Hi everybody!

Here is a fascinating theory of religion/philosophy as a virus on a person's intelligence.

Religion as a Meme

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/...a-meme-246.html

How well does Theosophy do?. ("Yes" answers are bad answers, and "no" answers are good answers.)

~~~

To establish itself in the mind of its host it will use some or all of the following mechanisms:

[1] Promise heaven for belief.

- No. Mere belief in Theosophy does not get anyone anywhere.


[2] Threaten eternal punishment in hell for disbelief.

- No.


[3] Boost the believers' egos by telling them they are 'chosen' or superior to believers in false memes.

- Maybe. This is a mistake Theosophists must watch out for.


[4] Disable the faculties of disbelief ('immune response') by claiming that faith is superior to reason.

- NO!. This is the strongest point within Theosophy.


[5] Establish itself as the One True Meme, usually by some sort of holy book containing a circular self-referential argument such as:

X is the one true meme. We know X is the one true meme because The Source of Universal Truth has approved X. We know The Source of Universal Truth has approved X, because X contains statements which say so. We know what X says is true because X is the one true meme.

Once it has parasitised the mind of its host, a meme needs to propagate itself. A successful meme will contain instructions for some or all of the following:

- Yes. The Secret Doctrine is the reference that says The Secret Doctrine is correct.


[6] Holy war - convert or kill all unbelievers.

- No.


[7] Intimidation and terrorism - threaten and discriminate against unbelievers.

- No.


[8] Enforced social isolation or even death to apostates. (An apostate is a host which has cured itself of a meme-infection. It is especially dangerous to the meme because it might pass on meme-resistance to others).

- No.


[9] Fecundism - encourage true believers to breed faster than believers in false memes.

- No.


[10] Censorship - prevent rival memes from reaching potential hosts (a theological doctrine known as 'Error has no rights').

- No.


[11] Disinformation - spread lies about rival memes. Demonise them - the bigger the lies the more likely they are to be believed. The disinformation may even include instructions for a meme to lie about itself!

- No.

~~~

In my opinion, Theosophy did very well. I feel Theosophy did better than all of the world's major religions. (Does anyone disagree...?)

All in all, I would have to agree with you, although I might point out a few instances of uncertainty:

[1] Promise heaven for belief.

Depending on how one reads this line, it could be "bent" to mean many things, for indeed what do we mean by "heaven" (for example)? Might that be considered conscious evolution - progression; growth? We "believe" (at least taking them to be hypotheses of a sort) the teachings, do we not, in that we have yet to ascertain them, or would you disagree?

Thus, what I mean to say, ultimately, is the above statement (1) is too easy to manipulate in/out of favor by the mind.

...The same problem resides in statement (2).

[2] Threaten eternal punishment in hell for disbelief.

For example (once more) what do we mean here by "threaten", and "eternal punishment in hell for disbelief"? Once more, it can be "bent" to mean a great many things, in/out of favor.

Statement (3) is just as tricky - for a tactic of the ego itself would be to "deny" it's having been boosted to begin with - in other words, a manner of false humility.

Beyond the first three, it seems a straightforward task of yes/no; true/false. Just these first three are a bit unclear, or rather could be made clearer still (on part of the questioner). Of course, this depends on the "intent" of the questioner - to have the ultimate flexibility in judging a system all the while having the appearance of keeping to a methodical and fair system of measure or to truly determine whether or not something is, indeed, a religious meme, or whatnot.

Fun, fun.

QaZsE

1

#5 should be NO

The SD says it is only an outline and makes no claim for authority. The SD says it is based on the visions & insights of generations of Adepts. But those Adepts' visions were compared and contrasted each with all. Only those that agreed were accepted as fact & incorporated into the Secret Doctrine.

That is great Theosophy is arguably/apparently not a meme, but should The Mahatma Letters be considered for point 5? IIRC the Mahatmas allowed questioning them.

It would be interesting to try this for later branches of Theosophy, or related teach-ers/-ings, such as Krishnamurti, Agni Yoga, Arcane School, Wisdom Impressions.

AFAIK Krishnamurti said people should think for themselves, but he may have been dogmatic about [rejecting] certain things.

It is also interesting to note that some forms of Buddhism may also not be a meme, and I would guess some/all ancient Nazareans may not have had a meme; I would guess any esoteric core/beginning of most of the 'great' and pagan religions would not be a meme.

--Bro. David