Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00101)

Hi John. I understand that some of my responses are over-stylized, but it
has to be this way, as when there is so much slip (slp), there needs to be
grip (grp). This is how I try to work on a list, and I would always make an
effort to have any material I think is important be bracketed and stand out
in such a way that it does not go in on ear and out the other. See below for
further comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: <samblo@cs.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophy and Mesmerism


> Grandma Wry,
> The "Buddhi" simile only indicates that it is Buddhi which
> originates both
> pleasure and pain in my view.
> My view is also that it might contribute materially to the members
if
> you felt able
> to leave off the studied, calculated, indeterminate, aura of remaining
> egnimatic while
> at the same time making unsolicited personal evaluations of others
which
> results
> in the type replies you generate in response.

Wry: I am tempering my responses to a degree which is very large. If I were
to speak the truth; as I see it to some on here, they would drop through
the floor.


> Recently in your post you referenced that you have membership in
one
> of the
> same "Secret Groups" that Madame Blavatsky belonged too. Please
verify
> the physical reality of this as you are either the Paramount Leader of
it
> or a lesser
> more junior member, which is it? And name the "Secret Group" with
whom
> you
> by inference imply you stand should to shoulder with the ashes of
Madame
> Blavatsky and her memory.

Wry: It is secret. Bear in mind that anyone can say or make up anything. I
have already all of the information I am able to about this organization. I
never said that I am of the same stature that Madame Blavatsky was OR that
she was of the same stature that I am. It is all people's opinions, anyway.

I doubt this and challenge you to reveal
> truthfully the
> reality.

Wry: Maybe I am just a grandiose person and am just saying this to build up
my own self esteem.

As I once posted here "Other-determinism" is the least valued
> position of
> the Being.
>
> When making mention of a better more orderly approach which might
> produce better results again you recalcitrantly insisted on gaming
being
> egnimatic to the list.

Wry: This is so amazing, and I have heard similar responses from some
others. I have put out more detailed and specific material in my emails than
most are apparently equipped to recognize and assimilate.But maybe it will
affect people in some way or other, none the less, and the results will be
apparent somewhere down the line.

> Perhaps you believe we will be mystified or de-mystifyied, I am
neither
> as others
> have said in more simpler terms, if you have something significant
to
> contribute then
> do so in a direct manner.

Wry: I cannot be any more direct than I already am. My messages are the
shortest way to get where I am going, but I can always use help, lots of it,
and will answer any questions that I can.


Whatever Paradigm you associate with state
> it plainly'
> otherwise we might think you are too ashamed to reveal it in front
of
> us.

Wry: Well, first of all, I have stated my spiritual background and the
major influences, and anyone who has read my messages should already know
this about me.

>
> I welcomed you when you first posted here and still do,

Wry: You have been really nice.

but I must
> say you have had little substance other than perhaps trying to be
slightly
> imperious, condenscending, and slightly covert while conveying
practically
> nothing other than
> vague catch phrases.


Wry: It is better to get this list by email, because if we read a message on
the list page or in digest, we tend to read it only once, if even at all,
and sometimes certain material needs to be more carefully scrutenized to get
the hidden inner kernel. Plus, I have several times directly given a most
pristine and extraordinary method of verification of physical reality. I
will try to leave a message in the future about the transmission of
knowledge.
>
> Personally my lot is to perpetually keep the "Theosophy" even
though
> filtered by the minds of all Mankind in infinite differentiations as I
> consider the origin to be the
> Senior Projection of the Superior to the inferior of Transcendent
> Truths that is without gap or interval in temporal relation. Attempts to
> cast aside the Inheritance is avidya. Some envision replacement of
ancient
> definitive terms with modern words,
> to me and serves only the lower ego of individuals however bloated
it
> is. Languages
> die and with them unique knowledge not possessed or even
contemplated
> by others, these others burned books throughout the ages desirious to
> suppress not
> just knowledge but the Being itself as it's end result and
production.

Wry: This section above is designed in such a way as to carry certain
implications which are not true. Some of the assumptions are overly broad
and simplistic. You are equating me with a book-burner. This is dishonest. I
do not have time to respond now, but hope I can get into this passage in the
future. Anyway, Madame Blavatsky has taken ancient teaching, changed the
words, broken it up by taking it out of its original organic format and
rearranged it and interpreted it for others. Is this wrong? Who knows? Any
great teacher redesigns material in such a way that it is time- appropriate,
and bad teachers attempt to do this and botch things up. An eternalist would
be prone to believe that a teaching of the ancients exists in a fixed form,
but this is an error. Knowledge is not exactly the same as a teaching, and
in any case, knowledge does NOT exist independently of the the receiver of
it. I will get into Madame Blavatsky's writings more specifically, as time
goes on, if I stay on this list.


> The proof is in
> the Teaching, what is your specific Teaching if you posses one?

Wry: Actually, the proof is not in the teaching but in the pudding, the
place where that teaching connects to you and me. And how do you know you
can receive it? Maybe there is a certain preparation first. Maybe there are
some on here who are already receiving something. Maybe certain interactions
are going on between the lines, so to speak, and certain exchanges of
material and the accomplishment of certain affects are taking place which
you do not know about. Maybe there is no teaching. Anyway, case in point:
what is Madame Blavatsky's? The teaching of the ancients? The problem is
that certain material cannot be told but only actively demonstrated. Sorry,
but I did not make this rule. Wish I had the power to do so. I have
explained this before, but I am willing to go into it in detail in the
future. Wry

>
> John
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>