Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00304)

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A few words from Wry on a serious subject


> Wry (whoever you are, and whatever your purpose)
> Thanks for the gratuitous psychoanalysis based on a complete
> misunderstanding, personalizing, and even twisting of what I had to say or
question about your
> so called "exercise."
>
> Proves the point (mine and others) that you can't discuss anything with
> theosophists

Wry++++++: In my opinion, you are not a theosophist.

without first slapping them down personally, or making fools of them
> with presumptive, ad homonym remarks, and peppering your arguments with
> strawmen and other contradictions that are too numerous to mention.
>
> In any event, your self gratifying explanations are still a lot of
hogwash --
> since the apparent separation of the "impartial observer" from the object
of
> its observation, and the denial of the eternal spirit (higher Self) as
that
> unbiased observer, is in direct contradiction of the theosophical
teachings
> based on fundamental principles --

Wry+++++++: Your vague generalizations are an example of how a mixed-up
person handles material in a manner that is very simplistic and not specific
enough to effect any kind of genuine inner transformation . Anyone can read
this present message and see for himself that you are raving. There are no
real ideas in your message, just a rant.. Even if I am what you say, you
need to answer the simple question I have asked you in relationship to
material you have brought up. .

Re what you call "the denial of the eternal spirit (higher self) as that
unbiased observer": I have not done this and this is a KEY POINT TO
UNDERSTAND: AN UNBIASED OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT ITSELF OR
ANYTHING ELSE. WHAT HAS THESE OPINIONS IS MENTAL FUNCTION. This has nothing
to do with Madame Blavatsky's or anyone elses opinion or your or my belief
or not belief in that opinion. The truth of what I have said about mental
function can be determined very easily by even a half-cocked investigation,
as it is common sense and very obvious.

I have left one little messages on out here giving my own opinion of the
best and fastest way for a human being to develop. People can decide for
themselves whether or not to do this exercise just as they can decide about
any of the other approaches suggested.. There is a lopsided fanaticism to
the way your are approaching me and you are calling attention to what I am
saying by playing into it with such resistance. I will be going into your
previous message, point by point, if I can find the time. Re serious
theosophists doing this exercise: some serious theosophists already are, but
do not worry, it is only a few, as this Work is not for everyone. Re what
you have called "the apparant separation of the 'impartial observerer' from
its object of observation": I will cover this topic in another message.
Sincerely, Wry

>.This is not what which, judging by your constant avoidance of
> discussing the theosophical basis of your often high handed
pronouncements, you
> apparently don't seem to understand very well.
>
> Maybe your so called "exercise" -- which appears to be, superficially,
> another simplistic version of Zen reflective yoga -- can appeal to non
theosophists
> who are walking around with their weak minds in a fog of wrong views, and
who
> need a continuing prodding to keep them in line while they experience your
> "suffering"... But such simplistic mind control or replacement techniques
you
> preach make little sense to studied theosophists -- who leave the methods
and
> practice of such "self development" meditation techniques to their own
choice of
> teachers -- whom they recognize as being true Masters or Adepts...
Namely,
> those who utilize the three fundamental principles, and its accompanying
> theosophical metaphysics as the basis of their yoga teachings, and back
them up with
> rational philosophical justification, as well as a clear understanding of
the
> metaphysical sciences behind them. Any other practice, without such
> understanding, is just personalized, self gratifying nonsense and is of no
use to the
> Theosophical Movement -- which implies that each of us (serious
theosophists)
> are to become a true "Nucleus of Universal Brotherhood." All you can
> accomplish with your simplistic method (whatever it is) is make passive,
self centered
> observers who haven't the faintest idea of what they are observing, and
for
> what purpose.

>
> In any event, it's all in the Secret Doctrine, the Voice of the Silence
and
> Patanjali's yoga Sutras (and as a Zen practice, in the writings of
Suzuki)...
> And, much better explained than anyone can ever do in an e-mail forum such
as
> this one. So, why not back off, stop making irrational and presumptive
> opinions about the psychological state, maturity, or intelligence of those
who
> question you, and take care of your own self realization "in the privacy
of your own
> secret chamber" -- before trying to teach, guide, influence, criticize, or
> attack those who may already be on a higher level of attainment than you
are (or
> have any hope to be in the near future, perhaps -- judging by your guru
> centered emotionalism).
>
> You might also start studying the teachings, in depth, of those Adepts and
> Masters I mentioned, and find out how far down (or up) on the ladder of
> adeptship you are standing. Then, perhaps, you can direct your yoga
instructions (if
> we can call it that) to those on the level below yourself -- without
arrogantly
> tearing down and denigrating those who may be on a higher level than
> yourself.
>
> A good place to start might be to study some of Dallas' compilations of
> excerpts from the Masters' (HPB's and other messenger's) writings related
to
> specific theosophical subjects. Maybe the last few on meditation and
gurus, karma
> and reincarnation, etc., would be appropriate now -- since that's what
> triggered your latest exposition and ad hominem response to my comments
about them, as
> well as your attempt to force us to accept your particular threat-command
> type yoga practice. i.e. Do it as I tell you or suffer the consequence of
being
> eaten by some sort of monster (which, apparently, is in your own mind).
Who do
> you think you are kidding?
>
> Since you refuse to discuss anything directly without first throwing out
> personal gibes and put downs, while taking an arrogant stance that you are
the all
> knowing one, it is impossible to engage in any sort of reasonable dialogue
> with you. Saying you'll talk about it later (which you never do) or spoke
of it
> earlier (which no one can ever find) -- can never give us the answers to
our
> questions or a logical response to any reasonable comments we make about
> whatever you speak (or might I say "rant") about?
>
> I also have nothing to prove to you. My works and theosophical advice,
when
> offered, speak for themselves. But you have much to prove to us. Going
back
> through all your letters since you invaded these theosophical (and other
> consciousness study) forums, I can't find anywhere that you explained
anything that
> made any theosophical or even scientific sense... Other than offering
vague
> and obscure mystical mumbo jumbo to prove your superior occult knowledge,
> supposedly on a par with or greater than HPB, WQJ, Patanjali, Vyasa, and
any of us
> (who may be on a superior level of theosophical awareness than you appear
to
> be) -- along with vague and unexplained practices to develop some equally
vague
> and unexplained personal powers for unknown personal reasons. Get real,
lady
> bug, and take the mote out of your own eye before you . . . (You do know
what
> you are doing, don't you?)
>
> (Maybe I appear to you to be "raving" and "foaming at the bit" because I
take
> such roundabout pains [for kindness sake, perhaps] to try and point out
what
> you are doing to yourself by the attitude you take in trying to engage
> scientists and/or theosophists in dialogues -- in which you come on
arrogantly as the
> omniscient, all knowing teacher, and they are your foolish students who
are
> doing everything wrong.)
>
> So, from here on out, as far as I'm concerned (as well as a few others who
> have already told you where you were at) -- you might as well be talking
to a
> wall.
>
> In any event, I still have hope that you might begin to offer something of
> value to our better understanding of theosophy -- which is what this forum
> should be about. Nothing wrong, however, with offering advice on
meditative
> techniques that might lead to self realization (for those who aren't
already
> there)... But there's no need to first tear down all the previous
theosophical
> teachings and its many yogas, or denigrate the character of those that
promulgate
> them, before offering your puerile and limited version.
>
> Besides, what makes you think your method is any better than those ancient
> techniques, offered by oodles of teachers before you came along, who
tailored
> their meditation practices specifically for their own individual student's
> needs? The differences between these methods, and their variations or
> transliterations is equivalent to the differences between each
individual's level of
> understanding or degree of initiation on the path. Also, no single yoga
practice
> can stand alone. Their differences are designed to complement each other.
It's
> about time you recognized those differences and began selecting your
audience
> and your targets a bit more carefully. What's good for the goose is not
> necessarily good for the gander. . .
>
> With hope and blessings that you may arrive at the next terrace of
> enlightenment.
>
> Leonardo Hermes Mason
> (a.k.a. Leon H. Maurer)
> (a.k.a. Chiam Eleazer ben Mosher Kohane)
>
> (Now, tell us who you are -- if we are not to continually think of you as
> "that wry one"? :-)
>
> In a message dated 07/28/03 12:31:10 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >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/
>
>