Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00048)

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Yes, Wry, some good examples might help


> Let me add my two cents to this discussion.
>
> Wry, You are perfectly correct in your comparison between the SD and a
> religious scripture such as the Gospel of St. John. They are certainly
not
> the same teachings, nor were they written for the same purpose. But, it's
> like comparing apples to oranges.

WRY: You are missing the point entirely. Obviously these were designed for
two different purposes. What you do not seem to understand is that #1: all
of us start out as the common man and #2: obviously you do not, cannot, and
will not believe this, but, though knowledge of a certain kind can be
transmitted in the way she attempts to, other knowledge cannot be given in
this way. It can only be SHOWN. It needs to enter the functioning of the
receiver in a certain balanced configuration that has something to do with
subtleties in timing. When this is not done, and it is NOT, people can get
stuck (MESMERIZED) on one aspect and this is what has happened. We can get
past it, but you do not want to look at this. You cannot. You are stuck in a
mode of contemplation that is not GENERATIVE. That is the way this teaching
is set up. I am really sorry about this, but I have had nothing to do with
it. This is not to say that there is no value in her teaching and that no
good can come out of it.

The stuff you have said about Mahayana Buddhism, which I just now read,
having somehow missed it, is way offf the mark. The aim of Mahayana
Buddhism is NOT the kind of static contemplation you are talking about as a
realization of the zero point or whatever. You do not understand. I have
experienced the deep contemplation of this zero point as have countless
others. Go past. Go past. Theosophy is NOT the middle way, nor is the middle
way the contemplation of a zero point. There is something else.

You will not be able to help other human beings until you understand the
secrets of certain interactions that can occur between the physical body and
the outside world. As above, so below. It is not about contemplation. This
is not the secret of what being fully alive is about. The middle way is
about the establishment of Sangha or spiritual community. Classically, this
term refers to the community which establishes and maintains a religion, but
Sangha is also a symbol for something else. Unfortunately, the inner-meaning
can probably not be understood or transmitted without the participation in
some kind of Sangha or other. When I speak about establishing a certain kind
of community, I am not speaking about establishing a religion. A certain
atmosphere needs to be created and maintained by group participation, in
which every member of the group works for the good of himself, every other
member, and the group as a whole. Until this happens, the inner meaning of
Sangha cannot be communicated. More about this later.

>
> Please understand that the SD was not designed to be a "spiritual
teaching,"
> nor a yoga or religious practice, for the "common man." The Voice of the
> Silence is sufficient for that -- as is the spiritual teachings of one's
> chosen religion. Theosophy is perfectly compatible with the idea of
> theosophists being members of any religion -- since all religions have the
> same spiritual, moral and ethical basis. But, the SD is a special case
(even
> as compared to HPB's other writings on both occult metaphysics as well as
> spiritual ideas). So, it is not the "Bible" of theosophy. It was written
> solely as a textbook or reference for those seeking to understand the
deepest
> meanings of the metaphysical basis upon which all those religions rest

WRY: I will read The Voice of Silence, but no matter, as you will not
understand it this way. The teaching is always oral. You cannot get it from
a book. Certain books can give the tools to decipher, but they are always
written for the common man, as the man who does not understand certain
material, no matter how intellectually sophisticated or even kind hearted,
is always common if he is ignorant, which he is, if he does not understand
the material.

>It
> is, therefore, a textbook of metaphysical science and the philosophy of
> religions -- but not a "religion" or a teaching designed to give someone a
> transcendent "feeling of spirituality." It was designed solely to expand
on
> the comparative religion studies in Isis Unveiled

WRY: I have this book and will refer to it next, if I get the time.

>and to further educate
> prospective acolytes on the way toward becoming Adepts -- through its
> teaching of the fundamental truths of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis,
along
> with the metaphysical basis of the psychical powers latent in man. Its
> ostensible goal was to guide those students toward the use of such powers
for
> the benefit of Humanity, so as to help them, as a whole, form the
Universal
> Brotherhood of Humanity, as well as help the Masters in putting human
> evolution back on the right track.

WRY: This is, sadly, a pipe-dream. Whatever good her work may have
accomplished, it is now time-inappropriate. Also, there is no such thing as
eternal knowledge, as NOTHING is not knowledge and has nothing to do with
developing the discrimination that real knowledge of interdependent scales
(of material) and their relationship to the doing of something new consists
of.

So, it could never serve as a "Bible" for
> any religion. Nor is it "the aim of theosophy to establish a universal
> brotherhood."

WRY: I gave the Gospel of John simply as an example of well-constructed
allegorical material. If we fully understood this story, perhaps we would
have real knowledge of the physics of the universe in relationship to and
interdependent with the human body.

(snip? If part of this is missing, I think only a letter, my computer did
this. Sorry) >ll its students were expected to do was individually form the
> "nucleus" (which means "A central or essential part around which other
parts
> are gathered or grouped") -- not THE Brotherhood itself.

WRY: This is gobbledy-gook, plus no such nuculeus has been formed, as far as
I know, and there is NOT unlimited time to do so. If there were a nucleus,
it would be fanning out from the center and affecting what is happening in
the real world, such as on this list, which is a sort of hub where many
people connect and view the archives.

>
> Also, the reason why the SD appears as not to be an "organic whole" is
only
> apparent on its surface, if you think of it as being written for
"everybody"
> and every purpose. Much of it, in fact, was intentionally written in a
> disorganized manner so as to discourage "common people," still caught up
in
> their materialistic world, from being able to penetrate into the deeper
> mysteries and magic it teaches -- that only those ready in this 5th round,
> 5th race and 5th subrace for their 5th plane rational and 6th plane
intuitive
> mental development (which is necessary before true Spiritual development).
> So it is entirely "time appropriate." That is, if one can see further than
> the end of their present lifetime, or get off the lower four planes and
start
> thinking with both their rational and intuitive mind about the eternal NOW
as
> being the synthesis of past, present and future.

WRY: The section above is one of the stupidist things I have read since I
have been on the internet. You do not think about a synthesis. There is only
learning. Admittedly I have not been subjected to most of the stupidity on
the web, as I have tried to choose intelligent people. You are like a
born-again Christian. There is no way to communicate with you.

>As for your take on all
> this, I too, think you just don't know what you are talking about.
>
> So, I suggest you find out what theosophy is all about, what it teaches in
> the SD,
> why it was exposed when it was, and what were the purposes of such
disclosure
> -- before criticizing its presentation. along with trying to twist it from
> its real purpose, into a religion that's suits your own personal
development
> in this lifetime, and distract its students with other hidden and
apparently
> short term agendas (which are too obscure to make any comment about).

WRY: Don't worry your pretty little head about other lifetimes or larger
time-frames. You are asleep. It will not matter what you say or do, as there
is no third force. Of course this is not your own opinion of the matter,
which is sad.

> In any
> event, that's a pretty narrow time frame or focus for a serious
theosophist
> whose primary interest is (and who can also be a follower of the
fundamental
> spiritual teachings of any religion or yoga) in fully developing his
> intuitive mind -- so as to arrive at "self realization" in order to become
> "better able to help and teach others."

WRY: Never show an unfinished project to a woman or a half-crazy man.
>
> So, I think it would be good advice that before one tries to heal another,
or
> veer him from his self chosen path that one should take heed of the rule
of
> Hermes, who said, "Physician, heal thyself", or that of Jesus who said,
> "before you try to remove the cast from another's eye, see to the mote in
> your own."

WRY: Do your Work (which as far as I can see, doesn't exist), and I will do
mine. WRY
>
> LHM
>
>
> In a message dated 02/03/03 2:17:35 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Hi. I have just spent 20 minutes looking throughn a bunch of emails,
mostly
> >from this list, reading three or four, deleting some and marking the rest
> >unread. Usually this takes longer. I have then gone downstairs and found
> >some reprints from the Secret Doctrine, thinking to quote a section, and
> >then come back up here and spent five minutes leafing through this stuff,
> >but it is all the same. Any part can be used as an example. I have
chapter
> >two of The Secret Doctrine. It is admittedly somewhat interesting, You
can
> >compare this to the Gospel of John. Neither one, in my opinion, is time
> >appropriate, but one is an organic whole. the other is not. Moreover, the
> >common man can read the story of the gospels and not intellectually
> >understand the inner meaning at all and yet come away with something that
> >is whole and approaches and even touches the esoteric, as it is
> >well-constructed allegory,. and even by reading it and not fully
> >understanding it, he will be changed, and maybe someday, much later, he
> >will understand, but The Secret Doctrine the common man will NOT read or
> >understand either now or later. Do you dispute this? A good spiritual
> >teaching is for everyone. It is simple. This is my understanding, though
> >you may not agree.
> >
> >If it is the aim of theosophy to establish a universal brotherhood,
people
> >will need to begin to grasp the concept of limited time. Until what is
> >called in the Bible "the last day," which has a meaning not only symbolic
> >but also literal, all time is LIMITED, not unlimited. This means that
people
> >do not have forever to accomplish a given mission.The first
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>