The Esoteric School Lobby

[Anand Gholap]

(Annie Besant was the head of the Esoteric School and Colonel Olcott was the President of TS.)
Mrs. Annie Besant wrote:
“In the T.S. we have a curious mixture. The Exoteric Society is purely democratic - it is only fair to admit this fully. On the other side we have an Esoteric body which is practically autocratic in its constitution ... The existence of a secret body to rule the outer Society made the constitution of the T.S. a mere farce, for it was at the mercy of the inner … All the differences that arose between the Colonel and myself were on this point; he could not believe that I was serious in saying that I would not use the E.S. against him, but slowly he came to understand it ... The greatest power will always be in the hands of the E.S., and not in the head of the Society ... I know that I exercise a quite unwarrantable power. This is what makes some people say there should not be an E.S.T. … We must recognize the danger and try to neutralize it. At any time during the last fifteen years I could have checkmated the Colonel on any point if I had chosen ...”

I could see frustration of some officers in TS regarding the results in Presidential elections. They were wondering how one person can get elected unopposed for around 30 years. It happened again and again in TS history. Different theories were offered to explain this phenomenon. I think all that mystery is solved by above passages of Annie Besant.
Best
Anand Gholap

[Pablo Sender]

"TS members whose sole “religion” is supposed to be search for Truth"

I don't agree with that. TS members are free to follow any religion they want. They are free to be Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, etc. They have freedom to choose a belief in the Masters, if they want to. Otherwise, where is the freedom in the TS? We would become an institution that opens its door only to those who don't have other beliefs but "ours".
And why would it matter who has succeeded as a chela and who has not? No earnest member should care about that and fortunately, it is not an issue in the ES. In my long years there I haven't heard one single time anybody speculating about who might be a chela.
I think most people who study the theosophical literature will understand that preparation for discipleship may take several incarnations. Why should we be bothered about that at all? Your view of the spiritual path sounds to me materialistic, with concepts of immediate success, palpable proofs, etc.

You say: "Theosophical Society’s members seek self-fulfillment through Esoteric School"
Well, that's not the aim of the ES, and I knew that before joining the ES, because it is explained in several places. Most ES members will tell you their aspiration is simply to help in the Master's work and to start a training which may take several incarnations, in order to be able to help that work in a more effective way.

"Therefore the question is . . . that members of the TS . . . can defend and preserve this right only with strict application of TS’ Constitution and Declarations"

In many Lodges they rent their spaces for people to practice yoga, for example. Also, there are some "allied institutions" like the TOS, which rents TS space for its activities. The ES is one of these "allied institutions", and this is legally accepted in the TS Rules and Regulations. I encourage you to check this point out.

[Anton Rozman]

Dear Pablo,

My intention was and is to provide somehow different, out of box perspective on the situation to challenge the established view on the Esoteric School.

"TS members whose sole “religion” is supposed to be search for Truth"
"I don't agree with that. TS members are free to follow any religion they want."

Maybe the wording I have chosen really wasn’t most fortunate one but from the context and my previous posts it could be realized that I meant that the Society’s motto “There is no Religion Higher than Truth”, the search for Truth, is the sole “religion” or “respect for what is sacred” which transcends TS members’ freedom of choice of whatever spiritual path or religion.

"And why would it matter who has succeeded as a chela and who has not? No earnest member should care about that and fortunately, it is not an issue in the ES."

I am seeing the Esoteric School as a specific educational system, which structure goes from the Master as the Inner Head, through the Outer Head and various levels of officers down to the individual pupils. In my opinion really matters if the Outer Head is connected with her Superior and if the instruction she is forwarding down through the structure really derives from that Source or not. And as you are also saying: “Most ES members will tell you their aspiration is simply to help in the Master’s work,” how is then possible that they are not interested to know if they are really fulfilling His work.

"Your view of the spiritual path sounds to me materialistic, with concepts of immediate success, palpable proofs, etc."

Once again, we are talking about the Esoteric School and, yes, I would expect immediate success, palpable proofs, that attending this particular educational system is giving some quick results. At least it should be visible that it is gradually enabling pupils, that it increases their willingness and capability, to maintain and promote fraternal relationships.

"The ES is one of these “allied institutions”, and this is legally accepted in the TS Rules and Regulations."

Pablo, I wasn’t able to find in the TS Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations any entry in regard to “allied institutions”; can you please indicate the exact Rule where this is mentioned.

Thanks and warmest regards,
Anton

[Pablo Sender]

Anton, I respect your view, but that is not the ES view. That's probably why you are not interested in the ES. Others feel the ES view is the right approach (for them), and they join the ES.
I was very much (spiritually) benefited by my joining, even without expecting any results.
Have you read the International Rules & Regulations? I don't have them with me, and in 5 days I'm going back to my country. I'm sorry I don't have time to spend looking for them. But you can google "allied activities" + theosophy and you will find several references to them.
All best

[Anton Rozman]

Dear Pablo,

I present my views as concerned member of the Theosophical Society for I find, as do numerous other TS members who write and wrote on this issue in the past, that the relationship between the TS and ES is far from being healthy and because I think that interests and benefit of the Theosophical Society should be primary also for the members of the ES.

Maybe you will be interested to know what was recently written on this issue by longstanding TS member Jerry Hejka Ekins: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_/message/4899

I can well imagine that your experience, as that of numerous other ES members, is very positive one and brought you spiritual benefits but on the other hand it is my impression that till now you haven’t been in a situation to experience “hard arm” of the structures of power and that therefore you consider them as non-existent what is perfectly normal. But if you don’t see them yet this doesn’t mean that they do not exist.

As I regularly check the TS Rules and Regulations and translated them in our language already 15 years ago, made commentaries and wrote numerous analysis of current happenings in the TS in the light of TS Constitution I can assure you that there is no such wording in them as “allied activities or institutions”. And if you will find time you can check this by yourself as you can find the latest Edition on: http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_2007_E.htm

I wish you happy return to your beautiful native country where lives also large Slovenian community which found there their second home after being forced to leave their motherland.

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Thanks Dan,

It works on my PC. Here is once again:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_/message/4899

If it still doesn't work, those interested can visit the "theosophy_" yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_/

Jerry's message is still visible on home page under the title Re: The Esoteric School Lobby

Best regards,
Anton

[Anton Rozman]

Oh, I didn't considered the option that messages are not visible to the visitors. Thanks!

Will have to ask Jerry first.

[Konstantin Zaitzev]

Yes, you're right. This is what Jerry wrote in reply to Anand's message identical to the one at the head of this thread:

________________________________________

From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins

Dear Anand,

You brought up here a question that has plagued the Theosophical Society in one form or another, since it was first formed. That is: who among the leaders of the Theosophical Society will set the direction of the organization? Allow me to present a very brief overview of the evolution of this issue, and how it played out in the E.S.
Most of the seventeen or so founders, including H. S. Olcott, were interested in occult phenomena and spiritualistic apparitions. Henry Felt, who had been presenting a series of lectures on the Egyptian Mysteries, claimed that he was able to materialize spirits. So, the Theosophical Society was formed with most of the charter members expecting that the organization would be sort of a miracle club. It turned out that Mr. Felt was unable to produce any phenomena. However, Olcott already knew that Blavatsky's occult abilities which could keep the budding organization busy for a very long time.
However, Blavatsky had different ideas. She wanted to begin by informing the world about, the hidden laws in nature just being discovered by science; the inner history of Christianity and other spiritual traditions; and about the great sages of history. So, instead of offering herself as a guinea pig for the curiosity of phenomena seekers, she began writing out a massive manuscript, that was published in 1877 as Isis Unveiled. Isis did make a publishing sensation and subscriptions for its initial printing of 1000 copies were sold out before the book ever came off the press.
The next year, new Theosophical groups were formed. The most notable were the London Theosophical Society, the Prayag Theosophical Society in India, and (of course) the original group in New York also grew. In those days, each group was completely autonomous. Though Col. Olcott was President, he had no authority over the individual Lodges.
In 1878, Olcott and Blavatsky relocated to India, for the purpose (according to Blavatsky) of defeating the Missionaries who were destroying the cultures in India and Sri Lanka. In many ways they were successful, and the Theosophical Society gained much respect among the native Indian population. However, it gained enemies among the missionaries.
In the mean time, Olcott began creating an organizational infrastructure for the Theosophical Society. The three objects were composed. Newly formed groups in India were issued charters that made them answerable to the President (Olcott) and the General Council in India. But, when the British Section was formed, The London Theosophical Society maintained its independence. William Q. Judge, one of the three initial founders, remained in the United States and worked to keep the American Section together while Olcott and Blavatsky traveled abroad.
While Olcott settled into his newly self-created duties as "International President", Blavatsky busied herself with the editing of the TS's first magazine, The Theosophist, while networking with the various spiritual teachers and scholars in India. She also wanted to form an inner group of sincere students, devoted to the Theosophical cause, and give them further instructions and guide them in their spiritual practice. Olcott, from the beginning, was solidly against Blavatsky forming such a group. Considering the deep respect that Blavatsky had earned among her readers, allowing her to form a spiritual group had the potential of conflicting with Olcott's executive authority. T. Subba Rao also opposed Blavatsky's status as a teacher-apparently for sexist reasons.
In 1885, A Scottish Methodist group in India published Mrs Coulomb's claims that Blavatsky's teachers did not exist and that the phenomena associated with them was created by trickery. Blavatsky was ready to sue the Coulomb's, but Olcott refused to allow her, under threat of resigning from the Presidency. Blavatsky relented, and Olcott had her removed from the Adyar Headquarters until the situation "blew over."
Blavatsky sailed to Germany and began work on a new book, The Secret Doctrine. By about 1887, Blavatsky moved to London where some of her followers established (To Mr. Sinnett's annoyance) a new Lodge, name after her. Blavatsky also became President of the British Section, while Sinnett's London Lodge remained autonomous. Blavatsky and her Lodge, also maintained an unofficial autonomy, and Blavatsky began to work very closely with Judge in the United States.
By late 1888, Blavatsky announced that she was forming her own school. Olcott objected, and embarked to London in order to put Blavatsky in line. Several days out in the ocean, a mahatma letter from KH materialized in Olcott's cabin. The letter dealt with Olcott's coming confrontation with Blavatsky and warns:
"But this you must tell to all: With occult matters she [Blavatsky] has everything to do. We have not abandoned her; she is not 'given over to chelas'. She is our direct agent. I warn you against permitting your suspicions and resentment against 'her many follies' to bias your intuitive loyalty to her. In the adjustment of this European business, you will have two things to consider--the external and administrative, and the internal and psychical. Keep the former under your control and that of your most prudent associates, jointly; and leave the latter to her." [Letter 19, First Series: Letters from the Masters of Wisdom]
The letter apparently modified Olcott's attitude. Upon his arrival in London, Olcott agreed to allow the Esoteric Section, with: "The constitution and sole direction of the same [i.e. the Esoteric Section] is vested in Madame H. P. Blavatsky, as its Head; she is solely responsible to the Members for results; and the section has no official or corporate connection with the Exoteric Society save in the person of the President-Founder." [Lucifer, Oct. 1888].
So, until her death, Blavatsky directed the Esoteric Section. Judge was responsible for the Esoteric Section in America. Additionally, Blavatsky hand picked about a dozen other members to whom she gave deeper instructions. Most of those members lived together in sort of a spiritual community in London, and carried on a spiritual practice. This community became known as "The Inner Group."
When Blavatsky died in May 1891, Judge traveled to London to meet with the Inner Group. Since Judge was one of the three original founders, responsible for the E.S. in America, and the presumed successor to Col. Olcott, he was asked to continue the E.S. Rather than accept, Judge proposed that he and Annie Besant share the responsibility, not as representatives of the Masters, but as their fellow students. The proposal was accepted, and for the next three years or so, they sent out circulars signed by the both of them.
However, Besant and Judge both believed themselves to be in contact with with HPB's teachers, as well as HPB herself (or perhaps, rather, himself). Olcott and Besant, however, began to question Judge's contact with the Mahatmas and called for an inquiry to be held in London. Judge appeared and stated that the Theosophical Society, as a free thought organization, cannot try or censor members because of their beliefs. Everyone had to agree with his argument. The inquiry was dismissed, and a statement concerning the neutrality of the Theosophical Society was issued. However, one member, Walter Old, was not satisfied with the outcome of the inquiry. He had copies of the evidence Besant had prepared to confront Judge. With an intent to expose Judge, Mr. Old give the material to a Mr Edmund Garrett, of the magazine, The Westminster Gazette. It turned out that Garrett was not sympathetic to either side of the issue. Rather, he thought the whole belief in Mahatmas was a farce. So, he used the material to publish a series of articles aimed at exposing and embarrassing the Theosophical Society. The series was called: Isis Very Much Unveiled, Being the story of the Great Mahatma Hoax.
The series resulted in the revival of the Besant/Judge controversy and the members of the TS became polarized: Most of the Indian members sided with Besant, while most of the American members sided with Judge. The British section was split. The controversy grew and eventually the American Section, citing the precedent of autonomy sent in the beginning with the London Theosophical Society and others, also declared its autonomy. Olcott, chose to interpret the American Sections' declaration as an act of succession, and canceled the section's charter--Thus forcing the American Section to continue as a separate organization.
Besant continued the Esoteric Section (Now renamed the Eastern School), but not as a fellow student. Rather she assumed the title of "Outer Head."
As you noted in your quote below, Olcott remained suspicious of the Eastern School and on numerous occasions expressed his belief that having the Presidency of the TS and Headship of the E.S. under the control of one person would give her/him too much power. For this reason, Olcott remained reluctant to endorse Besant as his successor to the Presidency, unless she released control of the the Esoteric School. Accordingly, Besant kept the E.S. in pretty low profile until after Olcott died and Besant was elected President. Besant then reorganized the E.S. to pretty much what it is today. Besant remained in control of both offices until her death in 1933, when the E. S. Headship went to Mr. Leadbeater. However, he only held the office for a few months before he also died. Mr. Arundale Succeeded Mr. Leadbeater in 1934 and also became the International President. He died in 1945, and the Presidency and ES Headship went to Mr. Jinarajadasa. N. Sri Ram followed Jinarajadasa. He also held both offices. However, he tended to play down the E.S. John Coates followed Sri Ram. Like Olcott, Coates did not believe that the International President should hold both offices. So for the first time since Blavatsky, The President and the E.S. Head were different people. Sadly, Coates, who was very popular with the younger members, died suddenly after less than five years. Radha Burnier has been International President and Outer Head since 1980.
My personal conclusions are that Olcott was right. Holding both offices gives too much control to one person and had made the Democratic processes in the TS a sham. Opinions vary concerning whether Besant (not to mention her successors) abused their power. However, there is an old saying, "Power corrupts: Absolute power...."

Best
Jerry
________________________________________

[Anton Rozman]

Dear friends,

Before I follow Janeth’s advice let me add just few words.

It is ironical that we can talk about these things only in the environment where these problems are most felt and that this discussion can actually provoke dissent among those who are most faithful to the fundamental principles of the Theosophical Society.

But to get an impression about the reality of things ponder upon the message in the last Keith Fisher’s post on theos_talk: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/51858

Warmest regards,
Anton

[Pablo Sender]

Dan, what you say about favoritism could be possible except for the fact that Lodge Presidents are voted by all members (BTW Anand, in all Lodges in Argentina the vote is secret. If any Lodge does not follow that proceeding it’s its own fault). Also, positions to be a Board member are voted, as well as to be National President. And ES members are always a minority. So, there is no place for favoritism in any of the leading positions in the TS.
But this favoritism usually doesn’t even happen with non-voted positions. Look at our National Center, the place you work at. There are seven departments. Out of the heads of these departments only two are ES members. And these two are departments that have little to do with power. Departments which are related to money, or management of membership, etc., are in hands of non ES people
The fact that this favoritism does not happen shows that the ES is healthy. Of course, there can be some countries with problems, but these are generally the result of a poor TS Section which is generating or attracting the wrong kind of members.
I have a pretty close experience about the TS affairs in five countries where I lived for a while, and I always saw that people are appreciated by their abilities, not by their affiliations. Can you say anything different in your experience?
The ES approach is especially careful in these matters. We have some writings specifically talking about the difference between TS and ES. No earnest ES member would consider the ES ideal of life as the “theosophical life”.

[Anton Rozman]

Dear friends,

Here is an additional republication of relevant exchange of views on the ES between Anand Gholap and Jerry Hejka Ekins on theosophy_ yahoo group:

……………

Dear Anand,

You wrote:

“As ES knowledge could be released for ordinary members after passage of some time, and as lot of time has passed after that last E.S. revelations from G.S. Arundale, perhaps it is safe to make ES documents available to outside members.”

Safe? What makes publishing ES documents safe, and what makes publishing them unsafe? From the time of Blavatsky on, the publication or non publication of ES documents has been the sole prerogative of the Head. Besant made Blavatsky’s ES material was made available in a very edited form. They were finally made available in their correct form in Volume 12 of the Blavatsky Collected Writings. Besant and Leadbeater made much of their ES material available, in an edited form, in the years after it was published, as I had explained in an earlier post. As for Radha, rather than making later ES documents available, I understand that she has been actively collecting them and taking them back to Adyar - presumably to make them as unavailable as possible. Her actions might be an answer to your question.

You wrote:

“Thanks for your opinion. For long time I felt that after G.S. Arundale died, contact of TS Presidents with Masters was little if at all any contact was there.”

I would rather not indulge in opinions about who was in touch with Masters and who wasn’t. Anyway, it all seems to come down to a matter of individual belief, doesn’t it? However, here is something to think about: An ES member is obliged to believe that the Other Head is in touch with the Masters. Otherwise, the title (Outer Head) has no meaning. Consequently, one would have to assume that Radha is also in touch with the Masters, or else the ES no longer has any meaning. Do you agree?

You wrote:

“Do you think there was any significant addition to ES documents after GSA passed away?”

It depends upon what you consider significant. ES documents were published after Arundale and are still being published today.

You wrote:

“After J. Krishnamurti rejected Theosophy publicly, did Annie Besant or Leadbeater remove the condition that candidate should accept Krishnamurti as World Teacher?”

The rules are changed whenever they become inconvenient, irrelevant, or perhaps, just at the whim of the O.H. I would have to check my papers to be sure, but my memory was that that rule was changed even before Krishnamurti went off on his own. By the Way, I submit that it is inaccurate to say that K. “rejected Theosophy.” Actually, he continued to speak at Theosophical gatherings and even to ES gatherings for many years after he became independent.

You wrote:

“After JK started teaching independently and before the death of Besant and Leadbeater, there was a period of around 6 years. Did JK’s teaching and rejection of Theosophy make any difference in ES teaching and conditions during this period?”

The ES bulletins stopped and Besant ordered the ES closed in about 1928, about a year before Krishnamurti became independent. After Krishnamurti left, the ES was restarted, but the Bulletins were pretty preoccupied with the confusion Krishnamurti created by closing the Order of the Star. The ES “revelations” did decline in the re-opened ES, but I would credit that decline to Besant’s death in 1933 and C.W.L.’s failing health and death in 1934. After that, there was a lot of attention given to the events leading up to the War in Europe (i.e. World War II).

You wrote:

“The pledge, as it was taken during the time of Blavatsky, by the candidates while joining the Esoteric Section of the TS, is already uploaded by Daniel and perhaps more people on the web sites. As it is no more secrete, I am copying it here. Source: http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/espage1.htm

That pledge never was a secret. It was published in Lucifer for all to see in 1888 or 1889.

You wrote:

“The main contradiction, which I see in this pledge, is although pledge is made to the Higher Self, the other rule demands “Obedience to the Head of the Esoteric Section in all Theosophical matters.””

Not a contradiction at all. Blavatsky had explained that our first obligation is to our Higher Self. If Blavatsky gave an order concerning “Theosophical matters,” one was only obliged to follow it if it did not conflict with the member’s better judgment. Interestingly, the poet W.B. Yeats was a member of that early ES, and asked Blavatsky that very question. He recorded her answer in his Memoirs. Yeats was satisfied with her answer.

You wrote:

“Question can be asked whether a person should listen to the voice of his own Higher Self, or whether he should listen to the commands of the Head of the Esoteric Section.”

Blavatsky told her students that their obligation is first to their Higher Self. In the last Pledge sheet I saw, I noticed that new ES members now make their pledge directly to Radha - not to their Higher Self.

Best
Jerry

[Anand Gholap]

Anton has copied conversation between I and Jerry Hejka Ekins above. People should be careful about who has written which statement. Statements IN quotation marks " " are by Anand Gholap.
Statements OUTSIDE quotation marks " " are by Jerry Hejka Ekins. I wish there was employed better way of distinguishing the statements of two, so that my statements won't be considered as Jerry's statements and Jerry's statements would not be considered as my statements.
Best
Anand Gholap

[Anton Rozman]

Further republication from theosophy_ e-mail list:

Dear Anand,

You wrote:

“What did Annie Besant and Leadbeater tell to the members of Esoteric School, regarding the success or failure of the World Teacher project and J. Krishnamurti? Obviously members of ES must have asked many times to Besant and Leadbeater whether World Teacher project failed or succeeded. Was there any definite answer from Besant and Leadbeater or did they avoid saying anything definite in this regard?”

Besant maintained her belief that Krishnamurti was the Word Teacher. As far as I know, she maintained that belief onto her death. Leadbeater explained that K. was the World Teacher but did not become so in the way he had expected. I might add that George Arundale felt that K. betrayed the TS and the little inner group that was running things. After Besant and Leadbeater were gone, and he had control of the Theosophist, you will find little or no mention of Krishnamurti during his Presidency. Also, sometime after Besant and Leadbeater passed from the scene, many of the classical Theosophical texts began to go through an editing process. One of the first things that began to disappear from the texts, were references to the “World Teacher.” For instance, you might compare a current edition of /Talks on the Path/ with the original, and you will see what I mean. /Masters and the Path/ is also heavily edited, but I think that is pretty well known by now.

You wrote:

“ “So help me, my Higher Self.” Here me means Lower Self. In other words, “So help me (Lower Self), my Higher Self.” That means Lower Self is making a pledge to follow the Head of ES and in that decision, Lower Self is asking the Higher Self to confirm the decision of Lower Self.”

Actually “me” can mean the higher or lower self (or a mixture of the two) depending upon the spiritual development and motivations of the applicant. While HPB accepted anyone who applied, the new members quickly sorted themselves out. Those who weren’t ready resigned, or were expelled.

You wrote:

“Did she expect that other ES members will always refer what she talked with W.B. Yeats?”

No. Yeats’ recorded his conversation with HPB in his private “Occult Notes and Diary”, so other ES members did not have access to it. However, other ES members asked HPB the same question, and HPB answered them also. Also, and more importantly, HPB later made clarifications in writing. I mentioned Yeats’ account because it was at the top of my head
at the time, and because I thought it was very clear. For your interest, I’m transcribing the relevant section in his diary below. But remember, this is a diary entry - not polished writing:

“About Xmas 1888 I joined the Esoteric Section of TS. The pledges gave me no trouble except two - promise to work for theosophy and promise of obedience to HPB in all theosophical matters. Explained my difficulties to HPB. Said that I could only sign on the condition that I myself was to be judge as to what Theosophy is (the term is wide enough) and I consider my work at Blake a wholly adequate keeping of this clause. On the other matter HPB explained that this obedience only referred to things concerning occult practice if such should be called for. Since then a clause has been inserted making each member promise obedience subject to the decision of his own conscience.”

You wrote:

“Do these new ES members make their pledge to follow Radha Burnier or do they make pledge to follow the Outer Head of ES? There is a difference between following Mrs. Radha as an individual and following the Head of ES. It is because Head of ES may change and members will have to follow the new Head, whereas if they make a pledge to follow Radha, it would mean following her soul always, even when she is no more an Outer Head of ES.”

They make a pledge to obey Radha who is at present, the Outer Head. My guess is that the ES members will have to sign a revised pledge when Radha appoints her successor.

Best Wishes,
Jerry