Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tl00010)

This issue of "secrets" and conditions prescribed by the leader (who is
assumed to possess them) go much beyond secrets. It goes into the heart of
the question of control -- control over another person's life. 

I do not quarrel with many (highly intelligent and scholarly persons) who
find it easy to blindly take orders from the leader in the hope of getting
"secrets" or creating closer (previleged) relationships with Adepts or the
hope of opportunities in future lives, or even have control over other
lesser "knowledgeable" followers or what ever other reason, as it is their
life and if they are happy and comfortable in their knowledge or delusion,
let us not spoil their happiness.   

On the other hand, what bothers me is the elitist thinking as if those
possessing or going to possess whatever "secrets" -- real or imaginary, is
that they are somehow "advanced" or superior to the common man/woman in the
streets. The second area of concern is trying to control other activities
the follower may involve in. A case in point was the apparent prohibition
of members belonging to the esoteric section by Annie Besant from joining
Gandhi's peaceful non-cooperation movement. I recall that one of the
reasons why B P Wadia resigned from TS was on this issue. By listening to
Gandhi, the people of India speeded up their Independence from Britain.

mkr

At 07:15 AM 3/5/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>The *hint* that one has secret information of some sort has long been used
>by people with god complexes to elevate their own self-importance, and to
>control people they've brought into their organization. The further hint
>that *theosophists* somehow need to be "careful" about who they give their
>precious "knowledge" to would be an enormous joke, if that thought wasn't so
>widespread, and wasn't doing so much to *ruin* modern theosophy.
>
>There probably *are* occult secrets, but the *inner state of awareness*
>required to even begin to understand them means the people who possess them
>1) are *not* gonna go around trumpeting the fact that they have "secrets" to
>the world, and worrying endlessly (and publically) about whether others are
>"ethically" ready to receive them; and 2) that the people who *do* that not
>only most assuredly *don't* have any secrets, but probably wouldn't
>recognize one if it came up to them and bit them in the ass.
>
>Tee Hee, -JRC