Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00141)

(Sorry if this response is so late in coming, but it was partially written 
weeks ago, and got lost in the hundreds of other letters I read and respond 
to of more urgent concern. But the record has to be cleared eventually. 
And, I always respond to all letters addressed directly to me -- no matter 
how long it takes. LHM)
-----------------------------------------
Hi Wry (whoever you are),

I wish to apologize to you if I in any way gave you pain by quoting you on 
this list and on bn-study. However, the subject line indicates that these 
commentaries originated on bn-study -- and the moderator accepted it as 
pertinent. Cross posting to theos-talk is my sole responsibility. 

So, since this topic originated on bn-study and you have made certain serious 
accusations and repeated gossip here that not only concerns me, but also 
those who subscribe to both lists, I feel obligated to post my answer there 
as well as here -- along with the other list that you referred to. (However, 
I don't think the people on the mind-brain list will be interested in 
anything you or I say -- since there are many there that have "torn theosophy 
to bits. :-) But the people here do have an interest, and it is for their 
sake that I'm writing this. 

In any event, while I have no objection to the direct answers you have given 
to my direct questions in my previous letters -- for which I am pleased that 
they have elicited a response that clarified your ideas and your motives, so 
that everyone on the two lists can have a clearer picture of just where you 
are coming from and what you are trying to initiate. (This is because you 
have carried the same topic questioned on another list over to a second list 
covering the same subject matter, and consisting of some of the same people 
you are arguing with.) Don't you see how your actions have initiated all this 
confusion? (Not to say that I didn't contribute to it... By asking leading 
questions designed to ferret out both motive and presentation based on your 
initial mystical approach and antipathy o theosophical methods of teaching.)

If you are truly sincere, I might be your most ardent supporter. But, that 
still remains to be seen... Since, I am much disturbed by the gossipy and 
slanderous approach you have used in this letter to denigrate me as well as 
my associates and friends -- in a public discussion group that cuts across 
several independent (although cooperative) mailing lists. I also wonder why 
you have posted this derogatory letter here three times, and also cross 
posted it to bn-study? (Not that I object to bringing these groups into a 
concordant discussion that might lead to a better understanding of both 
theosophy and the possibility of working together toward the goal of creating 
nuclei of Universal Brotherhood.) 

More comments below

In a message dated 04/16/03 3:41:50 AM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

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 
quotedi n a letter directed to me." I am DISGUSTED.

LHM: By what? What's the fear of being quoted in letters that are 
pertinent to the subject matter discussed in each of these forums -- which 
you initiated by attacking the same theosophy student/teachers who work in 
both areas? Do they not have the right to quote you wherever your comments 
on this subject appears? 

WRY: 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.

LHM: Problem is that you initiated it by attacking people who subscribe 
to both lists. It's hard for some of us to distinguish sometimes, 
considering the immense amount of mail in our boxes, just which list is 
appropriate. In fact, I have never cross posted intentionally to both 
theosophy lists in the past. But, your letters which concerned both 
theosophy as well as attacked the wisdom of their common subscribers made it 
very confusing when you suddenly decided to probe bn-study on the same tack 
you took in theos-talk. Remember, the first letter to RP which started this 
off originated in bn-study, and carried with it reference to people also on 
theos-talk. 


WRY: 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.

LHM: Big deal. What's done is done. Let's let the karma flow and see 
where it's to go. So, now that the die is cast, anyone interested can 
easily access the archives of each list and get up to date. However, the 
letters in question were complete in themselves and referred to specific 
questions which you answered -- supposedly, time appropriately. What's to 
complain about that? 


WRY: A person a science list we are both on has complained vigorously about y
our 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. 

LHM: Talk about DISGUSTING... What has that got to do with anything we 
are talking about here? This response is nothing more than vicious gossip 
and slanderous accusations that are entirely unfounded. And, is designed 
solely to put yourself in the light by darkening the light of others. You 
(speaking as a supposed Buddhist and theosophist) should be ashamed of 
yourself. 

But, then this public statement of yours, on rereading, should be the 
"unbiased recorder" that you yearn for so adamantly. "Know thyself" is the 
first rule of occultism. We all know that, and some of us have been 
practicing its varied methods long before you dreamed of becoming a 
theosophist -- let alone a Buddhist. So, come down off your high horse, and 
ask some of us lowly theosophists what they know about the yoga's of self 
realization -- including the karma yoga offshoot (of objective, therefore 
unbiased, self appraisal of all words and actions) you are proscribing in a 
round about way -- that WQJ gave us in a very "time appropriate" form (as he 
got it straight from the mouth of the Buddha). 

Your opinion of my theory of ABC, as well as those on the "science" list you 
refer to (which is actually a psychology list) -- is of no concern to me -- 
nor does it carry any weight coming from professed "materialists" who think 
the "scientific method" is the answer to everything, and that the self and 
the mind are the epiphenomena of the brain. I could laugh that you take 
their side of the controversy over my theory (that is just a scientific 
clarification of theosophical metaphysics) vs. theirs (which, being 
materialistic, are as leaky as a sieve).


WRY: I do not care if it is illegal or not. It is ,

with no purpose but to perpetrate your own ego.

LHM: Really? If it was intentional, it would be only in the interests of 
information that was contained in the responses you made that may have 
concerned people on both lists -- since the subject for study is identical. 
Besides, you forget that the original was a response to bn-study and the 
crossover was to theos-talk -- which had all the back mail information on the 
subject you brought up. 

So, can we conclude from your response that it is your ego that is being 
pumped up? I don't know how to "perpetrate" an ego. Not to say that I 
haven't got one. But, it certainly doesn't need to be perpetrated or pumped 
up -- since I'm perfectly satisfied with it as it is. :-)

WRY: You have already spoken for yourself, what is "RUDE, AGGRESSIVE, AND 
IMMORAL" -- and in the case of slander in public, also illegal.

LHM: Now, why is the pot calling the kettle black? Where did I slander 
anyone? It is your response above that is slanderous -- since it makes 
direct accusations by hearsay evidence to accuse me of plagiarism. Why don't 
you quote the earlier and later letters to that so called "science" forum -- 
where the original implication (made in another cross posted psychological 
forum) was thoroughly examined and reduced to nothing more than two 
scientists, one of them a pompous egoist (I won't say which :-) coming up 
with the same answers to the same problem? But, I certainly don't have to 
defend myself here. So your bringing it up is even more Rude, Aggressive, 
and Immoral than cross posting a letter (which, looking back on it, could 
have been accidental).


WRY: 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.

LHM: What matter -- if it held information that was pertinent to the 
lists sent to? What makes you say that the people on one list can see things 
differently than the people on another list. Do you know any of them at all? 
I've been on bn-study since it's inception, and the reply to your original 
letter didn't seem so bizarre and unconscionable to me. I could imagine, 
however, how it could to you -- since you think you are the cat's whiskers, 
and that your diversionary ramblings really answer peoples questions. 



WRY: 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. 

LHM: Suit yourself. But I'm the one who has asked at least two-thirds 
of those "dozens and dozens of questions." From here on out, I will refrain 
from questioning you -- since I already know pretty much what you are driving 
at and what is driving you. (No personal disparagement intended.) You have a 
right to your opinions. So, enough said here. Now I'll let the people your 
purpose is directed to, take over. But, I'd appreciate your thanking me for 
helping you spread your message around so far and wide. :-)

WRY: 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.

LHM: Is it any wonder, after the way you treated him? "MY star 
theosophist"? Where did that come from? See! Now you are doing it again, 
sneeringly and self righteously derogating someone else who is not party to 
this correspondence but a member of both lists. Such non sequiturs force 
others to quote you... And, also, for some of us to poke into the aggressive 
part of your self image a bit to see how you strike back. Well, now we see. 
Your fruits are in the responses to our questions. Although I apologize if 
it's mine that cause you grief over the work you have to do in answering them.


WRY: 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

LHM: Yes, there are different aspects to theosophy. But, the difference 
(as well as the problem) is focussing on one of them -- without considering 
the others in an equal light. Although, each aspect may be useful for 
different people to focus on. However, your way of trying to push your own 
focus on us so harshly, and with personal degradation's, is uncalled for -- 
and is what triggered this brouhaha in the first place. So, lighten up. We 
might take it from HPB, but you can't speak for her yet -- in spite of your 
braggadocio about being in her secret society. 

Now you bring in another party to place in contention with theosophists on 
this list, that might force me to cross post this letter on Theos-I -- which 
I don't know if you are on yet. But, maybe you are asking for that -- since 
you are so eager to make your opinions known to all theosophists as well as 
scientists. I have no argument with that, but you don't have to be so pushy 
and control freaky about it. :-) Anyway, I figure anything publicly written 
about theosophy can be quoted on any theosophical forum. If you want to keep 
your threads intact, why don't you start a new closed circle list that will 
protect your secrets?

Incidentally, Jerry gave Mauri and myself (by implication of Mauri posting 
his comments on this list) permission to quote him in any of our letters that 
may be appropriate on another list. For your information, Jerry and I (as 
well as Dallas) have had mutual correspondence (friendly arguments and 
agreements, as well as sharp disagreements, if you will) going back over many 
years -- which you ahve no idea about. So, you don't have to tell us how far 
advanced he is and how retarded we are. Buddhists arguing with theosophists, 
and especially occultists, is as old as time. While they agree in many 
respects, there are equal areas where the disagreements are as wide as the 
ocean. Your arguments and positions with regard to theosophy and Buddhism, 
could very well be subject to that same kind of treatment. 

And, if you don't like your opinions and personal, ad homenym comments made 
in public forums quoted in other public forums, then keep them to yourself. 
In addition, if you wish to complain about any personal problems you have 
with partivular individuals that may be on many of the same lists, and not 
have it spread all over the internet, I suggest you write to them privately. 

LHM 


----- 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 Ihave 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/

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