Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00693)

----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:22 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one
>
Hi. I would like to make an addendum to the part of my message which is
quoted below.. When I spoke of authoritarianism being disgusting I was
speaking of what I felt when I have seen it in myself. Do you understand
that by phrasing the material above in the way that you did, you were, to
use a psychological term, objectifying me (turning me into an object)? Do
you understand that therre was no way to go any further after reading this?
No opening? Krishnamurti came out of the theosophy movement. That is an
obvious given. He left it because he could not use that as a vehicle to
accomplish his aim, which was, if I am not mistaken, similar to, if not the
very same aim as that of theosophy. He could not use it because it was not
functional as a vehicle for accomplishing this. It is obvious. If you or I
understand something it might be a good idea to try to explain it in our own
words. If we cannot do that, maybe we can learn by practicing.

You have called theosophy a RELIGION. Other people may want you to follow
THEIR religions because they think they are better. There is no way to sort
it out. Thius all leads to war. Krishnamurti had to leave. He could not be a
world teacher under those conditions. No one would have listened. It does
not matter when Madame Blavatsky predicted a world teacher would come. She,
too, like you and I, was no authority. Yoiu cannot prove anything except
perhaps the truth of what I say by asking me to read Sanat. It is not
enquiry. At least the subject of what is and is not enquiry has come up
here. Wry p.s. Please tell me where to find Daniel's message, which I have
missed seeing.

> >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
> OTHERS WILL UNDERSTAND IT. Plus. #4. THERE IS NO PAYOFF, or, at the very
> 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."
> >
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>