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

Re: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one

Jan 31, 2003 11:03 AM
by wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:22 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one

> Dear Wry,
> I am not at all upset, to start with your last comment. I am rather
> confused as to what your point is with your messages. You critisize
> Blavatsky and then accuse me of setting up myself as an authority,
> and in the same breadth suggest that you will in some vague future
> further elucidate what you are saying.

WRY: You are lumping things together, which creates an affect, which, to
me, is wrong. You do not see it. I made a somewhat sophisticated message
about religion with LOTS of material in it. What I said is subject for
enquiry, but YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT. Your whole stance is that of defending
something that is emotionally dear to you, but it should not be important in
the way you make it. I have NOT seen you on this list discussing anything,
and my guess is that you have not been following what has been going on
here. I have been active on this list for several months, for better or
worse, and people know me. They have read material in my messages which is
between the lines, and whatever they may think of me, they have a sense of
me and what I am doing and where I am attempting to go. I work very slowly,
which is how it should be, and am trying to create an affect, which is
connected to the earth. This is how we start. There is no vague future. Some
things cannot be told, only shown, unfolded according to a law-conformable
sequence, so that it enters the functioing in a certrain way. Period. The
material has to be given so that it enters in a certain relationship to
other material, in certain increments and proportions, and at certain
varying speeds, OR IT CANNOT BE GIVEN. I have spent very many hours of time
doing research for the messages I am writing on this list. I do not take
being on here lightly. To me it is serious.

>Which sounds like the closed
> fist aproach to teaching spirituality. Also, if you are basing your
> judgment of Blavatsky on the same basis as you are judging Sanat's, I
> should just stopp replying to your messages, because in that case you
> are merely ventilating vague ideas not actually based on anything.

WRY: Then do so. This is UNFAIR and authoritarian. If I were a child and you
were my mother, I would cry. There would seem to be no hope. Do you not know
authoritarianism and what it is. It is hard for me to see myself when I am
authoritarian. It is disgusting. I do not want to see that. There is no way
to succeed with you. You have i set it up so that I will fail. I will
explain. #1. To support some kind of case, you suggest I read a certain
author. Actually, I do not have his book and it is not available to me. You
have not given any quote or ideas from his book and you have not used your
own words to try to explain anything to me, which I have noticed to be a
somewhat common pattern around here. Wonder who you guys learned this from?
(One guess). #2. I have written back to you and said, "About Sanat. I have
read his messages in the archives. He seems to be a sincere person, but his
approach, though well meaning, seemed to me to be lopsided and slanted
toward theosophy in a simplisitic way that somehow missed the mark. This was
my impression." This is honestly what I thought. #3. I am VERY busy. I am
not only running a business which has been doing very poorly, but am also
taking care of my grandson part time, doing many other activities and have
alll kinds of problems and complications inb my life right now, plus it is
tax time, which is very difficult for me, It is hard for me even to check my
email, plus I am on some other lists which are very interesting and
exciting. I am not able to drop everything at your command and go
immediately to the archives and give a detailed essay about why I said this
about Sanat and present this, point by point IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU AND SOME
least, a limited payoff in terms of learning. You have set it up for me to
fail to communicate and it is wrong.

Just stick to simple questions THAT YOU FIND GENUINELY INTERESTING when you
communicate with me and I will do the same with you. Do not worry about
defending theosophy. Stick to simple ideas and theosophy will take care of
itself. Admittedly, my material was in some ways vague, too, but it was
meant to be the beginning of an enquiry. If anyone wants to work with me on
this list, go "slow." "Slow is faster."

A certain kind and quality of knowledge CANNOT be given the way Madame
Blavatsky attempted to. This does not mean that her work was good or bad,
but it was one of these two or either, depending on her aim and the aim of
someone who is consciously USING it and its position on a scale.This is a
broad statement, but how do I support it. There is only one way, and that is
by giving knowledge of a different kind and quality so that people can make
a comparision. This is one of the problematic aspects of her work. She
creates a powerful affect. I know, as I have experienced this myself, and
this leads people who do not know any better because they have no basis of
comparison, to become bonded to this, as I have said, like a duck to its

> In the present your criticism of Blavatsky is rather vague and mixed
> in with criticism of this list.

WRY: Acknowledged, but I do think her work is interdependent with the
results we are seeing on this list, which again, are "good" or "bad" only in

>I think if you answer Dallas's
> questions perhaps the discussion will become a bit more clear.

WRY: It is plenty clear already, to some, at least. Dallas has made a
righteous attempt to communicate with me and he has tried to present ideas,
which is great. Dallas, if you are reading this, which I am certain you are,
I have not lost a connection with you and actually feel it growing. I
believe we are closer in our ideas and philosophy then first meets the eye.
Before we continue, I would like to point out that I have asked you a
question re immortality and have been waiting for your answer. It is a tough
question, I understand, and at this point I am going to assume you are
unable to answer this, which is o.k., and move on and cover this topic
myself, as soon as I get a chance.

<As for
> now, your main point seems to be that Blavatsky is confused, unclear,
> and immature.

WRY: NO Katinka. You have picked this out. My main point, and a VERY
important point. Certain material can only be given in a certain way and
organically evolved religions, whatever their faults, can do this. She does
not. This is not to say that she does not give anything or that her material
is of no value. I can not spoon feed things to people like she attempted to
do. It cannot be received that way. If people want to discover, they can
make a study, or we can do so, little by little. A second key point is that
the principle of transcendence or transubstantiation, seems to be missing
from her writing, but I will have to investigate further. She may give lip
service to this concept, but her material is not set up in such a way that
this is shown or demonstrated so that people can accomplish it. Rather the
end result is eternalism, or getting stuck in a kind of contemplation that
is static. Many people who are reading this know very welll what I am
talking about.

>Yet you don't give us any indication what that judgment
> is based on.

WRY: I am doing a lot. My guess is that no one on theosophy lists, or even
in the whole movement, has ever done what I am doing. Maybe I am the only
one who can. Actually Jerry has tried but (in my opinion) he does not know
how to present the material in such a way that it has a certain essential
kind of grip, which means there is something that may be essential, which he
does not understand. I have given indications in past messages, such as when
I spoke of mesmerism. Also, frequent reference to a primal cause, is creates
an affect that throws people off and is static AND FUNCTIONLESS in terms of
helping humanity. I have left numerous messages on this subject. I believe
many people on here, by now at least, have a good sense of what I am talking
about and know very well what I mean.

>As for your comments on the functioning of this list -
> since I sort of agree, I won't comment on that. I do see the two as
> distinctly seperate issues though. I also know there are people who
> get completely stuck in what Krishnamurti has said, yet this does not
> invalidate his work for me.

WRY: A somewhat good point, and I am glad you have mentioned this, but a
long-time theosophist, I forget who, has very recently left a message on the
list saying that he has encountered this in-fighting in many theosophical
organizations and that this has been a characteristic of theosophy from the

I am a slow writer and writing this message has taken well over an two
hours. I have given up something important I needed to do today in order to
write this. This is always the case when I come on here, so I must think it
is worthwhile, though I am starting to wonder. I have chosen this list for a
reason and not just by fancy, and I am not a quitter.I hope I am not wasting
my time. Sincerely, Wry P,S, Please answer the question I have asked you.
You have referred to theosophy as a religion. Could you please explain this?

> Katinka
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

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