Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00162)

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)


>
> 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.

Wry: Morton, I appeciate you giving a "sufi" perspective out here. I am a
sufi myself, but we may not know what a "sufi" is. In any case, we no not
want there to be a flood, but we also would like to be able to find water in
a desert. .

> 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.

Wry: This is true in one sense, but in another it is not. Please read what I
have just written to Mauri. When people pray it is not like what you seem to
be talking about here, which again appears to me to be a form of
intellectualizing. Praying or any kind of conventional spirituality, when
practiced by a sincere person, is the beginning of making a bridge. Maybe
this bridge will not be completed (in this "lifetime"), but it is the
beginning of merit, and this effort may very well support the making of a
real bridge in someone. I personbally have had my life greatly affected by
conventional Roman Catholics and other convention Christians, for example.
who took their religions very seriously, and I do not believe I would be
alive today but for the selfless efforts of some of these ordinary people.
When you speak of "really spiritual sensations," this, to me, is gibberish.
How do you expect people to relate to this material? Saying this and
expecting people to understand it is the same as having a belief. Also, it
is not tailored to fit the occasion. Why? In my opinion, because something
ordinary in yourself is attracted to the images associated with these words
and ideas, which I question are even your own.

> 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.

Wry: It is a fact, but this cannot be told, only shown. How is this done? By
literally, physically, setting up circumstances where "belief" or even
genuine faith, which is something else, is contrasted to knowledge, or maybe
where "belief" is contrasted to real faith. Also, there are different kinds
and qualities of knowledge. When genuine faith creates a living bridge,
everything within a person is affected. This leads to a state and quality of
existence which could be called "being". In order for this being to
manifest, cognisance of unpleasant details of physical reality need to be
factored into it in a certain way. This means I can never forget the true
situation of the world, which is not a pretty one, and then I create a
bridge within myself, that connects not just certain fragmented aspects of
myself, but also connects me to everyone. How to do this is a form of
knowledge. Living in this way, manifesting substantially from this kind of
bridge, could be called "being". When these two qualities are connected in a
certain way, there is self realization. But this is for the future. First,
in my opinion, each of us needs to study ourselves in manifestation. If the
conditioned mind makes this study, certain details will be left out. And so
a method that takes into account this inherent flaw needs to be brought into
the picture. It is as simple as salt. Sincerely, Wry
>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>