Theos-Talk Archives (February 2010 Message tt00157)

Allright.
So, Radha Burnier cannot actually be quoted on having the same view?


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MKR 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 4:19 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Autonomy of TS National Societies or Sections


    
  The quote is from *Annie Besant* and can be found in Ross' book on Krotona.

  MKR
  *

  MKR. - I think a great number of readers would like a reference documenting
  these words as coming from Radha Burnier:

  "As is natural, any serious trouble in the TS always arises in the ES, and
  spreads outward through the larger organism."*

  On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Morten Nymann Olesen <
  global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> wrote:

  >
  >
  > Dear MKR
  >
  > My views are:
  >
  > 1,
  > Do you have some suggestion so to adequately improve of the Constitution
  > and Rules of the TS?
  >
  > Constitution and Rules of The Theosophical Society or what is called Full
  > Text Of The International Rules And Regulations (
  > http://www.theosophyforward.com/2009/06/full-text-of-the-international-rules-and-regulations-memorandum-of-association/)
  >
  > 2.
  > MKR. - I think a great number of readers would like a reference documenting
  > these words as coming from Radha Burnier:
  > "As is natural, any serious trouble in the TS always arises in the ES, and
  > spreads outward through the larger organism."
  >
  > I ask because this is - most clearly - a deviation from the original
  > program given by the Founders and H. P. Blavatsky on whether ES should
  > 'boss' TS or not.
  > Try to carefully read the below official article by H. P. Blvatsky. This
  > read it carefully.
  >
  > - - - - - - - -
  > H. P. Blavatsky said in A Puzzle from Adyar:
  > To this I, the âHead of the Esoteric Section,â answer:
  > 1. Mr. Bertram Keightleyâs letter, though containing the truth, and nothing
  > but the truth, was never intended for publication, as a sentence in it
  > proves. Therefore the acting Editor had no right to publish it.
  > 2. Fellows of the E. S. having to be first of all Fellows of the
  > Theosophical Society, what does the sentence âFellows known to be members of
  > the E.S.ââwho stand accused by Mr. Harte (or even by some idiotic reports
  > afloat in the Society) of âarbitrary and underhand proceedingsââmean? Is not
  > such a sentence a gross insult thrown into the face of honourable menâfar
  > better Theosophists than any of their accusersâand of myself?
  > 3. What were the silly reports? That the âBritish or the American Section,â
  > and even the âBlavatsky Lodgeâ of the Theosophical Society wanted to âboss
  > Adyar.â For this is what is said in The Theosophist in the alleged
  > âdisclaimerâ:â
  >
  > Mr. Keightley tells this Commissioner that he must not believe âthat the
  > Esoteric Section has any, even the slightest, pretension to âbossâ the
  > Theosophical Society or anything of the kind.â Again he says: âWe are all,
  > H.P.B. first and foremost, just as loyal to the Theosophical Society and to
  > Adyar as the Colonel can possibly be.â And yet again Amen! But before I
  > reproduce the acting editorâs further marvellous comments thereon, I claim
  > the right to say a few words on the subject. Since, as said, the letter was
  > never meant to be paraded in printâchiefly, perhaps, because qui sâexcuse
  > sâaccuseâit is no criticism to show that it contains that which I would
  > describe as a meaningless flapdoodle, or, rather, a pair of them, something
  > quite pardonable in a private and hastily written letter, but quite
  > unpardonable and grotesque when appearing as a published document.
  > 1st. That the E.S. had never any pretensions to âboss the T.S.â stands to
  > reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the Esoteric
  > Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, its
  > Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the exoteric body,
  > and independent of it, H.P.B. alone being responsible for its members, as
  > shown in the official announcement over the signature of the
  > President-Founder himself.* It follows, therefore, that the E. S., as a
  > body, owes no allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, as a society,
  > least of all to Adyar."
  > ...
  > "ââââââââââ
  > * [Ref. is here to Col. Olcottâs Official Announcement in Lucifer Vol. III,
  > October 15th, 1888, p. 176. It may be found in Volume X of the present
  > Series.âCompiler.] "
  > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_049.htm
  >
  > M. Sufilight
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: MKR
  > To: theos-talk
  > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 2:37 PM
  > Subject: Theos-World Autonomy of TS National Societies or Sections
  >
  > From time to time, the question of autonomy of the National Sections in the
  > TS has come up in the minds of the members. A century ago, there were
  > bitter
  > internecine quarrels among members of the American Section. A large number
  > of members appealed to Annie Besant who was International President to
  > interfere in the matters of the American Section. By the way, the quarrels
  > led to her suspending the ES for a year in the USA and stated âAs is
  > natural, any serious trouble in the TS always arises in the ES, and spreads
  > outward through the larger organism.â [Does this ring a bell when we
  > consider what has been going on since the start of the nomination process
  > for the International President by the General Council members all of whom
  > are high level ES and Masonic Members?]
  >
  > In response to the appeal, she clarified the autonomy of the National
  > Sections which is helpful to understand the constitution of the TS which
  > was
  > crafted with the advise from wise Founders whose tool the TS is. I am
  > adapting Besantâs response.
  >
  > A National Society or Section, is autonomous, and no appeal lies to the
  > General Council. An appeal to the President only lies if a member has been
  > expelled from the TS by his National Society or if a rule has been passed
  > contrary to the Constitution of the TS; the member can be reinstated in the
  > TS, or his expulsion confirmed by the President; or the President can
  > declare invalid a rule which contravenes the Constitution.
  >
  > I find nothing in the Constitution which permits an appeal to the General
  > Council by a dissident minority within a National Society, the bylaws of
  > the
  > TS in America cannot give to the General Council a power of interference
  > with an autonomous National Society, the freedom of which is guaranteed by
  > the Constitution.
  >
  > In passing, we have seen messages regarding the issues in Brazil and only
  > members there have the authority to decide how the section is operated.
  >
  > MKR
  >
  > There is no religion higher than Truth
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  > 
  >

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



  

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