[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re to Dallas STUDES and - Buddhism

Jan 23, 2003 06:49 PM
by wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "Theosophy Study List" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: Re to Dallas STUDES and - Buddhism

> Jan 23 2003
> Dear Friend and W.
> Yes, I use the INDEX and other reference material a lot, and I post it
> so that readers may be able to get the same definitions to work with
> that I look at.

WRY: MY comment was that the material you put out was not pertinent to the
discusssion you were having. I guess it is useless to point this out.

> I do not write for any one or against any one -- but only so that all
> may read and be informed.

WRY: You did try to get me kicked off this list for doing what other people
have done, only doing it not even as bad as some others. And you have never
acknowledged this. You just keep ignoring me when I ask you about it. It is

>I have found that generally, few are up to
> date with the necessary information in INDEXES, TEXTS etc... some are
> newcomers who need that kind of background.

WRY: In the beginning I liked it until I realized that it was actually
> I aim at discovering the truth, or exposing what THEOSOPHY has to say
> on a subject. I let the information stand, so that others may decide
> what is for them useful.
> I try to encourage individual study. It is the only way to become
> assured of anything. Starting in School, we have all been subject to
> this rule. We progress then, as now, depending strictly on the
> enthusiasm and energy we put into learning and testing information
> received. We all have to do it ourselves.
> In writing, then, I make it a point to take account of others' views,
> if they appear to seriously disagree with the impersonal and universal
> aspect of things. I am well aware that I know little about anything,
> like old Socrates, But I can ask questions.
> As for myself, I do expect that any one will feel free to question,
> criticize or ask why I say or write things

WRY: A lot of times you do not answer. You only answer when you can make
yourself look good.

>I make errors and desire
> to be corrected when necessary.

>I refuse to place myself as an
> "authority."

WRY: Choosing all this material for others is the same thing. You are
choosing for them. No one wants to see himself as an authoritan. It is
sickening. I speak from my own experience of having seen this about myself.
Why did you try to get me kicked off this list and not others who were
behaving in the same way and worse? I believe it was because I was
challenging you as an authority. It is o.k., but I offer this example
because it is a big contradiction. Please respond.

>So I offer works to be considered, that others have
> discovered, or described, and which seem valuable to me and relative
> to the questions being considered.
> My motives are never, as far as I am able to make them, personal, or
> adverse to any one.

WRY: I am sad.

We are all in this living business together. We
> have each one of us been brought up in various "Schools" and "systems"
> (such as religions, philosophies and sciences). So it is natural that
> our ways of looking at things will differ. Not "wrong," but
> "different."
> I consider we are a "Brotherhood of Souls." Further, I have seen
> enough evidence to hold that every Soul, is an immortal

WRY: As I have said, THIS SERVES NO FUNCTION. You do not need to believe
this. Anyone who is attentive will see he is akin to his brother.

Just like the
> scientific definition of an atom -- a perpetually moving being under
> Natural Law. Perhaps the Soul of Man is such an atom, made by
> experience into a self-moving inquisitive, sensitive and curious Mind.

WRY: Perhaps you will not have a fully developed soul until you grow up
spiritually, as in the present condition, the oscillation frequency is still
off and there is a LAG.

> Extending this, it is natural for the man-Mind to inquire into his
> environment -- the Earth and the Universe -- to see what they are
> composed of, and what their purpose may be.

WRY: Then find your inner question and stick to it.

> Reincarnation as a concept, would make for a long trail of previous
> personalities and earlier relationships under the law of Karma...and,
> if true we have lived together, met and discussed in earlier lives --
> we may have participated in the Platonic dialogs, or have listened to
> Jesus as he preached on the "Mount," seeking to reform the thinking
> and practices of the Jewish tribes of his time -- or to the Buddha, in
> India 2,500 years ago when he pleaded for mercy and clemency for the
> weak and the under-privileged -- or even Krishna, 5,000 years ago,
> when, as an advisor to Kings, he tried to assist Arjuna to
> self-knowledge and to self-victory (for the Kurus are our interior
> passions and desires, and the Mind has to become victorious over
> them).

WRY: Reincarnation is not like you imagine.

> My conclusion is that we can all learn from each other. If we deal
> with facts that can be demonstrated or proved, we step aside and let
> those things plead for themselves.

WRY: Then you should do what you preach. You cannot prove you are immortal,
but, even more important, "Why would you want to?" WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?
This is a real question and worth answering. Why would you want to? Please
answer this. If you do not know why, which is probably closer to the truth,
then answer that. It's o.k. Just be honest and everything will work out. I
am not coming on here out of a clear blue sky and saying people are not
immortal, as why would I want to? You are making a bold ASSERTION and I am
REFUTING IT. You are expounding a functionless oxymoron. Try to BE. You
cannot fully be unless you can die. What is the function of you constantly
talking this way? It is counterproductive. Madame Blavatsky may have had an
excuse. Perhaps , in the best case senario, in her OBVIOUS aim of bringing
eastern teachings to the Christian west, it was TRANSITIONAL, but this is a
different time. Please answer my question the best you can, and I will
demonstrate to you some problematic and counter-productive aspects to
holding your view.

> While admitting that argument has its uses, I am not terribly
> interested in it, and would rather seek for those laws and parameters
> that unify. Argument divides. A knowledge of law and truth unifies.

WRY: Enquiry is not the same as argument. I know it can be scarey, but we
have nothing to lose. I suggest we work together with others to try to set
up an environment where people can discover together, so material will not
get hooked into the wrong configurations. Enquiry is one of the fastest ways
to bring about a great wave of compassion which can engulf us all. If I am
wrong, if I have wrong view, then I will learn and the world will be a
better place. Argument is static, because people are holding to their fixed
points. Enquiry is opening and alive and full of discoveries.

> I hope this is clearer now ?

WRY: I don't know if you realize this, but you sometimes do not respond to
individual points. You are trying to teach me and others on here. If I am
going to believe what Madame Blavatsky has to say, I will find it out for
myself. I do not mind someone putting out occasional links or doing what
Daniel does, but it is not good to use any material as authority as this
avoids enquiry. It is important to go all the way with it, even if the
edifice falls down..Please answer my question (s). I hope are noticing that
I am answering yours, the best that I can. I have printed out the writing
you mentioned and will comment later. Sorry about all the typos, but spell
check is not working with your messages, and I do not have time to go back
over these. Wry
> Best wishes,
> Dallas.
> ====================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:22 PM
> To:
> Subject:: Re to Dallas - Buddhism
> Hi.. .
> What do you do, just go to the index and look something up and then
> just
> post it out here? The passage from HPB you have quoted is not relevant
> to
> this discussion as it does NOT serve to clarify the issue in question.
> Plus
> the wording in your message makes it sound it like Jerry said that HPB
> was
> against Buddhism. I am starting to notice you use words this way a
> lot. It
> is sad. If Jerry is really your friend, why would you do this, as it
> makes
> him sound bad and yourself sound good? I have some problems with
> Jerry, but
> he is trying to communicate with you sincerely and in good faith, plus
> he is
> somewhat knowledgeable on a subject you understand zilch about. Wry
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
> List URL -
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application