Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00052)

Hi Herm. Here are the answers to the second part of your message. I have
included my answers to the first part, so new members can see the whole. I
resent that you, a person who has never left any messages of any kind out
here, except two messages criticizing me and one political message, are
threatening
to have me thrown off a forum you are not even participating in. It is most
saddening.

I would also like to point out that I am NOT stopping anyone from putting
any
kind of material out here, just giving my opinion. This is and will continue
to be a better forum, probably at least partly due to my participation. It
was a wild, manic, crazy atmosphere when I got here a year a year ago. One
member was regularly posting as many as seven lengthy messages a day, in a
gross proliferation of material (the material itself was not always
necessarily
gross, but the proliferation, which showed little discrimination, in my
humble
opinion, was) which volume encouraged and contributed to to a mesmerizing
atmosphere, so that people could not achieve enough clarity to discuss
simple ideas, and which encouraged the taking over of this list by people
who were infighting and others who were posting huge volumes of political
material. There were frequently thirty messages a day. It was difficult for
real communication to occur in such an atmosphere, and not an atmosphere
that would encourage the membership and participation of new theosophists,
especially young people, but again, this is just my opinion, and all I am
doing is voicing it.

So scroll 1/3 down to the three lines to get to the second part of my
message,

----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Wry on Blavatsky. Part Ten


>
> ----- 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 enlightening.
> >
> > 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 sentient 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 assimilate 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, visa-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 artificially
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 answer 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"?

Wry: Being fully human is always about making, even if it is only making the
wish to be virtuous or setting up a situation where learning can occur. A
certain kind of making is the key to developing "cosmic consciousness," if
you will excuse a trite expression. I did not mean to discount the value of
becoming "wise" or developing virtue or whatever, but do you not see that
this person is speaking in broad generalizations and platitudes that will
not register into the human functioning in such a way that a person will
actually develop these qualities. To speak in this way is counter
productive, and to my mind, a form of grandstanding under the guise of
spirituality. I am not here to fight anyone to the finish, and if you had
not p[icked up on my message and started hounding me, that would have been
the end of it, as this message was three weeks old, and already, conditions
on this list had changed.

< Doesn't the "cooperation of spirit-mind and matter" include
> > material substance? Where are you coming from?

Wry: It is ALL material, just different interconnected densities of such.

>Is the material world,
as
> it
> > relates to you personally, your only interest?

Wry: No. I have taken a vow to dedicate my life to helping relieve sentient
creatures from their suffering.

>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."

Wry: Wrong. The conditioned mind cannot fix itself/

>Or, shouldn't they
> all
> > be considered together? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Wry: Yes, they should, and an impartial recording of the physical body, incl
uding all of its functioning, such as tension, feeling etc. takes this into
account.
> >
> > >>
> > >> 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: None. It is idiotic, and I have never even once in my entire life, done
this. You have misunderstood what I have said. The meaning intended was that
reincarnation and karma being actual or not have nothing to do with not
being a racist. Any human being who has never heard of these ideas can
understand each human being to be unique, simply by a conscious seeing of
this individual. You do not need a reference point to love, just pure
attention to the other. This is a KEY POINT. Sorry I did not express myself
too well.
> > >
> > >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 bringer of light)?

Wry: Lucifer is man holding onto light. It is human nature to do so, but it
is piggish. Do not forget these words. To harness this light and bring it
up out of the pits, the inner sexual and digestive process of a human being,
to the area of the brain, where certain biochemical processes can occur, is
the aim of all spiritual practice.

> What is "LOOPING BACK"?

Wry: Trying to receive the love of God, rather than loving God, to put it in
Christian terminology. Or worshiping AN IMAGE, such as a "Causeless Cause"
or "The Absolute" for the gratification received (very common and most
disgusting) rather than being obliterated in complete surrender and living a
life of conscious service. This is not to imply that Madame Blavatsky
intended anyone to worship an image, but sometimes things happen. Again, I
think her main aim was to present certain material to the West, and she had
to present it this way to succeed.

>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?

Wry: I have never intended to bash anyone's personality. If I criticize
anyone it is because they appear to me to be harming others by retarding the
potential wonderful opportunities of a list such as this.

>Teaching requires confidence in the
> teacher
> > that he practices what he preaches. Empathy, conscience and brotherhood
> are
> > on a two way street.

Wry: You are calling me a teacher? Maybe I am (or not). Maybe I am a bad
one. Maybe I am a true teacher of human beings. Whatever. But remember, a
good teacher will always tailor his method to the situation.


> > >> 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?


Wry: Sorry. I misread what he was saying, to a degree, as it appears what he
was talking about was racism, and indeed there were a lot of seemingly
racist messages being posted on here at around that time. Nonetheless, I do
not see this as a correct approach to helping people not to be racist.
Remember, all this racism, no matter how misguided, came, at least to a
degree, out of a (mis?)interpretation of Madame Blavatsky's writings on root
races. Reread what I said above about the personality and flickers. Being
fully conscious will solve all these problems. There does not need to be a
referral point to a set of ideas (things).

> > Doesn't the choice of one's actions depend solely on the judgment of the
> > individual rather than on that of any group think?

Wry: It should.

>Where did this
> statement
> > say that the "personality" rules over the judgment of the Spirit and
> Buddhi?

Wry: He said, "We are all essentially ourselves." This is a big error. We
are each of us unique in essence, so, in this sense, it is true, but the
blatantly wrong implication is that we function from essence, when in
actuality, sadly, we function mechanically from personality.

> > How does "self consciousness" connect awareness to essence? "Self
> > consciousness" IS already awareness and essence."

Wry: At this point, you are nit-picking. Bear in mind, though, that there
are just flickers of self-consciousness, not a continuity, so, when an
effort is made, to be self-conscious, a connection is being made, as the
personality and its dynamics, are functioning by a lag, which is then
temporarily corrected. It is most fascinating
.
> >
> > >> 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 vibration 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?

Wry: When the physical seeing is completely attentive, it connects to
empathy and conscience automatically, though not mechanically, so to speak.
This is a KEY POINT.

>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?

Wry: Oh for heaven's sake, by being shown the joy and simplicity of being
fullly attentive and by the almost immediate reward of reaping great
blessing. Plus it is really interesting.

>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.

Wry: I have made many messages on this subject on this list. I guess you
could reference them by the phrase, "time-appropriate." This has EVERYTHING
to do with understanding Madame Blavatsky's teaching, and is a very
important concept to grasp. Maybe I will go into this again in the future,
but not now, as I am getting sick of this subject.

> >
> > >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.

Wry: Wrong. When I speak of the body, I mean the body and all of its
processes, including feeling and even thought, as recorded impartially from
the outside, but if the body is walking down the street, without a lot of
feelings and thoughts, and something impartial (as if) from outside, is
recording it as it moves, between the impartial recording and the physical
body, a BRIDGE is formed. This bridge is the beginning of the formation of
another kind of body that is of a much more subtle and finer materiality.
Need I say more? If you do not see how this is connected to Madame
Blavatsky's work, there is nothing more I can do to explain this.

>(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

Cut>>>>>>Maybe I will comment on the rest, which is the end of Dallas's
message, sometime in the future. Sincerely. Wry
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>