Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00043)

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Graphinc@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Wry on Blavatsky. Part Ten


>
> 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.


Wry: Too bad. You are the one who waited eleven days to respond to this
message, and the original message you waited over three weeks to respond
to.. I try to respond right away and usually within a day or two. If a
message is too long, I will only do half of it, but soon I am going to
start answering only one or two questions at a time.

Good way to wiggle out of saying anything
> cogent.

Wry: Ha ha. Just about everything I say is 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.

Wry: Well, just stop responding to me. Do you think other people on here are
so vulnerable and gullible and with so little sense that they will be taken
in by such an idiot as myself? Have more faith. Most people are stronger and
have more sense then you think. Or maybe that is your fear.

> 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: A list does not accept a person as its guru. That is a personification
most simplistic. A list is composed of various individuals, a few of whom
might be interested in what I am saying. What do you mean by guru, anyway?
Authority? If so, you ar e fingering the wrong person. As far as time goes,
something radical is going on in my life right now and it is very
time-consuming, plus I am writing for other lists besides theosophy lists. I
am doing it because I love it, but your message doesn;t come firstg. You are
just trying to fight me out of your own negative emotions, as I see it.

>
>
> >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?

Wry: The content of my message.

> 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)?

Wry: Well, for one quick example, there was a huge amoiunt of material
flowing into this list at the time I wrote that message, and a lot of
infighjting, whereas when you wrote me, the situation had changed radically.
My original message was written with what was going on at the time in mind,
and with a realization that the material (content of my message) woukd be
entering the functioning of the readers in approximation with the entrance
of a cxertain othert kind or kinds of material.. I designed it to fit in
with all of this and hopefully strike a certain chord. Do you understand
this?

>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

Wry: Don't you know already?

> -- 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.

Wry: And what if I do have a misunderstanding? Help clarify things for me.
Present concepts in such a way that I can learn.
>
> 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: In one sense, yes, but in another know. The truth of individual
circumstances is always changing, and in order for learning to occur, the
teaching needs to be adapted to the student. This is not to imply that I am
a teacher. I am just using this as one example. If a teacher does not
understand this he will not be as effective.
>

>
> >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.

Wry: HOGWASH. An opinion is not the truth, though it is the truth that a
certain person has a certain opinion. Judging from what was goin on on this
theosophy list at that time, it was obvious that many theosophists (not all)
are a bunch of haters, or at least some might see it that way.

>Your response was an
> irrelevant non sequitur, ad hominem, and gratuitously unnecessary
implication
> that the writer was ignorant.

Wry: Or perhaps a hypocrite?

>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?

Wry: Well, you will have to investigate this for yourself. There is plenty
material of mine on here and other places for you to look at.

> If not,
> Anything you say is just babbling, or self defense and inflated self
> promotion -- without substance.

Wry: Then just don't worry your pretty little head about me, as, if this is
true, I will be ineffecive. (Ha ha. The laugh is on me.)
>
>
> >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.)

Wry: Who cares. No one has said a lot of things I have said.

>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.

Wry: This is the only way a certain kind and quality of material can be
given in a format such as this, or, if not, a much superior way. People will
pay attention. My messages stick like a bush of thorny roses in a weed
garden.


> > 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?

Wry: I have written extensively on this subject. Also, how do you know that
some have not already received this?

>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.

Wry: Each on his own level, just as with anything.

> Why are
> you assuming you might be kicked off here?

Wry: Some people have suggested it, but I hope this does not happen. It
would be a grave error, but again, this is just my opinion.

>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."

Wry: Did I say I have a new method? I have already put most of everything
out here, many many times, but some things cannot be told, only shown. Maybe
I am about to teach a few lucky people the language of the ancients. Go back
to a message that had something hidden in it.

.So, why not
> layer it on us directly without all the flimflammery and personal digs?

Wry: Whoever you are, I believe I have already explained this. As far as
personal digs, how about your message to me? If you think it is wrong for me
to do this, maybe you should show me the right way by not doing it to me.
What do you think? The lesson is all written out in an interesting drama
with a protagonist who is holding the stick at both ends, rather than one.
The conditioned mind cannot assimilate what is happening. Take a leap. What
I am doing is an act of love. Or maybe I am a crazy sadist. There is a
wondersful aphorism, "God's curses are our opportunities." Just use this.
Use me. BE with it.

>
> >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?

Wry: The original statement, by Dallas, was, " I was pleased early on in
life to discover that Theosophy had the virtue of doing away with the
"differences" and melding all of humanity together on goof and sound
principles." And my reply was, something to the effect of, "Just like it's
happening on this list, right?"

>Why don't you just answer our questions without
> all the flip flopping and waffling?

Wry: I'm bheing asked and answering more questions than any one else on
here. Dallas still hasn't answered the one question I have asked him about
immortality.

> Remember, you set all this up in the
> first place.

Wry: You are right,.

> 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.

Wry: It is your negative emotions. Sorry.

> 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.

Wry: It is different now and I am doing something different than she was,
but are you saying that her roses did not have thorns? I think they did for
the Church of England. As far as explaining goes, I have explained to you,
in simple words, several important ideas. When I talk about flickers of
consciousness, and using the brain in a different way, do you think this is
a joke? Do you not realize that if Madame Blavatsky were alive today, she
would not be doing things like she did. It has already been done, plus the
time is different and whatever she would be doing, her approach would be
different. Use sense. How many times do I need to say this? It is a KEY
POINT. Are you a total moron or what?

>
> 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? :)

Wry: Maybe.
>
> 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?

Wry: The world and even theosophy will not fall apart if you do not read my
messages.

. 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: Ah, gee.
>
>
> >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 ther
e
>
> >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.

Wry: I think I have explained this, some months ago.


>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.

Wry: This is why I have said, use my material for your own purposes. If you
want to stop me for whatever reasons, it really makes no sense. Kill two
birds with one stone. Present something about theosophy at the same time.
Figure out how to communicate with a difficult person, me (much in need of
your love and understanding). Be active. If I just come on a list and say,
"be active," people will not get it, but this is a practical illustration.
It is better.

>
> What are those conventional methods, anyway?

Wry: What you see everywhere everyday. What you see on here. It is telling
and more telling, never showing.

>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.

Wry: Well, why do you suppose I said this, to build up more resistance in
people like yourself? It must serve some kind of purpose for me to have
mentioned it, maybe more than one.If people were not unconscious, if
everyone were fully conscious, it would serve no purpose for material to be
given in this way.

> Are the only
> one's here you can talk to ignorant fools?

Wry: How do you know that some people here are not learning how to use this
technique by participating with me, and will not put it to good use in the
future?

>
> 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?

Wry: Even if you sent me a thousand dollars by pay-pal, I could not teach
you according to your own method.
>

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

Wry: People tend to be overly "good" in a bulletin board format such as
this, as every member of the community can see individuals interactions, so
people try to perserve their position in the pecking order, as they are
afraid that if they are too outspoken, they will be ostracized as not just
one or two peole will see it, as in life, but the whole community. If this
is artifically conteracted by someone who is not afraid to appear "bad" to
others, the conditions are more equivilant to that of ordinary life, where
there hate comes out into the open and is not hidden. Under these
circumstances, the learning curve can shoot up very fast, because the whole
community is connected in a way that is similar to, but different from,
ordinary life.
>
> (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.)

Wry: Please delete the first part of any message I have answered, and post
them out here in a special email, or more than oner, and I will answer them
when I get a chance.

>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.

Wry: Do whatever you want, but let your conscience be your guide.
>
> 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)

Wry: If I am not mistaken, the only two messages you have written on the
whole year I have been on this list are the two to me, plus one othert,
"Demorcracy, American Style." I suggest you put out any ideas or questions
yiu have about theosophy that may be interesting to you and others. Also, I
must point out that this message took a long time to write, and I actually
came to my computer for something else, but got side tracked into this.
Fromn now one, please put no more than one or two questions in each email.
Sincerely, Wry
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>