The Nature of our organization

[Juan Guillermo Vieira]

Hi, all.
I have read many mails about this "controversy" on the bylaws changes, but i have not seen any disccusion on the nature of the T. S. What kind of organization are we? Are we like a country? Are we like The Royal Society? Do we want to be like them? Why do some members want to transform T. S. in a "normal" organization?
Instead of that paramount discussion I have seen many mails on members attacking one another, specially on theos talk, and others theatening to leave if the Society does not work like they think.
All the important characteristics of our Society emerges of his nature. For example when we speak of Trust we implicitly accept a special feature of our Society. When we speak among theosophists we normally trust one another. I really do. I do trust on all the leaders of our Society. I do trust on the majority of members.
In a supposed democratic country to get to be elected costs too much money. If we are observant will note that all the money spent on that election does not come from the "pocket" of one person, neither the wage of the elected President covers the money inverted on the campaign, on the contrary many, specially economical, interests are represented, all those interests have to be paid when elected. This is no an example of confidence or trust. The T. S. must no work like that.
We have been relying on our leaders by 133 years. The Presidents and Vice presidents always have tried to do their best, that´s why we still have a Theosophical Society. Few the organizations like T. S. that have kept its "spirit" for such a time so long, and "pure". In 133 years only one big "split" (Crosbie was not a split of Adyar). We have to trust one another, like members of a "spiritual" organization.
Please brothers be cautious. Think, think and rethink your motivations. Don´t be in a hurry with the eagerness (hurry) of the times. The T. S. for me, is not a normal organization. Think in its uniqueness. It is not just for discussion, it is not just for publication, it is not just for erudition, it is not just for historical subjetcs, it is not for minds only. If we believe Mrs Burnier is for Human Regeneration, regeneration of the mind, ie to clean the mind. If we believe One of "our Masters" who said that the human consciuosness has not changed significantly by one million of years, why our hurry?

NOTE: my native language is not english.

Best regards

[Janet Kerschner]

Juan,

Thank you so much for writing. Your English is perfectly sufficient to give us much food for thought, and I found your comments very moving.

[Katinka Hesselink]

Actually Aryel Sanat has addressed the issue of 'what kind of organization is this'. So have a few others. It has been used as an argument mostly on the question of how many years a person should be president. The seven year stretch isn't just tradition - the founders felt it had to do with the nature of the TS.

I agree that motivation is an important point. Unfortunately, however, it takes clairvoyance to know what another's motivation is.

[Juan Guillermo Vieira]

Hi, Katinka
I think Mr Sanat´s statements on his mail ILEGAL CHANGES are offensive of Mr Algeo. I have to say I don´t know any of them. To be analitical it must not be a sin. Neither to be an academician. Implicitly, it seems to me, Mr Sanat accuse Mr Algeo not to have a pure heart. Analysis and synthesis are integral parts of the process of knowledge, they are both united, that´s why we humans have some trends to generalize our conclusions. Paraphrasing the statement that MAN IS THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS, I think Theosophical Society can´t be the measure of what each one of us want it be.
Thanks "God" in The Theosophical Society (Adyar) we can be analitical, synthetical, emotional, intelectual, besides we can be blavatskyan, leadbeterian, Besantian, Burnerian etc; read and speak only of Hogson, Roso de Luna, Taimni, etc; we can be crhistian, budhist, shinto, mormon etc; we can be positivist, idealist, neostructuralist, humanist etc Even we can be nothing, just stay. We are united for a intrinsic brotherhood that we are trying to actualize, we are united for a trascendental quest of "true", and we do that with respect each other and tolerance, and accepting our relativity and limitation like and imperfect beings on evolution. I think we must bear this in mind, take into account this to try to understand what kind of organization must be the T. S. The reforms must be considered in this light.
I think the main problem of the T S now is the lack of mystics, spiritualized members, maybe to be all day in front of a computer or reading does not help in that line.

Katinka, I want to ask you: would it be possible to put a searching tool only for Collected Writings on your website? Is it too difficult?

Remenber my english is not so good, that´s why some ideas could be ambiguous.
Take that into account.

Best wishes from Colombia

[Katinka Hesselink]

I agree that being analytical is in itself not a negative trait. But I do think Aryal Sanat has a point in that we have to assume John Algeo knows he is not addressing the real issue, when he isn't.

As for making a search engine just for the Blavatsky collected writings - I need to be sure the whole thing has been indexed by google before I go ahead and do that. I would not want to promise full text search before I actually have it.

This means that more sites need to link to the Blavatsky Collected Writings when they cite it or just to let people know it exists. In other words: I need help in the form of links to my site on any lodge site, or theosophical site people here may be able to get links on.

But more people like you asking me to make that search page will surely make me hurry up...

(I will make a separate blog post on this issue to make it stand out more. thanks for reminding me).

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Guillermo and all,

You have opened, in my opinion, the key question which should be addressed in this “critical” time of the Theosophical Society: what is the nature of our organization? We would probably have as many answers to this question as there are members in the Society what implies that there is absent some basic common vision which is crucial for the successful functioning of whatever organization.

If we would try to collect answers to the above question from the members around the world we would probably receive very different views depending on prevalently of the kind of activities in which they are involved in personally and collectively in their lodges. And these activities are really many and diverse. But is there any common denominator on which we should all meet to have “normal” but at the same time “spiritual” organization?

Namely, I find that these two aspects do not exclude each other, on the contrary, that they are complementary. In my view it is not a type of activity, either individual or collective, which makes it “spiritual” per se but the motive, the way, the spirit in which this activity is actually performed.

Now, what kind of organization is the Theosophical Society? When we do not have straight answer to this question, and I think that we do not, then it would be wise to check the source information, to see what Founders of our Society thought when they establish it. So, maybe words of H. S. Olcott can help us find the answer:

“The secret of the persistent vigor of the Society is that its platform is so drafted as to exclude all dogmas, all social contests, all causes of strife and dissension such as are begotten of questions of sex, color, religion, and fortune, and make altruism, tolerance, peace and brotherliness the cornerstones upon which it rests. … It is the Constitution and proclaimed ideals of the Society; it is the elastic tie that binds the parts together; and the platform which gives standing room to all men of all creeds and races. The simplicity of our aims attracts all good, broad-minded, philanthropic people alike. …”

As far as I understand these words it is our constitutional frame (Constitution itself along with the Objects) realized in the spirit of altruism, tolerance, peace and brotherliness which should make our organization “special”.

It seems to me that with the passage of time we have somehow begin to neglect this neutral and at the same time all-inclusive constitutional frame and activities related to our Objects and begin to develop many activities which covered some special interests within the Society, so that now we have serious problems how to reconcile them with our constitutional platform. And I am afraid that it is impossible to reconcile two things which in essence exclude each other - neutrality and bias - and that we will need a lot of wisdom and patience to find adequate solutions if we want that our Society and “our doctrines to practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity,” in the society at large.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Juan Guillermo Vieira]

Dear Anton and all

You are very kind.

Please, bear in mind that I write here with some fear to make big mistakes due to my imperfect english.

This subject of organization´s nature must be discussed looking for comprehension of the nature of the Theosophical Society.
As you say Anton, balancing the "normal" and the "spiritual" aspects is the big question. Of course I do not deny that we are a material organization, with buildings and material business, that needs money and specialized people to manage different affairs; but we are no only that, all this material organization have some, for us, very important aims, all related with that, we call "spiritual". Maybe related with the questions you have raised, Anton, I would ask What would be the best way to structure our organization so that we fulfill our important "spiritual" objectives? But maybe we do not have clarity about those "spiritual" objectives. I understand you when call attention about the difficulties we have now, being one the lack of clarity about our organization, normal and spiritual in what sense.
It may be of interest to mention the discussion about the nature of the organizations that Political Science and Public Administration have been carrying out due of the emergence of the New Public Management model in public organizations since 80´s. Here the center of the discussion is the nature of public and private organizations. Some say that these are equal in the main items; others say that the differences are really meaningful. If we accept that these are the same we accept that the way to manage them is similar. If we accept that these are different we accept that the way to manage them must be different too. Remember that we are speaking of public and private organizations. I quote here Wallace Sayre, one important theorist of Public Administration who said: “Business and public administration are alike only in all unimportant respects.” This is known like the Sayre´s aphorism.
Although there are many theories about this, I just want to call attention to this, summarizing: We can differentiate them by(1) its property, who is or are the owner (s), in public sector who are the owner? In private sector we are clear about the ownership. (2) We can differentiate them by its aims. In private sector we are clear that these are: earnings; in public sector we are clear that earnings are not the main objectives: some say that public organizations are looking for development, social quality of life. Now we differentiate Gross Domestic Product and Development, especially since Mr. Amartya Sen´s works. And (3) we can differentiate public and private organizations by its processes to get its aims, in private sector is “the market”, in public sector is “the political process”. With this in mind we should be careful about the “privatization” of public sector. Anyway it is accepted that managing any organization could need to apply some functions, abstractly equal for all. These functions are summarized in the acronym POSDCORB of Luther Gulick: Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting.
What about the Theosophical Society? Is it Public or is it private or what? Who are the owners? What are its aims? What Is the best way to reach them according to his nature? Do we need the functions described in the POSDCORB?
The T. S. is not property of any state, that´s why we say is not a public organization. Just in that sense. We could say that is public as is open to “all”.
Who are the owners of The T. S.? Can somebody or a group sell it? Or close it? Are the members of the General Council the owners? Are we, all the members, owners of it?
What are the aims of the T. S.? What implies to spread Theosophy? What Theosophy are we spreading? We have been told that the kind of life of members is the best way to transmit Theosophy. Is it? Can we improve the way the material organization works, towards where? How to balance the need for a “spiritual”, inner life of members with an active, external life dedicated for communicate theosophy and trying to affect the culture of the world, using the modern possibilities? Do we need to chance the way we present theosophy? Again, what theosophy? The Theosophy of our hearts or the theosophy of our books?
We accept that the T. S. is an NGO ruled by governments and laws. According to human laws can be classified in that denomination. We have a structure, a President, officials, General Council, General Secretaries, etc. We have buildings, copyrights, bookstores etc. We have activities on many dimensions. All this need administrative functions, and this could always be better.
But many of us could accept that the T. S. was established like part of a big project directed by a Very Special Kind of Beings. Although some say that They are no more part of the T. S. others say that They continue inspiring in His own ways.
Could us think all this in as a whole?
Just food for thought,
Best wishes

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Joe and all,

I would like to call your attention to some constitutional differences between the TS and its Sections.

>The Theosophical Society is a Private Not-for-Profit Educational Organization. In the American Section, this is organized under IRS Code, Section 501(c)3.

The Theosophical Society was incorporated under the India’s Societies Registration Act 1860 - Act for the registration of literary, scientific and charitable societies. And it is not not-for-profit organization but a society.

The problem is that the Theosophical Society is not registered in its Sections’ countries as international society and therefore Rules and Regulations of the Theosophical Society are not implemented in its Sections. Sections have their own by-laws and are incorporated under various forms of societies or non-for-profit organizations under national laws.

>The owners of the TS are its members.<

This is probably the case with the Theosophical Society in USA but it is not the case with the Theosophical Society.

The TS is indeed private organization as it was formed (as established by the Act) by private persons, but these private persons - now members - do not own it as the property of the Society can not be distributed among them upon possible dissolution (again as established by the Act).

>The TS can be closed by the General Council. In addition, since not-for-profit status is conferred by various national governmental entities, the disposition of assets is controlled per national laws.<<

According to the Societies Registration Act: “Any number not less than three-fifths of the members of any society may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall be dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed upon, …”

>The governance of the TS takes place with the President at the head of the organization, with the advice of the General Council.<<

According to the TS Rules and Regulations the Governing body of the TS is General Council while the President is its Executive Officer but directly elected by members and therefore in possession of corresponding powers.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Katinka Hesselink]

I just want to add that the hard part about the TS organization is that it is an international body - but each section has to abide by local rules. Some of the international rules for sections go against the local laws even. For instance the Dutch section is a 'vereniging' - which means it's a democratic organization in which the members are in control. This also includes (I think) that it's not for profit.

However: the fact that it is a Vereniging implies in Dutch law that ALL the members have a right to vote, while internationally I don't think they want members to vote till they have been members for several years.

Local sections have to find their way negotiating between local law and international guidelines. In the Dutch case the members of the section felt that all members should be allowed to vote, so the compromise was made that while everybody could vote, only those who had been members over 3 years could be elected to the executive committee.

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Katinka,

Indeed, one of the major problems is international character of the Society but not legally implemented, so that local acts on societies or non-for-profit organizations which grew out of local traditions impose different stipulations.

The solution is quite simple (TS registration as international society in sections’ countries) but it would bring many side problems which should be solved simultaneously and above all it would require mutual trust which seems that is now lacking - not without reasons.

In the case you mention it is the same here in Slovenia; when a person joins whatever society s/he has to have full rights, so voting and being elected rights can not be limited. To somehow apply to international rules the TS in Slovenia is now using preparation period of two years for candidates during which they go through definite preparation course. The problem is that this course is not intended to inform candidates about the structure and functioning of the Society but it represents definite indoctrination in the theosophy as interpreted by those who are leading courses.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[William Gorman]

Try writing your posts with word so that it will spell check and then cut it and past it to your post and every one will think you are an expert speller.

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Guillermo and all,

I hope that you don’t mind if I will continue to present my views on problems in regard to the nature of our organization under the topic “Have we a problem?” Here I would like to continue to share with you and all some thoughts on important questions you raised:

>What implies to spread Theosophy? What Theosophy are we spreading? We have been told that the kind of life of members is the best way to transmit Theosophy. Is it? How to balance the need for a “spiritual”, inner life of members with an active, external life dedicated for communicate theosophy and trying to affect the culture of the world, using the modern possibilities? Do we need to chance the way we present theosophy? Again, what theosophy? The Theosophy of our hearts or the theosophy of our books?<

Great questions, but hard to answer? But maybe not necessarily so!

You said: “We have been told that the kind of life of members is the best way to transmit Theosophy. Is it?”

That is what all is about! Until we individually and collectively, do not embody the philosophy we are preaching no one will take as seriously. Until we, as a society or even as a theosophical movement at large, will not display spirit of altruism, tolerance, peace and brotherliness reflecting in our everyday life, no one will believe that our philosophy is working, maybe neither we ourselves. We do not need to be perfect. That goal is long ahead. But we have to show genuine desire and intent expressed in everyday life that we are prepared to improve and that we are indeed improving, moving towards perfection. That is enough to convince people and ourselves that we are serious on what we are talking about.

“How to balance the need for a “spiritual”, inner life of members with an active, external life dedicated for communicate theosophy and trying to affect the culture of the world, using the modern possibilities? Do we need to chance the way we present theosophy?”

Let’s say that we decide that we would like to present theosophy to the teenagers in a definite country. We will begin to prepare material studying and comparing that country’s religious traditions and culture, how they affect young people’s everyday life, then we will continue to examine the conditions in which teenagers live there, what are the consequences of modern life they face, how they react, to what they are susceptible to, and so on, and so on. Finally, we will choose methods and media which will help us to directly deliver our message to them. In doing so, we will engage ourselves in a creative process motivated by care for others. And if our work will have some impact, there is no, in my view, higher spiritual experience one can reach - it will reflects in the eyes of those young people.

“Again, what theosophy? The Theosophy of our hearts or the theosophy of our books?”

Again, if we will choose to engage ourselves in a similar as above mentioned creative process we will discover that we are conditioned by our theosophical tradition, by our acquired knowledge, maybe by our less fortunate characteristics as for instance prejudices, etc. and that this is necessarily our equipment we are starting with. In studying and collecting material we will possibly learn that to address the issue properly we have to acquire new information, what our founders have had to say, what members of other theosophical traditions have contributed, that we have to broaden our perspective and understanding. And when we will start to ponder how we will properly present all those valuable views to modern people we will discover that we must use our creative imagination to make them vital in modern circumstances, adapted to that place and time. In that way theosophy from our books will pour outward through our hearts.

At the end I would like to draw your attention to an inspiring lecture KEEPING LINK UNBROKEN delivered by our theosophical friend Erica Letzerich Georgiades at her mother lodge Hypatia in Greece and to one of my favorite speeches given by John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) before the Supreme Court of the United States of America as represented in the movie AMISTAD directed by Steven Spielberg.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Dear Dan,

You wrote: “The TS seems to me to be extremely steeped in tradition, which many longtime members simply take for granted, but which many newcomers may be totally unaware of. That sense of tradition is great for developing fraternity among existing members, but at times can make newer members feel alienated.”

In my view, the TS should make much more effort to fully embrace newcomers. I imagine that they feel as they would step in a huge house and left alone in the lobby, abandoned to themselves to discover room by room what can be find there. This is quite frightening situation and many leave before they make serious attempt to explore the TS house.

Now, what I am actually trying to do is to present my “guide” through the TS house based on my own experience and my point of view as acquired during my exploration.

On the other hand I found out that there are plenty of empty rooms in this house waiting to be filled with content and that in principle all have freedom to bring new ideas and express their creativity.

You, Dan, have already found your way of involvement and it is bringing great results. But what can be made to encourage others to come forward? Exploring members pages of this Community I was impressed by all the potential present. I don’t know, maybe you can create an open team of people who will collect members’ ideas and try to help them to start some projects.

I hope that these few thoughts can be helpful,
Anton