Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01882)

Hallo Thalprin and all,

My views are:

1.
You said, that some of my content did not "connect".
And yet you say that you enjoyed the excerpts I cut and pasted.

I wonder...
If you enjoyed the excerpts I did cut and paste, why
do you then fail to understand the connection my question to you
have with the excerpts I did cut and paste ?

When time is ripe any of us will leave this forum called
Theos-talk. This is the truth.
Some of us has an agenda by being here.
Others have not, but just wanders through this place with the eyes
closed very tight.
And some do not even know, why they are here.
(Try to think about it for a while.)

What I am saying between the lines is,
that you have a tendency to make emails, which
in certain respects have very little to do with the issues
mentioned in my cut and paste excerpts.

And yet, Some of us can't help ourselves to get dragged into
a discussion on issues about, -
who wrote what, what they meant with what they wrote,
who understood what was written and who didn't
and why.
That is not new - it also happens in the Upanishads.
This it is a good sign - provided the content of
the questions and answers at least are non-emotional.


2.
To me it seem you havn't read the Upanishads that much.
So to clarify further, what the above has to do with
my question and the previous
Blavatsky quotes I will have to make a few more quotes,
this time from the Upanishads
- - - - - - -

And of course we will have to read it all between the lines. This is not a 
teaching,
which should be read merely by using the dead-letter of the 7 keys
in the Mystery Language. If it is no
good it is no good. Facts are facts.

An excerpt:
"
24

"What deity," said Sakalya, "are you identified with in the fixed direction
(i.e. overhead)?"
"With the deity fire."
"In what does fire find its support?"
"Speech."
"In what does speech find its support?"
"The heart."
"In what does the heart find its support?"

25

"You ghost," said Yajnavalkya, "that you think that the heart should be
elsewhere than in ourselves!
If it were elsewhere than in ourselves, dogs would eat this body or birds
tear it to pieces."

26

"In what do the body and the heart find their support?" asked Sakalya.
"In the prana."
"In what does the prana find its support?"
"In the apana."
"In what does the apana find its support?"
"In the vyana."
"In what does the vyana find its support?"
"In the udana."
"In what does the udana find its support?"
"In the samana."
Here the Upanishad itself states:
This self is That which has been described as "Not this, not this."
It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never
decays; unattached, for It is
never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers
injury.
Yajnavalkya said: "These are the eight abodes, the eight organs of vision,
the eight deities and the
eight beings.
"Now I ask you about that Person who is to be known only from the
Upanishads, who definitely
projects those beings and again withdraws them into Himself and who is at
the same time
transcendental.
"If you cannot clearly explain Him to me, your head shall fall off?' Sakalya
did not know Him; his
head fell off; and robbers snatched away his bones, mistaking them for
something else."
(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Part III, Chapter IX, v. 23-26. -Yajnavalkya and
Vidaghdha)


There are very great things in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which perhaps
aught not to be read by impure minds. With these subtle longings, we should
not go to the Upanishads to seek, "let me see if I can find something
there." You should not experiment with these things. You should say, "I
shall find it." The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is a spiritual supermarket -
you can find anything there. It is a forest, a large, large forest of
knowledge - Brihadaranyaka. It is aranyaka, a forest of knowledge. That
also, brhat very large, impregnable forest for every kind of knowledge. Very
vast: it will take one year to say anything about this book. Even one year
is not sufficient. You are touching the Self, that is the most important
thing. You can touch anything and go scot-free, but we cannot touch the Self
and go like that. It will do some mischief afterwards.

"Do not talk much about it," Yajnavalkya tells some of the
questioners in the assembly of Sage Janaka. "Do not talk much about it." And
one Shakalya went on arguing, "Where is its location, where is it located?
Where is the heart located? Yajnavalkya said "Hey, don't ask too much lest
your head may fall off." "Tell me the great Purusha that is declared in the
Upanishads. If you don't understand this, your head will fall just now." And
he did not know the Purusha in the Upanishads that well, and robbers took
the head away.

And of course we will have to read it all between the lines. If it is no
good it is no good. Facts are facts.
(Smile...)

3.

I do hope, this helped you understand the lack of relevance your
original remarks had.

These were the words you wrote into a thread of mine:

a)
"How could you put that horrible secretaries pic on the front
page!
What's that about?"

b)
"Perhaps, grab your glasses and try reading this again OR make up
more lies I think they're funny anyway."

I am trying to help you, understand something, but if you
havn't got an open mind you will not understand it.


from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "thalprin" <thalprin@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:27 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Kathleen blasts HPB and Theosophy by telling bold 
faced lies.


> Sufi,
>
> > >> > This is a polite question, so please
> > >> > do not misunderstand me:
> > >> > The question is, who has the ball...when you quit theos-talk?
> > >> >
> > My question was not referring to that issue.
>
> Ok, then, might I suggest that you not include content that does not
> connect and try and include content that actually does.
>
> I think I am well aware of your views, thanks.
> And I enjoyed the excerpts you cut and paste.
>
>
> Terrie
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> theosophy@s...> wrote:
> > Hallo Thalprin and all,
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > My question was not referring to that issue.
> >
> > Yes, It is a pleasant thought you have there, I agree on that.
> > But that doesn't quite connect with what I wrote about conditioning
> > in the last of my emails.
> >
> >
> > Just a few views of mine.
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "thalprin" <thalprin@y...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:47 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Kathleen blasts HPB and Theosophy by
> telling bold
> > faced lies.
> >
> >
> > > Sufi,
> > >
> > > I think the best thing to suggest is: when you quit theos-talk is
> > > certainly your choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > Terrie
> > >
> > >
> > >> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> > >> theosophy@s...> wrote:
> > >> > Hallo Thalprin and all,
> > >> >
> > >> > My views are:
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry about the length of the email, but I thought it
> important
> > >> enough.
> > >> >
> > >> > So what you are saying is sort of the same as:
> > >> > Theosophy follows this view:
> > >> > It deals with everyone according to capacity and character,
> > > being
> > >> neither
> > >> > benevolent nor the reverse: for kindness and cruelty, while
> > >> effective and
> > >> > understood in ordinary relationships, operate as part of a
> > >> conditioning
> > >> > system within a teaching or group situation.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a polite question, so please
> > >> > do not misunderstand me:
> > >> > The question is, who has the ball...when you quit theos-talk?
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links