Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00290)

Hi Leon.
----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A few words from Wry on a serious subject


> Patanjali, along with Buddha, HPB and WQJ, and later, Suzuki (re Zen
> practice) taught a similar process to attain enlightenment or self
realization --
> through practicing a constant and direct awareness of ones actions on
every plane
> of one's existence, including one's thoughts, emotions, sensations,
tensions,
> feelings, physical actions, etc..... But, they explained the process far
> better,


Wry: You have named five instances of people who you say have explained this
"better." I thionk you are talking through your hat, but at least you are
talking (vaguely rambling) about a very important subject. Please give
examples of each of these, one at a time and we can find out who has
explained it better. Remember, I have previously left several messages on
this subject.

>.justified its use with a consistent and logical basis for attaining a true
> knowledge of reality, and never taught anyone to stop thinking

Wry: You are ranting again, and so early in the message. No one can teach
people to stop thinking. Try to think through what you are saying.

>(at least not
> with their higher or intuitive mind).

Wry: Please define this. If you are talking about the functioning of the
brain when there is no identification and the attention is not forced, which
I believe you are, my guess is that no one on here is thinking in this way.
You certainly are not. To think in this way is could be called being
"awake." You are right, the exercise I have given would interfere with being
awake, but this exercise is not for people who are awake, only for those who
fantasy they are.

>They also didn't approach the teaching
> of such practice with the premise that everyone other than the teacher is
a
> fool and needs someone to lead them by their noses into an >action

Wry: You are foaming at the bit, though, if I read between the lines of
your convoluted words above, I can squeeze something out of this. It is very
difficult to work with alttention and there are basically two different
methods of doing so; one way is to work with attention in such a way that
it remains free and an increased level of awareness arises spontaneously
from other activities, including movement and also more generalized attempts
at being mindful. (This seems on the surface like a good and reasonable
approach, and may work under controlled circumstances, such as monestarial
conditions when one is participating in a regulated regime with carefully
designed conditions, but for the regular person--rots of ruck. It is
difficult for the average person (just about anyone) to grasp the degree of
the obstacles that need to be overcome, in that the ordinary person (such as
you--or I) imagines there are no such obstacles in that he fantasies he
already is attentive when, in actuality, nothing could be further from the
truth. This is the nature of the affictive mind.

>(for which they
> are given no logical reason or understanding (of the nature of their dual
> self,

Wry: There is no theory being given with this? You are right. It should be
presented with theory. Actually, I have given quite a bit of theory, plus
you folks already have enough theory to enable (a few of) you to
understanding the potential value of such an exercise. Don't worry. Not
many, if even any, are going to be jumping on the bandwagon,(though probably
more now, because of you) as it is against nature to do this exercise, as
one will, at some point, have to suffer. This is why it is useful to
understand the concept of displacement, but it is confusing you. Maybe I
should not have spoken of it. It is hard to convey this all on an email
list. If a person were giving this exercise to group of people who were
physically present, he would probably not go into displacement.And there is
something else: when people on here begin to understand what I am talking
about, the attention will spontaneously become more free and new
possibilities will open up.

>as well as of the karmic necessity) to initiate by their own self devised
> and self determined efforts.

Wry: Oh yeah. Like concentrate on a spot "between your eyes." Feels righjt,
so do it. This is how the ordinary mind works. Someone like yourself is the
end product of this kind of approach. I'm not saying that you have done
this, but you probably have. It is a matter of wrong tension. There is no
way to not harm yourself and not limit your future possibilities,because the
tension will always be wrong and everything in the future is builkt upon
this foundation. This is why people cannot be awake. It is better to record
the body and all of its functioning as an object before you attempt to
tamper and make adjustments. When there is enough impartial data recorded,
along with some intelligent experimentaion based on this data, may have the
knowledge to design a program. With you personally, your ordinary self is
too mixed up in what you have been doing. It is all distorted, and not a
good set of affairs, but I am not allowed to bring another human being into
a state of nihilism.

I have come back to this list to leave one little message (honestly) as I
noticed people were leaving their ideas about meditation, but now I feel
obligated to stick around till we have fully enquired into your message,
point by point, as you are giving what I perceive to be confusing, false and
even dangerous ideas. Please answer my question above and give examples from
these five teachers and we can go on to enquire into them. I will cover the
rest of your message later. Let's start with Patanjali as you seem to be
genuinely knowledgable on this subject. I will try to locate my reference
material on this subject, and expect to learn something from all of this, as
will others Maybe I think I will respond to one more comment, so see below.


>
> To not understand that the higher Self or "Spirit in Man" (Atma) is the
> witness, is that "unbiased something," is eternal, and is the victim of
the karma
> of the lower self, and to not explain the basis of the action, the method,
and
> the rationale behind such an observational (actually meditative) process
(so
> ordered for us to do, but not explained how) -- is a perfect example of
the
> blind leading the blind.

Wry: To begin, I have not ordered anyone to do any such exercise, but even
if I did, no matter; No one will do this anyway unless he already
iunderstands the sense behind it. It won't happen. You are foaming at the
bit. Secondly, it literally does not matter what you understand that the
"something impartial" that is recording you is this or that, as this kind of
understanding is ORDINARY thought, and when you are calling "something
impartial" this or that, be it atma, eternal or whatever, it is very
unlikely that something impartial will be recording you as you do this. This
kind of ordinary thinking is also the contrary to what you call a highe
intuitive mind. This a a KEY point which is very difficult to get across.
Madame Blavatsky got many points across, and did a good job in many ways,
but she seems to have missed this one. I have tried many times when I have
written about the tempo of the functionings and a certain lag that occurs,
but thanks to your message, I believe I am finally going to be able to get
this point across to a few. Impartial sel-observation is the fastestand
purest possible way (but don't worry, it is very slow) which involves the
least possible amount of tampering, to bring good results to the ordinary
(extraordinary) INTELLIGENT person who sincerely wants to develop in ONE
lifetime. I am no teacher, but I fall on my knees with tears streaming down
my face in joy and gratitude at the memory of the kind, intelligent human
being who gave me, at the age of twenty, the opportunity to participate,
after six long years of searching for a teacher. Sincerely, Wry
>
> Perhaps it might help to read some of the recent posts by Dallas on karma,
> meditation, etc., (quoting from the writings of some of the above
mentioned
> theosophical teachers). And, to follow their leads for study and yoga
practice,
> while finding out for ourselves how far ahead (of this simplistic and
> methodologically unexplained practice) they were. Patanjali had this self
observant
> yoga down pat more than a thousand years ago, and there couldn't be any
"faster"
> method to develop one's higher consciousness (or conscience) and attain
> enlightenment. At least, he showed us, step by step, how to "hinder the
> modifications of the thinking principle" -- which is the enemy of clear
seeing (that is a
> quality of the thoughful mind) -- but not to "stop thinking itself."
>
> As for the "scare tactics" about urgency of time running out and that
> "someone" might "eat us" if we do not follow these directions, It would be
nice to
> know who that someone is and why such an urgency? Since we are not so
told --
> is it, because maintaining such ignorance on the part of the
student/meditators
> is the only way a self proclaimed indispensable guru can take over control
> and guidance of their lives and make them willing slaves to his/her ideas
of
> group activity? It would be also nice to know what it is that we are
supposed to
> "develop" by engaging in such a practice? Is it some sort of psychic
power?
> And who or what is the nature of that "unbiased observer" -- other than
our
> higher self or spiritual awareness (that has already been thoroughly
explained
> by HPB for the discerning theosophist, and further clarified by WQJ for
those
> at a lesser level of understanding).
>
> In any event, the idea of "displacing thought" by any sort of blindly led
> ritual or "exercise" goes directly against the fundamental teachings of
> theosophy. In fact, it is the perfect way to passively prepare the mind
for being
> hypnotized. What value is a recording of what we are doing, if we cannot
think
> about whether or not what we are doing is correct action or not? In other
> words, how can such a recording be useful to us if we cannot evaluate it
(by
> thinking) in order to make necessary changes in our minds?
>
> LHM
>
>
> In a message dated 07/27/03 7:17:31 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >The fastest way to develop is by practicing an exercise in which
something
> >impartial, as if from a point outside the physical body, records the body
> >as an object, including sensation, tensions, feelings etc. as it moves
> >around. This is very hard to do, and is even unnatural, and, in this
sense,
> >could be called a form of Work. Of course the regular little self with
> >all of its nonsense, does not want to be recorded, as it goes about its
> >day, dreaming that it has unlimited time, is already impartial, and will
> >not have to die like every other Tom, Dick, and Harry, or whatever. Bear
> >in mind and do not forget: something impartial has no opinion of any
kind,
> >and it certainly does not know if it is immortal. Any such evaluation is
> >a product of thought, which is a process of the functioning of the body
> >and to be simply recorded. As mentioned previously, the processes of
thought
> >seem to displace the impartial recording process, so it is unlikely, at
> >least in the beginning years, to be able to do this exercise and think
> >at the same time. Pity, but this is the nature of the beast, and whoever
> >does not want to be eaten will need to contend with it realistically, by
> >displacing thought with the practicing of this exercise. Sincerely, Wry
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>