Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00037)

Hi. Leon and Dallas. Please do not post OR REPLY my material from other
lists on here
without my permission, unless I have put the material out here myself. I
have made a request to this effect recently, but
you have ignored it. Dallas, even though you have not yourself posted the
recent material of mine from another list, you have responded to it. This is
particularly disgusting and odious, as you must have realized that Leon
posted this without my permission.

Leon, how would you like it if I posted material from another list we are
both on out here in which you are accused of stealing your ABC theory or
whatever it is called from someone else, and also of plagiarizing and
generally unconscionable behavior. much along the lines of how you are
behaving here? It is disgusting.

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> > 1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was
> > an "object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal
> > Brotherhood"?

Wry: Seems to me I have heard this on theosophy lists many times, but maybe
I got it wrong. Go by your own conscience and make each deed count.

Did Madame Blavatsky say, "Man should aim"........ " finally and chiefly,
to
aid in the institution of a Brotherhood of Humanity
wherein all good and pure men, of every race, shall recognize each other as
the equal effects (upon this planet) of one
Uncreate, Universal, Infinite and Everlasting Cause?" (Some) of you people
are too much into definitions and labels and carrying images of yourselves
as "theosophists" or whatever, in my opinion, but maybe I do this, too, in
my own way.

So, the question is, how specifically do you go about this, if each person
follows his own SUBJECTIVE path and there is no deep communication and a lot
of reiteration of very bland, non-specific principles and an attacking of
people who question or try to enquire into them? (In my one year on
theosophy
lists, I have seen people who tried to enquire attacked again and again,
accused of being black magicians etc. and all sorts of stuff along these
lines. I realize not everyone is doing this, but there seems to be a sort of
general tendency in this direction.

Also, when Madame Blavatsky talks about "an Uncreate, Universal, Infinite
and Everlasting Cause," she is talking about GOD, pure and simple. Do people
not realize this? Is this bad? No. Each human being needs to approach
spirituality at his or her own level, but it is problematic if it presented
as something else. This teaching has nothing to do with Mahayana Buddhism,
which is o.k. also, but it should not be presented as such. This way of
thinking leads to a kind of Eternalism, which is a static, mesmerized state
of mentally holding to a fixed point. People get stuck here and it is
difficult to progress. It is like staring at oneself in a mirror, the world
being oneself. I mention this now only because this material was in the same
sentence about universal brotherhood.

It can be tough to enquire. I know. Everything one has always held dear, the
notions and concepts start to break down, including precious and treasured
notions relating to spirituality. This has happened to me, and I was not a
happy camper, but later I was grateful. In my situation, though, I willfully
subjected myself to a situation where enquiry was ongoing. If you are not
interested in being in this kind of situation, there is a good solution,
and that is not to read my messages or respond to them. But then there is
that fanatical mirror image of time standing still, the "Everlasting Cause"
that one is clinging to and must defend (by attacking me or Jerry Schueker
or whomever). If there is such a "Cause," which I personally believe there
is not, as I do not believe in "God," do you think it cares about you, or is
everything intricately connected to you in a way that is constantly moving,
dancing, interchanging and alive and is something very intelligent, your own
brain working at optimum, moving the body in a compassionate response in
such a way that is befitting of being human?

It can be argued that Madame Blavatsky had the aim of presenting certain
Eastern teachings to the West in a way that was TIME-APPROPRIATE in that
this material needed to presented in a certain form so that it could be
appropriately assimilated. If so, one could perhaps make the argument that
she deliberately used language that would appeal to Christians (and Hindus).
But no knowledge is fixed in stone. There is no such thing, as knowledge
does not exist independently of the perceiver of it.

If you do not understand me Leon, Dallas, and Ramprakash, that is o.k,. but
I am sharing my opinions, ideas, questions and even inspiration with
others.There must be someone who is receiving something from interacting
with me. I am not going to go away, and will continue to lovingly look at
material that is interesting to me with an eye that is not dogmatic. So let
me explain something VERY important, yet again.

A principle or whatever can be very valuable to keep in mind, but when an
action is completely in present time, there is nothing left over to cling to
a point of reference. The point of reference, whatever it is, no matter how
profound or meaningful or beautiful, always functions as the deadspot. So,
when I talk about an "Everlasting Cause" or when I think about karma and
talk about karma, which I can do till hell freezes over, it is not the same
as seeing myself, having an image of myself, and clinging to this image. One
moment of a pure impartial recording of myself, as I am, will release
perhaps aeons of patterns, especially if it is painful to keep seeing when
everything mechanical in me wants to think about this or that (it is all
the same, thought, which is one function and not a balanced being), but
there is an impartial seeing of this pattern, even if it is painful to keep
seeing. Why and how does this work? Because it happens in present time, and
not in "thought-time" which perpetrates karma. It is obvious to me that
most, if not all of the mechanical talk about karma, is a product of thought
time. As everyone knows, I am a Buddhist, and personally subscribe to the
concept of karma. In Buddhism, there is much talk of karma, but it is
handled in such a way that it intricately fits into and is connected with, a
broader teaching, which aims to show people to and give people the fortitude
and right motivation to actively decrystalize karmic patterns. In the
theosophy I have seen on the internet, this is often not the case. (Some)
veteran "theosophists" are quick to anger, stigmatize and judge anyone who
questions or disagrees with them, always holding to certain fixed points of
view and turning a potentially alive teaching into dogma in much the same
way they criticize Christians of doing.

I would be interested in hearing people come out in and in their own words
explain how the ideas presented in theosophy have specifically helped them,
and give simple examples of how they apply therse principles in their own
lives. It is sort of bizarre, but I do not believe I have ever heard anyone
do this, even once, in the whole time I have been on a theosophy list. It is
broad words and noble principles, but never anything specific. It is wrong
to assume that people will turn bland generalizations into something
specific which leads to transformation, as the general tendency is to
continue being non-specific, especially if it is a defense structure against
the pain that would need to be endured to decrystallize karmic patterns.
Sincerely, Wry

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