Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00239)

Hi. Well, this is not my usual type of message, as there will be no ideas in
it, for the first time ever. #1:You sound suspiciously like Leon (anyone on
can can read your message and see for himself what I am talking about) and I
am starting to wonder if you are he, which is o.k., as he is my biggest
supporter, (not that I need his support). But he did say I am Kuan Yin or
something to that effect. #2: I am not paranoid. I have been removed from
Bri-Study because of this (thread) of messages, which I suspected would
happen, and is very wrong, I am too busy to write about this now, but will
try to some time in the future. #3:I believe that some people on this list
are already very interested in what I have to say.

On second thought, I guess I will put an idea in here, as I do not want to
encourage trivia on this list. I have seen Madame Blavatsky's writings and
am more connected to her in several ways than you may imagine. As far as new
comers go, if you see my messages as contrary to the teachings of Madame
Blavatsky, which they are NOT, this is the perfect opportunity to clarify
her teachings by using my material as a springboard. In doing so, you will
not only develop the gift of speech, but also your own active force and the
active force of others.Everything is already set up for the conscious person
who is able to use it for the benefit of others, and this includes you and
me or anyone else on here. It is all grist for the mill of greater doing
(and by this I do not mean mine, but literally anybody"s). When you read
these words, rejoice, as everything is in its place. Madame Blavatsky would
turn over in her grave if she could see what has happened on Bri-Study. Do
you think that if she were alive today, I would be her enemy and she mine?
Guess again. Do you think she would be writing the same words and doing the
same project? This is a key question, my gift to you . Think this over for
more than a second. Ponder it.

My original message was admittedly radical, but sometimes it is necessary to
take the donkey by its horns (or does a donkey even have horns?), and by
donkey I do not mean either Madame Blavatsky's teachings or even theosophy
today. Again, do not worry about new people coming to theosophy. Because of
me more new people will be coming to theosophy and staying here. Enquiry
draws people like a magnet. People are starved for it.

Re material, you are confusing GROSS MATERIAL(which Madame Blavatsky
referred to as "material" with subtle material. A thought is material. A
feeling is material. An idea is material. A spirit body is material. As a
living body on earth, you know and experience everything as material. Some
of you do not know how to discriminate between different kinds of material.
It is a matter of definition of terms. Madame Blavatsky and I are talking
about the same thing. Tthere is something else. This is a different time.
There is much more that you can see and do. You are supposed to question
everything, even what Madame Blavatsky says, but in all truth, most of you,
though not all, do not know how. This is saddening.

Let me put it a different way: A soul has to eat, or it is dead. In order to
sustain itself, it needs to assimilate and excrete different subtle
qualities of material. I hope this is specific enough for you. Think this
over, but, of course, do not accept it as authority, as anything I say, as
well as anything Madame Blavatsky says, could be wrong. Sincerely, Wry
----- Original Message -----
From: <Graphinc@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bn-study] RE: REINCARNATION SUPPORTED -- Ocean
Ch. .10


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