Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00011)

Hi. To begin, your message is so ridiculous that at first I thought it was a
joke, but, sadly, it is not. As I have stated in my message below, I do not
believe this is the appropriate time on earth for any religion. Though I
have taken a lot of Buddhist teachings, I personally do not chant or
participate in rituals and I do not encourage anyone else to do so, so,
technically, I am not a Buddhist as I am not supporting the established form
of that religion.

Your interpretation of my message below, is most simplistfic and even silly.
I realize my message was not that specific. I was just giving my personal
impressions and will try to be more specific in the future. When is that
future. You will just have to wait and see. As I have said, I work very
slowly, and have other stuff to do.This was in reply to your very own
message which was of the similar ilk in that it was also non-specific in the
very same way, and at the very least, my message provided a little contrast,
of an equally non-specific nature. Actually, though, equally is not the
right word, as I have expressed an important idea in my message, the
difference between the well-formed construction of any major organically
evolved and finely-tuned-over centuries religion and Madame Blavatsky's
teaching. I am prepared to give examples of this in the future, but it is
probably not even necessary, as anyone can go to any section of her writings
and see what I am talking about, as she takes bits and pieces out of context
and puts them together in such a way as to illustrate or show something
else, but ONLY SO MUCH CAN BE CONVEYED THIS WAY, as there is no underlying
structure that can be organicallly traced back to the whole in such a way
that a person can relate it to his own physical functioning. (As above, so
below).

As far as a hidden agenda goes, as I have said, with me there is always a
hidden agenda in the sense that I do not let the left hand know what the
right hand is doing. Am I supposed to? There is also a folk saying, "Never
show an unfinished project to a woman or a half-crazy man." (I did not make
this up. Some guy actually told this to me once and said he heard it from
his father.

Communication is not just about words, but it is also about affect and
flavor, as well as what is conveyed by the form of the written material or
what, if anything is between the lines. If you do not like my work, just
think of me as yet another ignorant person and feel compassion for me. I
have actually making a lot of assumptions that many people are able to take
the leap and see what I am suggesting about Madame Blavatsky, as to me it is
so apparant, but perhaps I am idealizing the abilities of the "average"
person on this list. I am not sure. I have had the problem of doing this in
the past, and it is a flaw I am attempting to correct Sincerely, Wry.


----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Wry on Blavatsky part one


> Hi Wry,
>
> Pardon me if I appear to be blunt (although, I'll try to be polite :-) --
but
> your statements and assertions below, which seem to have little basis in
> facts, seem to me to be quite fallacious. And, also, appear as if you're
> trying to convince us that you know something theosophists don't, because
> they are following the wrong teacher. If so, does that mean you consider
> yourself the "right great world teacher" now ready to take her place? I
> wonder what AB and AAB, if they were still around, would say about that?
:-)
>
> So, I also wonder if this isn't the first introduction to a hidden agenda
> with the purpose of trying to organize theosophists into a new religion --
> using this forum as its focus -- with you as its high priestess?
>
> Hadn't AB already tried that -- and failed? Didn't AAB pick up AB's
marbles
> -- and turn her pseudo theosophy, and DK's phony "white magic" into a "New
> Age" religion that attracts all the weak minded sheep who need a "leader"
or
> "prophet" to bolster their "blind belief"? Didn't this self professed
> teacher further addle their minds with gobbledygook magic, and tell them
they
> can save the world by ritual group prayer, by welcoming living messiahs,
and
> accepting vicarious atonement's? Is that any different from all the other
> organized priest crafty religions that already exist? Is that the kind of
> new theosophical religion you want to introduce us to? Or, do you have a
new
> twist?
>
> So, in any event, what gives you the idea that theosophists need a new
> religion in order to fullfill the three objects of the TM -- that they
> already feel is all they can do to "save the world" (or become the helpers
of
> those who have a workable plan that might do so)? So, far no such "Master
> Magician" has shown up, and I don't expect one ever will... (At least in
this
> forum. ;-) Are you that one? If so, what's the plan? Come up with a
good
> one, and I'll be the first to climb aboard.


>
> But if you can't, what makes you think you can do better than AB or AAB --
> especially, starting here, in an open forum where all the independent
> theosophical free thinkers hang out -- and who *know* how false any
> "organized religion" can be? Besides, what makes you assume that
theosophy,
> as presented by the Masters through the medium of HPB, has ever been
> considered a "religion"? Why do you think the SD is subtitled, "A
Synthesis
> of Science, Religion and Philosophy"? In such a synthesis, which part of
it
> comes first? Which is more necessary to know or practice? Isn't it self
> evident that they can't be separated? Or, do you have a different view of
> theosophy than most serious students do?
>
> Haven't you studied the SD in depth (as it should be, for one who
professes
> to be a teacher of its "Secrets")? Haven't you read the Mahatma Letters?
> Or, are you just making all this up -- your "special knowledge," your
> connection with the same secret society as HPB, your new religion, etc. --
> out of your own head? Where and what is your "Truth"? I've read all your
> letters to this and other forums, and as yet, while I know what you are
> implying you know, I do not see any evidence that you actually know what
you
> are talking about. In fact, judging by your misjudgments of what theosophy
> actually teaches, I'm not sure you know anything useful at all from a
> theosophical, or even a scientific, philosophical or religious point of
view.
> If not, I wonder why you have chosen this forum as your platform? Is it,
> that our contradictory arguments with each other and apparent separateness
> (which really isn't the case, since some of us are mavericks who like
> stirring pots to find out who's who and what's what ;-) makes us an easy
> target for someone who want's to bring us together in what she feels is
the
> "proper" way to discuss and/or "practice" theosophy as a "religion"?
>
> Didn't HPB (and also, GB & JC) teach that we each have to practice our own
> individual religion or yoga, to follow our own individual path of
necessity,
> and that we are each the only "leader" of our own personal "religion" --
with
> our own higher Self as its only High Priest and "unbiased observer"?
Didn't
> JK say exactly the same thing after he broke away from AB's and CWL's so
> called, "theosophical religion" (the LCC)? So, what makes you think JK
> "broke away from HPB"? Wasn't it only that throwback, Christianized
> religious distortion of theosophy that he split from? And, didn't he,
from
> then on, teach about traveling the same individual, self chosen "pathless
> path" that HPB pointed out to all her disciples right from the beginning?
>
> Haven't you even read her instructions given to WQJ and RC, as well as to
all
> true theosophists in all her conversations and writings? How ignorant or
> knowledgeable are you of the real teachings of theosophy (and it's sister
> wisdom teachings of pure Hermetic occultism and alchemy)? What do you
know
> about what HPB taught in her esoteric section? Have you read and
understood
> her teachings in the "Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge"? Don't you
think
> you should study all her writings, before spouting off about the character
of
> HPB, the wisdom of her teachings, or what the Theosophical Movement is all
> about?
>
> Maybe, if we actually knew what you keep beating around the bush implying
> that you know about theosophy and occultism -- some of us who really
"know"
> might be able to help you find your path, or your place here, (or even
give
> you a boost if you've already found it). But, wouldn't it be wise for you
to
> understand that your path is not necessarily our path? Reading between
the
> lines of HPB, who directly tells it as it is, whether symbolically or
> metaphorically, is not the same thing as reading between your lines...
That
> appear to be nothing but word salads of vague implications and misdirected
> criticisms slippery sliding all around the issues without any direct
> transmission of useful information.
>
> Could it be, then, that its you who's the one "mixed up and immature"? If
> HPB didn't know how to present the ancient knowledge and wisdom properly,
why
> don't you show us how she should have done it? Could it be that she's the
> one who has brought us the modern "time relevant" teaching, and its you
who
> are sneakily and slyly trying to drag us back to a 12th century version of
> organized religion and worship of Gods and rituals -- that theosophy
> completely denies and deplores.
>
> So, maybe you should wake up, my fair lady, and start to either teach us
> something worthwhile about theosophy we don't already know, give us a
useful
> yoga -- or tell us exactly what your hidden agenda is. So, far your
intents,
> while intentionally cloudy on the surface, are as transparent as glass to
> some of us. My take is that you wish to capture the members of this forum
as
> your own private ashram or sangha -- with you as the Guru-ji. Well, go
ahead
> and try. It would be interesting to see whether or not you really can
live
> up to what you imply about your profound occult wisdom (that you always
seem
> to be ready to "talk about later" -- but never do). In the meantime, why
> don't you back up what you do say and show us how outdated theosophy
really
> is? For starters, how about telling us where are its dogmas? What does
it
> teach or present wrong?
>
> So far, as I see it, and in spite of your unfounded opinions to the
contrary
> -- Theosophy is working just fine... Exactly the way the real Masters of
the
> Great Light Brotherhood wanted it to go. And, I'm certain that they and
> their disciples and brothers (who are here watching you now ;-) would be
> perfectly satisfied if each true theosophist *independently* follows the
> three objects of the Theosophical Movement, thoroughly learns the
Mysteries
> of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis (and, thus, the "magic" of
"compassionate
> creation") while practicing the heart doctrine -- through their own "self
> devised and self determined study and efforts." Those that follow that
path,
> as Krishnamurti did, need no conniving gurus to take charge of theosophy
and
> turn it backwards into a group oriented religious order with all kinds of
> rituals, dogmas and worshipful Gods. All we need now is another AB, CWL,
> AAB, and their spinoff "false Prophets" to form another splinter group
> religion that parrots all the rest of the deific worshippers who can do
> nothing but engage in theological and physical wars among each other.
That
> kind of separateness is the last thing theosophy, or the world needs.
>
> So, maybe you should go back and study what theosophy is all about and
what
> it teaches before you try to fix what is not broken... Could this "fixing"
be
> for the purpose of either satisfying your own personal ego -- or
> (intentionally or innocently) do the work of the Dugpas and false
prophets?
> And, if so, is it your intention to split apart all the true, independent
> theosophists, by breaking their resolve to stick with the fundamental
> teachings of HPB, and turn them into sheep that get buried in your
personal
> new religion -- that puts the starting point for spiritual enlightenment
on
> the selfish "perfection of the physical plane." That's just the opposite
of
> theosophy -- which sees all the planes as one trinity, quaternary,
septenary,
> etc., that ALL have to be aligned and harmonized simultaneously to achieve
> self realization or enlightenment and, thereby, become useful to the
> Theosophical Movement.
>
> Although, there's nothing wrong with such bottom up "Zen" practices that
you
> seem to be talking about... That is, so long as all the other levels of
> consciousness are equally worked on from the top down. But, that is just
> plain, all encompassing theosophy as taught by HPB and the Masters. So,
do
> we really need your new religion? As far as I can see, all major
organized
> religions have been "fine tuned all through the ages" and "turned into
dogma"
> simply to maintain the positions and support of its crafty priests and
their
> "insider" minions, property and infrastructures. So, let's not turn
> theosophy into that. Transcendence can come automatically when one "gets
it"
> entirely on one's own. There's no such thing as true and lasting
> transcendence by ritual, or group worship -- for so long as the mind is
not
> awakened to the true nature of reality, such ritually and "mob
psychological"
> group induced ecstasy, mistaken as transcendence, is a will of the wisp...
> No more than an empty taste of the real thing -- that can only come about
> through devoted attention to one's self chosen path toward self
realization
> and enlightenment. But, none of it can happen until one thoroughly knows
the
> entire true nature (scientific, philosophical and religious) of what one
is
> being enlightened about, why and what for. So, let's hope hope we can
just
> leave it at that, and get on with theosophy -- as it was originally taught
to
> those who taught HPB how to teach it to us at this time and place in human
> history and the state of human consciousness -- which I doubt has changed
> much in the last century from the way HPB saw it then, and predicted it
would
> still be today.
>
> So, I hope you take all that in the true spirit of brotherhood.
>
> Considering the busyness of your work, please don't think you have to
answer
> all the questions above... Most of which are purely rhetorical, and asked
> solely for the benefit of those theosophists not yet ready to think for
> themselves. :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> LHM
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 01/28/03 3:11:13 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Hi. I personally do not believe this is the time on earth for people to
> >practice individual religions, but most people will not give up their
> religion
> >until they have something to replace it with. All major organic religions
> >are designed, tested and fine-tuned over many hundreds of years by many
> >individuals, not just one, to convey material to individuals of various
> >levels of understanding by the means of allegory in story, art and
ritual,
> >in such a way that it can be organically assimilated onto their
functioning
> >in such a way that there is TRANSCENDENCE. True, when people interpret
> >this symbolism literally, it crystallizes into dogma, and this is a big
> >problem, but at least there is a change for certain material to be
conveyed.
> >
> >With theosophy, it is different. It does NOT succeed in doing this..
> Blavatsky
> >was too mixed up. She had certain knowledge, but did NOT understand how
> >to present it. She was quite developed in some ways, but in other ways,
> >she was spiritually IMMATURE. This is why the conditions she established,
> >as part of an interconnected continuum, led to what someone on here
recently
> >dismissed as "the Krishnamurti incident." Any mature spiritual person
would
> >need to reject her teaching in order to fulfil the prophecy of actually
> >becoming a great world teacher.
> >
> >Just as, if religion is not working, there is are reasons, so also, if
> >theosophy is not working there are reasons, but all of the reasons are
> >not exactly the same. I believe she was successful in that she brought
> >eastern teachings to the west at a certain time, but as far as achieving
> >the aim of a universal brotherhood, theosophy will not work unless there
> >is a different approach. I am willing to enquire into this with members
> >of this list. The Order Of The Star was dissolved by its leader. It is
> >over. You are acting as if still exists, but it does not. It is
impossible
> >to work this all out without enquiring deeply. If no one is interested
> >in doing this, nothing will change. This is sad.
> >
> >No Buddhist, Hindu, Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim or whatever is going
> >to give up his FINELY-TUNED, though perhaps time-appropriate religion,
> >which, at the very least, can create a state of deep reverence which
> resonates
> >within, no matter how imperfect it is, to read the confused writings of
> >Madame Blavatsky. In my opinion, theosophy in its present form will not
> >accomplish the aim for which it was designed. Wry
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>