Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00238)

In a message dated 05/25/03 8:25:34 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

<<Hi. You are acting as if I have done something terrible by expressing my

perspective, but this is what enquiry is about. There is nothing to fear.

Only learning can occur and the shedding of false ideas. You, Herm and Reed

shouldn't be so disturbed that someone expresses views and ideas contrary to

your own. This can only be an opening. So what if someone "misinterprets"

Madame Blavatsky's writings? It is all the more opportunity to discuss and

clarify what she was saying and for learning to occur.>>

Nothing terrible (although your paranoia keeps showing :-)... Just commenting 
on your constant misinterpreting of not only Blavatsky, but also of the 
ancient theosophy she simply presented as its "messenger." Your materialization of 
spirit, which theosophy explains thoroughly, is plain nonsense 


<<Wry: I do not know anything about you, Herm, except that you have written 
only four messages the entire time I have been on Theos-talk and all four 
were 

to me, so I guess we can at least assume that something about my material is

inspiring you to participate. See below.>>

You will know me by my fruits. As we already know you by yours. I've been 
reading the mail on this forum since its inception (more than five years) 
before you showed up (and have been an occultist and theosophist for more years 
than you have been on this planet). The reason I only answer your mail that (ha 
ha) "inspires to me to comment," is that you're the only one whose "material" 
is so vague and contrary to theosophy, as Leon and Dallas and Reed have 
pointed out, that I don't think newcomers should assume you know anything useful 
with respect to its teachings. If you want to preach a new yoga and form a 
Sangha with you as its leader, this isn't the place for it. But, if you sincerely 
desire to discuss theosophy and find out more about it, or can further clarify 
some of its teachings, we are certainly interested in what you have to say.


----- Original Message -----

From: <LeonMaurer@aol.com>

To: <study@blavatsky.net>

Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 2:19 PM

Subject: [bn-study] RE: REINCARNATION SUPPORTED -- Ocean Ch. .10



> In light of Reed's comments, I thought the members of bn-study might be

> interested in this commentary to Wry's letter picked up from Theos-talk.

>

> Lenny

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <dalval14@e...>

> To: <study@b...>

> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:20 PM

> Subject: [bn-study] RE: REINCARNATION SUPPORTED -- Ocean Ch. .10

>

>

> cut> To lose sight of immortality and purpose is to submit to

> > "Ahankara" or the sense of "Lower-self-ishness. One then places

> > the personality ahead of the SELF -- the ATMAN.

> >

> cut

>

> <<Wry: And to try to hold this in sight creates and reinforces duality in 

> the most deadly, insiduous way. The personality wants to be "immortal" 

> and will hold to this idea, thereby being bonded to the sense of

>"Lower-self-ishness" with no way out. 

> Maybe by this means, there can be a certain kind of

> spiritual progression, but it will always be stopped short by the device

> of the image of oneself being immortal. This is the last thing to ever tell

> ignorant people of personality. The proper approach is to reinforce and

> hammer in the idea of the inevitabitity of death. This alone will spur

> people to make the appropriate efforts. Of course, if the time appropriate

> aim of her teachings was to replace Christianity with a different

> perspective, then it makes sense that she would speak of immortality in

> this way. It was an interesting experiment, but methods are always being

> refined and though the ultimate aim might be the same, the means is 
> always being adjusted to satisfy the conditions for its accomplishments.>>

>

> Herm:

> Do you really understand what Blavatsky's purpose was, other than what she

> constantly reiterated in her books and their introductions? I've read (and

> listened to) every word she ever wrote, and I have never heard her say or

> even imply that she was trying to set up a new religion or "replace

> Christianity."


<<Wry: I have never said that she was trying to set up a new religion, but

sometimes, judging by the responses of certain people I have encountered on

theosophy lists, though not all, it seems that some may have turned it into

such. As far as "replace Christianity" goes, maybe this is overstated, or

maybe not. Bring your own salt. I believe some people get the gist of what

I intended to say, though the words may not have been perfect. In my

opinion, she was bringing a new perspective, an Eastern perspective to the

West. In any case, just because she didn't say so, does not mean it is true

or not true.>>

Read you own words above. Everything you say is subject to 
misinterpretation, since nothing is ever said that doesn't contain a cop out or make excuses 
for your ignorance of the real roots of theosophy. 


> How can you assume that what she was or Dalval is talking about is the

> "immortality of the personality"?


<<Wry: I have not and do not assume this, and what has led you to think I

have? Give the words and I will clarify. Of course she did not mean this.>>

Again, read your own words in this and previous mail. You are always 
confusing personality with individuality or lower self with higher self. 


>(Have you read all of her teachings? If so, have

> you found any inconsistencies or "time dependencies"?)


<<Wry: I have not read all of her teachings. What doi you mean by "time

dependencies?" Please explain as I genuinely do not understand. Her whole

teaching was obviously interconnected to the surrounding causes and

conditions at the time in which it was being given, and also connected to

her aim, which we can probably only speculate about, which would have to

have been connected to and tempered by these conditions.>>

It means "time appropriateness," which you are always harping about, but 
never qualifying. HPB's "whole teaching" is simply the ancient truths of 
theosophy from an esoteric and occult point of view that has nothing to do with her 
personal aims, or the conditions of the time that this teaching was given out. 
Whatever you "speculate" about it is pure nonsense. 


>. Of course, HPB never

> taught that, nor can it be true -- since it's obvious that the physical 
body and

> the personality it assumes (and changes continually) doesn't remain after

> death. All that does are the skandas and the individual higher Self that is

> destined to reincarnate again and again until Nirvana or the next stage of

> universal consciousness is reached.


<<Wry: It may be something like this, though it is questionable that what you

call the skandas remain.>>

Maybe you should learn about the skandas, and their relationship to karma 
before questioning my statements -- as if you know something we don't. 


> (If one doesn't annihilate oneself eventually, by

> becoming an "absolute materialist" or "hungry ghost"). Your materialistic

> arguments, concerns and disagreements with theosophical principles, appear

> to be leading in that direction.


<<Wry: There are different densities of material and they interconnect. This

is the key to everything. The spirit is also material, but a more subtle

form of material. There is nothing bad or good about material. It is being

trapped in gross material that is undesirable. The way out of the maze is by

constantly refining and refining until there is no more discrepancy or a

purified monad (objectivity; the clear light.) At this point there is a glip

(I have coined a word), and the subtle winds enter and come to rest in the

heart. Then there is, as Jerry has suggested, a perfect monad, and one

cannot know if it is one or many, as it is perfect objectivity, i.e. the

clear light. Maybe there is something outside watching this. Maybe not.

Maybe it is something else. Why don't you find out. In major doing is true

"self" expression, not fantasizing about past or future lives, which is off

the track.>>

Pure nonsense. To speak of spirit as being "material" is the perfect sign 
that you are completely ignorant of theosophy. The rest of your remarks are your 
own form of "gobbledy gook" -- pasting together mystical words and coined 
words with no connecting logic. Par for the course for you, suppose. And, I'm 
sure everybody sees it. Maybe you should study a bit more and find out what a 
monad is from a theosophical point of view, before slipping such meaningful 
words into your babble.

> The whole purpose of theosophy is to teach that the only reality is that

> eternal higher Self, who must learn to eliminate the ignorance and control

> the actions of the lower, temporary animal selves it joins with and inhabits

> on materialization.


<<Wry: And this is not a bad idea, but, in my opinion, the attempt to approach

it this way is a conceptual approach and therefore will not necessary lead

to the result intended.>>

What way have we approached it? All I said was "learn" and "control." I 
didn't say how. Or, are you saying this just to justify to others that your 
"materialism" approach is the only correct way? 


> Your concept of a "duality" between the understanding of the

> difference between the lower and higher self is a primitive interpretation

> of HPB's occult teachings.


<<Wry: No, it is your concept that is of the duality. The idea that everything

is one does not make you one. As I have said several times in messages, if

there is a continuity of this awareness from point A toi point B to point C,

a plane is established and material functions under fewer laws. Itr has to

do with breath. but I will not go into this now.>>

More nonsense. I think you know it, too, and why you don't "go into it" now. 
I'm still waiting for any the things you said in the past that you would "go 
into later." Either, you speak cogently and to the point in the now, without 
all the vagaries, or don't expect anyone to take seriously what you say in the 
future. 


> There is no inherent separation between anything in the

> universe... Although, the nature of the different fields of consciousness

> give the illusion of duality's. One must see the "dependently arising" 
> trinity of the All, or each manifest Monad (as a unity), to understand the

> fundamental duality within it. Thus, the fundamental duality on the 

> manifest planes is that between spirit and matter.


<<Wry: You have made a big intellectualization above. Again, spirit is a form

of material. What else do you think it is? It is just not the gross material

that people get caught up or stuck in.>>

Your assumption. If you keep on speaking of the spirit as "material," you 
might as well forget about trying to preach anything to theosophists -- who know 
very well that spirit has no relationship to matter -- other than being pure 
"consciousness" or subjective awareness that is the observer of matter. This 
foolish conception of yours is what makes everything else you preach total 
nonsense -- as Reed and Leon pointed out.


>(But, they are both aspects of the same unmanifest

> Absolute reality.) To deny this, is the most "deadly and insidious" way

> to force ignorant people to worship their body and their personality, and

> ignore their spirit -- which is, essentially, their conscience.


<<Wry: First of all, you are not only talking gibberish in the words above,

but functioning from a premise that I have said something I have not. Please

explain to me how you have gotten this out of my words. Also, I do not know

where you get the idea that conscience is spirit, though I would be

interested in you explaining this further.>>

Taking my above statement out of context doesn't add to your credibility. 
Explain where I am talking "gibberish"? Anyway, you did deny that matter and 
spirit are entirely separate from a functional point of view, since one is 
imbued with and based on energy of space in motion, and the other is rooted in 
absolute stillness. One is eternal and the other is not. You also see spirit as 
being material -- which is entirely wrong theosophically. That's why HPB taught 
theosophy as a "synthesis of science religion and philosophy." Conscience, 
as a source of moral or ethical judgment is based solely on the "realization" 
that all individual selves are an inseparable part of the eternal Self or 
"consciousness" of absolute reality. Such realization engenders "love for all 
life" and respect for their individual karma's. That is why conscience is a 
spiritual function that has nothing to do with matter, other than using it as a 
means of expression. Such Self realization can come about by following the lines 
laid down by HPB -- which imply "individual" self devised and self determined 
efforts" -- since each individual starts out with their own circumstance of 
karma. There are many different approaches to such self realization. 

> Wry: As far as the possibility of actual "immortality," because of the way

> a "monad" is formed interdependently in relationship to the physical body

> and its position on earth in relationship to the sun, it is unlikely that a

> human being could achieve an individual existence past the life of the solar

> system. Whoever you are, if you are hooked on donkey corn, ponder this

> idea and feel the sorrow that will make you a man and not a child. 

> Sincerely, Wry

>

> Herm: Well, that's a long enough "eternity" for my higher individual

> self-awareness,


Wry: I would agree, and for me, too, though I would like to live forever

just as much as the next person.


> since I expect to have many many self-chosen rebirths (some, maybe

> more than "human" or homo sapien) before that inevitable transformation

> into a higher state of cosmic consciousness. Knowing that, 

> is what makes it easy for us to face the welcome and inevitable, periodic 

> "deaths" on this "personality" level of existence.


Wry: The above sounds like a belief. If this is what comforts you, you will

have to pay the price.

The all knowing one has spoken. Pay what price? Naturally, you don't 
understand this, since it's obvious that you have no understanding or self attained 
conviction of the truths of karma and reincarnation, or anything else about 
the reality of theosophical ideas... Since, I take it, you are too busy 
observing your own physical actions and stirring up the "materials," and have no time 
to study, meditate, or look within your higher nature -- so you can find out 
these "spiritual" truths for yourself. If you weren't so arrogant about your 
wisdom and knowledge, I might feel sorry for you.


> So, hold the poppycock, and worry about your own

> attainment of "manhood" -- which, if you are not careful, and continue

> speaking as a "materialist," might make you lose the 

> innocence of being a child in spirit

> while a "man" in body (or "wombman," if that's what you are:).


<<Wry: I do not believe you have put too many ideas in your message. What

thought looks at an image it has projected, a process of mesmerization

occurs. I am sorry, but this is what I have found out by deep and lengthy

investigation. When this happens, the oscillation frequency of both the

mind, emotions and body function at a lag. This is a very important idea.

You can investigate for yourselves, any of you, and you will find out. There

may be something that is not material, call it the void, the stillness,

obliteration, the place beyond thought or whatever, but when you think about

it, it is not it. Period. Why do I have to tell you this. All the levels are

here now. You must make the effort now to become free from material, as

sensient creatures are suffering and there is great urgency. I do not

believe you have understood my words, but I know there are a few on here who

do. If it is not material and you THINK of it or about it, it becomes

material. You cannot create a "God" out of the void. That is backwards and

will put you into a deep sleep. When we are awake we will be on the cutting

edge of the void and will find out what two swords means. Sincerely, Wry

p.s. I have already gone into the personality and how it functions

mechanically and associatively. Telling it an idea will not work. If it did,

theosophy would have many more members by now. All these words, material,

spirit etc. have associate meanings to you. When something does not

correspond to what you think you know, you will not listen. The lower

personality does not transform in the way you think it does. That is the

taking of a pill, be it a drug or a palatable idea. Without a sense of

urgengy, which you obviously don't have, humanity may be doomed. You have

one life to do this in. I am Buddhist. I subscribe to the idea of karma and

reincarnation, but don't worry about that. Do not think about it. Your time

is in this life, the precious human rebirth, which is very rare. Do not

waste it in a dream.

Talk about "gobbledy gook"... The above diatribe is so confused, so 
misunderstanding, contradictory and denigrating to theosophy, so self promoting and 
arrogant, so personally derogatory, and makes so little sense on any count, that 
there is little point in answering. 

Hermes


> Best wishes,

>

> Hermes