Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00192)

Hi Morton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3 of
3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part fifteen


> 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.
>

Wry: I am not sure I can answer this email in this format, as there are so
many points that it would be better to insert them where the material is.
You were thinking in what I perceived to be a confused manner and
assumuptions were made that weren't warrented. I tried to point some of this
out.

> 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.

Wry: Yeah.

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

Wry: I believed everyone would understand this. A trend is when there is
suddenly a wide spread interest in the spiritual teachings of the East, for
example. Or there is a tendency for people to start thinking of humanity as
globally rather than nationally.
>
> 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.

Wry: Perhaps that was an overstatement, and I appologize. It was in my
opinion, a very confused piece of work. I have already detailed how and why.
>
> Third: Then you claim that YOU know, how to read the text, and that my
> version is wrong !

Wry: I cannot respond to this unless the material is before me. I do not
know what text or version you are referring to.
>
> Fourth: You claim, that there is - "NO such "method" to lead people to any
> kind of liberation".

Wry: I will respond if you put the original material and my answer before
me, and also, in the case of the above.
>

> 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

Wry: You said nonsensical stuff and I believe I was very specific about
pointing this out.
> !
>
> Sixth: Then you decide and claim that the truth about me is that - "Some
> so-called "sufi" has messed you up".

Wry: Are you denying this? I acknowledge that I do not know this for a fact.
I should have prefaced this statement with "I have a hunch..."
>
> 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 !

Wry: Couldn't find this.
>
>
> Now I have just five simple questions:
> 1. Do you expect me to agree with you on such - lose claims ?

Wry: If you mean about the sufi who messed you up, yes, I did expect you to
agree inwardly, but not to acknowledge it out here.

> 2. And what kind of help are you giving Theos-Talk with this kind of use
of
> vocabulary ?

Wry: Do you mean because I used the word "whacked?" It is just a slang
expression for "mixed-up." I believe you are focusing on a point that is
irrelevant.

> 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 ! )

Wry: I will try to be more constructive in the future, but are you saying
you are in no contact with such a sufi?

> 4. Will you be more polite in the future to come - or the Moment you seem
to
> live in ?

Wry: In my opinion, you are too sensitive, but I will try to be less harsh.

>
> It is very difficult to do anything constructive - when you do'nt
> answer my previous emails.

Wry: I am answering them as fast as I can.

> 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 ?

Wry: I know. Well, first I re-commented on one email by mistake, meaning
instead to re-comment on your more recent email, as I said I was going to..
When I realized the mistake, I was not going to mail it, as it seemed sort
of redundant. Right after that I saw the message to Katinka and it was so
mixed up that I thought it would be constructive to answer it,. After that,
I decided to mail the email I wrote by mistake, as, though it was a tad
redundant, it seemed to further compliment the email I wrote answering what
you wrote to Katinka as it further pointed out the flaws in the way you were
reasoning.

I will try to answer the other two emails (I thought there was only one I
hadn't answered, but I can no longer reply to you in the present format you
are using. It is too confusing. I do not mind you writing me a new email
talking about a previous message if there is one main idea in what you are
saying, but when you are replying point by point and it is not after the
original material, it is too confusing. I am starting to suspect this is a
way of avoiding or obfuscating the truth of some of my points, as if you do
not reply to a point right after the place in the email where that point is
raised, it is harder, if not even impossible to remember the nuances of the
idea expressed in the context of that little segment, so you can fog the
issue.

I will say it was pretty interesting responding to your recent emails and I
really got something out of it. I was going to write you a private email but
never got around to it. I hope I do not discourage you from putting material
out here, but I do not think anything could discourage you. At this point,
in my opinion, you are overly prolific. There have been so many emails in
the last two days it is getting confusing. I hope none of us become more
mesmerized as a result of reading this material than we already are. Some of
the material you have been putting out, though interesting, is problematic.
One of my past studies was of cults and cult-like behavior. I am not saying
you are in a cult, but something about your recent material and its effects
on me (and, by extrapolation, presumably at least some others) has rung some
kind of alarum bell. I do not know for certain if what I explained about
Marxism went in one ear and out the other, but I suspect that it did. A
certain kind of thinking can create a certain kind of state where certain
materials assimilated by breathing air feed back into the system in a
certain way, which is not bad in itself, even good, but the aim is to be
outside this. To be inside of it, identified with this, could be equated to
an addiction and is a spiritual downfall. It is sad.

I will answer you other message as soon as I can, if I can. I am involved in
another forum right now and have spent a lot of time on here in the last few
days. Sincerely, Wry
>
>
>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>