Re: Theos-World RE: : Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA -- BODHISM (Or Wisdomism)
Jan 22, 2003 12:06 PM
----- Original Message -----
To: "Theosophy Study List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: : Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA --
BODHISM (Or Wisdomism)
> Jan 22 2003
> Dear Wry:
> I am not trying to pin you to anything. Far from it. Let me try and
> explain: I "butted in" and of course pay the price for it - I do like
> what you have to say. Let me try and dig myself out of the hole I am
> in, with you.
WRY:I do believe you have not answered my question about what was the point
of the material you put out. You have SELECTED this material from her
writings, taken it out of context and applied it to another, seemingly
similar context, but there is no real application. There is no point that I
can see. I am wearing the soft gloves when I communicate with you, which
some may not realize, as I know I sound harsh.What is the point of what you
wrote? You are putting material out indiscrimately, in my opinion, and
leaving messages that are too broad, which suggests an emotional quality,
not reason, is ruling a lot of your communication, though it is put forth
with a rational tone. I am trying not to respond to you too much, but in
this case, I have no choice, as you have responded to me directly, and I
would never want to discourage anyone from doing that. Also, it is hard to
read your material as it is so bland, in that you are not specific and speak
in the broadest of generalities, which also suggests there is an over-riding
emotionalism behind what you are saying, though it is disguised.
I will try to leave you alone on this list, the best I can. I do not read
most of your material, as you do not seem to have much of a sense of
preportion and you do not deal in specifics. It is always back to that
FEELING (of eternalism) which reading Madame Blavatsky must trigger in your
and then a jump to her. It is all associative, which is not original. You
have put out how many messages so far, today? Five, I think. They are so
long. Most people, if even any, are going to read all this. You are fooling
yourself. Don't you want to be a real participant. What I say is so obvious
and people have hinted it to you time and time again or outright told you
directly, but YOU DO NOT SEE IT. This is amazing. It is not working for the
group. It is not working for a brotherhood. I do not believe it. Moreover,
IF a person were to read all of this material, in good faith, THERE IS NO
WAY TO ASSIMILATE IT, as it is too prolific, and does not fit into the
sequence of what is happening in a way that is time-appropriate and from
which people will learn. This is why I have mentioned Daniel. Though I hate
to compare two people, sometimes it is necessary to get a point across. He
is called by many a "fundamentalist" and I perhaps would disagree with him
on certain philosophical issue, He quotes Blavatsky and others a lot, but he
does in a way that It fits into what is happening. When I read his
comparisons I can see something new, He doesn't tell me or anyone anything,
but sets it up so we can discover. His material is POLARISED so that there
is always a strong THIS contrasted against a THAT and he sets it up so we
can see it and then find the middle and TRANSCEND the situation and come out
freer. Daniel, if you are reading this, put salt on any of my compliments,
as this makes you sound like a little jewel, and I know you have two horns
just like the rest of us (though I do not thinks your have yet begun to
> For us (who are students of Theosophy), generally, Mme. Blavatsky and
> her writings have been the key to that knowledge and wisdom which
> seems to unify and resolve many gaps and conflicts in the realm of
> information as presented popularly, as well as by our academics.
> If one takes the meaning of THEOSOPHY to be "all-inclusive," then the
> person through, and from whom we received that information is going to
> be referred to. For me, she is H P B, and her writings. But I am not
> limited by them.
WRY: Sure, talk about H.P.B. and her ideas till hell freezes over, but it is
not the same as studying them.Maybe this list is not even for that, but is
more of a place where peoople can touch bases, but, if so, people are
missing an EXTRAORDINARY opportunity to further her work and to actualize
> The sphere of knowledge is vast -- as vast as our Earth and its
> relations with the firmament. We are unique to ourselves, but may not
> be so in terms of the Universe. It is apparent that this universe and
> earth are regulated systems that support life on this planet, and
> probably elsewhere. The ruler of the world is LAW -- and it seems to
> me, we only scratch the surface of a knowledge about that.
> So we can (without being specific) place UNIVERSALITY, UNITY and LAW
> as primary basic facts. The last one is EVOLUTION which we all do
WRY: Here you go again, like a broken record. It is sad. I know you are an
older person (I am pretty old myself, actually, but a lot younger) and I
want to treat you with respect, and yet still be able to speak the truth. I
do not know what to do.
> There are (for me) three things I cannot eliminate from any
> 1. I exist.
> 2. The Earth and the Universe exist.
> 3. There is a relation, meaning and purpose for our on-going
> What remains is a study of thee relationships, and I conclude that a
> single life is inadequate time to finalize this. Logically I
> conclude that in me, the physical man, the REAL ME is not limited by
> the life-tenure of this body, but uses it for the time it works Then
> in due course it reincarnates .... It has been doing this for a very
> long time so we are probably in looking back seeing some residue of
> our work in earlier eras.
> Reincarnation seems a reasonable solution, and a good deal of evidence
> seems to support this.
WRY: I am a hard-core student of Buddhism, so I have heard plenty about
reincarnation, but it is not put out the way you do. REINCARNATION IS NOT A
SOLUTION. I repeat. REINCARNATION IS NOT A SOLUTION.
>Consciousness and unitary intelligence are
> areas of important discovery.
WRY: This is what happens when when the skandas are understood and the
thread of the psychological I is not unraveled. In Tibetan Buddhism I
believe I have heard the term "odor-eaters." They feed off of substance and
try to to establish a university there. What do you mean when you say
"Consciousness and unitary intelligence are important areas of discovery?"
There is no URGENCY. You speak of consciousness and unitary intelligence as
commodities that exist independently of yourself.
> It is also clear to me that there is a universal ethos -- a morality
> which reacts to "good," and "evil." I conclude that "evil" is any
> choice that contravenes universal Law. Why should humanity be excluded
> from the operation of universal and impartial law ? What in us feels
> free enough to choose?
WRY: This is bland double-talk and even a form of circul;ar thinking, but
very subtle, which makes it even worse. "The Bible is the word of God
because it says in the Bible that the Bible is the word of God." You think
you are God, but you cannot be, because you do not understand the devil.
Your reason is not developed. You are just faking a lot of this. It is built
around a false persona.
>:What, even, is the purpose of humanity in the
> universe ? Why am I here, you, and where are we going ?
WRY: Yaah yaah yaaah. You are grandstanding. If a young person in his
twenties researches theosophy on the web and finds this list from Google and
reads your five messages from today, he most likely will NOT become a
theosophist, not that I necessarily care, but now that I have become a
theosophist, it is probably my responsibility to increase the membership of
this society, and my speciailty is working with people in their twenties.
> Theosophy posits a Spiritual Ego in man (also in the Universe as a
> PRIMAL BASIS) -- as immortal as the perpetually moving atom is in
WRY: You should not keep referring to this. It is CHEAP, as it SERVES NO
FUNCTION TO BELIEVE THIS and has nothing to do with establishing a universal
brotherhood and even undermines the possibility of this ever happening. If
you would like to enquire into this subject, I am ready, willing and able to
do so at anytime, even now, but especially after Feb. 1st.)
> Theosophy also terms the law of retribution, operative in man's life,
> a fact and names it of old -- Karma (action and reaction).
> You and I, and many of us are seeking to prove that we do in fact live
> under these circumstances, or, that we do not.
If so, can we discover
> the laws thereto
> Bickering among ourselves, as I see it, do not lead to progress, but
> consideration of ideas, does.
WRY: It does sound like you are accusing me of bickering. WHY DO YOU SAY
THIS? You are trying to stop me from expressing ideas. Do not deny it. You
will not decrystalize karmic residues by turning the other cheek on an email
list, unless the pain is almost unbearable. In that case, seize the
opportunity and do so. The main problem with all of us, including me, is
that we set it up to avoid this kind of pain, and then someone way over
there has to feel it. This is called disorder. My guess is that the longer I
stay on this list, the better it will get and the less bickering there will
be. As I have suggested before, the mesmerizing tone of your overly prolific
and bland material sets the stage from which bickering can occur, as there
is no reall Grip (grp), which is the beginning of the FORMATION OF AN ASTRAL
> Would we eliminate Euclid from Geometry, or Pythagoras from
> mathematics? Or Einstein from "relativity?" Or Plato from philosophy?
> Can we deny that the evidences of Hindu and Chinese wisdom and
> philosophy are inconsequent?
WRY: More grandstanding plus the very DISHONEST implication that I am
attempting to eliminate the discussion of Madame Blavatsky's work from the
subject matter of this list. I have said her material, in the form in which
it was given, is no longer time-appropriate. This does not mean that people
should not read her work or discuss her material. It is rich. You do not
understand. You have taken AN AFFECT and gotten bonded to it, like a duck
who has lost its mother.
>What unifies the trend of knowledge,
> from the past to the present, and so on into the future? Are we to be
> that future?
WRY: GREATER DOING by human beings who have developed conscience,
understand the working of SCALES and know how to break material apart and
put it back together in such a way that something original can be generated.
> This atmosphere of study does not prevent others from using other
> methods, or referring to other writers. I deliberately may seem
> vague -- and give an answer, or query aimed at bringing out the gist
> of a subject, without being particular, unless something of that
> nature is asked for. I assume we all have equal access to basic
> reference books and archives, and can refer to them and to INDEXES
> until we know what THEOSOPHY has to say on almost any subject. I
> happen to use THEOSOPHY as a touchstone -- well tested and well used
> in my case. I have used it with and against almost every aspect of
> knowledge and found that the theosophical view is more logical and
> useful. I therefore tend to trust it.
WRY: Trust, the way you are using it, means belief. I do not trust you. You
tried to get me kicked off this list for doing nothing worse, in fact,
probably much less, than I see other people do on here time and time again.
Why did you pick me? It is SUBJECTIVE. Subjective people believe what
appeals to them. Objective people do not need to believe.
H P B says in one place that
> if it is faulty in any respect it all falls to the ground.
WRY: Which, it could be argued, is what happened with theosophy when
Krishamurti disolved the Order of the Star.
> look at S D I 272-3 you will find a description of its antiquity and
> the systems of research used (and in use now) by its scholars.
WRY: You know what, I am not going to be looking at her work in the order in
which you give this material to me, as this is #1. not organic and #2. will
promaote authority, which leads to disorder, and I can tell you right now
that this is against the spirit of her teachings. You are not putting out
this material in the same way that Daniel is. You are trying to rob me of my
> We all are, as I think, searchers after truth.
> Names and labels need not bother us if they help in pointing to a
> trust-worthy source where information flows forth and which can be
WRY: It is next to impossible to check a lot of what she is saying, but
there is more to this. If I stay on this list, I will eventually get down to
brass tacks on this subject, but it is premature.
> I object to having a claim or an authority flung at me as though that
> settles the question. I desire to think about it and see how it
> integrates with the rest of my knowledge and the facts available.
> After all, this is THEOSOPHY we are studying and using as a touchstone
> to anything offered.
> H P B is for us the starting point -- so we refer frequently to what
> she has written if we think it says better that we can, a fact. I
> always assume that a student will check her and verify anything she
> says. Yes, I do use her as my "authority" and perhaps unconsciously,
> I expect others to be as enthusiastic as I am, in discovering how
> knowledge and wisdom really is very ancient.
WRY: I can hardly believe you have said this as if it is significant. Envy
and greed are also ancient. So is killing. This is a good subject for
enquiry. Once I got a statue of Kuan-Yin carved out of stone. It was
exquisite. I was convinced it was ancient. Actually the statue was brand
new, but the stone was ancient and the carver, probably a deeply religious
human being, had great skill. Other statues, I discovered later, were
almostr the same, but the carver was different. You cannot see a statue of
Kuan-yin and know how to make it.
To her I extend my
> deepest respect and gratitude as it is she who opened the doors to me.
> But as for the value of teachings, that I test, and am independent
> about. By the way I have yet to find any serous error in her writings
> (there are some typos and proof readers may have left in some) or the
> "system" she has offered.
WRY: I do not know. In any case, the material, in the form it was given, is
no longer time-appropriate anymore than is the Christian Bible. This can be
taken as a flaw, though it may not have been so originally. This does not
mean that one cannot study her work or the work of Bible and get something
out of it. Her work was not meant for you now, in my opinion. It was
designed to create a certain affect in masses of people AT A CERTAIN TIME.
People can still aim to realize her goal of achieving a universal
brotherhood, but it will not be accomplished in the way you are trying to do
so. Conditions have changed for humanity and a different approachg is
required. In my opinion, you are keeping it from happening. Before, you were
innocent. You did not know. Now new information has come into the picture,
so please examine what I am saying carefully, as you will begin to bear a
different kind of responsibility. As I have told you, I am from the same
secret society as Madame Blavatsky, the most secret society on the planet
earth, but you do not have to believe this and please don't. I can say
anything AND SO COULD SHE. The proof will be in the pudding. Think of many
beings, countless beings suffering unbearable torments and tell me how the
doctrine of karma solves this problem and why you believe you have unlimited
time to enjoy your earthly pleasures.
> If any one wants to know what THEOSOPHY teaches, then they have to put
> themselves in the position to study it, until they know exactly what
> it teaches, and where. Then, one can contrast that more accurately
> with what others offer, or ones own string of learning, academic, or
WRY: You are implying that you understand THEOSOPHY more than me, but at
this point, it is up for question.
> I have been following your trend and writings, and while it is
> bracing, it also seems to me to be a conflict of opinions.
> Fundamentals will settle those. I don't mean yours or mine, but a
> combination, by comparison.
WRY: Fundamentals. I agree, but to get to fundamentals, one has to once more
find the blank page. Much more on this in the future.
Now how would you set your "fundamentals"
> against those of Theosophy ? Similar, dissimilar ? What ?
WRY: It is my aim to establish a universal brotherhood.
> H P B was a universalist (as I hope I am) and trying to label her a
> Buddhist of some school or not is unimportant.
WRY: As I have stated, I am not doing this, but others are.
In a way it is not important, but in another way, it is a crucial issue, as
she was sort of between two stools about two different ways of handling
material, and this is what is probably now weakening the theosophy movement
and training it of potential vitality.I am not sure if she was actually
confused about this, or IF IT WAS DELIBERATELY intended for certain obvious
reasons. I will have to investigate further.
>That is past stuff.
WRY: This is up to me to decide. I will use anything and everything I so
choose, in the living present, to actualize whatever seems appropriate to
me, according to my discrimination, and you do the same.
> This is the present, and we are considering all trails and threads of
> learning impartially.
WRY: I see you have appropriated the word, impartial, and are now using it
more and more. You do not understand IMPARTIAL as I am using it. I will not
tell you what I think of this, as it would be too shocking.
As to who she was, and what she is, read the
> MAHATMA LETTERS, if you wish to discover what the Masters of Wisdom
> thought of her. She claimed to be but their "messenger."
> What did she teach ? Read the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, ISIS UNVEILED , and
> The SECRET DOCTRINE. Do they make sense to you?
> What is the present position in regard to things she taught ? Now
> that is again a very interesting area but also demands a thorough
> knowledge of what THEOSOPHY teaches.
WRY: This is getting boring. I am a working person and do not have much more
time for this. I do not believe you even know what theosophy teaches. If
you did, this list, with you predominating on it, would have a different
kind of atmosphere.
> I would not say that Krishnamurti is the result of her efforts at
> all -- they never met as she died before he was born.
WRY: This is not one of your brightest comments. You do not undcerstand how
> I value K. as a
> very honest and descent man.
WRY: Who even cares?
Gurdjieff -- I have read but he did not
> impress me.
WRY: And certain people do not impress me, but I will be polite. The way you
are speaking is an example of authoritianism and how it works. Person put
out some very bad vibes and is quite nasty and then leaves a message to
person Y saying how much he respects him. The implication is that person X's
opinion is of great importance, but is this really true? He probably
respects person Y because the image he has of him happens to accidently
concur with whatever image he has of himself at the moment.
> Pre-history is valuable to show a trend a past to knowledge and its
> recording. Theosophy is not new or isolated but is at the end of an
> age-old string.
WRY: That string is your thinking processes, and you are NOT approaching her
teaching from the right angle. It is sad, and this is what we need to sort
out. Why is something like this happening and also all this bickering (NOT
me, as I put a real ideas in my writings, to illustrate what I am taking
about) that many have pointed out is and always has been a characteristic of
the theosophical movement.
> Read and study the meaning of the GAYATRI verse if you wish to share
> in some of the meaning of absolute LIGHT and TRUTH that others seem to
> have seen
WRY: At this juncture, I will hold my tongue, except to point out that you
are talking about the soft white light and NOT THE CLEAR LIGHT, and to me
this is most odious and to be pitied. I will wait and see what happens on
this list in the next few weeks, and if conditions improve, as people will
not be able to perfect spiritual bodies under such conditions has exist here
now. If conditions do not get better soon, I will only read this list from
the list page, and devote my time and energy to other spiritual forums where
there is more clarity. Wry
> Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all
> proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden
> by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole
> duty on our journey to thy sacred seat." -- Gayatri
> Unveil is the cry of the man who is determined to know the truth and
> who perceives that something hides it from him. It is hidden by his
> own Karmic effects. It is directed to that on which the Universe is
> built...no other than the Self which is in every man.
> There is a true Sun of which the visible is a reflection, and in that
> is spiritual energy and help. It is interior to each of us -- our
> SPIRITUAL CENTER, the imperishable, eternal Monad. Atma-Buddhi.
WRY: Then how come you do not manifest such? It is because there is nothing
above this. As my father always used to tell me, "there is nothing new under
the sun. " Wry
> Best wishes,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:57 PM
> Subject:: Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA -- BODHISM (Or
> I do not perceive the function or purpose of what you have written,
> would appreciate it if you could tell me.
> In any case, I have never said she was a Mahayana Buddhist, as her
> work has a distinctly non-Buddhist flavor, as she speaks again and
> again of a first or primal cause, and this is contrary to the
> teachings of Mahayana Buddhism.
> DTB HOW CAN IT BE CONTRARY ?
> It is (some) theosophists who are saying her teaching was Buddhist and
> maybe even Mahayana Buddhist. Sometimes things are not so cut and
> dried, which is what I am beginning to realize, and this is a lesson
> for me. The truth of the matter is that she was what she was.
> I personally do not want people to get the wrong idea about what
> Mahayana Buddhism is or isn't, but I am not even sure anymore that
> this matters that much. I think I was "identified" with it. In any
> case, it is interesting and perhaps valuable to enquire into what is
> and is not the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism, and maybe someone will
> learn something from this, maybe even me.
> You refer to her writings too much. Some people have suggested that
> this is not really what theosophy is about or how it should be
> approached. The material you put out frequently seems (to me) to be
> not really pertinent, whereas when one other person, Daniel, puts out
> Blavatsky quotes and the quotes of others, he is able to make simple
> points and his meanings are clear as day.
> He has already put out evidence to demonstrate that she understood, to
> a degree, the concept of dependent origination, and was inspired by
> If she was able to generate what is called the greater Bodhicitta, or
> unconventional loving kindness, and was teaching the doctrine of
> dependent origination, then maybe she was a Mahayana Buddhist. but
> even if she was just beginning to grasp the concept of dependent
> origination and was still sort of between two stools, as being still
> attached to the idea of a primal cause, this is so human.
> Maybe a great wave of compassion touched her from the east and
> generated her to do something that benefited many people. The message
> to me from Nick Weeks on January 15, in which he responded to my dew
> message (sorry, I got confused in my earlier message today, about who
> it was) touched me very much. It was so beautiful.
> But it does not really matter exactly what she was or was not. That is
> looking at things backwards, in my opinion, and drains a potential
> learning opportunity of joyful vitality and of its active force. She
> was no
> authority, nor am I, nor are you, yet you treat her as such... It is
> only valuable, if one is a theosophist (according to what I am hearing
> from many on here) if one uses this as an opportunity to bring about a
> universal brotherhood.
> As far as "clues to these events of pre-history," why would you want
> to have them? Honestly, to me, this makes no sense. I am putting this
> in mild language and very kindly, though my words may seem harsh.
> Everything we are today carries with it all the history of humanity we
> will ever need to know.
> This is my opinion. The approach you expound is a form of clinging. IF
> you even get to the soft white light (but not the clear light) this
> way, you may end up stuck, in a state of limbo, holding onto it like a
> I have not read everything she has written, but I believe she had
> mixed motives, which is human. One of these was surely to bring
> certain teachings to the west in a form which westerners could
> assimilate them. From what I have seen, I believe this to have been
> her primary motive, and a noble one.
> IF Krishnamurti is considered to have been a result of her efforts,
> however much of a mish-mash and conflicted situation he seemed to have
> emerged from, then she did something truly amazing, which I would call
> "greater doing." I have spent thirty-three years in gratitude for
> having the opportunity of reading the books of this great human being
> and of hearing him speak. Some
> on here, who are not intimately familiar with his ideas, do not yet
> fully understand the significance of this human being and the way he
> affected humanity.
> I also believe Madame Blavatsky's writing influenced another
> extraordinary individual, Gurdjieff, to a greater degree than most
> people realize, and again, some may not understand the powerful effect
> Gurdjieff's teachings have had upon twentieth century humanity.
> (Some) people in the theosophy movement have demonstrated an interest
> in Mahayana Buddhism, which has not been brought about by anything I
> have said or done in the few months I have been on this list. In the
> very beginning, I was critical, because of my own ignorance, when I
> should have been happy. I am glad to see people at theosophical
> conferences speaking on the subject of Buddhism and identifying
> Buddhism with theosophy.
> Speaking for myself, and using my own discrimination, I believe this
> is NOT necessarily the best time on earth for anyone who wants to
> establish a universal brotherhood to identify himself as a member of
> any religion, be it Buddhism or anything else.
> It IS the time for enquiry to flower and for people to both develop
> CONSCIENCE and to share with each other any kind of ideas that will
> lead to less ignorance. The kind and quality of idea that will do so
> is that which will not lead to further clinging, but to a release of
> material that is inappropriately clumped or configured.
> Certain kinds and qualities of ideas will do this. Others will not. If
> people use their own simple words to enquire, I believe this is much
> more helpful than referring back to the writings of anyone else, even
> if these words are the words of Jesus or Buddha or even Krishnamurti
> (whom I would personally place in the same category), which in my
> opinion are much greater than the words of Madame Blavatsky, however
> great (if even great) or meaningful her words may have
> been. Again, it seems contrary to what I would consider to be the true
> spirit of theosophy to keep referring to anyone as an authority. If
> people take one simple passage of Madame Blavatsky's writing and
> enquire into it, that might be a different story, but to keep
> referring back to her in the way you do seems counterproductive and,
> as I have previously suggested, is probably turning young people away
> from becoming involved in theosophy.
> Sincerely, Wry
> You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: email@example.com
> List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-30975D@list.vnet.net
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application