Sunset Star 7 by Brian Sapere


Conditioning and Indoctrination



From Learning How to Learn by Idries Shah  (1978)


Method, System and Conditioning



there are four factors which, when applied upon human beings, 'programme' them like machines.  These are the factors which are used in indoctrination and conditioning.  By their use, deliberate or otherwise, self-applied or otherwise, the human mind is made more mechanical, and will tend to think along stereo-typed lines.

Innumerable experiments, recent and ancient, have fully verified the presence and effect of these factors.  They are: tension alternating with relaxation, sloganisation and repetition.

Because most human beings are trained to accept these factors as part of their 'learning' process, almost everything which is presented to a human being to be learned is generally converted by him into material which he applies by these methods.

The test of a teaching system, and of its success, is whether (1) it is applied by these methods, knowingly or otherwise; (2) it develops into a system which uses these methods.

In the various groupings of people engaged in this kind of teaching whom I have contacted during the past few years, virtually none is free from this element or these factors.  The result is that one set of slogans has been changed for another: and phrases like 'man is asleep'; words like 'essence', certain exercises and techniques as well as literary material, have been studied so closely and so diligently that they have succeeded in the main only in indoctrination.  Their instrumental effect is spent.

It is mainly for this reason that tradition repeatedly says that the formulation must change in accordance with the people, the place and the Work.

It is extremely easy to test the individuals who have developed (through no fault of their own) this ('conditioned-reflex') response to work-terms and other teaching stimuli.  Such people always respond in a typical manner to approaches made to them, and in this respect they do not differ from people who have been indoctrinated into any static and linear system: political, patriotic, economic, religious, philosophical, where the extra dimension of understanding is weak or absent.

There is, however, a saving grace.  This is that if we retrace our position to the point just before the learning and teaching became 'established' as a conditioning in the mind of the individuals, we can reclaim the flexibility which the work demands.  The methods used to do this, however, are not ones which are familiar to most people.

You have to be able to understand before you can verify.

People ordinarily do not reach deeply enough into themselves to find out how to learn about what Sufis call Reality.  They make premature assumptions about how to learn, and what attracts them must be good, and so on, which in the end defeats their putative purpose.




In the Bostan of Saadi there is the tale of the man who once saw a limbless fox and wondered how it managed to be so well-fed.  Deciding to watch it, he found that it had positioned itself where a lion brought its kill.  After eating, the lion would go away, and the fox would eat its leavings.  So the man decided to allow fate to serve him in the same way.  Sitting down in a street and waiting, all that happened was that he became more and more weak and hungry, for nobody and nothing took any interest in him.

Eventually a voice spoke and said:  'Why should you behave like a lamed fox?  Why should you not be a lion, so that others might benefit from your leavings?'

This story is itself an interesting test.  One sometimes finds that it encourages people with a desire to teach to set themselves up as teachers, and enables others, who are more humble, to rearrange their ideas, so that they can learn first, no matter what they readily imagine about being able to teach and benefit others before getting their own focus right.

Everything man needs is in the world.  How does he use it?  Think of the Eastern proverb:  'God provides the food, men provide the cooks.'






Teaching Methods and Prerequisites



Q: According to the Sufis, is there any knowledge of the difference between teaching and conditioning; and do people know what they want when they set out to learn?


A: People are conditioned not only by deliberate indoctrination, but also by systems whose proponents themselves are ignorant of the need for safeguards to prevent conditioning.   People are also conditioned by a constellation of experiences.  In most human societies, unanimity of thought has been arrived at by an unrecognised conditioning process in which virtually all the society's institutions may be branches of the conditioning process.

This information is neither new nor necessarily exciting.  But it is essential.  What is new about it is that it has been concisely and effectively revealed in studies made in the West, notably since the end of the Korean war.  If you do not know or believe the foregoing, you will either have to accept it as a working hypothesis, or else leave all attempts at studying other matters aside until you have caught up with this information in the generally available sources on the subject.  In such a case your basic information is incomplete, and your prospects of progress are as limited in a higher sense as if you were trying to become an academic but were not yet literate.

Certain traditional teaching-systems have continuously maintained the knowledge of this 'conditioning by environment' factor.  The essence of their systems has been twofold: (1) to stress the fact of conditioning, in order to redress the imbalance produced by it; and (2) to provide study-formats and human groupings in which the conditioning cannot easily operate.

No such systems deny the value of conditioning for certain purposes: but they themselves do not use it.  They are not trying to destroy the conditioning mechanism, upon which, indeed, so much of life depends.

This is the first lesson: People who are shown for the first time how their views are the product of conditioning tend to assume, in the crudest possible manner, that whoever told them this is himself opposed to conditioning, or proposes to do something about it.  What any legitimate system will do, however, is to point out that conditioning is a part of the social scene and is confused with 'higher' things only at the point when a teaching has become deteriorated and has to 'train' its members.

The second lesson is that the majority of any group of people can be conditioned, if the group is in effect a random one: non-conditioning-prone groups can only be developed by selecting people who harmonise in such a manner as to help defeat this tendency.

People who hear this may tend automatically to assume that this is a doctrine of the elite.  But this assumption is only accepted by them because they are ignorant of the process and the bases.  The primary object is to associate people together who can avoid conditioning, so that a development can take place among these people which in turn can be passed on to larger numbers.  It can never be applied to large numbers of people directly.

Many people who hear for the first time that conditioning is a powerful, unrecognised and spiritually ineffective development react in another manner which is equally useless.  They assume that since conditioning is present in all the institutions known to them (including any which they themselves esteem highly) that it must always be essential.  This is only due to the fact that they are not willing to face the fact that any institution may become invaded by a tendency which is dangerous to it.  This is not the same as saying that the institution is based upon it.

When people arc collected together to be exposed to materials which will defy or avoid conditioning, they will always tend to become uncomfortable.  This discomfort is due to the fact that they arc not receiving from these materials the stimuli to which they have become accustomed as conditioned people.  But, since they generally lack the full perception of what is in the materials, (and since it is a characteristic of conditioning materials that they may masquerade as independently arrived-at facts), such people do not know what to do.  The solution to this problem which they will tend to adopt is some kind of rationalisation.  If they receive no accustomed stimulus of an emotional sort, they will regard the new or carefully selected materials as 'insipid'.

This is a further lesson.  Everyone should realise that the vicious circle must be broken somewhere and somehow.  To substitute one conditioning for another is sometimes ridiculous.  To provide people with a stimulus of a kind to which they have become accustomed may be a public or social service: it is not teaching activity of a higher sort.

Unfortunately people have been so trained as to imagine that something which is hard to understand or hard to do, in a crude sense, is a true exercise.  Hence, people are often willing to sacrifice money, physical effort, time, comfort.  But if they are asked (say) not to meet, or to sacrifice the attention of a teacher, this they find nearly impossible to bear, simply because their training is such that they are behaving as addicts.  They may want sacrifice or effort, but only the kind which they have been trained to believe is sacrifice or effort.  'Stylised effort', though, is no effort at all.

Most unfortunately, they do not know that the system to which they have been trained has always (if they have developed such a taste for it as we have just described) fulfilled its optimum possible developmental function at a point long before we are likely to have encountered them.  It has now become a vice, ritual or habit which they are unable to recognise as such.

The prerequisite of an advanced form of teaching is that the participants shall be prepared to expose themselves to it, and not only to some travesty which gives them a lower nutrition to which they have become accustomed.

This is in itself a higher stage than any repetition or drilling or rehashing of words or exercises or theories.  And, in its way, it is a challenge.  Can the participants, or can they not, really enter an area where their effectively cruder desires and automatic responses are not pandered to?

If they cannot, they have excluded themselves from the Teaching.

In order to become eligible, it is the would-be students who have to 'sort themselves out'.  They have to examine themselves and see whether they have merely been using their studies to fulfill social desires, or personal psychological aims, or to condition themselves.  They should also be told the simple fact that, for instance, if you shout 'I must wake up!' often enough, it will put you to sleep.  If their sense of power, for instance, is being fed by means of the suggestion that they are studying something that others do not know, they will get no further.  If they are deriving any personal pleasure or other benefit from 'teaching' others, they will not learn any more.  If they depend upon their study-community alone or mainly for friends or somewhere to go once or twice a week or month, they will get no further.

There has been a confusion between teaching and the social or human function.  To help or to entertain someone else is a social, not an esoteric, duty.  As a human being you always have the social and humanitarian duty.  But you do not necessarily have the therapeutic duty; indeed, you may be much less well qualified for it than almost any conventional professional therapist.

It is impossible to spend time with virtually any religious, philosophical and esotericism group, or even to read its literature, without seeing that a large number of the people involved, perhaps through no fault of their own, and because of ignorance of the problems, are using these formats for sociological or psychological purposes of a narrow kind.  It is not that their spiritual life is right in these groups.  It is that their social life is inadequate.

'As above, so below'.  Just as in ordinary worldly considerations there can be inefficiency or confusion as to aims, so there may be in approaching higher knowledge.  You may be able, initially, to pursue higher aims through lower mechanisms and theories, but you cannot pursue them by indulging short-term personal interests.

You must follow your personality interests somewhere else.  In an advanced society there are more institutions catering for such outlets than anyone could possibly need.  Make sure that your professional, commercial, social, psychological and family needs are fulfilled in the society to which you belong.  The rest of you is the part which can be communicated with by means of the specialised techniques available to those who have a comprehensive and legitimate traditional learning: and who have the means of safeguarding it.

This is what you have to study first of all.  Most people are trying to effect something else, no matter what they imagine that they are doing.  Fortunately, it is not hard to recognise this if enough sincere effort is expended.

In ordinary life, if you think that your family is largely a commercial proposition, people will point out that you are misguided.  If you thought that your profession was mainly for social purposes, people would soon put you right.  It is time that you were correctly informed in this field as well.  You must know, or find out, the difference between meeting to learn and experience something, and meeting in order to be emotionally stimulated or intellectually tested or socially reassured.

There is no harm at all in a social ingredient in a human relationship: far from it.  But when this gets out of balance, and a human contact becomes an excuse for a social contact, you are not going to learn, no matter what materials you are working with.  'Due proportion' is a secret skill of the teacher.

The repeated upsurge of apparently different schools of higher study in various epochs and cultures is due in large part to the need to rescue genuine traditional teachings from the automatism and social-psychological-entertainment functions which regularly and deeply invade and, for the most part, eventually possess them.

Certain physical and mental exercises, as an example, are of extremely significant importance for the furthering of higher human functions.  If these are practised by people who use things for emotional, social or callisthenic purposes, they will not operate on a higher level with such people.  They become merely a means of getting rid of surplus energy, or of assuaging a sense of frustration.  The practitioners however, regularly and almost invariably mistake their subjective experiences of them for 'something higher'.

It is for this reason that legitimate traditional higher teachings are parsimonious with their materials and exercises.  Nobody with a task to perform can possibly (if he knows about his task) do so in a manner which is not benefiting people on the level required.

The foregoing information should be read and studied and understood as widely as possible.  Without it there is little possibility of serving any group of people, anywhere, otherwise than socially or with shallow psychology, no matter what theories, systems or exercises are employed.

Where there is ideology, conditioning and indoctrination, a mechanical element is introduced which drives out the factor of extradimensional reality perception which connects the higher functions of the mind with the higher reality.

Sufi experiences are designed to maintain a harmony with and nearness to this Reality, while mechanical systems effectively distance people from it.




Attar, on his Recitals of the Saints, tells a story of the great Sufi Habib Ajami, when he went to a river to wash, leaving his coat lying on the ground.  Hasan of Basra was passing and saw it.  Thinking that someone should look after this property, he stood guard over it until Habib returned.

Hasan then asked Habib whom he had left looking after the coat.

'In the care' said Habib, 'of him who gave you the task of looking after it!'


This anecdote, intended to indicate the way in which affairs work out for Sufis, is often taken by raw imitators as something to copy, so that they test 'destiny' by abandoning things and neglecting duties: with results which correspond with their stage of ignorance.





From A Critical Appraisal of Gurdjieff and The Fourth Way


Further Explorations




‘To a sick person, sweet water tastes bitter in the mouth.’




The Nature of Conditioning and Indoctrination


Human beings are conditioned by a constellation of experiences. In some cases the conditioning is by deliberate indoctrination while in other instances the conditioning factor is imperceptible and unrecognized. “Individuals and groups of people are played upon, diverted and pulled along channels chosen by others, sometimes acceptably, sometimes otherwise.”


Conditioned patterns of memory, thought, emotion and behaviour are deeply ingrained in the human psyche and exert a powerful, albeit unconscious, influence on individual and collective human affairs. “In order to fully experience anything the mind must be empty, free from memory, emotionality, gain and expectation. What we call experience is generally the repetition of sensation or the projection of memory.”


One of the basic drawbacks of conditioned behaviour is that individuals and groups become entrained to certain limited responses, robbing them of the possibility of flexibility, adaptability and new learning. Conditioning produces a whole series of blocks and impediments which lead to a sort of mental prison (closed minds) incompatible with higher development. Experiences which we have undergone in the past can condition our reactions and responses to the events of the present moment:


Q: How can I free my mind from conditioning?


A: Mind is function, energy in movement. It is a storehouse on different levels of consciousness of individual and collective past experiences. Without memory there is no mind, for thoughts are sounds, words and symbols appearing in our memory. Memory is itself conditioned, being based on the pleasure-pain structure; all pleasure is stored and whatever is painful is relegated to the unconscious layers. The basic function of the human organism is survival. Biological survival is a natural instinct, but psychological survival is the source of conflict since it is simply survival of the psyche with its center the “me.” What we generally call learning is appropriation and conditioned by psychological survival. The conditioned mind cannot be changed by its own effort or system. (1)


Many common human emotions and reactions are based on conditioned thinking patterns which often have their roots in early childhood experiences. These memory-traces continue to exert a powerful influence throughout our lives. “One can observe older children scolding younger children in exactly the same fashion that they have been scolded.”


The emotional component of ego differs from person to person. In some egos, it is greater than in others. Thoughts that trigger emotional responses in the body may sometimes come so fast that before the mind has had time to voice them, the body has already responded with an emotion, and the emotion has turned into a reaction. Those thoughts exist at a preverbal stage and could be called unspoken, unconscious assumptions. They have their origin in a person’s past conditioning, usually from early childhood . . . Unconscious assumptions create emotions in the body which in turn generate mind activity and/or instant reactions. In this way, they create your personal reality. (2)


Powerful emotions such as anger or fear are often conditioned reflexes that are amplified by mental associations and conceptual thinking:


See that what you call “fear” is not fear. Fear is a sensation in your body and mind, a sensation you prevent yourself from feeling the moment you label it “fear.” To arrive at the sensation, you must let go of the concept, the idea of fear, and then the perception will have an opportunity to reveal itself. The pure sensation of fear is only tension. Tension arises the moment you look at a situation from the point of view of an image, of a man or a woman, of a mother or father, of somebody’s husband or wife, and the tension stimulates chemical, physical and psychic changes in the body-mind. But this tension can never be eliminated through analysis, through any process of reasoning, for he who undertakes analysis belongs to what is being analyzed. The mind can never change the mind. (3)


The powerful role of conditioning and indoctrination in human affairs has been known in certain cultures for many centuries. For instance, nearly eight hundred years before Pavlov, the Sufi teacher Al-Ghazali pointed out the nature and problem of conditioning. But it is only in recent years that the pervasive presence of conditioned behaviour has become recognized:


In spite of Pavlov and the dozens of books and reports of clinical studies into human behaviour made since the Korean war, the ordinary student of things of the mind is unaware of the power of indoctrination. One of the most striking peculiarities of contemporary man is that, while he now has abundant scientific evidence to the contrary, he finds it intensely difficult to understand that his beliefs are by no means always linked with either his intelligence, his culture or his values. He is therefore almost unreasonably prone to indoctrination. Indoctrination, in totalitarian societies, is something that is desirable providing that it furthers the beliefs of such societies. In other groupings its presence is scarcely even suspected. This is what makes almost anyone vulnerable to it. (4)


The various types of conditioning such as social, political, economic, religious or environmental have been aptly compared to a series of coloured filters which prevent a person from accurately perceiving reality:


From the time they are babies, people are conditioned socially, economically, politically, religiously, and in every possible way. They grow up in a society which is similarly affected. Eighty percent of the conditioning that they have received as they grow up comes out in their behaviour and attitude. Not all conditioning is bad: if it helps you in life, then it is still valuable whether you call it conditioning or experience. But if it is a conditioning which is telling you what to think, and how to react, it can be dangerous because it can ignore what one might call “internal feeling” or instinct. If you are a product of a certain form of intellectual or religious conditioning, it might be difficult to say “I don’t completely accept this.” (5)


Indoctrination and conditioning can produce a form of mind-manipulation that enslaves people, even without their knowledge. Propaganda, indoctrination and the engineering of belief are built on a narrow factual basis. Individuals and groups who try to condition others through propaganda, censorship of ideas and other means always resist opposition to their activities and attempts to broaden information and knowledge:


Indoctrination may be called “the instilling of attitudes without the saving grace of digesting them.” What makes a “digested” system more acceptable than an imposed one? Two things. First, a greater time-scale and conditions of freedom give an opportunity for rejection. Second, where there is a time-scale measured in years – and where there is an opportunity for dissent and discussion – there is room for modification. Inducing people to believe things – and then, usually, turning around and saying that this belief, because it is belief, is sacred or even inevitable – is the hallmark of indoctrination. (6)


Coercive agency is a term which describes the powerful, but often unperceived, influence of ideas, social and cultural institutions and environment on everyday human behaviour. “Thoughts, circumstances, the social milieu, a hundred and one things, can provide as powerful coercive agencies as anything that the human being can point to as ‘despotism’ or ‘tyranny’.”


According to some systems of thought, the basic principles of human conditioning consist of a nucleus of underlying, self-supporting factors:


There are four factors which, when applied upon human beings, ‘program’ them like machines. These are the factors which are used in indoctrination and conditioning. By their use, deliberate or otherwise, self-applied or otherwise, the human mind is made more mechanical, and will tend to think along stereotyped lines. Innumerable experiments, recent and ancient, have fully verified the presence and effect of these factors. They are: tension alternating with relaxation, sloganisation and repetition. Because most human beings are trained to accept these factors as part of their ‘learning’ process, almost everything which is presented to a human being to be learned is generally converted by him into material which he applies by these methods. (7)

Not all conditioning is necessarily bad. Habits are functionally useful in areas where they work. However, habit and conditioning are counterproductive when they operate automatically and without flexibility. “The more often you do a thing, the more likely you are to do it again. There is no certainty that you will gain anything else from repetition than a likelihood of further repetition.” 


One of the best ways of identifying and overcoming the power of conditioning is to examine one’s motives and intentions in a variety of life situations:

There is now a strong awareness that people may do things because of unconscious motives: being themselves unaware of the well-springs of their actions. Traditionally, of course, it has been realized by many cultures that ‘a man may be kicked by a superior and as a consequence kicks his donkey.’ The intention is not to hurt the donkey, or even to get the donkey to move. This is a case of motivation taking the place of intention: ‘false intention’ it might be termed. An observer, of course, will often attribute an intention to an action which he has witnessed, because of the desire to account for an action: ‘He kicked the donkey, therefore the donkey had done something wrong’; or: ‘His intention was evidently to get the donkey to move.’ (8)