Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00633)

That was indeed a long well argumented and formed letter. It is a shame 
that Algeo lobbied these illegal and perverse things behind members' 
back! I am grateful to Mr. Sanat for this deep analysis.

However, a couple of things disturb me. To me Sanat seems to 
represent "the old school", which always claims that we don't need any 
institutional changes because "the TS is a spiritual organization". I 
think we have heard this song too long and I am sure that this is one 
reason why the Society is right now so stagmatized. Is it so that most 
Indian members don't miss any development into the organization? I 
believe that most Westerners absolutely need institutional changes into 
the TS. Further, it seems to me that Sanat doesn't want to admit that 
the international administration doesn't work as a true democracy now. 
I have heard many complainments how Sections and members are not 
listened at Adyar. So it is populism to say that the TS already is a 
true democracy.

And Sanat mentions importance of Adyar. Why? In my knowledge Algeo has 
not talked against Adyar being the center of the TS. You can read what 
Algeo says in his web site. Is this what many Indians seem to fear: if 
they critizise Adyar and India, they fear that the HQ will be moved 
elsewhere?

For me the TS is ALSO a secular organization which needs to be 
developed. I think this notorious quartet had also good proposals.

Some writers here have already said that the Indian Section has not 
necessarily been succesful. I agree with them. There are so many people 
in India anyway, and more are born all the time with high percentage. 
And actually, there were a couple of thousands of members more in India 
only a few years ago.

I thank Mr. Sanat once again. Just wanted to express other views, too.

Sampsa, Finland