > > > > sections members. For example in all public elections, once the
> votes in
> > > > > > each state is tallied, the results are not kept secret till all
> the states'
> > > > > > results reach a central place and totalled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In TS election, there is unnecessary secrecy and the national
> results are
> > > > > > not disclosed to the members and kept secret. It is known to some
> in each
> > > > > > section and possibly the section leaders and from the events of
> last
> > > > > > year, no one is sure that these numbers are not leaked to other
> sections
> > > > > > and/or their leaders. In today's world, everyone expects the
> sections
> > > > > > results announced as soon as the tallying is complete and there
> is no reason
> > > > > > why this cannot and should not be done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Normally, no one would bring up these issues. It is the actions
> of many
> > > > > > section's leaders last year in the electioneering has brought
> this into
> > > > > > focus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MKR
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/4/09, Anton Rozman <anton_rozman@ > wrote:
> > > > > > As the voting results of each individual Section are in first
> place
> > > > > > processed by Sections' Election Committees the voting results of
> each
> > > > > > individual Section are known to the members of these Committees.
> The
> > > > > > question therefore is: do/did members of these Committees share
> their
> > > > > > knowledge of the voting results of their Sections with the
> Administration in
> > > > > > Adyar before the closing of the election process or do/did not?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8
> optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8
> optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8
> optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


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