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

Re: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Four

Feb 06, 2003 10:24 PM
by wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Four

> Thursday, February 06, 2003
> Dear Wry:
> I am sorry if I unwittingly offended you.
> I do not recall your asking me not to post replies or comments on your
> postings elsewhere.

WRY: Actually, I did not. I went back to my original message and what I said
was that it made me feel really strange, but it was o.k., so I guess I
should apologize to you, but I assumed you would not do it after that. You
made me some kind of reply to this, but I could not find it in the archives.
Maybe it was private.

> I would have observed that if I had. This is the last time I will do
> so, to complete the link.
> I thought you understood that the posting of Internet correspondence
> is read by a wide sector of interested people -- not all of whom
> respond, and not all of whom agree.

WRY: What do you mean? Why are you saying this to me. I am missing it. Are
you referring to some part of a message I wrote? You are implying I expect
everyone to agree with me. Please explain.

> In Theosophy (the study of TRUTH) we have no secrets, and we do not
> present two aspects of ourselves (and our opinions) to different sets
> of people.

WRY: Why are you saying this to me? Again, I do not understand. Are you
referring to something I have done or said (I assume you are) and if so,
what? Please answer, so I can understand enough to respond. In any case, I
will comment on this, even though I have not yet received a response to
these questions which I have just asked. #!. If you think do not have any
secrets, you have a big problem. What if you (or I) think we know ourselves,
but we don't. Then we have a big secret. We are fooling ourselves and
others. Or what if you are doing a project for the common welfare that
cannot be completed and will even be sabotaged (by ignorant people who
fantazise they are good) if you let the cat out of the bag?

> We try to write as Souls deeply interested in securing help (by
> comparison and discussion) from one another in our search for truth.
> In this we are united and not divided. I do not see how you can call
> this a "dirty tactic." My method has the benefit of letting everyone
> to be able to deal with things in common -- no "secrets."

WRY: O.kayeeee.....You responded to a messagew I posted on this list,
on there who are not on this list NEVER SAW MY MESSAGE. That seems sort of
wrong. And what are you talking about when you say "no secrets? Please
answer this. I feel a dark and ominous current that does not impress me as
human goodness coming from this message. The TONE is problematic, (but
that's ok. I guess. Just want to point this out, as it is important to
recognize. You should not say "we" the way you do. It is SCAREY. i DO NOT

> Perhaps some help can be offered to us, by any one interested.
> The fact that we have several groups that correspond openly among
> themselves -- as apparently not all members know all those in other
> groups -- and then cover greater areas, indicates to me that there is
> a wide and a common interest in finding out what Theosophy explains
> and covers, and how we may view different subjects. And, I think, on
> examination, we can say: we are all progressing in our individual
> studies as well as jointly. I am of the opinion that the individual
> practice of Universal Brotherhood -- the primary objective of the
> It is with this in mind that I post to all: to read or not, to make
> judgment or not, to advance mutual help or not, to provide helpful
> insights or not -- as I do.

WRY: This is sort of whacked in my opinion. All these different groups are a
result of FRAGMENTATION because there isn't a common unity. Is this not
true? This kind of cross-correspondence is counter-productive, in my
opinion, and I have never seen anything like it. Everyone *not literally but
at least figuratively) wants Jerry to see their messages, BUT HE WAS DRIVEN
OFF OF HERE probably by people like you, though I am not sure it was you,
and some others left with him. I do not like getting six or seven to ten
messages from you in one day in my email, part of these from multiple
postings. Frankly it is sort of sickening, like being in a hot room with
something oily, but I am obviosul;y having a reaction and for this, I
apologize. In any case, if my whole message had been posted, it wouldn't
have been so bad. I know Theos-list only takes twenty lines, but that is not
my problem. When I try to respond on these two lists to your or other
messages, I run into difficulties and this is why I sometimes have not
included the original message, and then I have been criticized for this. Wry
> Best wishes,
> Dallas
> ==================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Four
> Hi. Dallas.
> You should not be replying to a message on here that I posted to
> another list.
> 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: <>
> To: <>
> 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 succeeds in
> doing is
> turning many of these gullible 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 psychological self and in which state you
> do
> not really have the knowledge to consciously DO anything significant.
> 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
> 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
> 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

[Back to Top]

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