Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00129)

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Maxim Osinovsky wrote:
> Sy,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> I did not challenge accuracy of your information--I just would like to
> see if these happenings were covered in theosophical magazines and to
> check the official versions. It looks like they were not.

Max ...
	Theos-l was, I think, a rude awakening for many of us. Even some
that are generally strong supporters of the established organizations -
that would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt - have wound up
getting almost appalled at the nature and extent of what is going on. It
seems there is a substantial power play going on right now - an effort by
a few to completely control both the legal and ideological future of the
TS. And the way it has (IMO) been done up to now with little opposition
is through the complete control of the avenues of information ... the TS
publications and etc. There are many Theosophists in Lodges, and probably
the majority of at-large members that do not even know the Boston Lodge,
and even whole national sections, have been expelled. Headquarters is
playing hard-ball politics, and doing it (at least in the short run)
quite effectively - you won't see the "official" point of view in TS
publications, because HQ does not even want it to be a topic of
discussion. If you were a member at large receiving only national
publications, to this day you would not know about the Boston massacre,
not know that there was anything but the mildest discussion about the
*illegal* by-laws changes made last year, etc., etc.
	The fact that Algeo found it necessary to defend himself in the
last AT was a recognition of the fact that there is, despite their best
efforts - growing awareness in the TS that something very unpleasent is
happpening ... and he is trying to  put a spin on it before it gets out
of hand. But he came very close to telling almost outright lies - not
overt, but by implying that the TS Wheaton HQ was operating from a
particular position ... when a Lodge is *sued by Headquarters*, using
funds from the general operating budget (that is, moneys past and present
Theosophists payed ... to *forward the Theosophical movement*) and sued
because of *ideological direction* - when to actually get your study
group or lodge affiliation from HQ you must study specified things and
(I believe) pass a test ....
	There is something very dark and delibrate going on behind the
scenes ... and while HQ has been able to present a nice, open and
pleasent face at the surface - it has also been moving step by step to
achieve an almost total lock on both the power *and the
financial resources* of HQ (I would invite you to try to get into office
if you are not "approved" by the current leadership, or try to get
recognized as study group if you want to study Alice Bailey.)
	The problem is, the emergence of the Internet is a massive end
run around the HQ control of information -  it is instantaneous,
international, and uncontrollable by any person or faction ....
	My eyes were uncomfortably opened over the last couple of years
as story after story, event after event came to light here. I'm probably
like most - we don't want to have to bother with administrative stuff,
want the leadership to just sort of take care of business and facilitate
the actual work of Theosophy ... to attempt to actualize the Three
Objects into modern civilization ... we are far more comfortable
discussing the similarities and differences between Kabbalistic and
Hindu creation schemes than the particulars of HQ finance and by-laws
interpretations - but (IMO) part of what one accepts when one joins any
organization is both the priviledges and responsibilities ... a duty to
*take responsibility for the organization's shadow* (e.g., there is
actually a movement beginning in mainstream Christianity to deal with
the excesses of fundamentalism - mainstream Christians beginning to
suddenly realize that ignoring that shadow has lead to a place where to
say "I am a Christian" now carries all sorts of undertones and
connotations that it didn't 10 years ago ...).
	At any rate ... to answer the question ... the *lack* of any
"offical statement" in national publications *is*, in its own way,
itself the offical statement: *They don't even want this discussed*.
	But the time fast approaches when this will no longer even be an
option.
							Regards, -JRC