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

Re: Which Theosophy?

May 04, 2007 08:57 PM
by nhcareyta

--- In, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@...> wrote:
> Just a few days back I read HPB writing about the difficulty making 
> think for themselves (I can't immediately quote the passage) and the
> importance of making people think for themselves. When one is 
> exposed to a set of ideas day in day out, a kind of unconscious 
> washing takes place that even very learned and intelligent persons 
find it
> hard to realize (they may be even leaders and PhDs). All 
organizations want
> conformity and obedient followers and that makes it easy to run the 
> Some of these individuals sometimes try to use principles such as 
Karma to
> make the followers conform. One time, a well know leader in one of 
> organizations made a very subtle attempt to do so to me and I saw 
thru it.
> We need more independent thinkers who are also independent in the 
sense they
> are not looking for fame or power or public or organizational 
> since most organizations try to influence the thinking and action 
> subtle incentives (monetary or in-kind) for conformity of the 
> My 0.02.
> mkr.

Dear mkr
Thank you for this posting.
There is so much truth to me in your above words. 
Quite apart from the academic differences and contradictions in 
various theosophical literature, there is the equally, some would say 
more important consideration of mindset i.e. the way we think and why 
we think the way we do. In academic philosophy, for those who may be 
unaware, this is termed epistemology, loosely summarised as "how do 
we know what we think we know, and why."

The form of "brainwashing" you highlight is a reality, in my 
experience of others as well as of myself. In the mundane world I 
have had the opportunity to meet, and in some cases work with, some 
very powerful people, powerful in terms of their role in life as well 
as their capacity to influence others. In the early years of my 
career, on numerous occasions, I could strongly "feel the need" to 
agree and support a particular point of view or action suggested by 
one leader or another, despite strongly disagreeing with it in 
principle. Often, usually after the event, I would remonstrate with 
myself for allowing this hypocrisy to occur. In time, and with much 
training, I progressively understood the subtle and not so subtle 
energies and dynamics of power which can affect and influence us all. 
This knowledge and subsequent developing awareness, such as it is or 
is not, nonetheless enabled me to notice more clearly where people, 
whether consciously or not, would use disempowering methods to retain 
their own position of mental and/or practical authority.

As an abstract example, I have often noticed that otherwise well-
motivated people, who have found themselves in positions of power 
within an organisation or indeed mindset, and who have not been 
trained in its machinations, will simply become instruments of 
compliance to the status quo, where many things are accepted 
as "givens" without any critical analysis. From this mindset, they 
set about developing more and more sophisticated ways to promote and 
even defend these givens, rather than using some of the abundant 
energy generated from this process to more thoroughly investigate the 
matters or requirements upon which they are insisting.

As a practical example, over the past few years in this forum, we 
have heard from a number of members who support and believe in the 
teachings of Bishop CW Leadbeater. It goes without saying that in 
this they are perfectly and justly entitled so to do. However when it 
was pointed out to them that there are obvious contradictions between 
his and his putative Masters' teachings and that he had indeed 
consistently lied about certain matters, there was hardly an 
objective word from them in response to these rational propositions. 
In fact one member in particular ignored numerous requests for his 
own explanation of these issues and simply continued to post his own 
dogma. Other methods used to maintain their mental status quo 
included diverting the topic to another, only answering certain parts 
of a question, challenging statements which hadn't been made, ad 
hominem attacks on Madame Blavatsky and on the questioner, and so on 
and so forth. 
All this indicates to me a mind that is only prepared to consider one 
perspective, or worse, only those perspectives which support their 
particular mental position. Moreover, this mindset does not belong 
exclusively to the followers of Bishop Leadbeater, rather to all who 
blindly follow one or other person, teaching or set of requirements.
This is the dogmatic mindset at its "philosophical" worst which has 
produced the various dogmas throughout the ages be they religious, 
political or personal, of which Madame Blavatsky challenged as much, 
if not more than, their actual teachings. 
This insidious mindset can often sound entirely reasonable when 
calling for consideration, fairness and justice. Oftentimes we might 
fail to realise that this can be yet another ploy to maintain yet 
another disempowering mindset designed to retain external control 
over ourselves and others. This can be an entirely unconscious 
process, nonetheless it is equally powerful and is equally successful.

Thank you again for what is to me your insightful posting mkr.


> On 5/3/07, nhcareyta <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
> >
> >   It seems to me that so long as people blindly follow and accept
> > others' pronouncements, INCLUDING those of the Mahatmas and Madame
> > Blavatsky, we as a humanity will never fully think for ourselves 
> > will continue to think, speak and act largely from our often fear-
> > based, habit, conditioned, reactive mindset produced and inherited
> > from skandhas, parents, school, peers, society and culture.
> >
> > Perhaps only when we truly liberate our minds will we see beyond
> > these distinctions and limitations and will indeed begin to 
develop a
> > nucleus of the Brotherhood (Unity) of humanity. Until then, many 
> > us will continue to follow like sheep whichever person, group or
> > organisation happens to tell us either that which we would like to
> > hear or how we would like things to be.._._,___
> >
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

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