Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00445)

----- Original Message -----
From: <Graphinc@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Wry on Blavatsky. Part Ten


> I have some questions since I find this difference of opinion very
> interesting, if not enlightemning.
>
> In a message dated 03/07/03 3:34:19 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >HI. see below for a few brief comments.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
> >To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:31 AM
> >Subject: Theos-World RE: figures in history compared
> >
> >
> >> Friday, March 07, 2003
> >>
> >> Dear Friends:
> >>
> >> May I break in here? This is interesting. Made me review some of my
> >> early education and experiences, as I have lived in many parts of the
> >> world, I always found it most interesting t discover what other groups
> >> and peoples knew, believed in, or aimed for.
> >>
> >> I was pleased early on in life to discover that Theosophy had the
> >> virtue of doing away with "differences" and melding all of humanity
> >> together on good and sound principles:
> >
> >WRY: Just like it is happening on this list, right? You folks really know
> >how to turn chaos into harmony (ha ha). Put your own objective salt on
> >my little joke, IF you have any.
>
> What has this to do with the truth of the statement?

Hi. I am pleased that someone has picked up on one of my messages and asked
me some questions. I do not have much time to be on here right now, and
also, there is another message I am planning to write, so I will answer one
part at a time.

Though I am glad to have a response to any of my material, even dated
material, you are responding to a message that in some ways is out of
context and, to a certain degree, no longer time-appropriate, and which has
already served the purpose for which it was originally intended. You are
using this material for your own purpose, assuming you have a purpose, which
I hope you do, and I will use your material for my own purpose. So BE it.

To begin, you are making the assumption that the above statement is true
when you ask me this question. Do you see this? When we approach material
in this way, there is no hope, as there is not an objective standard to
measure it by. We pretend to be good, carry an image of ourselves as good,
but when the time comes there is a war, or if we do nothing, the wolf eats
us and our children. This is technically not necessarily a way to accrue
merit. Sometimes it is just stupid.

I must also point out to you and to others who may not yet have realized
this, that I have my own method, which has been deliberately crafted through
much trial and error and with a motivation to benefit sensient creatures, of
presenting material by what I call "layering", in such a way that it does
not go in one ear and out the other, and also so that people of different
levels can assimate this material ,which is planted like seeds, in a
balanced and well organized manner, into the (weed but potential rose)
garden of their functioning and will later result in a sudden understanding
of certain difficult concepts (which they may not be not quite ready to
grasp now), when they receive certain subsequent material, which will be
given in the future for the purpose of affecting this "epiphany." For many
reasons, I have chosen this list to be the home location, of a certain Work
I am doing, and will use it as such until (if) I am kicked off of here,
which I hope never happens.

Again, you are assuming the above statement to be true, but IF it is not
true, this is not good or bad. It is simply a fact and the rest depends upon
what we do with it. Also, maybe it was true then and is not true now, or
most likely, vica-versa, now that I am a budding theosophist (ha ha.) Do you
understand about salt? It is important to bring your little salt shaker and
put just the right amount on anything that is potentially nourishing but
does not taste quite right to your palate, especially when there isn't quite
enough sustaining food around.

Finally, I would like to point out that I have developed my own method of
working with people, as conventional methods DO NOT WORK. Please hear this
again. Conventional methods do not work. Either there is religion or there
is this. (If you know another way, please show it to be so I can learn.)
Please do misunderstand. I am NOT attempting to establish a religion or to
be any kind of authority, but without a specific and deliberate attempt to
harness material in such a way that there is an active force, there can be
no transcendence, which transcendence is the aim of all true spiritual
teaching on the planet earth. It is important to artifically r(consciously)
replicate the conditions of ordinary life in order for this transcendence to
occur, except in organically evolved, consciously designed and
time-appropriate religions which are designed to be assimilated in
conjunction with ordinary life and not apart from it. Again, bear in mind
that in any message I write, I am generally entering new material, as I am
employing the device of layering. I will answere the rest of your message at
a later time. Sincerely, Wry
>
> >>
> >> Karma -- responsibility.
> >> Reincarnation and immortality of the Ego -- the time needed to learn
> >> everything.
> >> Unity -- in all three essentials of being: Spirit, Mind and Matter.
> >> And, their cooperation.
> >> A Goal for existence -- becoming WISE.
> >> Immortality -- for the thinking, living, inquiring SELF.
> >> Space -- infinity in which we all have a place and a purpose of being
> >> Brotherhood and tolerance, cooperation and generosity -- virtues as
> >> opposed to the selfishness and horror of vice and isolation.
> >
> >
> >WRY: In one ear and out the other, as you do not know how to construct
> >with material.
>
> Are you deaf? What has "constructing with material" to do with becoming
> "wise" or having "virtues" and overcoming the "selfishness of vice and
> isolation"? Doesn't the "cooperation of spirit-mind and matter" include
> material substance? Where are you coming from? Is the material world, as
it
> relates to you personally, your only interest? It seems to me that working
> with your mental and spiritual nature is far more important than (or is
the
> first step toward) "constructing with the material." Or, shouldn't they
all
> be considered together? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> >>
> >> If the actuality of Reincarnation and Karma are true and operative.
> >> Of what value is it today to discuss races and religions as indexes to
> >> individuals and their personal views?
> >
> >WRY: This is your BIG error and it is sort of amazing that you keep
making
> >it. A THOUGHT about ANYTHING cannot adjust the functioning of a human
> >being, only an adjustment of tension via a release of material. You
reason
> >like a five year old. The fantasy is that something pure, which exists
> >on its own side as an independent entity, by thinking (radiating) a
certain
> >thought, can create. #1. There is not something that is pure, as this is
all
> >based on personality and the subjective I which is a result of causes and
> >conditions. #2. This cannot exist on its own side. #3. This thought is an
> >image which is a mechanical result of causes and conditions and in
holding
> >to it, THERE IS A LOOPING BACK. "God" help us all. You are worshipping an
> >image of yourself. This is Lucifer, but he is not harnessed. At times
there
> >is an angel or a devil, but they do not balance each other because there
> >is no real OBJECTIVE man and therefore no force. I do not believe this is
> what
> >Madame Blavatsky intended to happen to you. She had some kind of salt (I
> >can feel the earth of her, even from the writings, though sometimes they
are
> >so mesmerizing it is hard to discern), but where is yours? Again, in my
> >opinion, she was trying to bring certain eastern concepts to the west,
> >and in doing so it was necessary to cut a few corners.
>
> What error? What has this to do with the question asked? Who is LUCIFER
> (other than the the bringer of light)? What is "LOOPING BACK"? What has
the
> question to do with worshipping self? Do you know what Blavatsky's
teaching
> is all about? Why the personality bashing and the put down arguments that
> don't make your case very strong? Teaching requires confidence in the
teacher
> that he practices what he preaches. Empathy, conscience and brotherhood
are
> on a two way street.
>
> > >.
> >>
> >> Regardless of the labeling, which is arbitrary, and may be used to
> >> mentally degrade people without good cause, the individual is, and
> >> always will be, independent of any grouping. We are all, essentially,
> >> ourselves.
> >
> >WRY: This is RIDICULOUS. Personality takes over in a series of mechanical
> >reactive processes in such a way that the precious birthright of
> >self-consciousness, which is what connects awareness to essence, begins
> >to happen only in flickers, and the appropriate connection cannot be
made.
>
> What's so ridiculous about the statement that the individual is
"independent"
> of any grouping" or that "no one need feel derogated by their birth or
race?
> Doesn't the choice of one's actions depend solely on the judgment of the
> individual rather than on that of any group think? Where did this
statement
> say that the "personality" rules over the judgment of the Spirit and
Buddhi?
> How does "self consciousness" connect awareness to essence? "Self
> consciousness" IS already awareness and essence."
>
> >> Hence the immortal Monad at the core of a person today, I mean the
> >> REAL MAN and the HIGHER SELF, may in a previous incarnation have
> >> belonged to some human form of a different sex, race, tribe, religion,
> >> sect, etc... Those are regulated by personal Karma -- and each one
> >> makes his or her own all the time.
> >
> >
> >WRY: More mechanical thinking and parroting of other people's words and
> >ideas. When a person is fully aware, he will SEE that his brother is his
> >brother in real time with his PHYSICAL EYES and feel an empathy which
will
> >resonate as a certain vibrational quality as his CONSCIENCE. This is the
> >Work and the appropriate line of direction we should all be headed in.
> >This IS the teaching of MADAME BLAVATSKY. I am simply helping to clarify
it.
> >It is VERY obvious that it needs clarification. Either she did not
present
> >it clearly enough for you, or you are unable to sort it all out in such a
way
> >that you can be active. I believe this may be because this material was
> >intended at a particular time in history to serve a particular function.
> >As the time frame has expired, you are lost.
>
> If one is not fully aware in real time, it isn't difficult to "recognize
his
> brother as his brother" (unless he's blind and can't see the family
> resemblance :-). What's such a big deal about that? Since when did
> Blavatsky teach that one must use one's "physical eyes" to understand
> reality? And, what has physical "seeing" have to do with empathy and
> conscience? How is one without empathy and conscience able to gain such
> capacities without being taught the fundamental rules of nature and the
> reality of karma and reincarnation? And what has time frame have to do
with
> the reality of the teachings of theosophy? This sounds like an attempt to
> denigrate Blavatsky's teachings rather than understand it.
>
> >Re the rest of your message, do you really believe this will affect
anyone?
> >It will all go in one ear and out the other, plus there is no clarity.
You
> >are in error not only on certain points, but do not have even an inking
of
> >how to present material. You speak of certain ideas and say you are
"now
> >checking them out and verifying them. I do not believe you are doing
this.
> >It is an idealistic pipedream which you are using to support a belief
> >system. Also, you do not appear to have an understanding o how
reincarnation
> >and the development of the human spirit bodies are formed in relationship
> >to both light AND gross material, but conditions are too confused on this
> list
> >to get into a discussion of this subject. Sincerely, Wry
>
> Looks like you are continuing to confuse the teachings of Blavatsky even
> further, and are the prime contributor to the confusion. I personally
find
> the theosophical truths presented on this forum by the serious students of
> theosophy to be quite enlightening. It seems that you are trying to shoot
> those people down for some personal motives of your own. Materialism and
> focus on body is not the way toward spiritual understanding. (I'll leave
the
> rest of this commentary here so that all can see what "goes in your ear
and
> out the other." Perhaps, then, we can decide for ourselves who knows what
> Blavatsky [Masters KH & M] actually was teaching about how to attain "self
> realization" and help the world attain Universal Brotherhood "without
> distinction of individual differences.")
>
> Good karma wishes,
> Herm
>
> >>
> >> When we look back into the past we are looking at the past we lived in
> >> and created. Today we are creating the causes for our futures
> >> individually and together.I
> >>
> >> So too for the future, when we reincarnate, say, in 1,000, 1,500,
> >> 3,000, 5,000 or 15,000 years, the various divisions, political and
> >> religious of today on our Earth may have passed away. Several
> >> civilizations may have passed by.
> >>
> >> That which remains are the qualities of human character in particular
> >> and in general. Why? Is it so? -- because Karma operates
> >> incessantly now, then and hereafter?
> >>
> >> So, should we not learn something that will help us today? We can
> >> learn through Theosophy something definite about the rules and laws of
> >> Karma and Reincarnation and thus better regulate our own motives and
> >> our own choosing from here on? This is what I find Theosophy
> >> advocates. And I am glad that there have been students ahead of me
> >> who point to these ideas. I am now checking them out and verifying
> >> them.
> >>
> >> So who is pleased by labeling? Only those who do not think through
> >> the implications and the responsibilities of being human and making
> >> reasonable and friendly choices, usually. They also do not consider
> >> their own immortality, and the fact that their decisions return always
> >> to them as doves return to a roost.
> >>
> >> Theosophy starts with the proposition that the UNIVERSE is ONE -- as a
> >> SPIRITUAL ENTITY. Then it observes that the realm of "matter" is also
> >> immortal in its many molecular, atomic and sub-atomic "units." Every
> >> being from the "life atom" up to the highest planetary Spirit -- the
> >> Cosmocratores or the Dhyan Chohans, have been Men such as we now are,
> >> or will become men in the aeons that will follow the present. The
> >> faculty of thinking or the mind is a common one in the whole of
> >> humanity, though of course of several different degrees and
> >> compositions. These three sets of immortals twist and twine about each
> >> other and are inseparable.
> >>
> >> The Spiritual SELF (in each of us) never dies; but as it wends its
> >> pilgrimage through many lives, each is found to be one that gives it
> >> fresh experience and all the memories associated with those. A few
> >> moment reflection on our own character and capacities will ensure us
> >> that we labored for millions of years in making ourselves what we now
> >> are. No one life, nor descent of physical or parental heredity alone
> >> has endowed us with the capacities we have. We need only review about
> >> 33 generations [2 RAISED TO THE POWER OF 33] leading up to our
> >> present existence, and find that the whole of humanity has had a
> >> chance to become our physical "ancestors" at some point of time. So
> >> who is superior to who by virtue of descent alone ?
> >>
> >> Did we build our present bodies? Yes. We did, but in this life we
> >> have forgotten how. Why not look at them as a "God" might -- we feed
> >> them, house and clothe them, medicate them, build them and discipline
> >> them or allow them to become lazy and careless --- The responsibility
> >> is not our parents, nor our community. Our parents gifted us with
> >> life and maintenance over the tender years of infancy and during the
> >> early maturing process, then we took charge. Our community shelters
> >> us, but is not invariably right in its group thinking or observances.
> >>
> >> The process of evolution makes it possible for all degrees and kinds
> >> of differences in character and motivation to live together, to
> >> tolerate each other, and to practice the kind of brotherhood which
> >> spiritual brothers can do. Why should we adopt others' feuds? Most of
> >> those are senselessly destructive. And we boast of our independence
> >> and capacity ton think independently? What bases do we adopt?
> >>
> >> So I would say: Lets avoid characterizing any one. Lets attend to our
> >> own faults and foibles.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Dallas
> >>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>