Ideas Rule the World

“Hear (…) the old, old axiom that Ideas rule the world; and as mens minds receive new ideas, laying aside the old and effete the world (will) advance; mighty revolutions (will) spring from them; institutions (aye, and even creeds and powers, they may add) – WILL crumble before their onward march crushed by their own inherent force. (…) It will be just as impossible to resist their influence when the time comes as to stay the progress of the tide, – to be sure.” (K.H. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, n. 93, p. 425; emphasis added)


Exoteric Creeds Generate Oppression and Struggle. It Is Esoteric (Perennial) Philosophy Alone that Can Bring Much Desired Mediate State and Finally Lead to the Alleviation of Human Suffering

“Under the dominion and sway of exoteric creeds, the grotesque and tortured shadows of Theosophical realities, there must ever be the same oppression of the weak and the poor and the same typhonic struggle of the wealthy and the might among themselves. It is esoteric [or perennial] philosophy alone, the spiritual and psychic blending of man with Nature, that, by revealing fundamental truths, can bring that much desired mediate state between the two extremes of human Egotism and divine Altruism, and finally lead to the alleviation of human suffering.” (Adept. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, 2nd Series, n. 82, p. 157; emphasis added)


Esoteric Truths Are of the Highest Spiritual Importance, at Once Profound and Practical: They Have to Prove Both Destructive and Constructive – Destructive in the Pernicious Errors of the Past; But Constructive of New Institutions of a Genuine, Practical Brotherhood of Humanity

The truths and mysteries of occultism [esoteric philosophy] constitute, indeed, a body of the highest spiritual importance, at once profound and practical for the world at large. Yet, it is not as a mere addition to the tangled mass of theory or speculation in the world of science that they are being given to you, but for their practical bearing on the interests of mankind. (…) They have to prove both destructive and constructive – destructive in the pernicious errors of the past, in the old creeds and superstitions which suffocate in their poisonous embrace like the Mexican weed nigh all mankind; but constructive of new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity where all will become co-workers of nature (…).” (K.H. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, n. 6, p. 23; emphasis added)


Secret of the Spiritual Failure of This Time: Absence of a Universal Moral Law

The philanthropy (…) not possessing a character of universality; that is, never having been laid on the firm foundation of a universal moral principle; never having elevated itself beyond theoretical discourses; (…) it is merely an accidental manifestation but not a recognized law. (…) This, I think, is the secret of spiritual failure and unconscious selfishness of that time.” (K.H. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, n. 28, p. 215; emphasis added)


Universal Brotherhood Is a Law in Nature, Not Only an Aspiration

Brotherhood, then, in its full meaning, is a law in nature. Stress has more than once been laid on this in our meetings, but not too much stress has thereon been laid. For it is the very object, the desire, of our work that brotherhood shall become practical in society, and it will never become practical until men understand that it is a law, and not only an aspiration. It is a common experience that when men have discovered a law of nature they no longer fight against it. They at once accommodate themselves to the new knowledge. They at once adapt themselves to the newly understood conditions, and in that very way we have preached brotherhood. And yet brotherhood is but so little known in our world.” (Annie Besant. The Spiritual Life, p. 113; emphasis added)


Universal Brotherhood Is the Only Secure Foundation for Universal Morality

The term “Universal Brotherhood” is no idle phrase. (…) It is the only secure foundation for universal morality. If it be a dream, it is at least a noble one for mankind: and it is the aspiration of the true adept.” (K.H. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, n. 4, p. 17; emphasis added)


The Principle or Law of Universal Brotherhood is Very Little Understood: It Is the One Essential of Doctrine and of Life of Both Buddhism and Christianity

How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its transcendent importance is recognized (…) It has been assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it could be both these together, when both – Buddhism and Christianity as set forth by their inspired founders, make Brotherhood the one essential of doctrine and of life.” (Helena Blavatsky, quoting J.D. Buck, The Key to Theosophy, p. 18; emphasis added)


Universal Brotherhood Under the Law of Reincarnation and Karma Will Solve Many of the Problems

“But to understand Brotherhood, we must remember that evolution proceeds by reincarnation under the law of the karma.(…) Now most of you believe these two great teachings and in your individual lives they play a mighty part. Why do you not apply them to nations as well as to individuals, to social problems as well as to the helping of your own personal development? As the ideas of reincarnation and karma make their way in the western world, which has the habit of applying principles to practice, I think we shall find this Principle of Universal Brotherhood under the law of reincarnation and karma will solve many of the problems under which the western world is groaning, in our time.” (Annie Besant. The Ideals of Theosophy, p. 21; emphasis added)


Out of these Differences Grows Up All the Possibilities of an Ordered Society

That great principle (or Law) of Reincarnation must ever go hand in hand with the principle (or Law) of Brotherhood if Brotherhood is to be applied, if it is to be made a working principle of ordinary life. For it is out of these differences of age that grows up all the possibilities of an ordered and happy society amongst ourselves.” (Annie Besant. The Changing World, p. 80; emphasis added)


How to Find the Best, That Is the Problem: To Solve It We Must Realise the Hopelessness of the Present Systems of Government

The Ideal is that the best should rule; but how to find them, that is the problem. Every one of us who studies must try to solve this problem, and the suggestions I am here making may perhaps give some hints for the solving. But you will not try to solve it, until you realise the hopelessness of the present line of rulingor not rulingand accept the Ideal that the best should govern.” (Annie Besant. The Ideals of Theosophy, p. 30; emphasis added)


Politics Involves the Welfare of All and Demands the Best Heads With Desinterested Spirit

Politics, which involves the welfare and progress of all who constitute the State and affects other States, is a serious business which calls for the best heads with a disinterested spirit, and should not be a game of power played with the stakes of personal and group interests.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 82)


The Fetish of Mass Suffrage Without Any Qualification Whatsoever

Undoubtedly each man is competent in his own sphere, to say what he wants for his town or village and who will serve best it among those he knows. But when it comes to a question of deciding intricate issues of national and international import, it is but common sense that only those should exercise a vote who have some knowledge of what the issues are. Therefore it was that Dr. Annie Besant urged consistently, while she was concerned with these matters in Indian politics, that India should not, in shaping her Constitution, adhere to the fetish of mass suffrage without any qualification whatsoever. (…)

She did not think that the rule ‘one man, one vote’ was good for any country, at least of all did she favour it for India.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 81; emphasis added)


There Has to Be Skill and Wisdom in Dealing with the Outer Differences

It is not enough to realize our underlying brotherhood, but there has to be skill and wisdom in dealing with the outer differences, the inequalities of development and circumstances.” (N. Sri Ram. Thoughts for Aspirants, 2nd Series, p. 122)


India Should Evolve a New Model of Democracy

“If India can evolve a form of democracy in which there is some chance for the needed wisdom to come to the top, she will thereby be serving the best interests of her own people, as well as setting an example that might help and inspire other peoples.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 82)


Proposal of a System in Harmony with the Law of the Universal Brotherhood (Annie Besant, N. Sri Ram and Jai Prakash Narain)

“Some time ago Pandit Nehru, in one of his speeches, threw out rather vaguely the idea that some day, instead of the present manner of elections to the Indian Parliament, some system, less direct and more suited to conditions in India, might be considered.

Since then, Mr. Jai Prakash Narain (…) has more definitely proposed, in the place of the present form of Democracy in India, a system somewhat similar to that proposed by Dr. Annie Besant in the days of her agitation for Indias Freedom.

She did not think that the rule one man, one vote’ was good for any country, and least of all did she favour it for India. Therefore she outlined, in her The Commonwealth of India Bill [1925], a system which would be broad-based at the village (and corresponding town) level, with adult suffrage and a very large measure of autonomy, and then gradually taper like a pyramid through the District and State (or Province) levels, up to the Central Government. The franchise for the Councils at these higher levels was to be based on increasingly higher qualifications of service, experience, education, etc.

Her scheme, if it had been backed up by the other political leaders of the time, particularly by the Congress party, would have been acceptable to the people of India as a whole. The principle of a reasonable qualification for the vote and for membership of the Councils would have been firmly established. But her pleadings went in vain. Mr. Gandhi stood for mass suffrage, and that decided the question.

Mr. Jai Prakash Narain also envisages a strong and practically self-sufficient village base to consist of Village Councils, village meaning also a town, ward or borough, but indirect elections from these Councils to District Councils, from the latter to State or Provincial Legislatures, and from these to the Parliament of all India.

Mr. Jai Prakash Narains is as yet a lonely voice in the wilderness of the present political conditions in India. The description of them as a wilderness may seem an exaggeration but when one looks at the various sectional interests which are so clamant and the variety of councils on different matters to which it utterance is given, one cannot but feel the truth of Dr. Besants description of democracy in its present form as government by multi-headed ignorance.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 86; emphasis added)


Participatory Democracy (or Democracy of the Future), in the Vision of Professor C.B. Macpherson

“Let me turn finally to the question of how a participatory democracy might be run if we did achieve the prerequisites. How participatory could it be, given that at any level beyond the neighborhood it would have to be an indirect or representative system rather than face-do-face direct democracy?

If one looks at the question first in general terms, setting aside for the present both the weight of tradition and the actual circumstances that might prevail in any country when the prerequisites had been sufficiently met, the simplest model that could properly be called a participatory democracy would be a pyramidal system with direct democracy at the base and delegate democracy at every level above that. Thus one would start with direct democracy at the neighborhood (…) – actual face-to-face discussion and decision by consensus or majority, and election of delegates who would make up a council at the next more inclusive level, say a city borough or a ward or township. (…)

So it would go on up to the top level, which would be a national council for matters of national concern, and local and regional councils for matters of less than national concern. At whatever level beyond the smallest primary one the final decisions on different matters were made, the issues would certainly have to be formulated by a committee of the council. (…)

This may seem a far cry from democratic control. But I think it is the best we can do. What is needed at every stage, to make the system democratic, is that the decision-makers and issue-formulators elected from below be held responsible to those below subject to re-election or even recall. (pp. 108-109) (…)

To sum up the discussion so far of the process of a pyramidal councils system as a model of participatory democracy, we may say that in the measure that the prerequisite conditions for transition to a participatory system had been achieved in any Western country, the most obvious impediments to a pyramidal councils scheme being genuinely democratic would not be present, and, therefore, a pyramidal system might work. (…)

It is much more likely that any such move will be made under the leadership of a popular front or a coalition of social-democratic and socialist parties. (…) The real question then is, whether there is some way of combining a pyramidal council structure with a competitive party system.

The combination of pyramidal direct/indirect democratic machinery with a continuing party system seems essential. Nothing but a pyramidal system will incorporate any direct democracy into a nation-wide structure of government, and some significant amount of direct democracy is required for anything that can be called participatory democracy. At the same time, competitive political parties must be assumed to be in existence, parties whose claims cannot, consistently with anything that could be called liberal democracy, be overridden.

Not only is the combination of pyramid and parties probably unavoidable: it may be positively desirable. (pp. 111-112) (…)

One question remains: can this model of participatory democracy be called a model of liberal democracy? I think it can. It is clearly not dictatorial or totalitarian. The guarantee of this is not the existence of alternative parties (…). The guarantee is rather in the presumption that no version of the model of participatory democracy could come into existence or remain in existence without a strong and widespread sense of the value of that liberal-democratic ethical principle (which is the heart of its main models): – the equal right of every man and woman to the full development and use of his or her capabilities. (…)

As long as there remained a strong sense of the high value of the equal right of self-development, the model of participatory democracy would be in the best tradition of liberal democracy. (C.B. Macpherson. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, pp. 108-115)