Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00176)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thanks for your wellmeaning answer.


My Sufilight view:
I will do my best to get real i the future to come, while talking about true
Sufis/Theosophists.


Wry wrote:
"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)."

My Sufilight view:
No I did not - equate - Theosophy to conventional religion. Try rereading
the email. It is available at Theos-Talk. This is where I diasagree with
you.
But I do equate emotional reactions with what some Theosophical groups call
spirituality.
That is the difference. Knowledge is not emotional reactions.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12299 (About prayer and a
parrot)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12272 (Part 1)

Else my answering email was directed more towards you - than you apparently
expected
it to be.
I did my best to make you understand that your previous answer was
irrelevant on
a number of issues. It would have been more relevant to teach - (rather than
to interpret the email according to your own special and - I have to say -
not always clear views) - so that the readers - including me - could learn.
However you and others might disagree. But, your last two sentences in your
other answering email to me - seem to give some credit to that. Here it is:
("A person should do what is meanful to himself and, technically, that
cannot be
irrelevant, but if my aim is to develop, I need to ask myself if "this" is
relevant to achieving "that". I, Wry, need to do this, in my day tomorrow.
I hope I can remember. ").
I will of course do the same, - well I guess...
If there is something I have learned - it is, that others can learn from
watching others emailing and debating like you and I have done. Then your
emailing makes some sense.
But there are still as I have mentioned some issue were we disagree. But let
us see if we cannot come to a kind of 'strategic' or at least spiritual
agreement. (Smile.)

The story about the "dogs bite" was meant so, that you and others could
understand, that there is more to a debated issue - than the first eye
catches.
That is why I wrote that story. The dog was maybe a very very small one ! No
one said is was big, right ? (Laughs...) And as far as I know its bite was
very very gentle...

Wry wrote:
"Actually it is a real danger to try to take anyone's religion away from
> him."

My Sufilight view:
There is a great moral danger in keeping a lot of people trapped into
Orthodox churches. Trapped so their fears - for an eternal hell - are kept
alive. Trapped so that they believe in authorities, which are not more fit
to be priests than to run a bingo competition. Trapped so that they keep
equating knowledge as belief. Trapped so they think Bibles are the real deal
! But there are also some bright people at work - I agree with that. Some of
the branches within the Orthodox churches are (at least) changing the
outlook on their pet-bibles. (>:-))
If you want everyone to be Orthodox - then just go ahead but do NOT expect
me to support you !

As for "gibberish". I you can assume what you like. I did'nt assume
anything. I read your email - watched - and answered accordingly. Your
reaction was according to me out of time and place. Mechanical or not. The
last - agreed - was the most likely event, that occured. No hardfeelings but
just the truth. Please, I do care.
I will await some - 'relevancy' - comments.

Why not use more than one coat - is this not what Theosophy really is about
?
What coats are you referring to ? And what coats am I referring to ?
Try Khidr or Khwaja Khizr at : http://khidr.org/khwaja-khadir.htm and
http://khidr.org/gunawardhana.htm
Actually I personally think that Theosophy would be enhanced if it were to
adopt
the figure called Khidr or Khizr - much more - into its vocabulary. The
figure is present in one of the theosophical online wordbooks - although
under the names "Edris", "Enoch" or "Thoth". So the figure is at least
partly recognized.
It is a little sad, that such a great organization as Pasadena-Theosophy
has'nt made a more up-to-date wordbook giving
the Middle East the needed credit for its spiritual richness.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/e-el.htm
Especiallay with the present Western versus Middle East struggle going on.
Well one can't always win.

If you can't recognize me. Then you certainly need development.
Bee's have a sting, right ? And you say you are ordinary and need ordinary
information.
(Laughs...)


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)


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