Have we a problem?

[Anton Rozman]

What is a problem? In Webster's Dictionary it is defined as: a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved; a source of difficulty; a question raised for consideration or solution.

A problem is therefore a situation where we have an opportunity to make a difference, to make things better. So, whenever we think creatively and critically about the way in which we can improve the quality of our mutual relations, organization, Society’s life, we are trying to actively solve a definite problem.

In view of recent discussions within the Society in regard to the President’s election and By-laws amendments proposal process it is quite obvious that we, as a Society, have a problem - not only one problem but many problems.

What problems? There will probably be as many answers to this question as many will be those who will try to address this question. Some will possibly think that we don’t have any problem at all.

I personally think that we have many problems and that we should try to find the way how to solve them. In the constitutional structure of our Society we naturally have elected and appointed officials forming definite bodies which are designed to address and solve institutional and other problems, but it seems that we have problem also with proper or all-satisfactory functioning of these bodies. On the other hand it was said that actual critical situation demands that everyone’s voice is expressed and heard. So, how can we all contribute to increase the quality of our mutual relations, organization and Society’s life in general? In my opinion, we can in first place critically inspect the situation, clearly define the problems and then find the way how to creatively solve them.

At this point some may put the following question: But who are you to think that you are entitled to propose such things? Well, I am just an ordinary member of the Theosophical Society without membership in any other public or secret organization but with some experience with the work in other societies and organizations and with professional experience in the fields of gaming, design and education. I don’t care much about but respect the titles and strongly believe that any individual has something special to offer and I care much about the Theosophical Society, theosophy and its promotion. In addition, I am 55 years old un-attached member of the Canadian Theosophical Association but living in Slovenia and running an independent theosophical web site Theosophy in Slovenia. And I am co-founder of the Theos-trans Yahoo-group, dedicated to the digitalization, translation and publication of theosophical texts in Non-English languages.

Said this, I dare therefore to propose you that we try to co-create together what can possibly become wonderful journey towards more all-inclusive experience and efficient organization.

To start to list our difficulties I will assume that we have the following problems:

1. Lack of clear common vision about the nature of our Society - Is our Society “spiritual” or “normal” organization? Is it both? What makes it “spiritual”? What makes it “normal”?

2. Lack of communication - Is not lack of communication one of the reasons which make communication violent? What are the reasons for lack of communication? Is communication on and between all levels in an organization important?

3. Lack of cooperation - What are the reasons for small level of members’ involvement? What are the reasons for small level of international cooperation?

Please, add your own visions of problems and thanks in advance for all critical remarks and creative proposals.

Please, accept also my best wishes to all of you for the Thanksgiving Day,
Anton


An Iroquois Prayer

We return thanks to our mother, the earth, which sustains us. We return thanks to the rivers and streams, which supply us with water. We return thanks to all herbs, which furnish medicines for the cure of our diseases. We return thanks to the corn, and to her sisters, the beans and squash, which give us life. We return thanks to the bushes and trees, which provide us with fruit. We return thanks to the wind, which, moving the air, has banished diseases. We return thanks to the moon and the stars, which have given us their light when the sun was gone. We return thanks to our grandfather He-no, who has given to us his rain. We return thanks to the sun, that he has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye. Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit, in whom is embodied all goodness, and who directs all things for the good of his children.

[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]

Dear Guillermo and all,

Thank you very much for your thoughts and extensive information. I think that you can comfortably leave your fear about your English aside - with time it will certainly only improve.

You have raised some really important questions in regard to the nature of the Society, but let us not forget that we already have a starting point to begin with.

The Theosophical Society was incorporated under the India’s Societies Registration Act 1860 - Act for the registration of literary, scientific and charitable societies. And I think that this is an important fact. Our Society is not not-for-profit organization incorporated under the companies or corporations acts, it is a society. It 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 no be distributed among them upon possible dissolution (again as established by the Act). Therefore, I would say, it is private organization with public character. In addition, our Society’s by-laws were written after the example of the US Constitution what additionally stress its public character.

What does this mean? It means that it is an organization which is beyond partial interests of its members, that it is an organization which is intended to realize definite common interest of its members and, more over, that this common interest is related to some special need that exists in the society at large.

Now, this is, in my view, the point on which our Society differentiates from other literary, scientific and charitable societies dedicated to satisfy some concrete needs that exist in the society at large. Namely, what makes it special is its abstract aim, its “spiritual” aspect, which was expressed by H.S. Olcott as follows:

“Its aim is to float ideas which are likely to benefit the whole world, to give clear and just conceptions of the duty of man to man, of the way to secure peace and goodwill between nations, to show how the individual can secure happiness for himself and spread it around him by pursuing a certain line of conduct, and how ignorance, which has been declared by that great adept, the Buddha, to be the source of all human miseries, can be dispelled.”

This special character, the combination of Society’s “normal” and “spiritual” aspects, is expressed by H.S. Olcott’s also in this way:

“The secret … 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.”

Now, problems arise when this platform has to be adopted in concrete situations which are field of confrontation of members’ private interests and common interest of the Society. Members’ private interests are legitimate, but they have to be submitted, through the decision making process, to the common interest (platform).

There are two kinds of problems present in regard to the adoption of Society’s platform in concrete situations.

First one is related to the decision making process itself and its implementation. In the current situation the TS Rules and Regulations are not fully implemented and maybe really to some extend outdated. But this is special and extensive subject and should be addressed separately, especially because there is in the air a proposal by Warwick Keys of definite innovative and radical change.

Second one is related to the selection and operation of activities which are needed for the adoption of the platform in concrete life of the Society. But, again, this is another special subject which I will try to address separately. It has to do with the questions you raised: We can differentiate public and private organizations (activities) by its processes to get its aims, in private sector is “the market”, in public sector is “the political process”. What would be the best way to structure our organization so that we will fulfill our important “spiritual” objectives? Can we improve the way the material organization works, towards where?

And finally, you touched another important problem concerning the nature of theosophy we are promoting, which I put on the record for future discussion:

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?

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Dear friends,

As said, there are two kinds of problems present in regard to the adoption of Society’s platform in concrete situations and first one is related to the decision making process itself and its (Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations) implementation and second one to the selection and operation of activities which are needed for the adoption of the platform in concrete life of the Society.

Now, in “Memorandum of Association” there are stated the Objects of the Society:

I. To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.
II. To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science.
III. To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.

and that “The income and property of the Society, whencesoever derived, shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Society … including the founding and maintenance of a library or libraries.”

In the “Rules and Regulations for the management of the association named The Theosophical Society” there is then stated that:

“The General Council shall be the Governing Body of the Theosophical Society … shall at each Annual Meeting appoint an Executive Committee for the ensuing year …, of not less than seven and not more than ten members, of whom at least six shall be members of the General Council. The President, the Vice President, the Treasurer, and the Secretary shall be ex officio members. … The President shall be the custodian of all the archives and records of the Society, and shall be the Executive Officer and shall conduct and direct the business of the Society in compliance with its rules … All Charters … and all Diplomas (Certificates) of membership derive their authority from the President … President shall nominate the Vice President … shall be his duty, among other things, to carry on the executive functions of the President in case the President is dead or where the Executive Committee finds that he is disabled by accident, serious illness or otherwise ... The Secretary and such subordinate officials as are necessary shall be appointed by the President … The President shall nominate the Treasurer … All subscriptions, donations and other moneys payable to the Society shall be received by the Treasurer, or his Deputy or Assistant designated for the purpose … The securities and uninvested funds of the Society shall be deposited in such Bank or Banks as the Executive Committee shall select … President may, touching the assets and affairs of the Society … appoint any persons to be the Attorneys of the Society … the President may grant power and authority among others to sell, grant, mortgage, lease or otherwise transfer the assets of the Society … The funds of the Society may be invested by the President … The Society may sue and be sued in the name of the President or Secretary. … The President shall have full power and discretion to permit to any person use of any premises or portion thereof in the Adyar Estate for occupation and residence … The President, Secretary and Treasurer shall together have the power to fix or vary fees and charges payable to the General Treasury …”

That is all - in short! All bodies and officers are elected or appointed “just” to manage the income and property with the goal to promote the Objects of the Society. On that ground General Council should obviously determine policy and accept short and long term plans for the realization of Objects and how these plans should be executed by officers. Therefore the Theosophical Society does not have leaders it has “just” servants. That is the constitutional frame, at least how I understand it.

Now, first problem is certainly related to different interpretation of the TS Constitution as above presented. If we elect leaders then we project our responsibility for the realization of TS Objects through the hierarchical pyramid up to the top and comfortably wait what we will be told to do. But there are very, very rare leaders which are able to activate and coordinate thousands of members and to carry on such burden, especially in modern world where circumstances and technology are changing from day to day. It is quite unrealizable. Decline is therefore natural development with such choice. But if we turn the pyramid upside down and elect servants supporting the entire structure while we maintain our responsibility for the realization of Society’s Objects then we will be probably much more successful.

Second problem comes out of the first one. If we elect leaders then there must be others who have to perform their administrative job. In that way we create conflict of interests as motives of hired personal are prevalently limited to their personal interests. And situation becomes only worse when hired personal fills positions in bodies which should be reserved to elected officers only. On the other hand there is no need any more to perform these jobs manually as modern digital solutions offers almost complete automation of administrative and accounting processes, so that we should be in a position to almost entirely concentrate ourselves on the realization of Society’s Objects.

Third problem is related to the maintenance of libraries and archives. This has become highly specialized work which requires specialized personal, equipment and conditions. In addition, libraries and archives are now in the process of digitalization which makes them more available to members-users. The Society can hardly meet these modern necessities by itself and should collaborate with public institutions which would guarantee appropriate conservation and availability, especially the last one as it is the key issue in any study.

And last problem in this series is related to the maintenance of real estates. It is obvious that larger ones as that in Adyar require special qualifications to maintain them in good shape and make them run efficiently. But this is very sensible issue and should be examined case by case to find solutions which would represent as less burden as possible and as much adequate environment as possible for the realization of primary purpose of the Society.

Now, there still remain for our inspection the activities which have developed through the history of our Society and which have, in my opinion, little to do with our constitutional frame. I will try to address them in my next post.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Dear friends,

Now I would like to address the activities which have sprung within the Theosophical Society out of private interests of its members, as we have to consider as such any activity which is not strictly related to the realization of the Society’s Objects as the only common interest of the Society. In this respect H.S. Olcott said:

“It was never even dreamt that we should amass capital as a Society to organize societies of any kind, whether socialistic, religious or commercial, and I have set my face from the first against every attempt to make it responsible for the private preferences and prejudices of its members, repudiating in toto every procedure, however seemingly innocent in itself, which could be construed into a breach of our constitutional neutrality. … Should we once begin this ill-advised departure from the neutral ground upon which we have grown and flourished, and express our collective sympathy with socialistic, temperance, vegetarian, anti-slavery, esoteric, masonic, political and charitable societies, we should soon fall into chaos; … It is hard for me to have to utter this word of warning, but I would rather a hundred times sacrifice the friendly opinion of my colleagues than keep silent while they, in their inexperience, are trying to drag our car to the crest of the slope at whose foot lies the chasm of ruin. … I hope you all understand that while I am defending the rights of the Society as a body, I have not the remotest wish or thought of interfering in the least degree with the liberty of the individual. Quite the contrary, I sympathize with and encourage every tendency in my colleagues to ally themselves in movements tending towards the public good.”

While H.S. Olcott was in that way able to neutralize practically all private interests of the Society’s members he didn’t succeed to do so in regard to the H.P. Blavatsky’s initiative to organize the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society. No matter how we see the reasons for the establishment of this organization the fact is that it represented a shift from the Society’s constitutional platform and that therefore a complete disassociation of the ES from the TS was requested and further on declared.

The problem was not only the difference in formal structure of these two organizations, the latter being democratic while the former autocratic but also a substantial one and described later on by J.J. van der Leeuw as the difference between the Realization and Revelation.

Although the separation between the ES and TS was formally announced in real life the interests of H.P.B., as a founder-member of the TS and Head of the ES, to influence the affairs of the TS (she considered has somehow abandoned the Original Program) remained obviously a great many and materialized themselves in the establishment of her own lodge and European Federation of the TS. In that way a pattern was established which have had and still has lasting and very negative effect on the realization of the constitutional platform of the Theosophical Society as the chosen cure was actually in opposition to that platform itself.

After H.S.O.’s passing and under the Annie Besant’s leadership the Theosophical Society extended its departure from its constitutional neutrality as it enforced its relation with the Co-Masonic organization while out of the activity of the ES there were born organizations like Order of the Star in the East and the Liberal Catholic Church. In addition, the Society indulged itself in numerous activities to meet various social needs and promoted foundation of various organizations as that of the charitable organization the Theosophical Order of Service. (To see the full list of the activities in the period 1879-1037 click here.)

Although it could certainly not be denied that all these activities have done enormous work for good in the local environment of Society’s Sections they, on the other hand, contributed to great extend to the loss of universal philanthropic and scientific character of the Society and its relevance in the world as a pioneer movement and organization. But the mortal blow to the TS constitutional platform and its neutrality gave the fact that no TS member can be in practice elected for any position of the TS officer if s/he is not member of any or all above mentioned organizations.

This is the situation we face. The Theosophical Society is not seen in the outer world as a pioneer philanthropic and scientific organization but more or less as a religious sect. As such it obviously can not address the humanity’s pressing needs of the time. Therefore the question is: Do the Theosophical Society and its members have the needed will and power to regain the Society’s original constitutional platform and neutrality? If the answer is yes, then it has to launch an overall but wise and tempered process of rejuvenation and modernization based on eternal principles expressed through the Society’s constitutional platform.

It seems obvious that to launch such a project the ordinary decision making process is not enough and that a special “crisis management” body should be established out of progressive members of the Theosophical Society able to define clear Vision and Policy statements of the Society and prepare the Strategic Plan for the coming years, including a modernization of the decision making process and some ethical standards which have to be met to guarantee the neutrality of the TS and independent footing of its off-spring organizations.

On the other hand, if the answer is no, and the private interests will continue to prevail over the common interest of the Society then most probably the Theosophical Society is doomed to continue to play to great extend irrelevant role in the world and face further decline with the great distress of all those countless members who work hard to see the original intent and mission of the Theosophical Society fulfilled.

Warmest regards,
Anton

p.s. There remains for our consideration the publishing activity of the Theosophical Society I would like to address separately.

[Anton Rozman]

Thanks Dan and Joe!

Where there is a problem present I just have an inner urge to understand it and to find a solution. It is certainly more complicated to find a way out in the situation where there are so many private interests involved and decades of to some degree unconscious governing of these interests. But truly all was already said in the past and we just have to bring scattered pieces together to clearly state the problem. Then best solutions are always simple and elegant and I really, really hope that the coming GC meeting will represent a special turning point in the history of the Society. I really want to believe that the Society has the necessary strength and wisdom for such step.

There were probably never in the history of our Society present so many sincere hopes connected with one single event. May therefore the GC members find the revolutionary spirit and wisdom of our founding fathers!

So, once again best holiday wishes for all Community members and their families and all the best for your work and life in the coming New Year.

Yours fraternally,
Anton

[Will Morrow]

Anton,
Your statement, though verbose, does little to support your position.
You appear to have studied the social history of the TS to some extent, however, your statement doesn't seem to effectively correlate the relationship of the Theosphical Society, Theosophists, and Theosophy. In the study course "Introduction to Theosophy" one of the first lessons addresses the idea of "a" nucleus referring to one of more than one. Theosophy and Theosophists will continue to out live all human Theosophical societies. Besides the social efforts you identify, many actual Theosophical entities exist in the world outside the TS you know of (or refer to) here. To name a couple, William Judge (The Thesophical Society, Point Loma) and Rudolph Steiner (The Anthroposophical Society) formed entities that are alive and strong in the world today.
I participated in a study group where one of the people did a presentation on how many Theosophists had done significant things in the world. A key point was that their efforts did not draw attention to the TS or even Theosophy, but rather to the contribution made to society by these individuals. In India where HSO is regarded as a hero by Buddhists, he is generally more identified with establishing schools and community outreach programs than his association with the TS - other than with TS members. While the Anthroposophical Society has its affiliation with the Waldorf Schools, it wasn't until I had been studying Maria Montessori for many years (and putting my children through the Montessori system), that I found references to her studying Theosophy and incorporating Theosophical tenets into her system. (I saw an article recently in the Quest about this very thing. Another story that I found interesting was the copy of the SD dropped off at Adyar that supposedly had Einstein's hand written notes in the margins)
The success of individual Theosophists to implement and practice Theosophy in their daily lives and cultures is not so critically reliant on the ideal governmental structure of the TS as many members would make it seem. I am continually surprised at how Theosophists will pop up out of nowhere - and are not involved in the politics of the TS.
However, I think your final point was critical. We all, regardless of our affiliations, generally come to the TS as a resource for information and perspectives that we simply cannot find anywhere else. Some of us get distracted and redirect our focus to the resource itself rather than what the resource is providing to us. Maybe some of us are at a place in our personal developement where governance and social order is what we are trying to work through and we would like to make some meaningful connection between our interest in social order and our interest in Theosophy. Theosophical literature certainly doesn't lack when it comes to providing direction and insight to individuals for working through these types of things.
IMHO, I'm not so sure that more government is the solution to the TS governance issues. I don't acknowledge that there is a real problem. I actually commend the founders for establishing a movement that has spread and grown throughout the world at large. We who feel so strongly connected to the form over substance are the one's who feel its structure is problematic.
One more point on irony. John Algeo wrote an article many years ago for the American Theosophist about the "The Scaffolding and the Temple." (I don't know if that's the exact title - but I would be glad to look it up if anyone wants it.) I think its interesting to read what he wrote and then review his position in the current controversy.
Never a dull moment or lack of input with Thesosophists.

Best Regards,
Will

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Will,

Thanks for your thoughts. I am pondering how to reply to them as they seem to address more me personally then the theme in discussion. Therefore, let me repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this thread:

A problem is ... a situation where we have an opportunity to make a difference, to make things better. So, whenever we think creatively and critically about the way in which we can improve the quality of our mutual relations, organization, Society’s life, we are trying to actively solve a definite problem.

In view of recent discussions within the Society in regard to the President’s election and By-laws amendments proposal process it is quite obvious that we, as a Society, have a problem - not only one problem but many problems.

What problems? There will probably be as many answers to this question as many will be those who will try to address this question. Some will possibly think that we don’t have any problem at all.

When I joined the Community I was invited to freely present my views on institutional issues related especially to the Theosophical Society, Adyar, and I am therefore trying to focus on this topic.

Besides the social efforts you identify, many actual Theosophical entities exist in the world outside the TS you know of (or refer to) here. To name a couple, William Judge (The Theosophical Society, Point Loma) and Rudolph Steiner (The Anthroposophical Society) formed entities that are alive and strong in the world today.

Yes, I am aware of them and am in relation and collaborate with many theosophists who belong to other traditions too. So, on my web site you can for instance find also complete series of Boris de Zirkoff’s magazine Theosophia and interesting Pierce F. Spinks’ book: Theosophists: Reunite!

Some of us get distracted and redirect our focus to the resource itself rather than what the resource is providing to us. Maybe some of us are at a place in our personal development where governance and social order is what we are trying to work through and we would like to make some meaningful connection between our interest in social order and our interest in Theosophy. Theosophical literature certainly doesn’t lack when it comes to providing direction and insight to individuals for working through these types of things.

Well, Will, I agree that this is certainly the problem everyone should carefully examine and that we should regularly scrutinize our own motives and interests! But I think that such general assumptions should not replace direct fraternal contact when there is doubt in one’s motives and interests present.

IMHO, I’m not so sure that more government is the solution to the TS governance issues. I don’t acknowledge that there is a real problem. I actually commend the founders for establishing a movement that has spread and grown throughout the world at large. We who feel so strongly connected to the form over substance are the one’s who feel its structure is problematic.

Maybe you are right, maybe the organization is not needed any more at all. But until it is there I will try to contribute what I can to make it function better and for the purpose it was established.

John Algeo wrote an article many years ago for the American Theosophist about the “The Scaffolding and the Temple.” (I don’t know if that’s the exact title - but I would be glad to look it up if anyone wants it.) I think it’s interesting to read what he wrote and then review his position in the current controversy.

I would like to see it, thanks.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Will Morrow]

Anton,
It is unfortunate that you were unable to read my reply in the context in which it was delivered. My philosophical approach may not have been the best way to respond to you, so I will try something different here.
First, I don't know you personally to reply personally. Second, I actually expected that, had you understood my reply, you would ask for more dialogue about the theme of the discussion, and less focus petty retorts. Thirdly, it is interesting that in my reply where I use the word "issues," you refer to them as "problems."

Theosophy, by its nature, attracts as many different perspectives as people. I belong to Theosophical discussion groups, but I rarely post. I use them to keep track of what people who are attracted to Theosophy feel is of Theosophical importance. I also try to understand the level of interest people have in the study of Theosophy. A board like this - that has no prerequisites - is good for that.

I have responded to two posts on this board, and they were both institutional issues. (I have quite a bit of private email correspondence with people on this board.) The interesting point for me was that the replies to my responses wrere strikingly similar in tone. Both were statements defending the author's pride of authorship rather than addressing the theme of the discussion.
The TS has a particular continuity to it. In the beginning, HPB was an occultist and much of the focus of the TS at the time was on the occult. Jumping over everyone in between to more recently, John Algeo was an English professor and much of the focus of the TSA was on words, language and composition. Obviously, this would probably be the same in the TS Sections around the world.
If the TS has allowed itself to become entrenched in the security of familiarity and become so inflexible to the movement around it in the world at large, then it will be destined to follow the path of those things that are unable or unwilling to adapt with the times.
Theosophists are not dependent on any TS as their only resource anymore (if they ever were). However, many people who call themselves Theosophist are more likely to be "Cosmic Cookies" or "New Age Nuns" or "Metaphysical Monks" simply looking for an outlet to pontificate an evangelistic oratory or an opportunity to project themselves a big fish in a small pond. It is dissappointing to see that people who set themselves aside as Theosophists aren't really any more Theosophical in their perspectives than the people they set themselves apart from, and this includes many within the TS (and always has according to comments as early as HPB.)
The issues that are being batted around regarding TS governance and structure are so far removed from Theosophy that it is probably an insult to Theosophy (if that were possible) to have the two connected verbally. Many of the people who have been around the TS for a long time have had a stint in some position of leadership in the institution. I don't know if it was a statute of limitations or their own sense of limitations on their perceived effectiveness that caused them to take a more personal approach to their spreading of Theosophy, and leave the bickering and fighting to the newer (from an understanding standpoint) Theosophists.

Now the personal part -
If you feel you are so concerned and committed, do something substantial! (Maybe you already are and it didn't come out here.) Posting a blog on this web sight without engaging in meaningful dialogue is not substantial.

You posed a question and then set up the answer ("Therefore the question is: Do the Theosophical Society and its members have the needed will and power to regain the Society’s original constitutional platform and neutrality? If the answer is yes, then it has to launch an overall but wise and tempered process of rejuvenation and modernization based on eternal principles expressed through the Society’s constitutional platform.") The actual answer is "No." Can you offer an approach for that?

You insulted the work and effort of countless people within the TS who actually believe they are doing and acting in the best interest of the TS, its memebers and the world at large. And then you expect them to be receptive to your ideas for change?
" The Theosophical Society exists for the sake of studying and spreading Theosophy.."
AB 1913
"What the Society has hitherto done - its great merit in the eyes of some, and its terrible fault in the estimation of others - is to make people think."
HSO 1889
I don't know where you got the idea that the outside world saw the TS as a "pioneer philanthropic and scientific organization" or that the TS itself saw these as its constitutional purpose.

Don't be so offended and defensive when people whose efforts you slapped around don't welcome your ideas as enthusiastically as you presented them.

I'll find the John Algeo article mentioned and make a pdf.

One more point, Anton -
Arguing with me over trite comments and semantics is not the best use of your time and energy - especially if you are wanting to make a positive contribution to the forward movement of the TS at large. If you are researching applying institutional methodology or governance to the TS and are trying the brainstorming approach to try to come up with some effective procedure, then I would rather communicate with you through email and not through the board blog. As a qualifier, I am a member at large and have little regard for the quibbling and politicizing at headquarters. I have an extensive library and continue to use the TS as a resource and reference in my ongoing study of Theosophy.

All the best in your endeavor to make the TS better, Anton.

Best Regards,
Will

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Will,

I will try to separate what I see important parts of this exchange of messages and to find out how we could constructively continue the discussion.

I opened this thread with the presumption that Theosophical Society has definite difficulties in its functioning and further on assumed that these difficulties are related to the: 1. Lack of clear common vision about the nature of our Society. Then I tried to present my views on the nature of our Society and to define the problems which are related to what I see as deviations from the constitutional platform.

In your previous post you wrote: “… your statement doesn’t seem to effectively correlate the relationship of the Theosophical Society, Theosophists, and Theosophy.”

Certainly so, because this relationship largely surpass the topic I am trying to discuss. I would like to keep the discussion under this thread within mentioned frame what doesn’t mean that I see this relationship unimportant. On the contrary, if you would like discuss it, please open new discussion and I will do my best to participate in it.

Then you addressed the issue “on how many Theosophists had done significant things in the world. …” and that “The success of individual Theosophists to implement and practice Theosophy in their daily lives and cultures is not so critically reliant on the ideal governmental structure of the TS …” This is in my view equally interesting and important theme and could be addressed separately.

Then you wrote: “The TS has a particular continuity to it. In the beginning, HPB was an occultist and much of the focus of the TS at the time was on the occult.”

I think that Govert has started to address this issue and as far as I understand he has intent to expand on it.

If the TS has allowed itself to become entrenched in the security of familiarity and become so inflexible to the movement around it in the world at large, then it will be destined to follow the path of those things that are unable or unwilling to adapt with the times.

Yes, I think that this is the danger we face.

... many people who call themselves Theosophist are more likely to be “Cosmic Cookies” or “New Age Nuns” or “Metaphysical Monks” simply looking for an outlet to pontificate an evangelistic oratory or an opportunity to project themselves a big fish in a small pond.

It would be interesting to find out why this is the case.

The issues that are being batted around regarding TS governance and structure are so far removed from Theosophy that it is probably an insult to Theosophy (if that were possible) to have the two connected verbally.

If you have in mind actual situation I certainly agree, but I do think that TS should strive to adapt its governance and structure to become efficient vehicle for the promotion of theosophy.

You posed a question and then set up the answer (“Therefore the question is: Do the Theosophical Society and its members have the needed will and power to regain the Society’s original constitutional platform and neutrality? If the answer is yes, then it has to launch an overall but wise and tempered process of rejuvenation and modernization based on eternal principles expressed through the Society’s constitutional platform.”) The actual answer is “No.” Can you offer an approach for that?

We will soon see in what situation we are and I personally will act accordingly and also propose alternative solutions.

You insulted the work and effort of countless people within the TS who actually believe they are doing and acting in the best interest of the TS, its members and the world at large. And then you expect them to be receptive to your ideas for change?

It was not my intent to insult anybody and I always expressed my respect for the enormous work for good members of the TS have done in the past and are doing right now. But if my understanding of the situation in the TS is perceived as an insult then so be it. I am not leading a political campaign; I am just presenting views and ideas. If members will find them useful they will take it.

If you are researching applying institutional methodology or governance to the TS and are trying the brainstorming approach to try to come up with some effective procedure, then I would rather communicate with you through email and not through the board blog. As a qualifier, I am a member at large and have little regard for the quibbling and politicizing at headquarters.

It would be my pleasure to exchange views and ideas with you. There is just one limitation: because of lot of work I have to do my time for discussions is limited.

Thanks and warmest regards,
Anton

[Will Morrow]

Dear Anton,
I see you are unable to resist the urge to simplistically argue over trite points and semantics.
It appears to me that the difference in our opinion is the premise you state: "that Theosophical Society has definite difficulties in its functioning and further on assumed that these difficulties are related to the: 1. Lack of clear common vision about the nature of our Society."
Many of us don't see it the way you present it and therefore don't agree with either your presumption that there is a problem or your presumed solution to a non-existant problem. This recent activity identifying the "difficulties" within the TS appears to simply be the campaigning by individuals (yourself included) to project their own ideas onto the membership at large. This has happened many times before (As seen in Joe's comment below - where all of those who believed their sectarianism was THE correct one started their own TS) and will continue, I'm sure.
No need to discuss this any further with me, Anton (although I can see you probably don't agree).

Merry Christmas and I hope the phat man brings you all the toys you asked for.

Best Regards,
Will

[Anton Rozman]

Hi Will,

It appears to me that the difference in our opinion is the premise you state ... Many of us don’t see it the way you present it and therefore don’t agree with either your presumption that there is a problem or your presumed solution to a non-existent problem.

I naturally supposed and wrote that there will be probably many who will have different opinion. I don’t have problem with that and do not force anyone to change it.

This recent activity identifying the “difficulties” within the TS appears to simply be the campaigning by individuals (yourself included) to project their own ideas onto the membership at large. This has happened many times before …

I hope that this relatively new way of free expression of ideas and views through internet will be sooner or later regarded as an enrichment of Society’s life. But as every new thing it obviously provokes some doubts.

No need to discuss this any further with me, Anton (although I can see you probably don’t agree).

I discovered H.P.B.’s text posted on another forum yesterday and found it actual in regards to the period of year and to the topic of this discussion, so it is not directly related to our exchange of messages and is therefore posted separately. If you don’t want to further discuss on these issues I will certainly respect your decision.

Merry Christmas and I hope the phat man brings you all the toys you asked for.

Although we don’t share same views I sincerely wish you all the best for your life and work in the coming New Year.

Best regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Dear friends,

Here are few words by H.P.B. on the nature and objects of the Theosophical Society I took from another forum:

Many misconceptions prevail as to the nature and objects of the Theosophical Society. Some - Sir Richard Temple in the number - fancy it is a religious sect; many believe it is composed of atheists; a third party are convinced that its sole object is the study of occult science and the initiation of green hands into the Sacred Mysteries. If we have had one we certainly have had a hundred intimations from strangers that they were ready to join at once if they could be sure that they would shortly be endowed with siddhis, or the power to work occult phenomena. The beginning of a new year is a suitable time to make one more attempt - we wish it could be the last - to set these errors right. So then, let us say again: (1) The Theosophical Society teaches no new religion, aims to destroy no old one, promulgates no creed of its own, follows no religious leader, and, distinctly and emphatically, is not a sect, nor ever was one. It admits worthy people of any religion to membership, on the condition of mutual tolerance and mutual help to discover truth. The Founders have never consented to be taken as religious leaders, they repudiate any such idea, and they have not taken and will not take disciples. (2) The Society is not composed of atheists, nor is it any more conducted in the interest of atheism than in that of deism or polytheism. It has members of almost every religion, and is on equally fraternal terms with each and all. (3) Not a majority, nor even a respectable minority, numerically speaking, of its fellows are students of occult science or ever expect to become adepts. All who cared for the information have been told what sacrifices are necessary in order to gain the higher knowledge, and few are in a position to make one tenth of them. He who joins our Society gains no siddhis by that act, nor is there any certainty that he will even see the phenomena, let alone meet with an adept.

Excerpt from A YEAR OF THEOSOPHY, Theosophist, January, 1881.

"Those three points that HPB laid out are of great importance. Whether any of the existing theosophical organizations adhere fully to all of these ideals is an open question." (Comment by a member.)

Best regards,
Anton