Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00073)

Hi. Leon. You have said, in a message posted April 15, to Theos-Talk re: a
message from me to bri-study which YOU posted on Theos-talk: "Besides, this
case does
not refer to cross posting, but is about someone objecting to being quoted
in a letter directed to me." I am DISGUSTED. Below is the email from me to
another list, which you posted out on Theos-talk.. Then Dallas responded to
it. I was
objecting to BOTH.

You have taken my message from another list and posted it on Theos-talk with
a
response. But no one on Theos-talk who is not on bri-study can see the
original email
or chain, which was very interesting, to which I responded. That email which
you have posted on Theos-talk was the tail end of a much more complex
interchange.

A person a science list we are both on has complained vigorously about your
PLAGIARIZING and also this kind of cross posting. I am pretty sure that
people from this other list do not know you have been posting their material
(in response to you) on theos-talk on occasion, and God (Infinite Causeless
Cause) only knows where else, with your response to it, also out of context,
in a way which is dishonestly favorable to yourself. You have been accused
of plagiarizing
your ABC Theory, which to my mind, is an immature theory, anyway, plus you
have posted material in such a way that has put yourself in a favorable
slant, where, in actuality, your theory has been ripped to shreds on this
science list.

I do not care if it is illegal or not. It is RUDE, AGGRESSIVE, AND IMMORAL,
with no purpose but to perpetrate your own ego.

The original message was not even to you. I left a very good message
to this person. His response was bizarre and unconscionable, which any one
on bri-study could see for himself, but which people on Theos-talk could not
see.

I am the one who is being asked dozens and dozens of questions, and
answering, in great detail, a lot of them, not all, but as many as I can. I
am spending many hours a weeks, and sometimes two or more hours a day on
Theosophy lists, but my time is limited. If I ever miss any questions,
people are free to run them past me again, though from now one, I am only
going to answer questions selectively, and as suits the quality and meaning
I intend to convey, as I am getting sick of this. Meanwhile, the one and
only question I have
asked your star theosophist, Dallas, several times, a KEY question about the
FUNCTION of claiming so
called "immortality," he has never even acknowledged. It is saddening.

I am not here to denigrate theosophy, as you seem to think, but as a
participant. It is interesting the way Madame Blavasky approached the
subject of causality and other material. The way you and Dallas approach
human spirituality seem to me to have resulted from this, but others'
approaches
are a result also, of different aspects. Different people are on different
levels of maturity. I am just attempting to participate from my own level of
understanding, whatever that is. You (and Dallas) would do well to listen to
Jerry Scheuler, on theos-list. Though I acknowledge I have and sometimes
still have a problem with his approach, he is way more advanced than either
of you, and will help you both
understand better. I hope no one will be angry at me for writing this. It is
a little harsh, but if you cover it with bee honey, it will go down better.
Sincerly, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:19 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re::Re: [bn-study]MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE: lesson 1


> Serious hypothetical questions for serious theosophists:
> (I hope there are more than 300 students on this online loop. ;-)
>
> 1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was an
> "object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal Brotherhood"?
>
> 2. If someone doesn't accept the "Three Fundamental Principles" as being
> absolutely valid and immutable propositions, can he/she call him/herself a
> "theosophist"?
>
> 3. How can anyone learn anything when they talk too much, prejudge
> everything, waffle in the negatives, and say nothing positive?
>
> 4. For such persons -- what would be their intents and purposes in
haranguing
> a group of serious theosophists (among other students listening in) who
are
> discussing theosophy as the synthesis of science, religion, and
philosophy,
> along with its practical applications in every field on all planes of
reality?
>
> Leonardo
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 04/09/03 9:38:22 AM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Hi.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ult-blr" <ult_blr@vsnl.net>
> >To: <study@blavatsky.net>
> >Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:09 AM
> >Subject: [bn-study] Re: MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE:
> >
> >
> >> Since there is no thoughtful response to my queries I suppose there
> >> is no scope for any serious exercise in mutual understanding. Any
further
> >> discussion appears useless.
> >>
> >> RP
> >
> >I have lovingly answered the questions you have asked me, with much deep
> >thought and to the best of my abilities, in the spirit of enquiry and
with
> >an openness to being shown I am wrong, by further enquiry. The questions
> >I have not answered, I intend to cover in the near future, and have told
> >you so. t took a really long time to write that email, as I am a slow
writer,
> >and something very time consuming and troubling is going on in my life
> >right now, which limits my time.
>
> Stop complaining. If you were a theosophist, you would know. The "near
> future" is NOW! What has love to do with answering a question? Maybe you
> should learn the Socratic Method of inquiry. The only way to teach is to
ask
> a question, and the only way to learn is to answer one. Chew on that!
>
> >Enquiry is hard work, but this kind of back and forth questioning is a
> >wonderful way for people to learn. Your response is very problematic and
> >saddening to me. All I can think is that your original questions were not
> >sincere and it was a game, as you were not really interested in what I
would
> >say and never had an intention to enquire. That's o.k., though sad, but
> >if you consider me to be a person who may have a view different from your
> >own, how do you except to establish a universal brotherhood by line of
> pursuit
> >you are following? you may be angry because I am not falling into line
> >and accepting mechanically the three principles of theosophy, which, for
all
> >you know, I may actually accept, as I have not said whether I do or do
not.
> >The point I was making was not that these principles are or are not
valid,
> >but something else.
>
> What else? Blame him. Wipe the tears. Then get off the fence, and learn
> who you are talking to and what you are talking about.
>
> Enquiry is the easiest work of all. All it takes is a question ...
Then --
> seeing, hearing, and considering the answers. That's study, and that's
the
> work. The word "enquiry" is not inquiry, no matter how many times you say
> it. It's real learning that's the hardest work. So, telling without being
> asked (and, especially, without any learning behind it) -- is the quickest
> way to end communications.
>
> >Furthermore, by your response, you arbitrarily place yourself in the
> >position of an authority, as I literally have no idea of what you are
> >talking about when you said my response to your message was not
thoughtful,
> >as I thought very deeply when I made my response (though to you my
thinking
> >may not be very deep, it was deep to me), and made my response with much
> >love and happiness and was looking forward to further enquiry. Since I
have
> >no idea what you objected to in my response, this is effectively (maybe
not
> >so effectively, but whatever) objectifying me and putting me out in the
cold.
>
> Poor baby. Daddy doesn't know how innocent she is.
> How can thinking be thoughtful if it doesn't go as deep as the question?
>
> To answer an inquiry properly, one must know more about the subject of the
> question than the enquirer. If the subject is theosophical, then only a
more
> advanced student can answer it. If the answer is valid and to the point,
the
> enquirer will know it, and ask more questions. If not, he won't ask that
> student any more questions... And, in the spirit of brotherhood, he will
> simply speak out loud that the responder is no "authority" and, while
> professing to be, doesn't know what he/she is talking about. (Thanks,
RP)
>
> If you were a theosophist (a true seeker of truth) -- you would know that
> dialogues between two student's on near equal levels of wisdom, who know
what
> they are talking about, can be a great teacher. So, sad lady, why don't
you
> just stop talking and start listening?
>
> >If you made several attempts to communicate with me and I repeatedl;y did
> >not answer questions etc., I could see you gettting frustrated and
quitting,
> >but this is not the case, as it is the beginning of communication and I
have
> >made a sincere attempt. I realize your approach is not typical of the
> >average theosophist, though I have seen more of this kind of behavior on
> >theosophy lists than on other types of forums. Still, it is always a
shock
> >to encounter it.
>
> If you were a theosophist, It wouldn't be. No one who is one, at any
> reasonable level of theosophical knowledge, can communicate with you.
That's
> a fact.
>
> I heard a theosopher say, "You shouldn't put the cart before the horse."
>
> >I will go over my message with my answers again and try to understand how
> >my sincere answers could have led to this radical a response. I will be
> >answering further, and also answering the questions I did not get to yet.
> >Feel free to respond at any time, but I would appreciate an explanation
of
> >your above email, as I literally have no idea of how my message could
have
> >elicited this kind of response from you, and because I do not know what
> >you are talking about, there is no way for me to learn. Sincerely, Wry
>
> If you were a theosophist, after reading any of your missives, you would
know
> exactly what he's talking about.
>
> I heard another theosopher say. "You should never put off for tomorrow
what
> you should do today." (That makes sense. If you do -- tomorrow, he'll
> forget the question he asked yesterday. Good cop out...)
>
> He also said, "Put yourself in the minds of the readers" and, "Reread
> whatever you write at least three times before you send it."
>
> He then said "There's no such thing as an 'impartial observer'" (Other
than
> God, I said... sotto voce... shhhh :-)
>
> Hope you learned something.
>
> Best wishes,
> </:-)>
> (Disclaimer: As the author of the above comments, I am the sole
"authority"
> as to their contents.) But, who am I? That is the question.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>