It seems I can’t stop writing about theosophy, even now that I’m no longer a member of the TS Adyar.

On facebook an African American theosophist asked me if I’d written ‘I’m no longer a member of the Theosophical Society‘. I replied in rather short terms that yes, that was me. I realized soon after though, the post might be misconstrued.

As an African American he might conclude from that post that I no longer think it a good idea if people try and live together brotherly (and sisterly) without distinction of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation etc.

I’m not a different person than I was when at 12 I befriended an isolated Hispanic girl in our school Austen TX. I’m still the granddaughter of a Christian Muslim specialist who traveled all over the world at the invitation of Muslims in the Middle East and Pakistan. I’m still the daughter of a psychotherapist who worked with men and women who had been abused as kids till she retired and now teaches what she knows to other psychotherapists. I’m still a resident of a country in which our ‘slums’ full of ‘ethnic workers’ would seem like middle class neighborhoods to most Americans today. I’m still the woman who tried to teach at a multi-ethnic high school at the end of her teaching career. I’m still a very inactive member of Amnesty International. Note too that I think what my grandfather and mother accomplished along these lines is WAY more impressive than anything I’ve done or am likely to do in this life.

Of course I still feel that boundaries between races and classes need to be softened by policy makers and individuals. Of course I still feel that men and women have equal mental and spiritual capacity. Of course I would still prefer finding the ideal working place in which I might develop  my spiritual side AND help bridge the gaps between people on all levels.

However, the question is to what extent the TS works towards her objects. My personal question is also whether Katinka in the TS helps anything towards any of them. One of the things the Tibetan Buddhists are very clear about is that motive is everything. Theosophists say that too, but with less clarity. What the Buddhists say is that if you do something grudgingly, if you’re in a situation that makes you angry – you are not working from love. True of course. Anger and resentment have to do with attachment, with expectations not being met. No longer believing I could make a difference in it, I let the TS go. I’m not advising that as a general policy in dealing with conflicts of course. My general advice would be to look problems straight in the eye, work through all feelings associated with them, communicate clearly and leave only once that is clearly the only solution you can live with.

The fact is, the love I had for the TS is gone. That’s why I left. I wondered in 2010, as a few activist theosophists sat at a table at the World Conference, what we were doing it for. What the aggravation was for. Well, my answer is: it’s no longer any use for me to get aggravated about the TS. It’s also not possible for me to be a member of the TS at present without being aggravated.

Does that mean I’m sorry about all the theosophy I studied? Of course not. Blavatsky is a fascinating lady and I look forward to trying to square what she wrote about Buddhism, karma and devachan with what (Tibetan) Buddhists themselves teach.

Does it mean I’m sorry about all the other religions I studied and people I met from all spiritual traditions present in The Netherlands? Certainly not.

Does it mean I didn’t learn anything in the TS about the hidden forces in myself and humanity in general? I certainly did learn a few things along those lines in the practical work, while shoveling dirt and pruning bushes.

However, the question does need to be asked: did I experience real brotherhood in the TS? The answer is, yes and no. Yes, individual theosophists were great sometimes. Yes, the Theosophical Society felt like home for most of the years I was a member. The no’s eventually won out though and they started winning out the moment my theosophical mentor, Henk Spierenburg, passed on.

For those of you still in the TS – I would have you ask yourselves to what extent your wanting to be part of a universal brotherhood has to do with wanting to avoid conflict. And is avoiding conflict really such a worthy goal? Doesn’t  it merely mean shoveling differences under the carpet?

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: brotherhood, membership, personal

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

This morning I revoked my membership of the Theosophical Society.

Many of you will have seen this coming, of course.

Since I’ve been so very visible a member, I think I owe you all something of an explanation.

First off: my online work won’t change. I’ll still quote Blavatsky where it fits my topic, the theosophical material on my site will remain up etc.

However, I have given back my vows. Let me explain that: as is recommended, I took the three objects of the Theosophical Society very seriously: I took them as a Buddhist does their vows. Buddhists also have the option of giving back their vows, not all vows, but the most traditional ones do have that option. A Buddhist monk or nun can give back their vows and marry, for instance.

Similarly I have given back my devotion to the three objects. As my site testifies, I’ve given a lot of thought to those three objects. Unfortunately, I no longer believe in them as a guide for my actions.

I did my work within the TS as a devotion to the White Brotherhood. I saw the Theosophical Work in general in that light as well. I saw both as ultimately in service to humanity.

I can no longer see myself working within the TS. I can no longer see how I can contribute to a well functioning TS. I no longer think that the best I have to give fits the direction of the Theosophical Society. And before the other theosophical organisations start patting themselves on the back: I can’t see how the best I have to give fits the direction of ANY organisation that calls itself theosophical.

This doesn’t mean that I’m not available for lectures. In fact, I have two lectures scheduled for the coming lodge season (in two separate theosophical lodges) and I will give those lectures as planned. One is a Buddhist lecture that I’ve given several times already – since I’m now a practicing Buddhist I’m sure that lecture will be even better than it’s previous incarnations. In thanks to the Theosophical Society – it helped raise me after all – I will continue to be available for lectures free of charge.

Although I’ve doubted the existence of the White Brotherhood in my process over the past year, I don’t now. I trust the White Brotherhood to be a loosely organized group of highly evolved yogi’s who have humanity’s best interests at heart. However, for my own personal path I need teachers whose words my physical ears can hear, so that my own active imagination doesn’t supply them. The fact that some teachers within the FPMT are able to actually answer questions without me having to ask them out loud ads to my devotion to them.

That said – I want to repeat what I said in my newsletter a few days ago:

I spent 18 years in the TS. Most of that time it was not only my spiritual home, but a place where I could learn and feel accepted as I was. I want to thank everyone who contributed to that feeling, everyone who works for the TS and everyone I worked with for the opportunity. Those of you with whom I disagreed, or who worked in ways that didn’t fit my style or direction: I want you all to know that you are forgiven. It’s water under the bridge. I would not be on the path I’m on now without the lessons I learned from each of you.

For the Theosophical Movement as a whole: I do hope you work in the direction the White Brotherhood would wish on you, that you work in ways that fit Their vision for mankind as a whole and that as a result They can light a lamp on your path when you need it. I’m absolutely convinced that They care more for humanity as a whole than for any specific organisation, whether they helped start it or not.

Those of you who mailed me after my last post: thanks for the support. I agree: being a Buddhist and being a Theosophist aren’t necessarily in conflict. Blavatsky and Olcott themselves were Buddhists after all by that ancient definition of having taken refuge and pansil (the lay vows).

The issue is simply that I can’t serve two masters and since I’ve had such trouble dealing with one of those masters (the TS) over the past few years, the choice is easy. The FPMT has realized spiritual teachers and a path on which I have much to learn. In contrast: in the TS the path to further growth was blocked for me in several ways. I need the challenge. I need to work on myself, in order to become my best ‘self’. I need teachers, and books, and meditation instruction.

That’s as far as spiritual practice is concerned.

When it comes to cosmology and metaphysics I’ll have a lot to think about, as this conversation on Theosophy.net testifies. Thankfully (and essentially) neither Buddhists nor Theosophists have any stake on my mind: I’m still as free to make up my own mind as I was a year ago. I can’t tell yet whether Blavatsky or my Tibetan Buddhist teachers will prevail when it comes to topics like reincarnation and the afterlife. However, before I become qualified to give more than a tentative answer to any of the questions the confrontation between the two traditions calls up, I will need to finish the FPMT ‘basic program’, which will likely take me several years. I’m looking forward to the journey.

In closing I would like to remind you all of Blavatsky’s ultimately Mahayana vision of the spiritual path in her Voice of the Silence:

Now bend thy head and listen well, O Bôdhisattva – Compassion speaks and saith: “Can there be bliss when all that lives must suffer? Shalt thou be saved and hear the whole world cry?”

I do believe that for most of you, when the time for this choice comes, you’ll choose the Bodhisattva path and devote your energy after enlightenment to the saving of all sentient beings from the rounds of rebirth instead of the bliss of Nirvana. May that moment come quick and may your work within the Theosophical Movement help you on that path.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: future, local, membership, ts

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I’m on a FPMT Tibetan Buddhist retreat working through Tsong Kapa’s stages of the path (Lam Rim). The text starts with respect for the teacher and it made me realize that one reason for my disappointment with the TS is that – lacking living teachers – I’ve treated the TS as a teacher. Since no organisation, as Krishnamurti rightly noted, can be a teacher I became frustrated at the whole thing.

I could have just left, as in many ways I’ve since done. Instead I spent some of my energy trying to tell people what was wrong with the TS.

This does not work. It’s bad karma and it makes me feel bad. As I’ve written before ‘teaching people a  lesson‘ just doesn’t work. There’s a reason that saying has such a bad name, even when the motivation is reasonably positive.

Blavatsky too warned against trying to teach people who didn’t want to be taught. I’ve fallen into that pitfall a lot in my life, and most of the content on this blog, including the comments, fits that description.

Why doesn’t it work? Because the TS has it’s own internal dynamics and simply trying to say ‘this and this is wrong’ doesn’t change those dynamics.

It’s simply not up to me to do anything about these things and keeping up the ability to comment on this blog also doesn’t help anybody.

For those of you who, like me, want to walk the talk, I advise you by all means to do what I’m sure Blavatsky would have advised: find a real spiritual teacher. Not as an authority, but as a guide. Because while ultimately nirvana is in the Mind, that doesn’t mean the mind doesn’t also have a great many pitfalls that we need help avoiding. And that too is explicit in a lot of what Blavatsky taught. In fact, the Lam Rim so far reminds me of Blavatsky in all kinds of ways, even though of course in the details of the practice there are also huge differences.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Some of you have asked whether I will continue this blog. The answer is – I don’t expect to have much to say about the future of the Theosophical Society, or the Theosophical Movement, in future.

However, this blog will remain open to people who want to express their vision about the present or future of either. In other words: if you have something to contribute about organisational issues in the TS or Theosophical Movement, do mail me (mail @ katinkahesselink.net ) and I will consider publishing it.

The fact is: I don’t think the Theosophical Movement is living up to it’s ideals enough. It’s not really doing anything serious along the lines of ‘comparative research of science, religion and philosophy’. Members DO study along those lines, which is one of the reasons I’m still a TS (Adyar) member. However the organisations do NOT stimulate people who do seriously study along these lines. I’ve said it before, so I won’t repeat it here. What I would like to note  is that the most interesting members of the Theosophical Movement are (and have been for almost a century) on the fringes of the movement. The thing is: that fringe is indistinguisable from the wider ‘New Age’ movement.

In short: the interesting fringe theosophists are the ones who are really primarily ‘new age’ and are also, through some accident of history, members of a theosophical organisation. This is no longer a credit to the movement. It just means that some people are historically minded.

The theosophical movement still has enough human capital in it to contribute to issues alive in the ‘New Age’ movement, like ‘The Secret’ – however it has largely refused to even address such topics. I no longer have any hope that this will change. I do hope to be proven wrong.

Note that adopting such topics is different from ‘contributing’ to the conversation about them. No reason to lose our critical faculties simply because we want to ‘opt in’ on New Age popularity. For instance I have written about ‘The Secret‘  a lot myself, and the tone has been critical.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: society, theosophical

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

This is on a personal note. In hindsight I’ve felt stuck in the TS for years. I went to university to study world religion, because I was learned out in the TS. I went back after that, because it was (or felt like) my spiritual home. Now it feels stifling.

Quiting that volunteer work, as I’ve just announced to the organisation I’m doing, feels dead scary. I’m deliberately talking about my emotions here, because it’s one of those things the TS isn’t so very good at. I dreamed about the TS a while back as follows (roughly, from memory):

I’m in a hall, the people are watching a black and white movie. I move about. I want to get to my lecture notes: a small pile of round white circles. People don’t mind me, don’t care. As I walk there, I’m stopped by Paul Zwollo (deceased Mahatma Letter expert, ES functionary, honorary General Council member) who is handing stuff out to people. As I’m waiting for him to pass, the stack of white circles bursts into flames.

As those of you who follow All Considering know, I’ve been plagued with physical discomfort and disease for years now. Things have come rather to a head over the past year, partly with Radha’s refusal to allow me volunteer work in Varanasi.

I knew this dream was about the TS and me. The people watching the black and white movie as if hypnotized by it are the theosophists, obviously. Me walking about is my energy to do and change things. Waiting for Paul Zwollo is me waiting for my chance to do stuff in the TS. The bursting into flames of my lecture notes: spiritual transformation.

Since that dream: yes, spiritual transformation is burning my lecture notes. Because I’ve been waiting for the TS to change, but it keeps watching that old black and white movie.

The fact is of course: I have no right to expect the TS to change in the direction I want it to move in. Even if that direction would revitalize it and bring in more members. Structures like the TS only change when they want to.

But the fact is also that I’ve been feeling guilty about wanting to quit even that last bit of volunteer work I kept holding on to… when the fact is: it’s not my responsibility the Dutch section hasn’t been attracting new volunteers to do this kind of work for free. It’s also not my responsibility that the Dutch TS refuses to spend it’s money on salaries or interesting projects. In short: if they want to watch black and white movies, that’s there business. Keeping it going as best they can seems to be all the TS is nationally and internationally interested in.

My spiritual transformation, and following it into the kind of life I need to live, is my responsibility.

From the organisation’s point of view I’m only another defecting volunteer. I’ll be another excuse for members to mutter that people are getting more selfish. The fact is though: in a shrinking organisation volunteers are always going to be harder to find. Especially in a world where the amount of mothers staying home with the kids is shrinking as well.

I’ve paid my dues in terms of volunteer work for the TS. For 17 years (nice symbolical number) I’ve washed dishes, cut down shrubbery to help keep the paths on the International Theosophical Center (ITC) open, helped keep the Dutch TS website running, helped digitalize the library catalog in the ITC,  sold books, been secretary, chair and vice chair in two lodges etc.

But the roles don’t fit any more. It’s time to move on and if the organisation has schrunk to the point where I can’t be replaced, does that mean I have to keep standing there waiting for a dead guy handing out something? Of course not: it’s my life and I have better things to do with it than that.

Not that I know what those things are yet. On the other hand, it’s not as if I lack things to do. The changes coming scare me senseless. I guess the TS had become a crutch. But fear is there to be conquered. Spiritual transformation has to happen. Flowers have to bloom. They will. Whether the TS will want me to share those flowers is as yet an open question. But it’s not up to me.

My body has been saying this for years: I need to move on.

[For now I'm not giving up my membership of the TS. It's just not important enough to stop the payments and after all, the TS might start living up to it's three objects. Miracles do happen. However, I'm not going to wait around for them. I've got spiritual shopping to do... transformation to live. ]

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: membership, personal

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

An editor of our Dutch magazine ‘Theosofia’ told me once that theosophy was boring. She said it with a self-evident air, even while she clearly felt the magazine ought to be made… I was amazed: I had never considered theosophy boring. Having read all of Blavatsky’s work as well as biographies of the main theosophical leaders, about a dozen Krishnamurti books and more – I would consider myself pretty much an authority about how boring theosophy is, or isn’t.

So why is it that theosophical magazines today really ARE usually boring?

I think it’s mainly due to the avoidance of controversy.

This morning on waking up I decided that I’d treat myself to a morning of watching a romantic movie. I picked ‘legally blonde’ out of my extensive DVD collection. It turns out, when you look for it, that Legally Blonde is actually a pretty feminist movie. It teaches girls to go after what they want, to be more than just a pretty face and even to befriend other girls.

However the one thing the chief character Elle Woods is not, is boring. Watching it I thought: I refuse to be boring.

Of course, for me, trying to be boring would be going against nature. I couldn’t manage even if I tried. I’ve always been outspoken and have only managed to calm that down a bit by learning to occasionally hold my tongue. However, I could, if I tried, make myself very unhappy trying to be boring.

Is theosophy boring? Well, you’d think so if you looked at what theosophists insist on discussing online. It’s either their leaders faults, or historical intricacies nobody else thinks relevant. Even worse: theosophical magazines manage to talk about theosophy with the sting pulled out.

Radha Burnier herself is, as usual, not all that bad. She talks about how living utilitarianism, aka greed, and love don’t go hand in hand. Well, even if I don’t quite agree with that – after all, it’s pretty utilitarian to help someone succeed in life. It’s also a great way to support someone and an expression of love (or can be). Still, it is at least a relevant topic even if her conclusion is predictable AND wrong (in my opinion).

Then we have N.R. Narayana Murthy talking about sustainability. You know, if Radha hadn’t been convinced by Jiddu Krishnamurti to run for president of the TS, I think she would have gone on to do great things for the eco-movement in India. Of course sustainability is an important goal that I fully support. However we have all heard it before, haven’t we? Especially since the article doesn’t do anything more than summarize all the areas where India could become more sustainable and give some stats on the topic. When Olcott discussed practical things that India could improve on in The Theosophist, he really kicked but. He confronted India with things they didn’t do very well and could change. In short: he was controversial and not boring. Somehow Narayana doesn’t manage either.
Then again: it is a symptom of our time that it’s way easier to point out a problem than come up with solutions that are believable.

Next up Mary Anderson. I greatly respect Mary Anderson, but I haven’t read a worse article from her hand. She goes into definitions, extremism and man’s true nature. Ultimately she concludes with something every Adyar theosophist has heard a million times before: ‘Spirituality, the realization of the Oneness of all, is ultimately the most practical thing in the world!’ (explanation point in original).

Then we get Ricardo Lindeman about Plato and the origins of theosophy. He quotes Leadbeater on Plato and mentions, using an unconvincing quote,  that Plato believed in reincarnation. Then he says ‘his famous book is a work…’ What famous book? Didn’t Plato write several? Then we get a lot of quotes – from Blavatsky, from the Bible, Origen, Leadbeater – and it seems that what he’s really talking about is a history of reincarnation throughout ancient Greece and Rome. The whole point of the article seems to be that Plato supported reincarnation, but all we really get to support this claim is one quote that he believed in justice. Which is a whole different thing, obviously. It takes a theologian to connect the dots. But then, perhaps that’s just what Ricardo Lindeman is.

Then we get Samdhong Rinpoche on meditation. This is an interesting fragment, also because it actually contrasts Tibetan forms of meditation on the Buddha with early theosophy’s instruction to meditate on the master.

I do wonder what the editors were thinking allowing Mary and Ricardo’s submissions in this state. Or perhaps they had nothing better to publish? Did they even try to get them a bit more polished?

I’m starting to think that the Theosophical Society is intending to be boring. That the editor of Theosofia who shocked me was expressing unofficial policy. I’m still naive enough to think it’s nothing intentional, though of course belief does shape the result. By believing that theosophy was boring she was closing the door to all the ways her magazine could become interesting.

Well, I think I’m outvoted here: theosophy clearly IS boring. The only article in the last issue of  The Theosophist that I’d be willing to publish on my own site is by a Buddhist who’s kind enough to be a life long theosophist.

So what happened? Why is theosophy boring these days? It’s not as if the world today doesn’t have loads of things going on that theosophy could shed light on. And what about all the controversial things Blavatsky says? Contrast them with today’s issues and you’d potentially get even more controversy. Mixing up theosophical classics with the results of modern psychology is another source of contrast. Sure, we might find out Blavatsky was wrong occasionally, but that oughtn’t to bother us. We’re about freedom of thought, remember?

Oh, I forgot, we don’t do controversy.

Instead we do ‘stab in the back’ where we could have the different sides confront each other publicly. We do gossip, instead of members being informed and getting a say. The result is, funnily enough, controversy about all the wrong (and yes boring) things … and in the most public and dirty of venues: online. And when I stand up for truth on there, I get reprimanded…

No wonder the Theosophical Society keeps shrinking.

Are we still even trying to be a place ‘Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the White Dove of Truth has hardly room whereon to rest her weary unwelcome feet.’ (from the Maha Chohan letter) Without actually talking about specific superstitions and specific versions of brutal materialistic philosophy – both of which are rampant in todays world – the TS can hardly be the place where that dove sets its foot.

Even worse: the result is boring.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: future, theosophical, theosophy

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Eric McBough’s presidency of the English section of the Theosophical Society brings many tabu topics in the TS to a head. One of them is money.

Blavatsky had a horror of ‘salaried priests’ and was proud of not taking a penny of the TS money*. She lived off her (Russian) money and the generosity of her friends (though a full inventory of her economics has not been made I think). The profit made through The Theosophist (in those days it actually DID make a profit) went right back into the TS itself. Staff, maintenance, that sort of thing.

That’s the story and I believe it. However, Blavatsky was an aristocrat (technically a former aristocrat) in a world where that still meant something. Her policy would, in effect, limit people from being active in the TS based on their personal fortunes or lack thereof.

In other words: the idea that spirituality should be free is effectively an elitist policy.

I’ve been wrestling with this issue for years. For instance, in Lucifer7 for Oct. 2004 I numbered the following issues with salaried priests:

• Salaried priests have a tendency to tell people what they want to hear, because their livelihood depends on it
• Salaried priests are best off (financially) when people feel dependent on them. So they have a stake in telling people that their competitors, for instance the salaried priests of other religions, are fundamentally wrong. There financial well-being is supported by making people dependent on them in all kinds of ways.

That’s all true. However, avoiding money doesn’t actually get rid of any of this. Whether one takes money or not, any author or lecturer will have more success if they tell their audience what they want or expect to hear. And being controversial, like I’m being on here, doesn’t come with many rewards at all – money or no.

4 years later I was myself in a position to have to decide what to do about spirituality and money. So one of my first posts on my blog All Considering was about how donations and spirituality mashed. In fact I’ve blogged about money quite a bit over there.

But what’s the deal with the TS and money?

Eric McBough is accused of making money selling courses. I have several sources on this issue, so I’ll assume it’s true that he sells courses. The question is:

• Do they contain original material?
• Are they sold at a profit?
• What happens to any profit he makes?
• Does he have an independent fortune so that he can afford to sell the material through the TS instead, so that the money goes to the TS instead of himself?

I know: the usual TS policy is that writers are unpaid: they’re supposed to do their work for free. The result is, btw, that the best of our authors get their work published elsewhere. The people who DO get paid are the editors (not enough people are willing to do that work for free any more – I’ve seen that shift happen in the Dutch TS over the past 17 years), publishers and printers.

Even volunteers want at least a return on their costs: travel expenses and the like. I’m a volunteer for the Dutch TS still and get a volunteer allowance – if I may translate the Dutch term roughly.

My point is that the TS is working on an outdated model. We treat our workers abominably. Not only is nobody considering their ‘career options’ (as in: where would you like to be in 10 years time), because that would be encouraging ambition… ** but it also has the result that the work itself isn’t valued. That’s what happens if work doesn’t get paid: people start taking it for granted. If it’s not visible on the annual loss and gain reports, the work is invisible.

I don’t have a solution.

The fact is, I make money writing about spirituality. My spiritual content online makes me about half my income. I justify it by the fact that this money actually makes me more, not less independent. Independent enough in fact, not to need the TS as a platform anymore. Also: the material I put online is super accessible: it’s paid for by ads, not by people having to pay to get admission. Of course my money is hardly made through blogs like this one. So in becoming less active in the TS I am actually, in a sense, following the money.

Anybody who has a problem with this should consider that my business model isn’t so different from that of the traditional media, including the theosophical magazines till recently: magazines and newspapers get paid for by ads. Sure, subscribers pay something too, but that’s hardly enough to account for the paper, printing costs and postage.

The fact is: anybody judging Eric McBough on making money on teaching theosophy should look at the totality of his economic circumstances. Is he paid by the English section to BE president? If not, than I’m sure that he puts in way more than he gets back in return. It’s a hell of a job: president of a TS section. I don’t envy him at all. And whether he’s fit for the job or not – I’m sure it’s darn stressful to have to deal with the visibility of his job. The criticism. The feedback. And in his case, so I’m told, nothing in his past prepared him for that side of the position. Few things could in fact, as online visibility is rather a new thing. The TS as a whole is still learning to deal with it, as governments and corporations all over the world are.

So, although it should be clear from previous posts on this blog that I’m not his fan, the issues about being paid are NOT among the ones I can personally get excited about. As a theosophical movement it’s high time we reconsider how we deal with money, volunteers and workers.

Theosophical managers should be asking themselves: are you being fair to your workers? Are you using spiritual excuses to treat them badly? Members should ask themselves to what extent the way the TS is organised limits the amount of candidates for positions like the presidency.

* Though I’m pretty sure Blavatsky spoke out against this issue as well, the phrase ‘salaried priest’ actually appears in the famous Maha Chohan letter. I have not been able to trace it to writings attributed to HPB herself.

** Not encouraging ambition is actually a great way to prevent people from turning into good authors, lecturers and the like. It was very frustrating for me that I was ‘protected against myself’ in my early years in the TS by not being asked to take responsibility and take part in meetings. I do wonder at it in hindsight. While I was serving coffee and not being invited to the meeting about the management of the event the coffee was served at, people my age were busy organizing stuff in student organisations and things. As a student it should have been LOGICAL and HEALTHY to have to organize things, fall on my face making mistakes etc. As a smart 20-something year old that was the sort of experience I was SUPPOSED to have.

Don’t get me wrong: I did get that kind of experience in the TS in other groups. These days the excuses for not giving me responsibility are running out. As in: I’m no longer buying them. Which is the main reason I’m becoming less active. And yes, I would have been willing to do them for nothing more than getting back the personal costs I make.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: money

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As I write this, I have pretty much given up on the TS to be honest. I’ve minimized the volunteer work I do for the organisation and am looking into Buddhism and going back to university for my further spiritual and intellectual nourishment.

However, that does not stop me from thinking about the TS and the place it has in world history as well as some organisational issues.

My recent post about the issue of whether or not the general secretaries of the various sections should be allowed to call themselves ‘president’ was ultimately about the kind of Theosophical Society we want. What style of organisation should it be?

Titles are ultimately not very important, obviously. I mean – whether Eric McGough  calls himself president, or whether Betty Bland does, is way less important than how they run their respective sections.

As the grandchild of a protestant minister, that style of dealing with religion and spirituality is ingrained in me. The idea of having officials without grand titles therefore appeals to me.

In fact, the apparent humbleness of TS officials was one of the reasons for me joining. However, apparent humbleness is not the same as actual humbleness. Merely not thanking people (as Radha Burnier apparently wants to see done, as witness a recent mail sent around by Gunnar Larson) will not make people actually forget about the personal aspect of their service. Worse: it makes those who do NOT thank forget about the human aspect of service, which is a lack of kindness.

We should not let ‘impersonal service’ become an excuse to deal with people as though they’re machines.

Or put differently: a real spiritual teacher can afford to forget about social norms, because they compensate for it by a serious personal regard, when an organisation does the same what is created will be lacking in mutual affection. (See for instance the recently out biography of Leroy Stilwell, a disciple of Adi Da)

Not that thanking people in itself will help prevent problems either. Ultimately what matters isn’t the words, or the lack of them, but how well people work together. In a good team nobody needs thank anybody else, because everybody knows they’re appreciated. When things get tough though, and they will at some point or other, it IS necessary to show appreciation. Why? Because some people are too insecure to realize they’re appreciated.

While humbleness may be a good thing, insecurity does NOT work.

The issue is, from a psychological perspective, realism. The reality of the situation is that a lodge does not function without someone making coffee or do the dishes. The only reason NOT to show appreciation for that, is insensitivity.

The only exception is when a spiritual teacher is involved. They really are above the rules. But an organisation can’t take the place of a spiritual teacher.

Perhaps that’s what’s wrong with the TS: We lost our spiritual teachers and are carrying on as though we do still have them.
Historically of course Blavatsky was a spiritual teacher to the Esoteric School. She was NOT a spiritual teacher in the general TS. When she died, the TS was left without its spiritual rudder. Nobody had been appointed a successor. Blavatsky made it clear that finding a successor was not part of her plan. She did not believe in apostolic succession. Even though this system is part of ordinary Buddhism as well.

In Buddhism, as in the TS, organisational leadership and spiritual leadership aren’t necessarily the same thing. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. The head of a Buddhist monastery doesn’t have to be a meditation teacher. These days they often are, I think, but in general what they need is administrative capacities.

A Buddhist meditation teacher gives their students ‘transmission’ when they’re ready to teach in their own right.

Blavatsky and Olcott functioned in a similar dual leadership: Blavatsky was the spiritual teacher, Olcott the administrative head.  The two aspects got merged after HPB died in all Theosophical lineages that I know of.

However, NONE of their successors have that ‘apostolic succession’ thing going for them, because Blavatsky didn’t give anybody the right to teach esoteric theosophy. This is a controversial statement of course: The non-Adyar theosophical organisations generally claim their head IS true to the lineage Blavatsky – Judge – …

However, the lineages are very messy, even if one does accept W.Q. Judge in this sense.

What we’re left with is books.

There are, I think, four paths the TS might walk in the coming century:

1. Dogmatic Theosophy
2. Spiritual / New Age Theosophy
3. Scientific / Philosophic Theosophy
4. Human regeneration (Radha Burnier’s project)

Dogmatic Theosophy

This is the path the United Lodge of Theosophists is walking: they see themselves as teachers of theosophy first, everything else second. They limit themselves to Blavatsky and whatever they find that is consistent with that. Their best teachers find ways to connect theosophy with todays world, and with spiritual lineages out there in the world, but they’re the exception.

Spiritual New Age Theosophy

This is the path Eric McGough seems to be walking. He’s a teacher of astral projection and the English section digital newsletter had topics in there like: ‘the cosmos as being a living being’ and plasma scientists. The program for the TS London headquarters includes things like ‘ENLIGHTENMENT – AN EXPERIENTIAL GUIDE: TOOLS FOR WELLBEING, JOY AND ABUNDANCE’, ‘T’AI-CHI SPIRIT AND ESSENCE – A NEW VISION OF A HEALING PROCESS’, ‘BEYOND 2012 – THE GEOMETRY AND RHYTHM OF TIME: POST-MAYAN CALENDAR FUTURISM’, ‘THEOSOPHICAL GALLERY TOURS: BRITISH MUSEUM. GODS AND GODDESSES OF MANY CULTURES’ and ‘GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY: ORIGINS, BELIEFS AND COSMOLOGY OF GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY’ (all from the April 2011 Theosophy Ezine, caps in original).

The result is, so he tells me, that the English Section is growing.

Within that context it is not so strange that we find him quoting those who call him the spiritual head of the Theosophical Society in England. New Age is, after all, full of claims like that. In comparison to which his teaching astral projection is not so very extravagant at all.

Better that than Benjamin Creme who says the Maitreya is here without actually telling is where He is.

Scientific / Philosopic Theosophy

The Theosophical Society was envisioned, by Col. Olcott, as a place like a science society: where people would compare their results, discuss their theories, and make up their own mind at the end of the day.

The only difference being that the topics under discussion were to be spiritual (from clairvoyance and spiritualism to Vedanta and occultism) as well as scientific. The Theosophist included Olcott’s findings in fields like agriculture and economy for the sake of the improvement of India.

The second object of the Theosophical Society reminds us of this aim: ‘To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science.’ The third does too: ‘To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.’

Only a very few theosophists actually practice these two beyond reading widely. One would think the people who did were prominent members, asked to lecture all over the world. But they’re not. Rupert Sheldrake and Amit Goswami come to mind.

Human regeneration

Whereas the previous three future paths have clear roots in theosophical history going back to Blavatsky and the three objects, Radha Burnier‘s project of incorporating Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings through ‘human regeneration‘ does not.

That may sound like a rough statement, but it seems to me a fact.

The previous three all suit the culture within the TS as a rather dry, intellectual, reader-oriented place where one can study and learn.

This one… well… Human Regeneration is a great idea. In fact, it’s a great thing when it happens. However, to practice human regeneration requires a knowledge of practical psychology. It requires things like meditation practice.

The thing is: We don’t have that on offer. Not really. Theosophical meditation as I’ve experienced it was limited to two models, neither of which work.

1. The ‘let’s sit still together and hope meditation happens’ model
2. The ‘let’s repeat some nice words and listen to some meditation music’ model

With meditation classes on offer left and right, we just can’t compete.

Except…Vic Hao Chin has a three day self-transformation workshop that is, so I’ve heard, of high quality and gives people tools to get on and transform their own lives.

The advantage of the ‘human regeneration’ project is that it gets back a practical path of spiritual growth into the theosophical work. However, it usually strands on the sandbank of merely talking about it. Or, as one lecturer said to me about some of the talks at the world congress, preaching.

Combine preaching with a lack of humanity, of sensitivity, and you get a very cold, very inflexible organisation.

Which of the four?

It seems to me that at present we try to mix them together. There are people who pull the TS in each of these directions. The result is, I’m afraid, usually rather mediocre.

I’m not Eric McGough’s greatest fan, but he does at least pick a side and stick to it. He’s consistent in where he wants to go with the English section and has a program that fits the bill. Once such a program is in place, one can get to promoting it and so forth.

I really don’t know which side the TS should go in. As I said: I’m giving up on the Theosophical Society. I do know that whatever it ends up doing, it should do it well or it will merely keep on floundering.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: brotherhood, future, promotion

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

There used to be this rule that there was one president of the The Theosophical Society (Adyar): currently Radha Burnier, resident Adyar, Chennai / Madras, India.

The national sections were headed not by presidents, but by ‘general secretaries’.

However, perhaps because of something the General Council decided this winter, both the English and the American section now have ‘president’ in their official email addresses.

Further more, Eric McGough, ‘president’ of the English section, also calls himself ‘Spiritual Head’ and ‘a conscious explorer of the inner planes’ (in Insight Magazine). All this is suggestive of the TS with headquarters in Passadena: their leaders have been calling themselves spiritual heads for ages. But in the TS Adyar, we had till recently, a tradition of humility in this regard.

We are, or were, spiritual only in the sense of bringing together people interested in theosophy, the world religions, brotherhood and metaphysics. There was an agnostic air to the way the organisation was formulated. Perhaps this agnosticism was never very real, but it did bring and keep me into the TS. If it goes out the window, the last attempt at a spiritual organisation that is also democratic goes with it. Perhaps not quite literally yet, but it’s a definite step in that direction.

And if the attempt at democracy goes, then all that’s left is what Blavatsky called (in quite another context), ‘a suggestive wreck’. And for the English section to take the lead in this too. I would not have expected it.

This is truly a new day. Theosophical officials stepping beyond the ranks of simply being elected as administrative officials into those of spiritual leaders. Perhaps it was to be expected, but it’s definitely not a development that I can personally smile upon.

[edit] I’m told the English section decided to give their general secretary the title of ‘president’ before Eric McGough became one, that is, under Colin Price’s presidency (apparently that is the correct word). However that may be, it’s still a controversial decision.[/edit]

[edit] Eric McGough has protested against the above acount as a bunch of lies. Here’s the references:

1. Eric has informed the entire membership – Editorial, Insight Winter 09/10, p. 3 – that besides being “President” he is not only the “administrative head‟ but also the “spiritual head‟ and that he “accept[s] that responsibility unreservedly‟.
2. Esoterica Autumn 2010 Vol 1 No 3 for “conscious explorer of the inner planes”. (Insight has been renamed to ‘Esoterica’ in the interim.) I’ve seen a screenshot of the claim which is in an advert for his lecture on the 21st November 2010.

[/edit]

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | 21 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: vocabulary

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

From the recently sent out ‘Theosophical Society Annual Report 2011 (TPEL)’ for the Theosophical Society in England (published here with permission):

Tekels Park Estate:

In October 2009 offers had been considered on a piece of land that had been held over for two years under an option agreement, which ended in August 09.  During the process our agent reported that he had received some interest in purchasing the entire Estate and in line with the decision of the National Council that the Estate be sold several offers were received in the following two months.  The board considered the offers and chose to proceed with the only buyer who satisfied most of the necessary conditions.

However, it became clear that this purchaser was not sympathetic to the needs of the users of the Park and the large meeting hall (known as the Church Hall) and in January 2010 an approach was made by Natta Country Homes Ltd.  As the Board was not prepared to sell to a buyer who was not sympathetic to the theosophical and spiritual activities, which express the established spiritual ethos, the offer from Natta Country Homes was pursued.  This new buyer was keen to maintain the Hall and to develop its potential as a church and meeting place and to actively encourage the various spiritual activities including the Round Table camp site.  With this and other firm assurances in place the purchase has proceeded, albeit at a very slow pace.

The board of Tekels Park Estate Limited are very mindful of the National Council’s instruction to sell the Estate and are concerned about the year-on-year losses of tens of thousands of pounds while the sale proceeds.   To this end, the board is doing all it can to complete the sale and thereby cut these losses, which we can no longer sustain.  The sale has not been held up by our prospective purchaser but due to lack of documentation going back several decades and the need to seek ‘First Registration’ on the land.  Selling Tekels Park Estate was never going to be an easy task, and indeed, it has proven to be fraught with innumerable difficulties. However, we are now hopeful that the sale can go ahead very soon.

The wildlife continues to thrive in the beautiful Parkland and plans are proposed to enhance the habitat even more.  The deer and other animals continue to roam in and out of the Park, as they migrate constantly to and fro along the wildlife corridor extending for several miles along side the M3 motorway.  (Rumours of the intended slaughter of the deer are nothing more than malicious lies and should be exposed as such at every opportunity.)

Two ‘Open Days’ were held at Tekels Park on the 12^th and 13^th of June 2010. This was an opportunity to reminisce with friends, to enjoy the beautiful Park, and to celebrate 80 years of theosophical activity, ceremony, and worship.

It appears then that:

• The Theosophical Society in England still has it’s charter (confirmed by two sources)
• Teckel’s Park hasn’t been sold yet
• The proper use of the estate by the future owners is definitely on the agenda of the administration

I think that covers the main points.

© admin for Modern Theosophy, 2011. | Permalink | 39 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: local, transparency

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh