Theos-Talk Archives (November 2010 Message tt00001)

Interesting insights by Alice A Bailey on the Theosophical Society almost a 
hundred years ago.

                         The Unfinished Autobiography 146-7 by Alice A,. Bailey
 
Towards the end of 1919 Mr. Bailey was made National Secretary of the 
Theosophical Society.  Dr. Shepherd was made Publicity Director and I became 
editor of the sectional magazine, The Messenger, and chairman of the committee 
which was running Krotona.  All phases of the work and all the different 
policies and principles governing the administration were, therefore, open to 
us.  The General Secretary, Mr. A. P. Warrington, was a close friend, and all 
the senior workers were friends and there seemed to be great harmony and a truly 
cooperative spirit.  Little by little, however, we discovered how superficial 
this harmony was.  Little by little we entered upon a most difficult and 
distressing time.  Our affection and personal loyalties were with our friends 
and co-executives, but our sense of justice and our adherence to the governing 
principles were constantly being outraged.  The truth of the matter was that the 
management of the Theosophical Society in the United States, and still more so 
in Adyar (the international centre), was at that time reactionary and 
old-fashioned whereas the new approach to life and truth, freedom of 
interpretation and impersonality were the characteristics which should have 
governed policies and methods but did not.
 
The society was founded for the establishing of universal brotherhood but it was 
degenerating into a sectarian group more interested in founding and sustaining 
lodges and increasing the membership than in reaching the general public with 
the truths of the Ageless Wisdom.  Their policy of admitting nobody into the 
E.S. for spiritual teaching [Page 158] unless they had been for two years a 
member of the T.S. is proof of this.  Why should spiritual teaching be withheld 
until a person had demonstrated for two years their loyalty to an organisation?  
Why should people be required to sever their connection with other groups and 
organisations and pledge their loyalty to what is called the "Outer Head" of the 
E.S. when the only loyalties which should be required are those dedicated to the 
service of one's fellowmen, the spiritual Hierarchy and, above all, one's own 
soul?  No personality has the right to ask spiritual pledges from other 
personalities.  The only pledge that any human being should give is, first of 
all, to his own inner divinity, the Soul, and later, to the Master under Whose 
guidance he can more efficiently serve his fellow-men.
 
I remember at one of the first E.S. meetings I attended Miss Poutz, who was the 
secretary of the E.S. at that time, made the astounding statement that no one in 
the world could be a disciple of the Masters of the Wisdom unless they had been 
so notified by Mrs. Besant.  That remark broke a glamour in me, although I did 
not speak of it at that time except to Foster Bailey.  I knew I was a disciple 
of the Master K. H. and had been as long as I could remember.  Mrs. Besant had 
evidently overlooked me.  I could not understand why the Masters, Who were 
supposed to have a universal consciousness, would only look for Their disciples 
in the ranks of the T.S.  I knew it could not be so.  I knew They could not be 
so limited in consciousness and later I met many people who were disciples of 
the Masters and who had never been in touch with the T.S. and had never even 
heard of it.  Just as I thought I had found a centre of spiritual light and 
understanding, I discovered I had wandered into another sect.

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