Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00196)

Hi Morton and Everyone. Here is my message with further comments I hope
everyone will read this. This is also in response to your questions in 12329
which I will be referring to as I write this. I had trouble finding my
message because I never received it from Yahoo, having erased it when I
erased my web mail and then the format of your messages confused me even
further.

As everyone on here should know by now, I have an interest in eventually
doing some kind of learning project on the internet that will effect the
trends and tendencies of broader humanity in some way that would be
extremely beneficial. I have spoken about this several times. Re this
subject, your own messages, especially recently, have been extremely
interesting and helpful. It is very difficult to verbally convey a sense of
different physical qualitiy re the density or subtlety of various material
states a human being can experience, especially since most people have not
been trained to notice anything like this, usually being too identified with
whatever is going on. When I use the word, "grip." as people already know,
this is in relationship to certain material effects re sensation that are
created as bio-chemical responses of certain people to certain material that
serve as a fixative, connecting in a certain way to other responses in these
same people. When people have a certain kind and quality of responses that
are aligned by degree of density and subtlty, each to each, this can create
a sort of active information system (read Bohm and Hiley) where material
states of different individuals could potentially combine to create a group
of people functioning as a unit in certain sutle ways that are unconscious,
but LESS unconscious than previously, certain layers of cruder density
having been peeled off, like skin off an onion, or something to that effect.
I do not care to go into this is any more detail, but one could in the
future bear my interest in this subject in mind when reading any of my
material. See below. I will put++++++++after my new comments.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@a...>
> 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 ?

Wry++++++This message starts out very well, indeed, with the above, but
below, you start to deflect. You ARE equating the people talking aboput
giants with people of conventional religion. Conventional religion actually
has nothing to do with this subject, as what you are saying applies to
people in general.
> >
> > 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++++++++It became immediately obvious from reading your email that you do
not understand the difference between certain functions such as sensation
and feeling (a common error in many people), are confused about the
difference between knowledge and being, do not understand the difference
between a reaction and being conscious and moreover were lost in thought,
having an ongoing reactive process while writing this message. My aim was to
bring things back to earth, and you know what? I can perceive no real
difference between your message and the messages of the people who were
talking about giants (the messages about giants were more grounded and well
designed than your own) except that your messages were more useful to me in
getting certain points on my own agenda across. Actually, from my
perspective and from the perspective on anyone wanting to ride my coat tails
up a spiral, this could be a big difference.
You have, in my opinion, picked up a few ideas which you do not really
understand and are putting them together in a way which is incongruent,
thereby creating further disorder. See more comments below.

>
> 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.


Wry++++++++To explain the above comments, and this is important. Everything
is now. This means all of these real spiritual qualities you are talking
about are potentially available to us now. The possibility to experience
this is within these very people who are talking about giants. It is not
about talking about giants or not talking about giants, but how and when to
talk about giants. When I spoke about conventional Roman Catholics and
others helping me, I was actually referring to the people who are talking
about giants. It is all the same. The dove brings the olive branch from the
land,. He does not find it floating the atmosphere. No real sufi (except a
most extraordinary one) would have the patience for the kind of conversation
you are trying to have. You are, in my opinion, an example of people
confusing sensation for what is really spiritual and then clinging to it.
See below.

>
> > 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

Wry++++++++In the above, which is actually very relevant, I am speaking
about making a bridge on here, right now, as the sense of the importance of
doing this in the now is something you seem to be lacking. When we make this
kind of bridge, people will no longer be talking about irrelevancies, but
about the requirements of making the bridge. The first step is giving a
different kind and quality of material, right here, right now, so people
will have a contrast. This creates "grip" (grp), by which a transition can
be made, from the flood of talking about giants to the potential land of
receiving the olive branch, a symbol from the dove But I do not like to
continue to make messages on this subject as talking in this way is not the
same as doing it. .I know my messages to you may seem harsh, but you are one
of my favorite people on this forum, and you have given me an opportunity to
make some important (to me at least) messages, so for this I am grateful.
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...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "wry" <wry1111@e...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3
> of
> > 3 (Wry on Blavatsky-part thirteen)
> >
> >
> > > Hi. Here are some comments on your message.: It is probably best to
try
> to
> > > use language in as simple a way as possible, taking into account the
aim
> > of
> > > ones communication and how to convey the understanding in a way that
> > people
> > > can receive it. This means that shocks need to be applied at certain
> > > juncture points. If a person does not have much of an aim and/or does
> not
> > > understand what is a shock or a juncture point, then, what and where
is
> > the
> > > point? Without a more specific approach, more specific result will not
> be
> > > achieved. More comments below.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@a...>
> > > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:35 AM
> > > Subject: Theos-World Conditioning and other artificial arts...part 3
of
> 3
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi all of you,
> > > >
> > > > The following will almost only
> > > > interest the more earnest students of Theosophy.
> > > >
> > > > Conditioning
> > > >
> > > > Part 3 of 3:
> > > >
> > > > The true Theosophists contention is that, traditionally, there was a
> > > clear-cut
> > > > method, widely if not universally applied by 'those who know'.
> > >
> > > Wry: I will not comment on this except to say that I have never seen
any
> > > kind of methodical approach to anything in the year plus I have been
on
> > > theosophy lists. There is a lot of disorganization and confusion, plus
> > there
> > > is an authoritarian element which most people seem willing to accept,
> and
> > > this is disturbing.
> > >
> > > > This involved (1) indoctrination of the people (or some of them)
> > > > to remove superseded ideas which had begun to operate as
> > > > blinkers;
> > >
> > > Wry: This is an interesting idea. Though I do not believe that ideas
can
> > be
> > > removed by indoctrination, people can be mesmerized and brought into
> > > certain states by the written word. I have studied this quite deeply.
> > People
> > > do not understand the science of mesmerism and how very sophisticated
> > > people can easily and deliberately apply its principles. I have
referred
> > to
> > > this subject in relationship to theosophy on a few occasions. One big
> > > problem, even a downfall of certain approaches, is that people cannot
be
> > > mesmerized to be less mesmerized. It is easy to bring people into a
> deeper
> > > state, but not so easy to bring them out of it.
> > >
> > > >(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: To me, the above is a pipe dream.The written word cannot do all
of
> > > this, unless material is designed in a deliberate form and sequence so
> as
> > to
> > > subsequently relieve previous impressions by a different kind of
> > attention.
> > > Everything would need to be set up in a certain way, plus the model
> would
> > > need to be self cleansing. Though this is technically possible, it has
> not
> > > been done in the writings of theosophy. Many people end up very naive
> and
> > > mixed up and this confusion factors back in. At least you are making
an
> > > attempt to look at this.
> > >
> > > > There are fairly close parallels in the mundane educational
> > > > process. if, for example, everyone believed firmly in alchemy. The
> > > > fixation on the alchemical goal would have to be weakened in
> > > > certain people before they could profit from chemistry.
> > >
> > > Wry: This is true and I believe this is what Madame Blavatsky
attempted
> to
> > > do. The results were very mixed. This is what happens when people
> > experiment
> > > and it is not necessarily bad or good, but, as I have pointed out,
> > > adjustment need to be made. Every needs to be presented in a way that
is
> > > time-appropriate. This is a KEY point.
> > >
> > > > This perception of conditioning end flexibility, can be used to
> > > > examine virtually every human system of thought or action in
> > > > the spiritual field. indeed, until it can be applied by someone it
is
> > > > not possible to hold a meaningful discussion with him or her.
> > > > Nowadays, few people contest the importace of knowing
> > > > about conditioning in order to examine belief-systems. Why,
> > > > therefore, s it so difficult to communicate with so many people
> > > > alon these lines? the answer is very simple. We are at a stage in
> > > > understanding human behavior analogous to that which obtained
> > > > when people began to try to talk of chemistry to those
> > > > who were fixated upon the hope of untold wealth (or, sometimes,
> > > > spiritual enlightenment) through alchemy. Like the alchemist
> > > > or those or those who want easy riches, people want dramatic
> > > > inputs (emotional stimuli, excitement, reassurance, authority-
> > > > figures and the rest) rather than knowledge.
> > >
> > > Wry: In my opinion, it is very important to understand that the above
is
> > an
> > > intellectualization and an over analysis. People want a quick fix
> because
> > it
> > > is easier to let things happen than to be active. An INDIVIDUAL needs
to
> > see
> > > himself in present time, as he is. It is not about other people being
> > > conditioned.
> > >
> > > > It is only when the desire for knowledge and understanding
> > > > becomes as effective as the craving for emotional stimulus that
> > > > the individual becomes accessible to change, to knowledge, to
> > > > more than a very little understanding.
> > >
> > > Wry: Many people are hungry for something that is more essential, but
> > there
> > > is no one to work with these people. It is a true fact and a sad one.
My
> > > special interest is in working with people in their twenties. Many of
> > these
> > > young people still have questions and a deep search, but it is already
> > > starting to weaken, due to life influences. Most will lose this in
their
> > > thirties. You will not see certain bright young people with questions
> and
> > a
> > > deep urge to develop to their full potential on a lcertain kind of
> forum.
> > > They will take one look and leave.
> > >
> > > > So learning must be preceded by the capacity to learn.
> > > > THAT, in turn, comes about at least in part by right attitude.
> > > > And THAT, again, is where the would-be learner has to
> > > > exercise effort.
> > >
> > > Wry: Yes.It is also necessary to attempt to place oneself under
certain
> > > conditions. See below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ***
> > > >
> > > > So where are Blavatsky on this ?
> > > > Has Blavatsky ever made any statements like this ?
> > >
> > > Wry: It is not necessary to continue to use Madame Blavatsky as a
> > reference
> > > point. This is not to say to disregard her work either, but if you (or
> > > anyone) consider yourself a "theosophist, continue the quest in the
most
> > > efficient way possible. The mind gets too dull when it keeps looking
> back.
> > > As I have said before, because I am from the same society as Madame
> > > Blavatsky, I am both capable and qualified to speak as her
> representative.
> > > But anybody can say anything. I have made this point plain. This is
why
> it
> > > is necessary to begin to verify and not just to give it lip service,
as
> > > certain hypocrites do. Re your own interesting attempt to formulate
> > certain
> > > concepts, if I think human society approaches material in a certain
> way,
> > I
> > > need to see this in myself, as I am most likely an example of this
(and
> > this
> > > means Wry, also) This approach is at the crux of receiving any real
> > > results. In any case, I personally speak for MADAME BLAVATSKY when I
say
> > she
> > > would not want immature modern "theosophists" to be handling her
> material
> > in
> > > the way they are doing. It is most saddening. Sincerely, Wry
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to comment or do your best
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from
> > > > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Message 12315 of 12337 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index
> Msg #
>
> Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines - Help -
> Ad Feedback
>
>