Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00263)

Hi. The below message is an example of what I mean when I say you are
confused. What possible purpose can be served by writing this? I will make
further comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Theos-World The shade Without the Tree...


> Hi all of you,
>
>
> Here is a little something...
> The person involved in this one - is not really me...

Wry++++What do you mean by this? People have not really come to you for
twenty years with these questions and you are just fantasizing them?
>
> The Shade Without the Tree...
>
> 'There is a learning which is not in books. There are
> experiences which cannot be described in words. There is a
> direct perception of Reality which I believe humanity was
> intended for: that is what I seek.'
>
>
> This yearning, yet confident, series of statements is repeated
> again and again in letters which I receive and in the mouths
> of those who come to see me.
> For twenty years I have answered it with a series of questions,
> designed to elict whatever real conception there may be about
> Reality, behind these words.
> The question have usually been in this vein, naturally following
> the classical esoteric model:-

Wry: Classical esoteric model"????? (Ha ha).

> 'Do you know how to regocnize this non-verbal learning?'
> 'Do you know that the "learning is not in books" may
> be elicited by books, in their instrumental function:
> making books necessary?'
> 'Have you not thought that when your perceptions have
> developed, you will then have the means to understand
> some books: so that the prior need for them in providing
> frameworks for thought is recognized?'
> 'Have you thought of, or heard of, or even suspected, the
> functional role books and words, which lies behind their
> intellectual, factual or emotionally stimulative use?

Wry: Since you are just making it up that people have been asking you these
questions for twenty years, I assume you have had no real practice in
answering them. If there is a functional value to books which we do not
understand, why don't you demonstrate it by communicating in a functional
manner?

> Nothing tells us so much about someone, in a book-oriented
> society, in respect to his or her potential and actual progress, as
> the attitude towards litterature.

Wry: Bullshit. It is the expressions on your face and your body tensions,
which reveal everything about you, before you even begin to put your foot in
your mouth, but since we cannot see your face, it is your grandiose,
confusing emails, with no real information in them. When I say I am from
the" bees", for example, at least I can demonstrate wha I understand in such
a way that someone can actually receive something original..

> The fact is that less than one person in fifty has had any
> conception of the 'real use' of the word.

Wry: "one in fifty"? The fact? You are just making these numbers up, right?
Shame. Also, even if this is a fact, which it is not, it doen't really
matter. We are on this list, in the here and now, with whatever
pre-conceptions we bring to it (I hope as few as possible).

>In the olden days it
> was said to be one in a thousand.

Wry: Ha ha. (The laugh is on me. I did not know this.)

But the crude attitude
> towards the word which is the result of superficiality
> of current society's beliefs about it will undoubtedly be seen in
> the future as comically barbaric.

Wry: Who even cares?

> Remember, virtually all great classical Sufis worked with
> words.

Wry: Unless I am mistaken, we all work with words, to the best of our
abilities.

>Ask yourself: why was that?

Wry: Ask yourself why you are satying this.

> You may be looking for shade and dislike the sun which
> creates it. Very well. But you need the sun, and also the tree to
> provide the shade.

Wry: It is true that everything is interconnected, but we (and by this I
more specifically mean you) do not live our daily lives (or write our daily
messages) with an understanding of this. Here is an example:. You are
looking for something when you write your messsages. I believe, in a large
part, it is something to satisfy the desire to feed your current idea
(image) of what your "self" is. I am giving you a more balanced perspective
than the one you have, which is very lobsided. But will you thank me? You
are more likely to accuse me of having a reaction. When you hit your finger
with a hammer, the pain is not mine. The problem is, if this keeps up much
longer, we will lose readers, as there is no real grip[ in your messages,
which will go in one ear and out the other, in that you are not saying much
of anything. In the beginning, it was a novelty, but not forever. Sincerely,
Wry
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with a funny summer-hat...
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>