Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00071)

Hi. Dallas. You should not be replying to a message on here that I posted to
another list. I HAVE ASKED YOU BEFORE NOT TO DO THIS, AS YOU WELL KNOW. To
me what you are doing is a dirty tactic and does not lead to real
communication. Therefore I am posting the original message and you can take
the responsibility for this.
Wry-------------------------------------------------------

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Three


> Hi Wry,
>
> There is record of Blavatsky actually teaching people face to face,
> orally, etc. But she also wrote books. It seems to me you are blaming
> her for writing books.

WRY: Blaming her for writing books? No, She did an interesting job, but
there is something WRONG with her books, in my opinion. One thing among
others is that she leads people to believe that a certain kind and quality
of knowledge is written in stone, and what she actually suceeeds in doing is
turning many of these gullibles INTO stone. Other spiritual writers do not
do this. You will not end up "stopped," in a state of fixed contemplation
which is NOT the end of the physchological self and in which state you do
not really have the knowledge to consciously DO anything significantt. If
you do not understand what I mean by "stopped," I cannot explain it any
further. Someone who reads this will understand what I am talking about. It
is an ETERNALISTIC state which is the end result. Maybe some others are more
able to get into this state then you and this is why you don't understand.
If so, you are lucky (I guess), though it might not be so bad to get into
this spot iIF a person knew how to get out of it and WHAT TO DO NEXT, but
they will not, as there is no real knowledge given about how to do this. In
my opinion, a good spiritual teaching will not have this result. But maybe I
am wrong. .

> > 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.
> How on earth can you judge where his mind is at???? Are you claiming
> to be an advanced clairvoyant?

WRY: By his works you can know him. Everything he has written points in this
direction. To me it is very clear, but maybe I am wrong. A stablelized state
of contemplation leads automatically to a state of being MESMERIZED, as in
this state, the oscillation frequencies cannot be appropriately and
continuously adjusted. If anyone on this list wants to send me money, I will
set up a special account with pay pal. I could use a thousand dollars right
now to further my Work. (Ha ha).


> >
> > 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 don't yet know theosophy - so don't judge it.

WRY: It is easy to know a whole great big lot about theosophy just by being
on several theosophy lists and by reading different books. It might be a
good to stick to ideas and not worry about defending the reputation of
theosophy. You are putting yourself up as an authority. What if I were to
say to you that YOU don't know alot about theosophy or that you don't know a
lot about me? Just stick to ideas. I have given a VALUABLE KEY IDEA THAT
RELATES TO THE SUBJECT OF ETERNALISM. People are reading this. Some will
understand. I am not the enemy of theosophy. I am its very good FRIEND. I
have also given OTHER VALUABLE MATERIAL. Do not look a gift horse in the
mouth.

> > 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.
> This is what H.P. Blavatsky tried to create, I think, but she did not
> succeed - indeed. She was the first to admit that, I think (though
> perhaps it would be fairer to say: she quit her body, which given her
> track record of miraculous healing was sort of a way of saying: this
> isn't working well enough, I give up.) But then, nobody is able to
> create a sanga on their own. The people around her weren't ready -
> so, does that disqualify her as a teacher?

WRY: I believe she did try to create sangha and it must have been
extraordinary to know her. In any case, she did a lot. You may not be able
to make a connection between her and Krishnamurti, but to me it is very
clear. I believe he was the fruitation of her work, which was major. This is
a compliment to her. In amy case, she is not what I am looking for in a
teacher, as, for one thing, she is dead.


> > >
> > > 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: A further comment on this. I believe she made a noble attempt, but did
not succeed, as she got fixated on a state of samadhi-like contemplation and
did not go beyond. All major religions are about going beyond this, and set
up in such a way that the knowledge is in there (admittedly perhaps only for
a few to find) about how to do this. Then again, the fact the she could so
easily, by her writings, bring many people to experience such a state of
contemplation, to varying degreees, is not be be discounted and is really
quite extraordinary. I believe what I have said so far has had the effect
that I am seeming to discount this the POTENTIAL VALUE of this, as I have
focused on criticism of this aspect, not on its inherent potential if the
spell can be broken. Maybe what she did was necessary.

> >
> > 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.
> You don't think there is a difference between people in their ability
> to understand certain things?


WRY: I have left many messages claiming this and I believe I very recently
left another one. Spititual teachings need to be designed for people of many
different levels. Some people are more able and ready to receive certain
material, but we are all the common man if there are only flickers of
awareness that do not extend into a plane. This is one of the secrets of
esoteric work, the ordinary little field flower blooming out of the mud. If
you ponder this for a while, maybe what I am trying to say will come to you.

>You yourself have claimed to be the
> only one capable of understanding both theosophy and Krishnamurti

WRY: I don't believe I ever claimed this about either. It can be perhaps
WRONGLY CONSTRUED that I have implied something to this effect about
theosophy, but about Krishanurti, never. Be cool.


> (and I suppose Tibetan Buddhism) well enough to do something special,

WRY: You are just reacting, as I see it, and handling material in very broad
sets. (I do it too sometimes). About Tibetan Buddhism I have said that I am
not even a Mayahana Buddhist but am ASPIRING to enter the mahayana path and
about to do so (which, admittedly, would make me ususual, as it would mean I
am able to generate the greater boddhichitta, but this has not happened
yet.)

> get some special kind of insight -

WRY: It is not about insight. It is about designing and making.

> which indicates that there are at
> least three levels in your mind: the rest of us, you, your master.

WRY: It would have to be this way, but it is to simplistic. Anyone who can
teach me something or open me to something I have not previously seen is my
teacher at the moment. My special gift has always been being able to be
little at the right moment. Because of this I have always been accessible to
great teachers, as I am always in the right frame of mind. It is about
learning not about teachers. Many extraordinary learning opportunities have
always been miraculously available to me because of this frame of mind.
This is one of my secrets. Another is that I always keep my "wolf" intact in
a teaching situation where I must consciously take the role of a sheep. This
is what a great teacher is looking for. There is no real transference of a
certain kind of data without it. I hope you folks realize that I am no
authority and that anything I say could be wrong. This is why it would be
greatly valuable for a simple verification model to agreed upon and
practiced when people are away from this list and going about their daily
lives.

> What I suppose you can't conceive of is that HPB's work wasn't meant
> for you - either because you are not ready, or because, like
> Krishnamurti, you are already beyond it.

WRY: Her teaching is not static. ( It, as anything, is to be used
consciously and designed with.) This is what you seem to be missing. I do
not believe that refering to what you subjectively conceive of as being her
"work", as ia base, is what being a theosophist is about. I have chosen
this SPOT, theos-talk, because, in my estimation, it is IMPORTANT for me to
be here right now, and this discision is not merely self-serving. There may
be a possibility here for a certain kind of greater doing.

>As for the rest of humanity,
> I don't think you are spiritually ready to be able to judge about
> that.
> > >It

WRY: "I" do not think "you" are spiritually able to judge whether I am or
not. (See, this is how children talk.) It is all a matter of
discrimination. The cream will always rise to the top. If anyone tries to
keep it down, this garve error is, what is called in the New Testament,
putting Lucifer over Jesus Christ, the one sin that is unforgivable. The
reason I am using so much Christian terminology on this list, by the way, is
not because I am a Christian, though, in a certain way I am, but because
this is a tradition that most of the people on this list have probably been
raised in, or at least exposed to, so, when I use this terminology, you are
most likely to understand. People do not seem to get this. They go off on a
tangent about the evils of Christianity.


> > > 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 will comment on this later.


> >
> > WRY: I have this book and will refer to it next, if I get the time.
> Well, you will only be convinced of Blavatsky's inability to express
> her thoughts well. It is even more chaotic than The Secret Doctrine.
> If you want something written from one clear perspective, with one
> message, a logical build up etc. Turn to The Key to Theosophy or The
> Voice of the Silence, or any of her online articles. Isis and the SD
> are indeed weird, unstraightforward. The Secret Doctrine is the well-
> organized one of the two. I think there was a good reason for that,
> you don't, but the basic fact is quite simply correct.

WRY: I do not recall saying anything of the kind. What do you mean by "the
basic fact is quite simply correct"? What basic fact? You lose me here.
Please expound. Wry
>
> Katinka Hesselink
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>