Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00160)

Hi Leon. I am not going to be able to be on here as much for a while, as
things are deteriorating and the atmosphere is too confusing. To me your
rantings have a pronounced lunatic tinge to them, which is very saddening. I
cannot reply to your whole message, or even read it all, but will try to
answer the first part and maybe get to the other parts in the future. but I
do not know if I can do this, as I cannot think of much of an objective
payoff for me, you or anyone on here, to get wrapped up in a maze with you.

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World IMMORTAL?


Friends,
Since this writer seems to be talking to the group in general, I thought I'd
do the same thing while also, where approriate, switch to talking directly
to
the writer.

In a message dated 03/06/03 4:19:22 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi, "I am immortal" is a thought. To THINK this breaks material down in
>such a way that one cannot fully BE, as this kind of thinking creates a
>reference point or remainder which is always in relationship to the
psychological
>complex of ones ordinary reactive self (personality) which has been formed
>and conditioned by life or nature. In my opinion this kind of talk is a
>form of ignorance and no person of real understanding would talk in this
>way, except if it were time -appropriate in relationship to the realization
>of a specific aim and in this served a function, but maybe I am wrong.

You may be right if you think this is what theosophists mean when they talk
about immortality. But, I think most of your assumptions as well as your
assertions are wrong. Mainly because, judging from all your writings, I
don't think you have any real understanding of theosophy or its objects.

WRY: Then you need to not write occasional very long foaming at the mouth
emails such as this, but take one little point and ask one little specific
question. In this way we each can learn together.

>In
effect, all you seem to be saying is that we should abandon the 2nd and 3rd
object of the movement, forget about reincarnation and karma,


WRY: As you well know, I personally subscribe to these doctrines, but they
need to be put into perspective in a certain way, and if you examine the way
they are being used on here, you will see this is not happening. I have
already gone into this, but I am willing to enquire into it further.

>and put
ourselves into your hands and you will lead us like sheep to the "promised
land," so to speak -- where we can fully "BE" in our "physical nature."
(Whatever that means.)

WRY: This is quite the opposite of where I am coming from. You are already a
sheep. I am talking about developinbg two forces, the sheep and the wolf
within yourself, in such a way that they are balanced and you develop an
active force. Unfortunately, no one can "lead" anyone to this, as a certain
kind of specific Work is required.When there is a pure and impartial
verification in present time of the physical body moving around as an
object, both the impartial verifier AND the object are pure. Between these
two, something else is created. IS THIS NOT WHAT MADAME BLAVATSKY IS
SPEAKING OF OR AM I THE LUNATIC/

>Sounds like dyed in the wool priest crafty materialism to me. And, it sure
isn't theosophy.


WRY: It IS theosophy.

>So, what is it doing here? I thought this was a forum to
discuss theosophy as it really is.


WRY; You should not use language in this way. It goes against the exercise
of human conscience. You are skipping a step. Your immature reason that
handles material in broad sets and takes big leaps is based on emotional
like and dislike and does not conform to evolutionary law.

> Besides, since when did theosophy teach
that we should drag the spirit down to the physical level?

WRY: If you cherish the spirit in this way(holding it "up" in your mind), it
is a form of incest, which degrades it. When the body is in line with the
plane of impartial seeing, a discrepency that creates residue (dirt) will be
corrected and then maybe the subtle winds or whatever can come to rest in
the heart. This is PURE THEOSOPHY. Can you not see it?

> I thought it
taught just the opposite. Also, how can we be forced to follow your path as
the only way to reach enlightenment and achieve the nucleus of universal
brotherhood, when you keep saying that you think Krishnamurti, who denied
the
possibility of a group path and said there is no path, except the one we
each
can find within our own life, was teaching a correct version of theosophy?

WRY: I never said Krishnamurti was teaching a correct version of theosophy,
though that is an interesting idea. Also, I am not forcing anyone to follow
a path on here. It is ridiculous. If they could be forced, it would be
authority. I do not want to turn people into sheep, but if I did, I would
not have to, as it has been done already.

>(Maybe you should read the comments on this subject I made to Steve


WRY: You gotta be kidding. I can't even get through this raving, nor, I
believe, can anyone else.

>recently.) But, then you already said that everything I say goes in one
ear
and out the other -- so I don't expect such truths will penetrate too
deeply.:-)

WRY: You are not demonstrating truths, just talking broad assumptions and
feelings.


>Empty talk with vague implications of some profound knowledge is easy.

WRY: I give specific material in my messages. Only some can receive it (and
some probably have).

> But
teachings others what they have to know to discriminate between the real and
the unreal is very difficult.



WRY: Agreed.

> One must be far more direct and honest -- with
an entirely altruistic desire solely to "help and teach others."


WRY: What is this talking, a man or an automaton?

> Self desire
for one's personal enlightenment is still the same old unresolved greed...
That is the antipathy of theosophical principles of altruism and self
sacrifice. Certainly, the teacher learns by teaching what one knows --
mainly by trying to answer the deeper questions of the students... But, for
a
true theosophist, that cannot be even a shadow of the motive that drives one
to do it.

WRY: You sound like a five year old. There are people in this world who want
to develop in such a way that they can achieve their birthright. When an
opportunity presents itself, these people will take it. Do not be mistaken.


>Implications that you know something profound by statements following
mystical sounding vagaries, that you will "talk about it later," carries no
weight for discriminating people.

WRY: I have already presented most of what I know. It is laid out,
elaborately, lovingly, and painstakingly in my messages, piece by piece,
culminating in recent material I have put out here.

>So, why don't we come down to brass tacks
for a change, and say directly, what we really mean -- without all the
negative connotations about theosophical student's personalities and
knowledge, and implications that you can teach us something we don't already
know. If you can, why haven't you done so?

WRY: I can. I am and I have. Maybe you have not been able to receive it, due
to certain blind spots.

>All we seem to be getting is
platitudes, unfounded criticisms, mystical sounding homilies, and totally
wrong view of theosophy and what it teaches.

WRY: Better look through my material again.

>Apparently -- since you don't seem to understand what theosophists means by
"immortality" --


WRY: You have just said in the beginning of your message that I do
understand this

>.you think its okay to indiscriminately call them "ignorant"
and "persons of no real understanding." So, I guess that applies, in your
eyes, to all students of the Secret Doctrine and theosophy in general.


WRY: No.


>Looking at what you say in this manner, certainly clarifies ourknowledge of
where you are coming from, and why you need others, in an "assembly" under
your control, to help you on your own path to enlightenment.


WRY: No one is assemblying under my control. It is not my fault that a
certain cream rises to the top.

>Isn't that the
epitome of selfishness?

WRY: Again, using language in this way is immoral.


>And, why should your weakness in traveling along your
path, have to reflect on others, who have their own karma to overcome?
Wouldn't this "method" of yours be a total violation



WRY: What is this "method" you are referring to? Do you mean doing the
exercise of impartial self observation? If this is what you mean, it would
be an interesting and very beneficial subject to enquire into together and I
would welcome the opportunity to do so. I hope you answer this question, and
tell me what you are thinking on this subject, as maybe I will learn
something.

>of the Master's
principles, that says that one can only achieve enlightenment through one's
own "self devised and self determined efforts?"

WRY: Did someone say these words? If so, I disagree. A conditioned mind
cannot choose a method, at its own fancy. It will always move toward
pleasure at the expense of others, no matter how elevated it seems. THIS is
the wolf desguised as a sheep. There is no way out except by specific
alignment via a model that involves some kind of direct attention, at the
expense of holding on to a thought ect. which is only the unblanced over-use
of one function. Such thought displaces attention, so there is no way to
progress any further. Does this make sense?

>Isn't that the "pathless
path" spoken of by Krishnamurti --

WRY: Not exactly. Krishamurti was always highly specific about being
attentive and the use of enquiry to free oneself from false ideas.


>who never tried to build a worshipful
sangha around him.


WRY: And you are implying that I am? We have already (recently)gone into
"sangha." It has symbolic content. I am beginning to suspect it is yourself
you are struggling with. You want to "follow" me but there is a doublebind.
Be assured, it is your mind creating all of this. There is no way to follow
me. I am an ordinary person just like you. I just have a different kind of
knowledge which I have EARNED by the WORK of painstaking and exact
verification that cannot be handed to you on a silver platter.

>By the way, I've had many a dialogue with JK over a 15
year period -- so please don't tell us you know more about his teachings
than
I do.)

WRY: Again, this is a five year old talking. What is my payoff for having a
dialogue with someone so spiritually immature? This conversation is for the
whole community. At least you are asking questions, which shows yoiu are
trying to figure something out. I have erased the final two thirds of your
VERY long message. Maybe I will answer it some other time. But I will
comment generally on a few points.

You have spoken of me trying to get a certain power by wielding control over
people on this list. Such is not the case, in that you are a very difficult
bunch to work with and I can easily influence and gain control over many
more people elsewhere, and by this I mean intelligent and educated people,
both on the internet and in "life." I do not "take everyone here here for a
bunch of weak minded suckers." Actually, it is only the few who have a
potential of developing a real active force, and already have the beginning
of one, that I am interested in. You speak of my participation on another
forum, where you have actually made quite a fool of yourself. Also, I am
rarely on there, as all my time is spent here. Maybe you should put the name
of it out here so people can go see for themselves what is going on there
and how educated people have responded to your zero-point theory or whatever
it is.

As far as "so far all we've heard from you is 'I'll talk about this or that
later.' How long to we have to wait.?" I've spent hours (often hours a
day) writing on this forum at the somewhat great expense of sacrificing some
of my own income (I am self-employed) and not very well-off financially. I
spend a lot of time and energy crafting my material so as to convey exactly
what is my aim, and I am a very slow writer. I have recently put out
material that is extraordinary and most incredible re the functioning of a
human being, and oscillation frequency in relationship to clock time. If you
have missed this or do not understand it, too bad for you. I can barely
understand it myself, as I am usually too asleep, and this I honestly admit,
but in presenting this material, I have done a great deed and can now
progress to the next level. If you wish to work with me any further, there
are questions you have asked which we can go into, which I have mentioned
earlier in this message. As far as me being around here, it is too
confusing. I will try to answer some back material, little by little, but
expect to see less of me. I am going to set the list page to for digest
right now, and maybe soon will just read on the list page until the volume
of material decreases. Until then, watch for an occasional message from me.
Sincerely, Wry p.s. my spell check does not work properly with your
messages, for some reason, and I do not have time to go back, so I apologize
in advance for any errors.

LHM



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/