Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00187)

Hi Morton and everyone. See below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3


> Hi Katinka and all of you,
>
> Thanks for you email.
> I here present my views on the issue in the following:
>
> As for the "clear-cut" method - it has already been described in the email
> referred to by you.
> So what more is there to tell ?
>
> Here it is again (taken out of the mentioned email)
>
> "The true Theosophists contention is that, traditionally, there was a
> clear-cut
> method, widely if not universally applied by 'those who know'.
> This involved (1) indoctrination of the people (or some of them)
> to remove superseded ideas which had begun to operate as
> blinkers; (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: Please forgive me, but this is one of the whackiest things I have ever
read. There is some truth in that it is possible to effect trends and
tendencies in broader society by working with people in certain ways, but
you do not understand what yoiu are talking about. No one can become
enlightened in this way and no one ever has. It is a matter of invididual
effort. You are having a big pipe dream and are way up in the sky.

>
> This is the method pure and simple. How it has and is formulating it self
> during time is easy
> to see if one follows in on what is going on in the world today.
> If some of you think this method isn't spiritual and theosophical, - well
so
> what.
> Then you will have to explain why it is not so - will you not ?

WRY: First of all, there is NO such "method" to lead people to any kind of
liberation. You are confused about an application of ceretain principles to
broader society in such a way as to effect trends and tendencies. You are
having a pipe dream that creates a grandiose state, similar to what a
Marxist dreams when he fantasies that history is alive and that he is going
to fix it. This feels so good he will be a Marxist forever no matter how
ridiculous it is. Secondly, thought there is a method to effect broader
trends and tendencies, it is obvious, by the way you are applying the
material, that you do not understand anything about this.

> If you need a name on a writer to do that, one can only wonder why ?
> So why is a name necessary ? To scholars it is necessary - yes I know
that.
> But does Theosophists need it ?

Wry: Some so-called "sufi" has messed you up. This is one of the pitfalls.
People are very suggestible and vulnerable. When they experience some
"spiritual sensation." or artificial state and it is contrasted against the
pain of their ordinary conflicted self, they are hooked for life, having no
pins and needle base, no earth within themselves for a standard of
comparision, only air. It is sad.
>
> If I gave you a name on the writer behind the text, what good would it do
> you and others on this list ?
> I could have reasons to keep the writers name out of this.
> Please answer that first.
>
> I am in no need to be taken seriously by scholars. But I thought I could
> expect Theosophists to think
> before the write emails clinging to support of scholary ideas.
>
> What is evidence to a Theosophist ?
> What is evidence to a scholar ?
>
> You talk about the method in the above as if this is the only one. This is
> at best
> a narrowminded view. You could rethink your views. The email did NOT say
> that this was the ONLY method - only that: "The true Theosophists
contention
> is that, traditionally, there was a clear-cut method, widely if not
> universally applied by 'those who know'."
> (Ie. widely if not universally). You can't jump to your own conclusion
from
> that sentence.
> That is my view, but maybe I didn't understand you at all.
>
> The method as such should be viewed as taking place through centuries of
> different kinds of incarnations, that is where the universal issue comes
> forward to the mind of the reader.

Wry: As stated above, this is like a Marxist having an mental image of
history being alive. It is all in present time. There is only one moment.
This is literally the KEY to all of Madame Blavatsky's teaching and what it
has to be about. I am not speaking of being "immortal," though, but the
adjustment of the tempo of the functionings.

> You see we all reincarnate, well if your friend Krishnamurti hasn't given
> another method,
> then I think we can agree.
> When you were a little astral oriented human in the olden days -
> indoctrination towards you
> took place - believe it or not. Have you ever seen a dog being taught by a
> human somewhere through the ages ?
> Well this is the view which is being offered.

Wry: I suggest you forget about this. It is all processes happening in the
physicality (named Morton) in one (extended, due to the different tempo of
the functionings) moment. It is like a pomegrant, and a thought is not a
sensation. Weak people are susceptible to all kinds of "teachers" who have
something heady to drug them with. I am following this with further
comments on one of your messages, as I believe looking more carefully at the
way you are approaching ideas can be a learning experience for all of us. I,
personally, am getting something out of your material as I know how to use
it. Sincerely, Wry

>
> But I have to say - thanks to you for asking these questions - so others
> could get an answer on them.
>
> The next email will possibly contain a little story. Let it be seen if
> that can't help on this scholary need for "name-seeking".
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3
of
> 3
>
>
> > Hi Morten,
> >
> > First you write that something is THE true theosophists contention...
> > and even TRADITIONALLY there was a clear-cut method. Which rather
> > makes you claim something extraordinary. Now Blavatsky tried to
> > support her (for her time) rather extraordinary claims with quotes
> > from every place she could find. How about you? Why should we take
> > seriously what you say? How can you support what you say with some
> > sort of evidence? And while we are at it... You claim there was a
> > clear-cut method. This raises our expectations obviously. If you
> > haven't just thought the below up, you must know that method. Can we
> > hear it? It might make us able to judge whether or not you are right
> > in your other contentions. (though personally I firmly believe that
> > with every person there is a different path. This was written in The
> > Voice of the Silence and Krishnamurti says just about the same thing
> > in saying time and time again that no single method will lead to the
> > truth.)
> >
> > Katinka
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> > > > : :"The true Theosophists contention is that, traditionally,
> > > > there was a clear-cut
> > > > method, widely if not universally applied by 'those who know'."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>