A
FEW WORDS ON
THE THEOSOPHICAL ORGANIZATION
BY
MOHINI MOHUN
CHATTERJI AND ARTHUR
GEBHARD
Published
for
the first time by C. Jinarâjadâsa in a
booklet-form reprint of “The Original Programme”
and the “Preliminary Memorandum of the Esoteric
Section,” pp. 51-59 (Adyar:
Theos. Publ. House, 1931).
Reprinted by permission of the Publishers]
As
an act of Theosophical duty the following
observations on some features of the present
organization of the Theosophical Society are
submitted to those interested in the progress of
true Theosophy.
In the “Rules of the Theosophical Society
together with an explanation of its objects and
principles” for 1885 (the last published) it
appears that “The whole Society is under the
special care of one General Council, and of the
President, its Founder.
The members of the General Council shall
annually be elected by the Convention and their
duties shall consist in advising the
President-Founder in regard to all matters referred
to them by him.”
On pp. 2 et seq. is to be found the
list of additional members of the Council, which
with some variations has continued for years.
This list gives the names of those about whom
alone there can be any elective rights exercised by
the Convention, the rest being members ex officio.
If the election is at all like what is known
in the world outside the Theosophical Society the
gentlemen appearing in the list ought at all events
to be known to the Convention for some acts in
pursuance of the “special care” of the Society
vested in them by the Rules.
But notoriously that is not the case.
Practically they are all appointed by the
President-Founder.
The power of the General Council extends to
“advising the President-Founder in regard to all
matters referred to them by him”. But in the meantime the President-Founder is empowered to
issue special orders and provisional rules “in the
name and behalf of the General Council” (Rule iv,
p. 20). Thus
the President-Founder is empowered to pledge the
name and credit of the General Council, which enjoys
the right “of advising the President-Founder” in
the terms of the Rule quoted above.
It only remains to add that five, and in
emergent cases three, members constitute a quorum of
the General Council meetings and that there are over
a hundred and fifty members on the Council.
There is no such institution in existence as
the Parent Society which by the Rules is competent
to issue and nullify charters without which “no
Branch can be formed or continued.”
If however the Parent Society has any
existence its constitution is as mysterious as that
of the Venetian Council of Three.
The centre of power in the Society is thus
vested in [a] President who is further armed with
the authority of this mysterious body.
The Convention mentioned before and described
in Rule ix (p. 20) is in no sense a representative
of legal body, being nothing more than the gathering
of those among the members who pay a visit to Adyar
during the Christmas holidays.
These gatherings have a value of their own in
contributing to mutual instruction of members.
But this value is certainly not increased by
grossly misconceiving its character.
There is no possibility of any gathering of
members of the Theosophical Society binding the
whole Society by its resolutions.
For a member does not give any undertaking
beyond what is implied in his application.
From the standpoint of Universal Brotherhood,
however, such action would never be contemplated by
any meeting calling itself Theosophical.
In illustration it may be mentioned that the
London Lodge of the Theosophical Society has
completely ignored the rules published by the
Head-Quarters at Adyar.
Thus it is plain that the Theosophical
Society has laws without sanction, a legislative
body without legality, a Parent Society without
existence and a President-Founder above all rules.
How far this is consistent with Theosophy and
Brotherhood requires serious consideration. It is also noteworthy that the system of centralization of
power discussed above is in contravention of rule II
(p. 19) which expects members “to govern
themselves in their mutual relations according to
that principle” (i.e., of Universal
Brotherhood).
The matter is placed in a more striking light
by the declaration in rule XIV (p. 24)
that the Society has “to deal only with scientific
and philosophical subjects.”
Hence it is quite evident that the power and
position claimed in the “Rules” for the
President-Founder, the General Council, and the
Convention are opposed to the spirit of the declared
objects of the Society.
There is no raison d’ętre for any
controlling authority.
The different Theosophic groups can but (a)
preach and practise Universal Brotherhood, (b)
study ancient religion and philosophy, or (c)
investigate psychical phenomena.
Now, with regard to these matters Theosophy
teaches self-culture and not control.
The Society rests upon the declaration of
sympathy with its objects, which every member makes
before admission.
As a Brotherhood it must aspire to bring
about the state in which the sense of duty is the
only incentive to action.
Those amongst us who realize it most can and
will but recommend greater simplicity of
organization and not the reverse.
The Parent Society
being what is described above, no charter to
Branches can be issued.
Nor is it necessary to do so.
The same holds good of diplomas to members on
admission without any test of merit.
The admission fee paid by members to the
office at Adyar is of the nature of taxation and
therefore inconsistent with the principle of
Brotherhood. Nor
does it appear that the Theosophical Society ought
to be in need of money.
The expenses for the maintenance of a central
office at Adyar for keeping records and
concentrating information cannot be more than would
be met by voluntary contributions.
Those for the annual gathering would always
be paid by such members as perceive its benefit. A forced gift is unbrotherly; and moreover if the Society and
its work are so little appreciated that a closer
acquaintance with them will dissuade members from
helping them with money to the amount now paid, then
it can only be that those who join the Society do so
only through misconceptions, and in that case it is
better that the Society should cease to exist than
that it should be the recipient of gifts which might
produce subsequent regret in the donors.
For the Theosophical Society to insist upon
the fee of Ł1 before accepting as a brother one who
asks for that recognition is the sale of
Brotherhood. It is worse than useless to keep up a Society, call it
Theosophical, and yet show no faith in Theosophy and
the principle of Brotherhood.
The above was written under the
misapprehension that the “Rules” bearing date
1885 were the latest.
It has since been found that there is a later
version of the rules dated 1886, which have modified
the older rules on a great many points.
But it is necessary to examine the earlier
rules to ascertain the underlying principle which
runs through the present ones as well.
The chief point is that the Convention has no
power to make any rules, as such a power is opposed
to the spirit of theosophy and also because the
Convention itself is devoid of legal existence.
Is there anything in the declared objects of
the Society which allows of the existence of the
Convention? Further,
the Executive Council constituted or supposed to be
so, by the Convention can have no power exceeding
that of the Convention. But this it has by rule 14, clause (c), p. 17 of the
“Rules” (1886), which limits the power of the
Convention to the disposal of “all questions of
importance laid before it by the President and
Executive Council.”
It has no power of effectually checking
either. The
whole question turns upon this – Is the
Theosophical Society a Brotherhood or not?
If the former, is it possible to have any
centre of arbitrary power?
To hold that there is a necessity for such a
centre is only a roundabout way of saying that no
Brotherhood is possible, but in point of fact that
necessity itself is by no means proved.
There have been no doubt Brotherhoods under
single Masters, but in such cases the Masters were
never elected for geographical or other
considerations. The natural leader of men was always recognized by his
embodying the spirit of Humanity.
To institute comparisons would be little
short of blasphemy. The greatest amongst men is always the readiest to serve and
yet is unconscious of the Service.
Let us pause before finally tying the
millstone of worldliness round the neck of
Theosophy. Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst
by force and control, but by the sunshine of
brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion.
If we do not believe in Brotherhood and
Truth, let us put ashes on our head and weep in
sackcloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority
and in the festive garments of pride and
worldliness. Better
it is by far that the name of Theosophy should never
be heard than that it should be used as the motto of
a papal institution.
The fact must be recognized that the highest
authority in the Society is to be found exactly
where there is the untheosophic demand for
authority. By
rule 12, p. 17 (1886) “no Bye-laws and Rules of
Branches shall be valid unless ratified by the
President in Council.”
What is the meaning of this power?
Is it to be understood that the Executive
Council sitting at Adyar knows better than the local
members what is needed by a distant Branch, never
perhaps visited by a single member of the Council?
More words are useless.
Enough has been said to show that the
organization called Theosophical presents many
features seriously obstructive to the progress of
Theosophy, and that unless the danger is perceived
in time we shall not know what answer to make when
the day of reckoning comes.
It would be out of place to suggest any
specific measures.
For no one who has any faith in Brotherhood
and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what
is necessary. While
on the other hand if the foregoing words are but a
cry in the wilderness, not evoking any definite
perception of duty in members of the Theosophical
Society, no Theosophic measures can be suggested for
the reform of that which is not Theosophical.
There is another reason which determines the
present course.
The tyranny of majorities over minorities is
opposed to the principle of Brotherhood.
Truth does not depend on show of hands.
It only remains to express fraternal wishes
that every one of our brothers may feel the full
sense of the responsibility which he has undertaken
in the name of Truth and Brotherhood.
It behoves us to bear in mind – Theosophy
first and organization after.
MOHINI
M. CHATTERJI,
F. T. S.,
for self and
A.
GEBHARD,
F. T. S.
Without a word of explanation the Parent Society has
disappeared from the “Rules” dated 1886.
The form of application given in the “Rules”
(1885) requires only aquaintance (sic)
with the rules, while that dated 1886 declares
willingness to conform thereto.
But neither would validate Rules passed ultra
vires as by then Convention.
The change in the latest Rules is perhaps
intended to remedy this illegal proceeding on the
part of the Convention.
This rule is not specifically mentioned in the
“Rules” (1886) but is clearly implied.
Rule 25, p. 19 (1886)
The argument is not affected by the substitution of
the Parent Society by a Council of Seven. |