Theos-Talk Archives (June 2009 Message tt00567)

The root cause of many of the problems is the lack of transparency. I have
talked about it at length in the past.

-

Until we received a letter from our national leader, alleging Radha Burnier
as sick, both physically and mentally, we did not even know who the
candidates were. One wonders if the GC members were sworn to secrecy about
disclosure of the election candidates. The letter we received from our
national leader started the health issue and discussions here rolling and
next we saw the physicianâs reports rebutting the allegation and the common
man and woman would any day will rely more on the professional opinions than
that of lay menâs and womenâs and that is what many of us did. All the three
physicians are highly reputed ones and hence there was no reason to doubt
their opinions.

-

Everyone on this list know about the details of disenfranchisement move and
they can make up their own mind. But the bottom line is that many members
have a very low trust in the leaders and it is going to take a lot of time
for the trust to be rebuilt. Until that is done, it is going to be difficult
to lead. And in the meanwhile, with background of what the leaders tried to
do and how the attempted it, makes many very vigilant because of the
continued lack of transparency. Just think of what would have been the
situation today but for the Internet and theos-talk.

-

Mucho gracias

-

MKR

-

Visit *theosophy.net* <http://theosophy.net/> and enjoy the site.


On 6/25/09, robertapimenta26 <robertapimenta26@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Ramadoss: please consider the following, only consider it, yes?
>
> Who were those three doctors you are always referring to? Do you know them?
> The question is clear: were all of them they really objective? Like it or
> not, this is a legitimate question, it needs to be investigated, before you
> can come to any type of conclusion.
>
> From all that is available on the Net, again this is NOT a secret, we know
> for example that one of the doctors who stated that Mr. Radha Burnier was in
> perfect health, a long standing and highly regarded member of the TS, is
> known as a passionate supporter of hers. Now, mind you, there is nothing
> wrong with passionately supporting the International President, but the
> question we should all ask ourselves is: 'was this medical doctor the ideal
> doctor to present an objective analyzes?'
>
> The two other doctors were Indian doctors, if am not mistaken. Here the
> question should be raised , IF there was any doubt regarding the President's
> health, who initiated these medical exams. If it was the President herself
> who requested them, which is likely, we need to know if these doctors had a
> professional or a personal relationship with her. How do we know, they were
> independent or not? This is crucial, again like it or not, because we need
> to know if those two exams were carried out, professionally, objectively,
> and independently, yes? The reality is that we don't know if they really
> were independent, very simple.
>
> Since this was such a hot topic, from what I read last year, this problem
> could have been easily solved if the International President would have been
> examined by doctors who would have had NO link with either the TS or Mrs.
> Radha Burnier herself.
>
> Now, Mr. Ramadoss do not start screaming at once, just think about it, it
> would help you and me, and all who are trying to discover the truth so much!
>
> I am sorry, but I must also ask you to consider this: you do your 'secret
> attempt to disenfranchise members' act again. The secret plots against the
> International President etc. etc. Has it ever occured to you, that perhaps
> you could be wrong here? I have been reading this site since last year and I
> have browsed at Mr. Rozman's site quite often, so this is what I have
> concluded:
>
> A very unfortunate PROPOSAL,(I agree, it wasn't good!) was sent to all
> members of the GC, yes? It was a proposal Mr. Ramadoss, and a proposal is
> always subject to a vote, correct? It is apparently not uncommon that
> members of the GC exchange ideas or proposals since this body only meets
> once per year. Sending a proposal to other GC members I cannot describe as
> being ultra secretive move, so here I must disagree with you.
>
> Suddenly, out of the blue this unfortunate proposal, remember we are
> talking about a PROPOSAL, appears on the Net, here on theostalk. That is odd
> isn't it?
>
> Ask yourself: Who did this? Is it possible that this confidental message
> was intercepted by a third party, and distributed by that same third party?
> Was it done to serve the cause we all stand for, or was it done to add to
> the confusion that already existed, putting oil on the fire perhaps...??
>
> To avoid all this, in the future, members of the GC must seriously consider
> to publically announce proposals for changes in the Rules and Regulations,
> in their magazines or on their sites for example, so that no
> misunderstanding or mishandling of this type of information can take place.
>
> I am only asking you to think, and to consider, to find out for
> yourself.....
>
> Roberta
>
> ps. Will bring my laptop whilst travelling, so hopefully I can visit this
> site once in a while!!
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, MKR
> <mkr777@...> wrote:
> >
> > I need to elaborate my comments about no one from Krotona having spoken
> > about the developments since the start of the nomination process and
> > developments subsequent to the election.
> > -
> > There are two key events that I feel members, especially long-time ones,
> > everywhere should have commented on.
> > -
> > First is the lay men's and women's claim that Radha Burnier is sick both
> > physically and mentally, which was shot down by professional opinions of
> > three independent physicians, one a highly regarded long-time member of
> TS
> > and Secretary of a Section. The second one and a serious critical one, is
> > the ultra secret attempt to quickly disenfranchise members world-wide and
> GC
> > members seizing the power to appoint the president, in spite of they
> already
> > having the monopoly of nominating the candidates. The latter one would
> have
> > been a fait accompli but for the good luck of TS and its members and help
> > from theos-talk in making members learn about the secret move. (Mind you,
> > even long term members and volunteers at Adyar and other national centers
> > did not know about it and found out from theos-talk.) In such situations,
> > normally a quick apology would be forth coming and I have not seen any
> > todate. If this had happened in Japan, the proponents would have left for
> > the astral world.
> > -
> > Members in Krotona could have spoken on the above events in support of
> Radha
> > Burnier and TS. But no one did. We know for sure, many residents at
> Krotona
> > use internet and could have posted messages here for free. What were they
> > afraid of? It does not make logical sense to ordinary members like me.
> May
> > be someone who has knowledge about the inner workings of TS can enlighten
> > all of us.
> > -
> > MKR
> > -
> > Visit theosophy.net and enjoy the activities
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:55 AM, robertapimenta26 <
> > robertapimenta26@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Mr. Anand,
> > >
> > > The power of the Outer Head in the ES is absolute. This body is not
> > > democratic or transparent. The Outer Head can expel anyone from the ES
> at
> > > any moment in time, without any explanation given. Be aware that this
> is not
> > > a secret, there is sufficient literature available about this subject.
> > >
> > > In a presidential election process, as took place last year in the
> Adyar
> > > group, I believe that 'officially' ES members were free to choose their
> > > candidate, but that in practice many ES members felt, or were told by
> their
> > > warden that voting for Mr. John Algeo would show disloyalty and
> disrespect
> > > to the Outer Head of the ES, Mrs. Radha Burnier. This means that the
> Outer
> > > Head of the ES, is able to have a great, or a decisive influence, on
> the
> > > outcome of a presidential election in the TS. I mentioned this last
> week as
> > > well: there is evidence available that ES members, who were in doubt
> about
> > > the physical or mental condition of the International President, were
> told,
> > > that if they had such doubts, they should step out of the ES.
> > >
> > > One other thing came to my mind when I read again Mr. Ramadoss'
> repeated
> > > remarks about the silence from those respected theosophists at a center
> like
> > > Krotona in the USA. The Outer Head of the ES is also the head of that
> > > center, and all those who live there, all ES members, do so by the
> grace of
> > > Mrs. Radha Burnier. Taking the above in consideration, it is not so
> > > difficult to imagine why they're not making any comments, yes? They
> take the
> > > risk of being expelled from the center if they'd do anything which is
> not in
> > > accordance with the wishes and policies of Mrs. Radha Burnier, yes?
> > >
> > > Think about this!
> > >
> > > Later on today, I will set out for a long trip, so I won't be able to
> > > contribute much in the next weeks, but as football trainers tell their
> > > players, I say to you all: Keep pour eyes on the ball!!!
> > >
> > > Roberta
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Anand"
> > > <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The presidential elections in Theosophical Society are conducted
> through
> > > secrete ballot. So others may not know for which presidential candidate
> a
> > > person votes. But in many Theosophical lodges elections don't happen
> through
> > > secrete ballot. So everyone knows for whom a member votes.
> > > > If an ES warden is running for the office, which they generally do,
> then
> > > how can an ES member under him vote against the ES warden, when he
> knows
> > > that this warden can expel that member from ES?
> > > > Not only that, how can a member of the lodge or a managing committee
> of
> > > the lodge challenge any proposal supported by an ES warden, when he
> knows
> > > that this warden can expel him from the ES?
> > > > Similarly, how can anybody in the General Council challenge any
> proposal
> > > supported by the Outer Head of ES, when he knows he can be expelled by
> this
> > > Outer Head of ES?
> > > > Anand Gholap
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


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