Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00171)

Hi. It was very hard to reply to this, as you did not include the original
message(s). I will need to go back to them when/if I get a chance. In any
case, see below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)


> 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 ?

Wry: Get reaL I do not perceive this reply to be honest, and it is a
downfall to answer in this way.

>
> 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.

Wry: You misunderstand. Praying is not the same as talking about it. Genuine
prayer by a simple person transcends the outward form of any religion. The
outward form is merely a shell. This is not to say there are not big
problems with conventional religion, It is too bad you did not put the
original material you wrote out here, as it is hard for me to keep the
thread in responding to this. As I recall, you were equating theosophy to
conventional religion. But that is easy to do. Just say that some, if not
many, theosophists approach it as if it is a belief system etc., and when
someone does this point it out (which you have done on occasion, I
acknowledge).Actually, any conventional religiion seems to me to be in many
ways better designed than theosophy. This is not to say that there are not
good things about theosophy.

> 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 ?

Wry: Actually it is a real danger to try to take anyone's religion away from
him. I am a Buddhist and we are trained not to do this. You think you know
something or other and that this corresponds with what "Blavatsky" knew. I
will have to discover what is true. I am no kind of member of any religion,
even of Buddhism. You do not understand.
>
>
> 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.

Wry: What are you talking about? It is gibberish (in my humble opinion). It
is not right or wrong per se, but people will not understand what you are
talking about. It is too subjective. If you want to make sense, you must
practice being not confused. What is your aim? We already know you as the
Alice Bailey-United Nations-freakout guy. You cannot put on a different coat
overnight and expect us not to recognize you.

>.I think you are wrong in your -
> reactions.
> Yes gibberish. But not to others, who did'nt get triggered by >this
sentence,

Wry: I have given you good feedback. Whetrher a person is triggered or not
has little to do with material being gibberish. In fact, gibberish is less
likely to trigger anyone, as it is nonsensical. And just because a person is
not triggered does not mean that what they are not triggered by is not
gibberish. Also, you are making the assumption that my response was a
mechanical reaction. Pride goeth before a fall (and don't I know this? Ha
ha.)

> !
> Your relation with the western countries and your past experiences made
you
> make this sentence.

Wry: Oh yeah.

> 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.

Wry:. No comment..

> 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.

Wry: Though impartial self-observation is perhaps for only a few, there is
something in my messages for everyone. But it is not about satisfying
everyone. I have my own aim and factor all other material into it. If I get
a chance I will go back to my own reply and make some more comments..

> 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.

Wry: I am a Bee (at least in my imagination), but what happens when others
begin to know it? Ha ha..
>
> ***
>
> 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...

Wry: You can be my teacher (Ha ha.)
>
>
> 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 !
>

Wry: Maybe we should not bite the hand that feeds us.. Ordinary people like
myself need an ordinary format in which to learn. When something impartial
is outside of this it will become exttraordinary. I will establish the
conditions and the requirements. If you do not like this, feel free to adapt
my material for your own purpose, but if you get lost in ideas, you will
lose the thread. I suggest we stick to the practical . It is very difficult
for something with no opinion to see oneself intellectualizing. Actually, if
one is intellectualizing when one is walking down the street, there will not
be an impartial recording. It is most fascinating. Sincerely, Wry

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