Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00190)

Hi Wry and all of you,

My views are the following:

I just do'nt understand your remarks in the below. What do you really want
with
such an email ? Please explain that - because I just do'nt understand your
spiritual
wisdom.

And let us remember, that it is not (only) about who is wrong or right on
the matter we debate on - but how we are reacting while emailing.

First: You talk in very vague terms about "trends and tendencies".
Please be more specific, - else only few will be able to understand you !

Second: You say that my statements - "is one of the whackiest things I have
ever read".
(And that has heavy weight while you claim to have been following in on
emailing a great deal in various forums).
I have to say I dislike such lose unpolite remarks.

Third: Then you claim that YOU know, how to read the text, and that my
version is wrong !

Fourth: You claim, that there is - "NO such "method" to lead people to any
kind of liberation".

Fifth: You claim - that I am confused in a certain manner, - as if you knew,
what I am thinking; (as if I am thinking at all), on the matter referred to
!

Sixth: Then you decide and claim that the truth about me is that - "Some
so-called "sufi" has messed you up".

Seventh: You claim - That you know how to read the texts, and that I do'nt !
As If you know
how I read the texts !


Now I have just five simple questions:
1. Do you expect me to agree with you on such - lose claims ?
2. And what kind of help are you giving Theos-Talk with this kind of use of
vocabulary ?
3. Would you please be more constructive in the future - while teaching some
of us here at Theos-Talk - and at the same time by refraining from using
terms like - "Some so-called "sufi" has messed you up" ? (At least when your
argumentation is so lose as it is ! )
4. Will you be more polite in the future to come - or the Moment you seem to
live in ?

It is very difficult to do anything constructive - when you do'nt
answer my previous emails.
Wry you did NOT answer these emails
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12329
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12330

Instead I was given a rather lose 'attack' - or at least an unpolite use of
vocabulary in an email I gave as a reply to Katinka. And I was also given
another enhanced extra reply on an email which were older than the above
emails.
5. I wonder why you did that ?



Feel free to comment or do your best...



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part fifteen


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