[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

TS Organizational Policy Explained to A P Sinnett in Mahatma Letters

Nov 01, 2008 08:57 PM
by MKR

The current membership situation in the TS in all countries except India is
that it is bleeding with no end in sight. No one even want to mention about
the issue as it is the hot potato no one knows how to handle it.

It is the most critical and urgent issue facing TS and its long time
survival outside India is going to depend addressing it and try to find some
solutions. Instead of addressing this issue, a handful of members of GC,
after defeat of their nominee, has diverted the attention of other GC
members and ordinary members by trying to radically change overnight the
International Rules including disenfranchising members from election of
International President as if "governance" is the most urgent issue. Rules
change will do nothing to help membership decline because of the fundamental
autonomy at all levels which is the foundation of TS. In a letter to A P
Sinnett, the autonomy issue and the role of President is was clearly
explained by Master KH and this has not changed since the foundation of TS.
Here is the statement:

"I admit that his connection with an A. I. Branch would be "an evil" --
hence, he will have no more to do with it than he has with the British,
(London Branch). His connection will be purely nominal, and may be made more
so, by framing your Rules more carefully than theirs; and giving your
organization such a self-acting system of Government as would seldom if ever
require any outside interference. But to make an independent A.I.B. with the
self-same objects, either in whole or apart, as the Parent Society and with
the same directors behind the scenes would be not only to deal a mortal blow
at the Theos. Soc. but also put upon us a double labour and anxiety without
the slightest compensating advantage that any of us can perceive. The Parent
S. has never interfered in the slightest degree with the British T.S., nor
indeed with any other Branch, whether religious or philosophical. Having
formed, or caused to be formed a new branch, the Parent S. charters it
(which it cannot now do without our Sanction and signatures), and then
usually retires behind the scenes, as you would say. Its further connection
with the subject branches is limited to receiving quarterly accounts of
their doings and lists of the new Fellows, ratifying expulsions -- only when
specially called upon as an arbitrator to interfere on account of the
Founders' direct connection with us -- etc., etc.; it never meddles
otherwise in their affairs except when appealed to as a sort of appelate
court. And the latter depending on you, what is there to prevent your
Society from remaining virtually independent? We are, even more generous
than you British are to us. We will not force upon, nor even ask you to
sanction a Hindu "Resident" in your Society, to watch the interests of the
Parent Paramount Power when we have once declared you independent; but will
implicitly trust to your loyalty and word of honour. But if you now so
dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by Col. Olcott --
an American of your own race -- you would surely rebel against dictation
from a Hindu, whose habits and methods are those of his own people, and
whose race, despite your natural benevolence, you have not yet learnt to
tolerate, let alone to love or respect. Think well before you ask for our


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


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application