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


Feb 03, 2009 11:13 PM
by t_s_theosophist


A little more information is slowly trickling in regarding the recent Adyar General Council Meeting. We are thankful to Bro. Sampsa of Finland for this information. We do not doubt the integrity or accuracy of Bro Sampsa's information, nor that of the Finnish General Secretary. We would like to point out however 
that the tenor of the General Council Meeting is NOT the main issue. 

IF the General Council Meeting was different from other meetings and run rather tightly. It only indicates that the Adyar Administration had prior knowledge of the Quartets' Plan to disrupt the meeting and had the wisdom and foresight to take precautions to foil their attempts to impose radical changes upon The Society. It is a credit to the restraint and ability of the Adyar Administration. 

Once again let us re-emphasize that the topic of CHANGE is also not THE ISSUE. 

We concede that most members would embrace healthy and necessary changes. There is an ethical and honorable way to bring about changes needed which involves member discussion, input & consensus, which was NOT followed by the Quartet. 

THE ISSUE is the Clandestine and UNETHICAL METHOD which the Quartet used to attempt to force radical changes on The Society without membership knowledge Concensus, or Discussion. 

We have attempted to keep our comments focused on the ISSUES and get direct and honest explainations from members of the Quartet. So far we have been met with name calling and other pejoratives from them and those who are under the hypnosis of their bias, and an imperial disdain and disregard for accountability and responsibility to the membership. 

The diversion of personality attacks and discussion of the tenor and atmosphere of the General Council Meeting is a "Red Herring" that the Quartet hopes will cloud the main issue and divert attention from their action. 

So once again we repeat our questions and ask for Not Pejoratives, but Simple, Open & Honest ANSWERS. 

The aspect of our dis-agreement is the METHOD by which a few sought to impose radical changes in the Society in a clandestine and urgent manner, without the knowledge or consensus of the membership. THAT IS the aspect of disagreement. 

Such radical changes that were proposed should have been presented to the membership for dialogue and discusion to arrive at some type of consensus. 
Members have a RIGHT to Know and voice their opinions about these matters which so radically change the operations of the Society. 

Did you have the consensus of the New Zealand Section on these proposals? 

Did Madame Kim-Diu have the consensus of the French Section? If so, very well. 

The membership of the American Section knew NOTHING about these proposals. NO consensus was solicited, and there was no dialogue. 

This all gives the appearance whether legitimate or not that there was secretive and clandestine collusion among you to
impliment a planned agenda. An agenda designed by whom? 

Whether or not you had the legal authority to do this is beside the point. The point IS that you had a MORAL responsibility to 
consult the membership and solicit a CONSENSUS of opinion about how the membership felt conserning such radical proposals. 

If You did this with your Section, very well, bravo to you. This was not done in the American Section. 

Many of us came to The Theosophihcal Society becaue we did NOT like being dictated to by supposed "Authorities." 

So by WHAT authority did the backers of the controversial proposals act? 

It wasn't by membership consensus. 

Who is assuming the authority to dictate and enforce unknown and clandestine proposals? Tell us please. 

There is an ethical and honorable way to go about proposing changes needed that was NOT adhered to in this situation. 

Whether legitimate or not, it does give the unsavory appearance of a political ploy. 

Lets' have Honest Changes derived from Dialogue, Consensus, Ethical Means and Clean Consciences 

William Delahunt
Orlando, Florida 


Bro M.K. Ramadoss lists the historical background: 

In my opinion, the proposals made by the Quartet need to be viewed with the events that took place since the start of the election process. 

First came the attempt to depict to membership, Radha as sick, mentally and physically. 

When three highly reputed doctors, one a GC member and GS of a Section, from two continents certified her fit, both mentally and physically, instead of immediately sharing this information with membership so that they can come to their own conclusion, the nominators of the other candidate, kept silent, 
thus leading many to think Radha as sick and possibly voted against her. 

Next was the move to disenfranchise the membership world-wide and radically 
change the rules. 

The timing of the move (soon after the election), and the players behind it (those who wanted to defeat Radha) coupled with the secrecy and speed with which the change was attempted was the real problem. 

The super secrecy with which disenfranchisement move was crafted and speed with which approval was sought was astonishing. 

It was so secret that even long-time members at Adyar, Olcott and other National Centers were kept in total darkness and they learned it from Internet. 

All of us world-wide were to be disenfranchised and a small group of GC members end up monopolizing not only the nomination (as at present) but also the selection (the election is a farce) of the president, would in effect 
resulted in making the president a puppet controlled by a small group of GC members. 

So the problems are not with the proposals. It is with the lack of transparency at all levels of administration and last year's events creating a culture of lack of trust in the leaders. 

Until the trust issue is settled, any change would be highly suspect. Once members lose their rights, they will never retrieve it 

M.K. Ramadoss 




[Back to Top]

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