Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00204)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thanks for your answer Wry.

I could now continue along my previous lines of communication.
But as it appears to me in your below answer, that you would not understand,
what my agenda is.

Although you in the below - at least to me makes some of your previous
intentions
much more clear, - your angle are different than mine, and indeed not
necessarily bad.
Thanks for your quite interesting words.
If what you (and others) are up to has to succed, it will take a lot of
time - and require much
patience. And yes, of course in the end you will have success.
As I understand you, you are working with groups and are continously seeking
to create proper spiritual social and ESP relations between groups - more -
than you seek to enlighten the individual in a certain group towards
thinking or meditating constructively about their own individual path so
that they thereby make the proper spiritual social relations within groups
where they exists. This is what I understand from your word "grip". Is this
true ?
If this rings a bell then I think we can continue with each our agendas.
Well, that is my view.

Your focus is directly towards groups. My focus is at the individuals and
indirectly at groups. True ?

That is maybe also why your use of vocabulary from time to time are so
harsh. But, I will deeply question
wheahter it is the healtiest method.

Sometimes you in the below misunderstand my intentions. But I am not going
to write on that unless you ask me to explain it. Yes some readers at
Theos-Talk are knowledgefull, but some are not. And it is THEY (the last
group) who so very often confuse BELIEF with what THEY think is true
spiritual theosophical KNOWLEDGE.
And there are SEVERAL LEVELS the be confused on ! It is quite like the hindu
vedantists - Maya, subtle and diffucult to avoid. This is the plain truth
about Theos-Talk wheahter you agree on it or not.


I have one question on your below remarks:
Wry wrote in the below:
"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 Sufilight answer:
You will have to explain this above text. Because if you do'nt our
communication cannot
go further. You write as if you know what I am thinking about - even while I
am writing. Ie. you are using the words "while writing this message" in your
last sentence in the above excerpt. You are making serious claims about
being knowledgefull.
Can you please explain this further ?
What value have your claims ? Do they lead to spiritual development ? And
how ?
Answer these questions or else I will reach the conclusion, that further
debate will become useless.


I encourage you to start here, when you make your next response !



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:52 PM
Subject: Theos-World Key Material


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