Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00221)

In a message dated 04/11/03 1:22:42 AM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi. This is a great message (for me to reply to,. mainly because it is short
>and cuts the grease in a way that I can cut the grease further, at the same
>time as making this into a bridge. Remember, everyone, one of the main ways
>I communicate, is by a technique I have named "layering." The stronger the
>contrast between a so-called "negative" and a "positive", the stronger a
>chord can be manifested from the middle, which something from the outside
>is consciously using external circumstances to cup around in such a way that
>the essential is conveyed, not by telling but by showing, This is intended
>to be an act of love, but is it received as such? I believe so. as there is
>a quality of inspiration which cannot manifest its oppoisite. If my messages
>cause you discomfort or pain, I am sorry, as they are not intended to.
>Please bear in mind that your messages are not causing me pain, though
>sometimes they are saddening.

I'm glad my probing hasn't caused you any pain. I'm sorry you are sad (but I 
hope its for the pain of others). But look at the bright side... The 
opportunity you have been given to "show" us your good intentions and wise ways in 
little cleared light. Sometimes the devil's advocate serves a purpose. Maybe 
you asked for him. 

> See below for further comments.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:43 AM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Re: [bn-study]MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE: 
>lesson 1
>
>
>> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>> > 1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was
>> > an "object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal
>> > Brotherhood"?
>
>>Wry: Seems to me I have heard this on theosophy lists many times, but maybe
>I got it wrong. Who even cares. Go by your conscience and make each deed
>count. I will ask, though, did Madame Blavatsky say, "Man should
>aim"................." "finally and chiefly, to aid in the institutuion
>of a Brotherhood of Humanity, wherein all good and pure men, of every race,
>shall recognize each other as the equal effects (upon this planet) of one
>Uncreate, Universal, Infinite and Everlasting Cause?" (I got this quote of
>Madame Blavatsky from Dallas.) (Some) of you people are too much into
>definitions and labels and carrying images of yourselves as "theosophists"
>or whatever, in my opinion, but maybe I do this, too, in my own way.

LHM: The Master said, "Anyone can call themselves theosophists who are in 
the true service of humanity." If that's what you are doing, then you are a 
theosophist. But, how is one to know what "true service" is? 

That quote of Blavatsky (which is out of context) doesn't mean to "Form" a 
Brotherhood -- only to aid in its institution. The rest is simply a definition 
of what a Universal Brotherhood is expected to be when so instituted (far in 
the future). 
Each of us becoming an independent "Nucleus" of such a brotherhood, to "aid" 
in such initiation, is an entirely different matter. But no one, except 
oneself can judge whether or not such a state has been achieved by anyone. Some 
need much more than "balancing themselves with their environment. There are 
many stages and many yogas, and each of us has to engage in them in accord with 
our own karma. Your way may fit a few neophytes that are ready to start 
"recording" and "balancing" -- but many of us here, having learned to observe 
themselves long ago, are on their own path that doesn't involve forming this or any 
other theosophical study group or discussion list into a "brotherhood" 
according to anyone else's rules and methods. Teach and learn, but don't preach and 
turn, is the watchword of theosophy. I have no objection to your teaching 
yourself and others of like mind a way to find themselves, but I do object your 
trying to ram it down everyone's throats -- some of whom are more interested 
in studying the ideas of theosophy and don't like to told in public that they 
are stupid or are following a "faulty" teaching. 

>>
>> None, I believe. The Objects assume the Universal Brotherhood already
>> exists, and does not need to be formed (by the way, I have pointed out
>> that there IS a required belief in the Theosophical Society; in order to
>> form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, one must
>> believe that the Brotherhood already exists).
>
>Wry: This is problematic and a good subject for further enquiry. A belief is
>like dog s--t. Smear it on an act of "love" nd it will be contaminated. But
>maybe I am wrong about this. If so, explain why and how. For instance,
>when you love someone, is it more about seeing them, as they are, in all 
their
>unique preciousness, or believing they are precious? When you love your
>cat or your child, when there is a moment of pure and profound beauty, is it
>attatched to belief?

You may have missed entirely the meaning of the "existing brotherhood." That 
is, the brotherhood of the Masters and Adepts, who know each other, and are 
the teachers of theosophy. There would be no point in studying theosophy or 
following its principless and objects if one didn't "believe" in the existence of 
the Brotherhood, and that they know what they are talking about. How can 
anyone follow your way, if they didn't believe you knew what you were talking 
about? As for the Masters (and their messenger, HPB) their fruits are obvious, 
since we can, and many of us have tested them within ourselves and can find no 
errors. Therefore, no real students of theosophy believes anything until they 
have so tested and determined its truth for themselves. What to beware of is 
following someone else's interpretion of those theosophical teachings. 

>> > 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"?
>
>Wry: You are lost in the wrong details. I AM a theosophist, and we (or at
>least EYE) should be going back to the words of Madame Blavatsky, and
>examining them, under a finely tuned microscope. I Am capable of doing
>this and will, when and if I get around to it, if not here, someplace else,
>where there an even larger audience, though I would be perfectly happy
>to do it here. I will be doing this because I conceive it to be my duty. (But
>I have other duties, so do not be impatient).

No one is stopping you. Those words are based on what HPB said in the Proem 
as a preamble to the Secret Doctrine. And, many of us have already thoroughly 
examined with a fine toothed comb, all of Blavatsky's words (and the words of 
all the great teachers she referred us to)... So, why should we be impatient 
waiting for you to tell us your version of it? Do your duty as you see it, is 
another good theosophical advice. The duty of another is fraught with danger. 
Since your opinion of your self professed capability remains to be proven -- 
when we see it, in effect, we will believe it. 

As for the subject of the above question, you are again evading its answer, 
and by innuendo, inplying that a theosophist studying its science and 
philosophy can understand or apply it without accepting its fundamental propositions as 
absolute truth. How can this be, when its every conclusion rests entirely on 
them? That's why HPB gave them in the Proem, before laying down the body of 
the teaching in the SD. Without them, the entire philosophy falls apart. 
Therefore, we should not confuse the lower yogas of theosophical practices with 
the higher ones, nor get the idea that one yoga (such as you seem to be 
promoting) covers them all. The Heart doctrine and the head doctrine cannot be 
separated, and all practices must be engaged in simultaneously for one wishing to 
attain the goal of self realization -- which means synthesizing all our inner 
natures with each other and aligning them into one balanced composite nature 
that centers between the heart and the mind. Your unbiased recording way is 
just another yogic path, possibly suitable to those who are on the same level you 
are. But, I'm sure that many one of us who have practiced Zen or Rajah yoga 
have found and incorporated it in our own yoga practices through our own "self 
devised and self determined efforts" -- that are "time appropriate" as we each 
experience and unbiasedly (through our higher self) observe it from moment to 
moment. 


>> The Theosophical Society onnly requires that one agrees with the 3
>> Objects; agreement with the Three Fundamental Principles is totally
>> unnecessary. Even the Mahatmas did not claim that there was no chance
>> of them being wrong, only that they, themselves, were convinced that they
>> were right.
>>
>> > 3. How can anyone learn anything when they talk too much, prejudge
>> > everything, waffle in the negatives, and say nothing positive?
>>
>>> They can learn what it is to be obnoxious and disliked.
>
>Wry: If you are talking about me, what is this I feel flowing in my
>direction? It is love, coming from many people on theosophy lists. I
>perceive myself to be the object of great affection.. This is the mystery
>and the blessing of being pretty much free of negative emotions. The few
>residues I am not free from, you will assist in setting up conditions for
>the purification of

Why do you assume the question and the answer refers to you? But, if it did, 
and if others think you fit the fit the profile, why do you assume that you 
would be loved? Your 'belief" in being that "object of great affection" could 
be contrary to the those assumptions, and a figment of your imagination. In 
any event, I'm glad we could be of service toward your finding your own path to 
purification. 

>> > 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?
>
>Wry: It is shifted. I have explained about adjusting the tempo of the
>functions, both on here, and especially on theos-talk. This is the single
>most important topic, in my humble opinion, that anyone could possibly
>broach to you. You do not yet grasp the profound implication and
>significance of this and the time-appropriate gift of it. But that is just
>you. Others on here may be more interested in seizing the bull by its horns
>and even riding it.

I don't know who you are speaking to here (What is here?) -- since, I didn't 
ask such a leading question with you in mind. Although, in the context of 
the letter you wrote that it preceeded, it could be appropriate. But since the 
"tempo of the functions" is a meaningless phrase, I have no idea what you are 
talking about, and what relationship it has to the question or the answer. In 
any event, your profundity could very well be someone else's simplicity. 

>> Beats the hell out of me. I can make guesses; perhaps they have been
>> hurt badly by a person or group who called him/her/themselve/s
>> Theosophical, and this is their way of getting revenge.
>
>Wry: Well, this is, at least, an attempt at compassion. This so-called
>"revenge" is a blessing. You just do not see it, but some do. Some people
>are able to receive what others are not yet able to. Try to increase your
>window of opportunity by looking at things from a different angle. Then
>there will be "", and a different kind of breadth and depth to the ordinary
>such that the ordinary will be transformed.. Perhaps I have a conscious use
>for you, just as (I hope) you have a conscious use for me. Everything is to
>be used. The beginning of creative love is learning how to use your
>remainder as fertilizer for a garden. Are three hundred people reading
>this, as Dallas has suggested? I doubt it, but sure do hope so. Go back over
>this message if you think I am saying nothing. Sincerely, Wry

While the above response to Bart doesn't seem to refer to me or my question 
-- I have, and you are. I just wanted to point out that sometimes saying 
nothing is the way to find out something. For yourself, that is -- not necessarily 
for someone else.

LHM

>>
>
>> Bart