Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00118)

Hi Mic. I don't know about fight club, but I've read Brian's messages and
just spent some time in the archives of Universal Seekers and here.
Perhaps I can help sort it out for some of you, (if my message from
yesterday was not enough),
since, being new, I am possibly not as identified with the situation as
some of you,
and maybe a bit more impartial. Everything is constantly changing and we are
all learning and growing. Apparently last time someone was asked to leave
this list. This is a
different time. Each time needs to be evaluated freshly and with new wisdom,
as we are always different people than we were "last time". I am sure we
will all do the best we can to reach the next plateau of integration. To
me, "Fighting" is not so bad, if things getting a
little heated in the spirit of enquiry, as long as there are questions on
both sides, or if some people consciously use whatever is going on as a
reminding factor to develop patience. Brian is not doing mindless,
prolific posting, and he is not off the subject of theosophy. When there is
questioning, when everyone approaches in this
spirit, there is nothing to lose, as learning occurs, We are all approaching
this on-going interaction from different levels of experience and
understanding. If our aim is to learn together, even if it is a little
scary at times, this can be an adventure that can lead us to a higher
ground. Brian is a highly educated, articulate person with a passion. I have
seen many of his past messages, and it seems to me he has made an effort to
communicate. Sometimes communications break down. When this happens with me,
I have discovered
a simple formula that works like a charm.: "Start Fresh." No one is
in physical danger here and no one is going to take the truth away from
anyone. It may not be possible to approach
complete objectivity, but I believe it is essential to try honestly to come
as close as possible. So.....here are a few points, admittedly from my own
perspective, which you may want to consider. 1. Brian is
no ordinary debunker. There is an element of this, but there's something
else here, some kind of knowledge, and also a passion. I believe Brian has
mixed motives, as is often the case with myself, and I'm sure with many of
us. In some way or other, looks to me like he belongs here. My suggestion to
you guys is-- give it some salt. 2. It was maybe o.k. for Madame Blavatsky
to
maybe fake things
sometimes. Maybe it was for the greater good. In fact, I personally
believe it was. 3. This all was very "way
back when." Who knows what really happened? Who cares? If you are one who
cares, be you a theosophist or a Brian, I think that is sort of funny and
sort of sad. It is poignant. 4. I have examined M.B's writings. She had
genuine knowledge, though this is a different age, and I believe her
approach
is no longer time-appropriate and may need to be re-evaluated and
perhaps
readjusted. 5. It is wrong, by my standards, to try to break down people's
belief systems without giving them something of substance to replace it
with. But how to give consciously? To me, this is what learning to love is
about. Some people do not take food from a stranger. Depends on surrounding
conditions. If you insist the food people
are eating is not "good" they may take umbrage. First they offer us THEIR
food and we accept it. Also, and this is for any of us, even when
I "think" I have verified reality, and even if this is impartially true,
there is always something I can learn, and this is how to communicate new
material
such a way which it can be better and more easily assimilated by others.
This is never an end to learning this, no matter how much I know. If I do
not communicate perfectly, if I pound my head against a stone wall and
build up resistance in others, this means there
is something I do not know, and only by
full attentiveness to in an ever shifting and changing environment, will the
gap between myself and others be bridged and the deuce be transmuted to the
open channel of an eleven
(if we want to look at it numerically). But I may need to wait patiently
until the time and conditions are right, even if an impulsive part of me
does not want to
do so. This is where the true "master" comes into the picture. I become the
master of my "self." Personally, in my life, I struggle everyday with this,
as I do not have that much patience. 7. I have heard different references
on
these lists to the subject of verification. I believe that on-going issues
will be resolved and a deeper spiritual community will be formed when
people focus a little more specifically on verification. What is
verification? How do we do it, and can we serve as support for each other
in the quest to discover what we really do not know, even though certain
edifices we have erected, even big towers, may eventually come crashing to
the
ground by this pursuit? Maybe when/if things settle down and an atmosphere
of genuine enquiry
has been more firmly established, we can go into the subject of
verification together, at our own
speed, little by little and see if we can discover a model that is not
wishy-washy and which might make sense as some kind of practice. Sincerely,
Wry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mic Forster" <micforster@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Aurobindo on Theosophy :


> Wry,
>
> Brian Muehlbach does not exist. It is Brigitte
> Muehlegger. Have you ever seen the movie Fight Club?
> It is something like that.
>
>
> --- wry <wry1111@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Hi. I realize I am new on here, but now, thanks to
> > Dalval's message of
> > yesterday, I AM here. I do not understand why you
> > would want a person who is
> > as intelligent as Brian, if not indeed brilliant,
> > and obviously VERY
> > interested in theosophy, to leave your list. All he
> > is doing is giving words
> > and his opinion. I have noticed there has been a lot
> > of in-fighting on these
> > theosophy lists. On Universal Seeker there was talk
> > of one theosophist
> > cyber-stalking another, etc. On here, someone left
> > this list because
> > someone was banned, and others left because they
> > did not like someone's
> > messages, etc. There is no shouting on here or on
> > any list. These are
> > written words. They are silent. If you or I have a
> > reaction, if someone is
> > an irritant, it is a blessing. Is not the pearl
> > formed around the tiny
> > impurity within an oyster? Even though I have said I
> > do not know that much
> > about theosophy, I have been studying these lists
> > and websites for some
> > time, and I have many books by theosophists in my
> > library, not just
> > recently, but for many years. It is a fascinating
> > topic. All about the
> > interchanges of certain substances and materials,
> > some very subtle, within
> > ourselves and with others, with the end result of
> > some kind of transmutation
> > of these materials that is beneficial, right? If I
> > am wrong, please correct
> > me in your own words, not words you have read in a
> > book. I do not see too
> > much deep enquiry here (right now), but a lot of
> > looking back at and
> > analyzing of the past. Brian has a passion.about
> > your subject. That is so
> > obvious. Why would you kick someone like this off
> > your list? Why don't you
> > ask him why he is so interested in this subject?
> > Maybe he won't tell you,
> > but maybe he will. If we learn to use our own words
> > and communicate honestly
> > and simply about ideas, we will discover new ideas,
> > and our words will make
> > a bridge. Something intelligent, outside of all
> > this, that does not need to
> > look back and analyze, but is fully attentive to
> > what is, AS IT IS, will
> > solve the problem of Brian, and there will be
> > instantaneous learning that
> > does not take place over
> > time.
> > --------------------------------------------Dalval,
> > here is further
> > commentary on your message of September 5, which I
> > hope everyone will read
> > again. I personally, am very interested in BREAD
> > MAKING and the various
> > subtle substances and material and their
> > interactions which result in the
> > making of bread. When this quality of interaction
> > occurs ON A CERTAIN LEVEL,
> > sangha or spiritual community is formed. This has
> > nothing to do with
> > Buddhism or any religion. It is about the middle.
> > But what is the middle of
> > seven, 3;5? What does "eight" mean, if not an
> > infinite process that is
> > alive and ongoing? I notice M. Blavatsky has spoken
> > quite brilliantly of
> > the use in the Bible of the word "elohim" (as a
> > three-fold force or trinity
> > of gods), and this is interesting to me. But if we
> > look at a human being as
> > a three-fold emanation, we need to look at two
> > threes, not one, as for man,
> > who is always IN RELATIONSHIP, a good number and
> > one which represents the
> > middle would be six. If we take eight and put it
> > with the scale of seven (to
> > represent an ongoing process) we get six (15). This
> > a KEY number, as six
> > represents a kind of stabilization. There is much
> > talk on these theosophy
> > lists of planes and levels. In carpentry, a plane is
> > a level. It makes a
> > wood (would) surface even and smooth. I will have
> > to study this further if
> > I stay on here, but for now, to put the concept of
> > planes into my own little
> > words. A plane is the connection of points into a
> > line and the extension of
> > that line into a surface. A plane smoothes things
> > out. In a human there are
> > different kinds of planes. There is the "plane" of a
> > reaction, such as a
> > racist reaction, where certain elements in a human,
> > such as the adrenal
> > function and memory are connected to an incomplete
> > perception in such a way
> > that certain details of reality, such as "this
> > person is a unique individual
> > and also, much like myself" are unconsciously
> > eliminated. Then there is
> > another kind of "plane" where incoming material is
> > TOTALLY perceived by a
> > very alive intelligence, in such a way that each
> > point is individual at the
> > same time it is connected, and the results
> > instantaneously correlated so
> > that a conscious movement occurs. If this process
> > leaves no remainder, there
> > is an emanation. There are also two points, the
> > point where light affects
> > something in the brain in such a way that certain
> > hormonal processes are
> > accomplished and another point that is buried deep
> > within. I notice people
> > have been talking about Aurobindo. He spoke a lot
> > about a seed of light
> > buried deep within the earth, right? This could be
> > called LUCifer, or the
> > morning star. When we remove the six from eight, we
> > get the number two, the
> > number of the devil, or duality, so to speak. (When
> > we add the number six to
> > eight, we get something else). When we transmute
> > this number two into an
> > ELEVEN, (11), we get an open channel, which can
> > almost be equated to a
> > material bridge, as anything that exists, that IS,
> > IS material. When we have
> > this bridge, we have accomplished the making of
> > BREAD. I have deliberately
> > incorporated this material into the message about
> > Brian, because it is
> > connected to Brian. Without a certain special
> > ferment, the making of the
> > bread will not be accomplished. I did not read this
> > in a book by M.
> > Blavatsky or by Krishnamurti or in the Bible or
> > whatever. I have studied
> > this process in my own life. Without Brian, you will
> > not make conscious
> > bread. This is just an individual assessment, of
> > course, but we do not get
> > to choose our irritant. If we want to make the
> > irritant stronger, that is
> > one thing. If we want to make it weaker or take it
> > away, that is another.
> > Without Brian's message, or your message, Leon, I
> > never could have made
> > this response to Dalval's message. Hope you are able
> > to put your own grain
> > of salt on this material and assimilate it as
> > consciously as possible into
> > your functioning as a food, but be sure to save a
> > little particle for the
> > "hungry ghosts." Sincerely
> > Wry-------------------------------------------------
> > Original Message -----
> > From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aurobindo on Theosophy :
> >
> >
> > > Dredging up old political history referring to
> > individual leaders of the
> > old
> > > Theosophical Society after the death of HPB, has
> > nothing whatever to do
> > with
> > > the goals and aims of theosophy, per se, or the
> > validity of its
> > metaphysical
> > > teachings. This is a typical propagandist's ploy.
> > >
> > > The so called "evolutionary scheme" of theosophy
> > -- as a theory of
> > universal
> > > involution and evolution of both consciousness and
> > matter presented by
> > HPB --
> > > that can be subjectively proven, individually, by
> > deep study of
> > fundamental
> > > principles as they work in nature, along with
> > introspective meditative
> > > intuition and deduction, stands on an even higher
> > level than so called
> > > "scientific evolution" which refers, objectively,
> > reductively and
> > inductively
> > > only to the physical body... And is, as such, is
> > only
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> http://news.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>