Theos-Talk Archives (February 2010 Message tt00183)

Morten,
How can you advocate an esoteric section and at the same time advocate transparency?

Cass


>
>From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, 15 February, 2010 1:55:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Autonomy of TS National Societies or Sections
>
>Â 
>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.theosoph yforward. com/2009/ 06/full-text- of-the-internati onal-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.katinkah esselink. 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]