Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00165)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thanks for answering. But this time I am clearly disagreeing with you.

1.
Wry wrote:
"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. ."

My Sufilight views:
Who talked about Sufi perspective - and when ?

2.
Wry wrote:
"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. "

My Sufilight views:
The text I emailed was obviously not concerned with YOUR version of prayer.
And your answer clouds this. Why cloud the issue ?
The text I wrote was'nt saying that other forms of prayer
does'nt exists.

3.
Wry wrote:
" 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."

My Sufilight views:
An advise: Be careful about in any manner showing support for the Orthodox
churches - eastern or western.
There is a real danger - spiritually and morally seen. Blavatsky knew about
this, and stated several
times, that this was a problem. So what kind of member are you ?


4.
Wry wrote:
"When you speak of "really spiritual sensations," this, to me, is
gibberish."

My Sufilight views:
That does'nt imply that I am wrong. I think you are wrong in your -
reactions.
Yes gibberish. But not to others, who did'nt get triggered by this sentence
!
Your relation with the western countries and your past experiences made you
make this sentence.
This sentence I wrote on "really spiritual sensations," is not about belief,
but about knowledge.
Those who really knows, what that sentence and the text as such is about
have not the same problems as you have.
The text was exactly not about expecting people to substitute belief with
knowledge. So what
are you really getting at ? The text was not presented to all readers on
this list. In fact it is difficult to
satisfy everyone on this list while writing a text - and you are one of
them.
You could try to understand that. But being a member of some fancy Order -
you might disagree, but
I have at least made a clear statement on this.

***

Try the story, which I offer you in the next email. What you try to do,
you aught to do with understanding of, what is 'irrelevances', and what is
not.
Some learn by the method of 'reverse' ideas - or by watching others exchange
emails etc...


Else it is allright. And I have been watching your emails. You certainly
know more than the ABC.
Feel free to comment or do your best...

A little something:

A true Theosophist past by a beginner Theosophist with a few meters
distance.
The beginner did'nt know the true fellow.
The true Theosophist said: - Dog !
The beginner shouted at the true Thesophist with rage telling the imposter
to behave.
And then in the middle of the act the dog came from behind and bite him !

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)


> 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...
> >


[cut by M. Sufilight to be polite]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>