Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00040)

In a message dated 03/31/03 2:58:39 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.

>

> HERM: What has this to do with the truth of the statement?


>WRY: 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.

By the time you get around to the answer to this question, the previous 
question will be forgotten. Good way to wiggle out of saying anything 
cogent. This pattern of yours has become so obvious that there is no 
communication with you. So, I guess that what comes next will be just more of 
the same old thing. Could your not having "much time to be on here" have to 
do with your ambitious project of insinuating yourself into all the 
theosophical lists, until you find one that accepts you as their guru to 
replace Blavatsky? 


>WRY: 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.

Great answer. By implication, accuse the questioner who is questioning your 
obscure motives by questioning his ulterior purposes. The only purpose I 
have here is wondering where you are coming from and where you are going. 

What material are you talking about? How can anything you write be "out of 
context" or not "time appropriate" when its context is smeared out everywhere 
the same, and is never anything but excuses for saying nothing, except, 
maybe, what serves your own image, and your apparent desire to be loved? (No 
need to answer that question which is just a good humored observation based 
on all the bubble headed rhetoric since you popped up here. :) 

I was only responding to your response to Dallas which he directed to 
"friends." The "context" is your approach to him as well as to theosophy. How 
can any comment on this be "time dependent" (whatever that means)? The only 
purpose I have is finding out if you know what you are talking about, or are 
just a bag of wind with an inflated ego -- and, as I sense, a fundamental 
misunderstanding of theosophical principles, along with an unbrotherly 
attempt to denigrate any others who have different opinions or approaches to 
theosophy than you have. 

As for my other purposes, I have none - beyond what I say right now (and 
whatever anyone reads in it, whenever) - except enjoying life. Don't you 
agree that now is forever and fundamental truths never change?


>WRY: 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.

No hope for what? We made no assumptions. The only truth in the statement 
is that it represents the considered opinion of another. Your response was an 
irrelevant non sequitur, ad hominem, and gratuitously unnecessary implication 
that the writer was ignorant. Your above response to my question does 
nothing to change this impression. And, in fact, re commits the same offense. 
Your statement could very well reflect back to yourself. Can you answer any 
comment or question without denigrating the questioner first? If not, 
Anything you say is just babbling, or self defense and inflated self 
promotion -- without substance.


>WRY: 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.

So far, I see no method to your approaches, and have no reason to believe 
that the teachings of any others on this forum "go in one ear and out the 
other." (It seems, you are the only one on this forum who has ever said that 
what you read goes in one ear and out the other.) Your assumptions that 
everyone needs your "layering" and are not ready to grasp the profound 
teachings, you have never shown you have, is an arrogant assumption and 
another put down. 

If you have any way to give anyone an epiphany, I am eager to hear it? Let's 
be straightforward. What are the difficult concepts that all us "weeds" in 
your rose garden aren't ready to grasp? I hope it isn't more difficult to 
understand than the easy to understand teachings of Buddha or HPB that seem 
to be totally satisfactory, as we each interpret them for ourselves. Why are 
you assuming you might be kicked off here? Are some of the "many reasons" 
you have for being on here imply that you intend to become even more 
obnoxious? I'm sure everyone is eager to hear your "new method." So, why not 
layer it on us directly without all the flimflammery and personal digs?

>WRY: 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.

Ha. That's the best side step dance I've seen in a long time. Why are you 
repeating the same old song? Why don't you just answer our questions without 
all the flip flopping and waffling? Remember, you set all this up in the 
first place. When you make a layer cake in front of an audience, you better 
be prepared to let them taste each layer as it goes down. So far, whatever 
has been laid down here always seems to leave a sour taste. If one has a new 
twist on practical theosophy that might be useful in serving its purposes, 
what's the purpose of turning away everyone with your hubris and negative 
approach to everyone else's methods. What's profound or useful enough in 
your vague ramblings to justify that? Why not do as Blavasky did, and 
explain, explain, explain, instead of holding out sweet smelling roses that 
may have thorns in them.

So, I'm sure there isn't anyone here who doesn't take everything you say with 
a grain of salt. How do you know what we are assuming? Why are you assuming 
we are assuming anything? Maybe you need a little more pepper on your salad. 
(Or maybe some saltpeter? :) 

In the meantime, why don't you wait until your rosebud has blossomed before 
answering straightforward questions with ring around a rosy answers, that 
have no relevance, and waste all our reading time? Your innuendoes and 
insinuations that theosophy, as taught by the Masters, is "not enough 
sustaining food" for the theosophists on this forum, falls as flat as a lead 
balloon. 


>WRY: 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

How do you know that "conventional methods of working with people [whatever 
that means] DO NOT WORK"? Explain it to us, so we'll know what you are 
talking about. I don't recall anyone on this forum trying to "work with 
people." On what? For what purpose? This is not (and neither is any other 
study or discussion group) a company, a government, a religion, a school - or 
any other kind of institution. So, why such eagerness to transmute it into 
one? Unless, you have your own personal agenda that benefits no one but 
yourself. 

What are those conventional methods, anyway? Or, is this some more of your 
negative digs at theosophy to set us up for your next layer of baloney? 

Why are you assuming that anyone here needs you to work on them with your 
"layering" method? I, for one, refuse to be layered by anyone. Are the only 
one's here you can talk to ignorant fools? 

What is this "material" of yours that you seem so eager to have us harness? 
What is the transcendence that you seem to think you can teach us?

Please explain what "artificially replicating the conditions of ordinary 
life" means?

(But before answering these questions I hope you will answer all the others 
posed in my previous letter, along with all the unanswered questions that 
others have asked you.) Either that, or realize you have lost your audience, 
and buzz off, honey bee, to lay your pollen in another "honey pot." When 
it's fully rendered, we might come over for a taste. . . (With our own grain 
of salt, of course.:)

To conclude: (Although we're not going to sleep.) 
In defense of all those truly sincere theosophists you have denigrated, and 
of theosophy which you have distorted; If you keep up this obfuscation and 
proselytizing of your new "materialized" yoga or "religion (in spite of your 
disclaimers) and keep up these negative approaches to theosophical study and 
hurtful remarks to individual theosophists who are trying to learn or teach 
something useful --- we might recommend that either you get thrown off this 
list, or that each reader who agrees with the assessments of your "work" by 
myself and others, trash your letters before they are opened.

I doubt if anyone comes to this forum (or to any other theosophical study 
group) to be "layered" into shape by your self righteous do goodyism, 
accompanied by dubious, material oriented methods (from a theosophical point 
of view) and slick self promotional approaches. If there are any such persons 
here, as you proclaim, let them speak up and say so. Then you can go set up 
your own mail list group and invite them in. (With our best wishes for your 
success in forming your hive. . . Or, should that be called a "Sangha"? :) 

Watchfully, in brotherhood,

Herm, 
The seer (sayer) from Atlantis :)
(I was born on a ship halfway between Italy and Cuba)