Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00146)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thank you for your answer.
The emails on this list Theos-Talk have a tendency to present certain
socalled 'facts' randomly. And sometimes the 'facts' are more BELIEF than
actual 'facts' or 'knowledge'.
Giants may exist. But do we need Giant idiots ?

People who are conventionally religious are usually admires of
things which their associative mentality tells them are 'holy' or
'good' or 'devotional'. They obtain emotional satisfactions from
hearing the familiar or from seeing people do things which have
been established as devout. Because this has become their source
of personal pleasure, they fail to notice that it is often of no other
value whatever. Hence such people delight in seeing others at
prayer, or at producing 'spiritual' reactions which they have
been taught to denote something higher than they really do. In the
process, really spiritual sensations are lost. The cruder emotion has
driven them out.
Hence the tale of the parrot and the Theosophist.
There was once as Theosophists who went into a pet shop and aksed if
they had anything that might interest him.
The lady who worked there produced a parot.
'This is sure to please you,' she said. 'If you pull this leg on the
bird, he says a prayer, and if you pull the other one, it will sing the
Great Invocation.'
The Theosophist was delighted, and felt a sense of holy joy suffusing
him at such a familiary devout observance.
'And,' he beamed, 'what will happen if I pull both its legs at
once ?'
The parot shouted out, 'I'll fall on my fac you Idiot!'


BELIEF is certainly not the same as knowledge. This is a fact !
You may of course believe what you want, and that is a fact too.

Feel free to comment or do your best...


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...and his friends Mulla Nashruddin and
Khizr...



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)


> Hi. Here are some comments on your message.: It is probably best to try to
> use language in as simple a way as possible, taking into account the aim
of
> ones communication and how to convey the understanding in a way that
people
> can receive it. This means that shocks need to be applied at certain
> juncture points. If a person does not have much of an aim and/or does not
> understand what is a shock or a juncture point, then, what and where is
the
> point? Without a more specific approach, more specific result will not be
> achieved. More comments below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:35 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of 3
>
>
> > Hi all of you,
> >
> > The following will almost only
> > interest the more earnest students of Theosophy.
> >
> > Conditioning
> >
> > Part 3 of 3:
> >
> > The true Theosophists contention is that, traditionally, there was a
> clear-cut
> > method, widely if not universally applied by 'those who know'.
>
> Wry: I will not comment on this except to say that I have never seen any
> kind of methodical approach to anything in the year plus I have been on
> theosophy lists. There is a lot of disorganization and confusion, plus
there
> is an authoritarian element which most people seem willing to accept, and
> this is disturbing.
>
> > This involved (1) indoctrination of the people (or some of them)
> > to remove superseded ideas which had begun to operate as
> > blinkers;
>
> Wry: This is an interesting idea. Though I do not believe that ideas can
be
> removed by indoctrination, people can be mesmerized and brought into
> certain states by the written word. I have studied this quite deeply.
People
> do not understand the science of mesmerism and how very sophisticated
> people can easily and deliberately apply its principles. I have referred
to
> this subject in relationship to theosophy on a few occasions. One big
> problem, even a downfall of certain approaches, is that people cannot be
> mesmerized to be less mesmerized. It is easy to bring people into a deeper
> state, but not so easy to bring them out of it.
>
> >(2) removal of the indoctrination to restore flexibility
> > of viewpoint and consequent enlightenment; and then (3)
> > application of stimuli to help make this enlightenment effective in the
> > ordinary world.
>
> Wry: To me, the above is a pipe dream.The written word cannot do all of
> this, unless material is designed in a deliberate form and sequence so as
to
> subsequently relieve previous impressions by a different kind of
attention.
> Everything would need to be set up in a certain way, plus the model would
> need to be self cleansing. Though this is technically possible, it has not
> been done in the writings of theosophy. Many people end up very naive and
> mixed up and this confusion factors back in. At least you are making an
> attempt to look at this.
>
> > There are fairly close parallels in the mundane educational
> > process. if, for example, everyone believed firmly in alchemy. The
> > fixation on the alchemical goal would have to be weakened in
> > certain people before they could profit from chemistry.
>
> Wry: This is true and I believe this is what Madame Blavatsky attempted to
> do. The results were very mixed. This is what happens when people
experiment
> and it is not necessarily bad or good, but, as I have pointed out,
> adjustment need to be made. Every needs to be presented in a way that is
> time-appropriate. This is a KEY point.
>
> > This perception of conditioning end flexibility, can be used to
> > examine virtually every human system of thought or action in
> > the spiritual field. indeed, until it can be applied by someone it is
> > not possible to hold a meaningful discussion with him or her.
> > Nowadays, few people contest the importace of knowing
> > about conditioning in order to examine belief-systems. Why,
> > therefore, s it so difficult to communicate with so many people
> > alon these lines? the answer is very simple. We are at a stage in
> > understanding human behavior analogous to that which obtained
> > when people began to try to talk of chemistry to those
> > who were fixated upon the hope of untold wealth (or, sometimes,
> > spiritual enlightenment) through alchemy. Like the alchemist
> > or those or those who want easy riches, people want dramatic
> > inputs (emotional stimuli, excitement, reassurance, authority-
> > figures and the rest) rather than knowledge.
>
> Wry: In my opinion, it is very important to understand that the above is
an
> intellectualization and an over analysis. People want a quick fix because
it
> is easier to let things happen than to be active. An INDIVIDUAL needs to
see
> himself in present time, as he is. It is not about other people being
> conditioned.
>
> > It is only when the desire for knowledge and understanding
> > becomes as effective as the craving for emotional stimulus that
> > the individual becomes accessible to change, to knowledge, to
> > more than a very little understanding.
>
> Wry: Many people are hungry for something that is more essential, but
there
> is no one to work with these people. It is a true fact and a sad one. My
> special interest is in working with people in their twenties. Many of
these
> young people still have questions and a deep search, but it is already
> starting to weaken, due to life influences. Most will lose this in their
> thirties. You will not see certain bright young people with questions and
a
> deep urge to develop to their full potential on a lcertain kind of forum.
> They will take one look and leave.
>
> > So learning must be preceded by the capacity to learn.
> > THAT, in turn, comes about at least in part by right attitude.
> > And THAT, again, is where the would-be learner has to
> > exercise effort.
>
> Wry: Yes.It is also necessary to attempt to place oneself under certain
> conditions. See below.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***
> >
> > So where are Blavatsky on this ?
> > Has Blavatsky ever made any statements like this ?
>
> Wry: It is not necessary to continue to use Madame Blavatsky as a
reference
> point. This is not to say to disregard her work either, but if you (or
> anyone) consider yourself a "theosophist, continue the quest in the most
> efficient way possible. The mind gets too dull when it keeps looking back.
> As I have said before, because I am from the same society as Madame
> Blavatsky, I am both capable and qualified to speak as her representative.
> But anybody can say anything. I have made this point plain. This is why it
> is necessary to begin to verify and not just to give it lip service, as
> certain hypocrites do. Re your own interesting attempt to formulate
certain
> concepts, if I think human society approaches material in a certain way,
I
> need to see this in myself, as I am most likely an example of this (and
this
> means Wry, also) This approach is at the crux of receiving any real
> results. In any case, I personally speak for MADAME BLAVATSKY when I say
she
> would not want immature modern "theosophists" to be handling her material
in
> the way they are doing. It is most saddening. Sincerely, Wry
> >
> > Feel free to comment or do your best
> >
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>