Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00259)

Wry (whoever you really are?),

If you don't like long letters with point for point answers, don't write long 
letters that make so many points to answer. :-) 

This time I only have only a few points to make -- and I don't think I need 
your brilliant advice telling me how to answer letters that sometimes are 
quite as long if not longer than mine, and that make many points of 
contradictory and critical remarks and obscure statements strewn with secret 
mantric words that ask to be questioned by any thinking theosophist. Besides, 
I don't think anyone here is willing to waste the time reading or answering 
your letters in any detail -- except when they see you insulting them or one 
of their associates. Lucky that I'm retired and have plenty of time to mull 
over the little games you like to play.:-)

So, thanks for confirming all the things I said in my "very long" letter (not 
criticizing, but pointing out your criticisms of theosophists, theosophy and 
HPB) that "no one will read" since, as you say "it goes in one ear and out 
the other." (It's nice to know, however, that you are only speaking for 
yourself -- since I'm sure other's ears might be open to hear what I have to 
say since long before you started stirring up this pot. :-) Besides, I write 
for the archives (as well as material for my book) along with the person I am 
responding to. 

But, it's sad to see you continuing using denial and by means of ad hominem 
responses, avoid directly responding to the many areas of disagreement you 
seem to have with theosophy and its student/teachers. Just to pass off my 
many questions and suspicions as "raving" and call it "crap" is a cop out 
that may, in some discerning reader's minds, confirm everything I questioned 
about your motives and methods. In any event, I look forward to your 
"proving" me wrong, "point for point." In so doing, as I said before -- I'll 
apologize for doubting you. 

In the meantime I've added a few one-pointed comments to your comments to 
your own original letter below, and leave it to anyone who wishes to wade 
through all your long letters, as well as my "ridiculous" commenting on them, 
to decide for themselves whether or not I am correct in my direct "point by 
point" questioning and observations (not insinuations) of your motives and 
your methods, as well as your understanding of theosophy. 

Since I've already said all that needs to be said, I'll stop questioning your 
subsequent mailings, provided you cease character assassinating and/or 
belittling those who disagree with your version of theosophy and your methods 
of teaching or practicing it. 

LHM

In a message dated 02/21/03 2:36:18 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

Hi Leon. I have just finished reading your reply to me. It was very long,
and I believe your are ranting and raving to a ridiculous degree. I can
almost see the foam. If I were to respond to everything in your message,
point by point, I do not believe most people would read it, nor do I believe
it is even necessary to counter your ridiculous points, as you do not have
much of a grasp of how to put material together in such a way that it can be
actively assimilated, so, generally speaking, all of this crap that you are
insinuating about me is also going to go in one ear and out the other and
therefore not affect anyone's opinion about me to any degree that is
significant. If you ever want to really communicate with me (or anyone), I
suggest you stick to one or two simple points at a time.

So, because you have raved so much it would take up too much time to answer
you, I will comment on my own message, which you have criticized. See
below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: Theos-World Wry speaks to Leon. Part One


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:22 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: re (The Grinch Revisited) or Practical Theosophy
>
> Hi. The way you talk below is the same kind of rhetoric that. for example.
> someone else is using on here when he downgrades the "Jews." To me this
> kind of over-emotional generalization is a sign of fanaticism and mental
> instability, in that you are unable to BREAK THE ELEMENTS APART. You are
> doing more damage to theosophy than I could ever do, in that you are a
> FANATIC and it does not look good.

Why did you leave out my comment to this ad hominem response? Repeating this 
doesn't look very good. Who are you trying to impress with your constant 
tearing down and unconscionable comparisons, and personal innuendoes? 

[Wry] This is re. your comment that an element cannot be broken apart: This 
was a wrong choice of words, and thanks for pointiong it out. I should have
said-- mechanically formed sets in which certain concepts or relationships
are erroneously linked together by the emotions, or by extrapolation onto a
continuum on an intellectually erroneous preconclusion-- or something like
that. An example would be, if someone has an unpleasant experience with
someone of a certain race and gets very angry and than forever afterwards
responds to everyone from that race with a stereotyped reaction. I am not
saying you are a racist, but your thinking is permeated by this kind of
emotional generalization and intellectual preconclusions with an emotional
flavor behind them.

[LHM] Thanks for your attempt at clarification. But, there you go again, 
offering a definition that makes no sense in the context used and twisting it 
back to another ad hominem comment with its insinuating innuendoes (e.g., 
making a racist comparison and then claiming not calling me a racist -- which 
you already implied) that avoids completely the pertinent points I made with 
reference to the above bad mouthing paragraph quoted from your previous 
letter to me. (I advise anyone interested to check my previous post.) This 
whole statement would be very funny, if it wasn't so sadly self incriminating.
> 
> About grip. Unless the simple principle of GRIP is understood, a universal
> brotherhood will never be established, as this grip will connect human
> beings to CONSCIENCE. It is also the understanding of the principle of
> interconnected densities of material that will lead to the formation of a
> mature and fully developed human soul, as, without a certain grip, the
> astral body cannot manifest in such a way that the other bodies can
> also, simultaneously, be manifested. Your words are ravings that go in one
> ear and out the other, but my words have a different quality, as I write
> for this group and broader humanity, as well as for myself and not just
> reactively to release pressure.

[Wry] You have asked me to explain the above, which is one real question you 
have asked. The above is the key to everything I am saying and doing. 
Actually I
have recently been going into this subject on another list we are on,
(something about brain cells in the stomach), but will approach it
differently here, little by little and at my own speed and in my own way, if
I even continue.

Please do. I am anxiously awaiting your clear explanation of the "one real 
question" I have asked (implying of course that all my other questions are 
not "real"). That's a pretty good way to sidestep an issue anyone raises. 
So, here's another "real" question. What do "brain cells in the stomach" 
have to do with anything pertinent to the teaching of theosophy? Besides, 
everyone knows that the entire nervous system is nothing more than brain 
neurons extending throughout the whole body. Thus "brain cells" both 
efferent and afferent are everywhere. (HPB had much to say about the 
connections of the organs with the brain and the emotions which I suggest you 
study.) 

Such vague nonsense you spout -- as if it were part of a magical process you 
are churning up in a witches cauldron (although I'm not claiming you are a 
witch :-) -- is a perfect example of what I have been questioning about your 
motives and methods. Please answer those questions before adding more 
obfuscating and confusing comments to this alchemical broth you, seemingly, 
are "slowly cooking up"... Apparently, to convince us that you are a 
theosophical guru even wiser than HPB, ready to take over and straighten us 
all out with your new wisdom teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 
that sound a bit overbearing and hubristic -- considering the "quality" of 
your obscure mystical word play. (Of course, I expect you to also side step 
this as another of my "over emotional and fanatic ravings" and "frothing at 
the mouth" -- if it doesn't go in one ear and out the other. :-)
>
> A "sangha" in the Buddhist sense is a spiritual community that is organized
> around a religious hierachy, but this is not how I am using this term on
> this list, as I have already explained. A spiritual community, as I am using
> this term here, is a community in which each member not only works for
> himself, but for the good of the whole group.

[Wry] now It is true that I am trying to use this list in a way that is 
meaningful 
to me. In my opinion, everyone should try to shape an environment in a way 
that it will be better, not only for himself, but for everyone else. This is
where individual discrimination comes in. Different people will have
different ideas about what is "good."

[LHM] Yes, that is the problem. What's good for the goose is not necessarily 
good for the gander. :-) Anyway, thanks for making your personal motives 
clear. But, what you propose is both arrogant and uncalled for in a public 
forum with no agenda except to discuss theosophy freely and openly and with 
no sanction to take it over for anyone's own personal and, ostensibly, 
selfish reasons for creating a guru led Sangha. If you wish to serve others 
and "shape" an environment that satisfies your personal ideas of what is good 
for them as well as yourself -- then start up your own private mailing list 
and find your own voluntary converts. Or, straightforwardly tell us what 
theosophical ideas you have that are new and helpful, leave out the 
personality bashing and self promoting head trips, and let it go at that. 
Until then, I'll feel free to make my assumptions about your motives and 
methods based on the "fruits" and criticisms you are now and have been 
presenting here and on other forums you are trying to infiltrate with your 
vague and mystical iconoclasm's. 

> If you think I am "taking over this group," that is a big compliment, but it
> is not that easy to do, if I would even want to, as I have literally no
> power on here, zero power, to stop anyone from sending any kind of email
> they so desire, plus it is my desire and my personal pleasure to work on a
> team with others who are on a level similar to my own and also with anyone
> who has the well-being of this group in mind and enough simple wisdom to be
> classified in the catagory of having common sense, which you apparently do
> not, and I am already working, in the spirit of cooperation, with many on
> this list. The cream, whatever or whoever that is, always rises to the top,
> isn't it true, if the circumstances are not so abnormal and involutionary
> that this is artifically kept from happening, and there is nothing you or I
> can do to stop it, except to commit a sin that is unforgivable, to use
> Christian terminology.

[Wry] What you say is true. There is an suble suggestion that I am "the 
cream,"
but I was also thinking of some other members when I wrote this. Maybe, if
find the cream within ourselves and bring it to the top in a certain way,
things will connect differently, and everything will make sense very easily.

[LHM] Well, if that's the way your feel about yourself, there's nothing 
anyone can say, since you are free to have your own opinions. But, to insist 
that anyone agree with you, or else get slammed with pejorative ad hominem 
arguments and character assassination remarks, is hubris of the highest 
order, and as un-theosophical as anyone can get. 

I also love the way you've sidestepped answering any of the real meat in my 
comments or questions by repeatedly quoting yourself and then answering 
yourself without reference to my full response to your original statement. 
That's a very old trick that propagandists and polemicists use to create 
credibility, and par for the course with you, I suppose. The game is to 
repeat the lie, the false claim, or the exaggeration over and over again 
without answering the rebuttal. 

But, yes, I agree that the cream is in everyone. (But that's not what you 
originally implied, that you were the cream in this group) However, what 
makes you think that your way is better in bringing it up to the top of our 
consciousness than the way HPB (and the Masters) suggested -- i.e., by one's 
own "self devised and self determined efforts following the lines laid down" 
(the three objects of the Theosophical Movement). Are you professing to be 
the new Master who is now sanctioned to change those objects and offer us a 
new "magic" process to achieve its ends in view? If so, then join the club 
of AB, AAB, and CWL, write your own "bibles" to create your own charismatic 
religion, form your own "ashram" or Sangha, and gather in it your own flock 
of sheep. If Krishnamurti is your mentor, I never saw him invading 
theosophical discussion groups to preach or proselytize his doctrine. But, 
then, there would be nothing wrong with that, if you didn't call everyone who 
disagrees with you ignorant fools, and put yourself up on such a high 
pedestal of theosophical omniscience.

> [Wry] As far as using "ad hominem arguments, YOU are doing this, not I (See 
> yourown words below and this will be quite clear). And as far as using 
> "hypnotic mantras, and symbolic or spiritualistic ritual magic," and all 
the rest 
> you say below, which I hope everyone will read, this is not only not me, 
but it
> is also not anyone. 

[LHM] Really? And, on what authority do you assume to be an expert on what 
anyone else does? Also repeating yourself and leaving out my response won't 
make your claims and denials any more believable. As for ad hominem 
arguments, I wonder who it is that calls others "ignorant," stupid, without 
common sense, foolish, fanatic, etc., etc.? In essence, my arguments are not 
questioning your altruistic motives, but simply your actions and claims in 
approaching people in this forum and denigrating the teachings and teachers 
of theosophy and "forming" this list into your own personally led Sangha -- 
however you define it. And, I wouldn't be so harsh toward questioning your 
efforts, if you hadn't started bringing our theosophy discussions down to 
this arrogantly personal level. 

Yes, I, too, recommend everyone read what I "said below" (actually, in 
context with my letter to Mauri that you responded to). At least that will 
give them an idea what the difference is between impersonal and logical 
arguments, statements or conjectures and paranoid, illogical ad hominem 
responses to them. I suggest you begin speaking directly to the question, the 
argument, or the point -- and leave out the self righteous and offensive ad 
hominem remarks

>I personally am not attracted to magic, either "black"
> or "white." both of which not only repulse me, but only in conscious doing,
> which ultimately, if it is extended into GREATER DOING means simply helping
> other human beings to be more conscious.

[LHM] What's wrong with white magic? I thought that was magic that was 
solely used for unselfish purposes. Magic, by itself, is colorless and such 
coloration depends solely on motive. As for "conscious doing"; As a private 
practice to arrive at self realization -- I have no argument with that. But, 
what has that got to with your attempt to "form" this list into your own 
personal concept of what that "greater doing" is. I thought that the 
greatest doing was in following the objects of the Theosophical Movement, 
achieving self realization (which is being "more conscious") and "living the 
Life" as a "Nucleus of Universal Brotherhood" -- so as to become an example 
for others. If your "hidden agenda" is better than that, then let us know 
what it is, so we can decide for ourselves whether or not to follow your way 
(that requires "slow" and "secret cooking" and thinking about the meaning of 
your mantras). That's brainwashing, in my book. And, I don't buy it, right 
off the bat. Real teachers do not solicit or advertise -- Nor do they 
proselytize their teachings as a new religion that everyone has to follow or 
shut up. In occultism, or any discipline of serious study, students go to 
the teacher. The teacher doesn't push themselves out to grab the students. 
Holding out carrots is okay for rabbits or sheep -- but if you think 
theosophists or scientists or philosophers will fall for that crap, you're 
more naive than we think.

[Wry] You did suggest in your message that somone was attempting to use 
"ritual magic" on this list. Who were you referring to? Please answer. 

[LHM] It might have been you, but not directly intentional, although I had 
previously assumed your implied alchemical words or mantras and other vaguely 
mystical statements of a Masonic and wicca nature in your past 
correspondences are forms of ritualized magic. But, then, I have been 
exposed to such alchemical and Masonic "operations" on both physical and 
psychic levels since I was a young boy (as well as before my reformation in 
my forties, when I was actively, I'm sorry to say, using them as an 
advertising executive and in undercover intelligence work)... Consequently, I 
may be a bit oversensitive in recognizing those who practice them -- whether 
consciously or unconsciously. (Although, since you are so hung up on 
"conscious activity," I did feel justified in assuming your use of such 
mystical approaches was intentional.) I may be wrong, however. But, 
unfortunately, you have yet to prove me so, since I still detect such subtle 
magical implications in your writing. Incidentally, I once exposed a person 
who used such techniques to infiltrate a ULT lodge, and almost succeeded in 
taking it over with the expressed intention of "destroying it" and 
indoctrinating its members onto forming a Sangha around his ritual magic, 
sexual Tantric Buddhist practices. So, that too, may have influenced me in 
using those words. Incidentally, he used mantras and mudras when lecturing, 
along with carefully crafted, mystically vague oratory, to achieve his ends. 
Not much different from your writings, it begins to appear. 

Incidentally, I had already written a long exposure of this, which I intended 
to post here, but scrapped it when these last letters of yours came in 
response to my generalized "warning" comments to Mauri -- that gave me an 
opportunity to bring my suspicions out in the open, based on what you wrote. 
However if you continue with such "tear down to build up" approaches -- in 
the interest of openness in all teachings related to theosophy, and for the 
benefit of those not privy to the recognition of such practices -- I can't 
say I will not respond with more detailed exposures of such practices. In 
the meantime, I've posted my warning, and said my piece, and I'll just sit 
back and wait and see. 

[Wry] Re. Sangha, you have misunderstood me. It has an inner as well as an 
outer meaning. You will need to figure it out for yourself, if you ever can. 
I do
not advocate the practice of any organized religion, though I am not against
any individual doing it if it is meaningful to himself, nor do I believe in
the perpetration of authority, though there is what has been called "a
natural authority." Again, as I have previously suggested, the cream always
rises to the top, unless it is unnaturally supressed. Let's hope that is the
case here. Let's get it on the record that I am NOT trying to undermine the
teaching of Madame Blavatsky, but it is important to examine carefully what
she is saying and how she has set it up, and I believe she would expect
people to do this. I will get more specific, little by little. I work very
slowly. As far as her teaching continuing to be time appropriate, this is
never the case with any teaching. It is always designed for specific people
at a specific time and with a specific aim and purpose in mind. It is
conceivable, but highly unlikely, that a teaching could be designed that has
within it a cleansing or self-correcting factor, but I have not seen this
yet, but it would have to do with the development of human CONSCIENCE, as
everything hinges on that. Sincerely, Wry

[LHM] All very interesting (and, thanks for the sly wry put down) -- although 
somewhat vague and self serving. But, I'm still waiting for some sign that 
you practice what you preach. What make's you think you are the only one who 
can understand what HPB is saying and how she set it up. So, far you haven't 
shown that you have even studied any of her teachings in any depth. To imply 
that none of us haven't already done that, and fully understood the teachings 
and the plan (which was actually set up for the people now in this time) 
--appears to be another of your hidden implications that all of us are 
ignorant fools, and you are the new Master teacher of theosophy. Well, I'm 
sorry to say, so far your fruits indicate just the opposite (at least to me).

p.s. You have suggested on a few occasions that you might consider yourself
to be a certain kind of cream, but let's remember, the proof is in the
pudding. We would want to look for a certain consistency and texture, as
well as quality of freshness and flavor, wouldn't we, for a certain kind of
really good pudding.

Also, when have I suggested that I was a certain kind of cream? (Although, I 
do know what I know about the theosophical metaphysics and its methods of 
study and practice.) Your "pudding" is a pretty analogy, but empty of any 
real comparative meaning as far as I can see. Why do I see this as if you 
feel we are competing with each other? I generally talk about theosophical 
metaphysics and you talk about forming a conscious raising Sangha or 
community. That's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm not trying to 
reform anyone, but simply to teach what I know that might help them fulfill 
the objects of the TM. I believe people can reform themselves if they 
independently follow the lines laid down by HPB and the Masters. When they 
are so self realized, their "community" of brotherhood will form itself. You 
believe they need your personally guided community or Sangha, and that you 
have some mystically slow means to achieve it. But, you also seem to think 
I'm an ignorant fool -- so who am I to say who is right or wrong? (Besides, 
I thought you said, everything I say "goes in one ear and out the other, so 
how can you judge my "proof" in any case? :-)

> It is true, as you say, that "those who have eyes to see and ears to hear
> willl know them by their fruits." And by the fruits of my activities,
> people will come to know me.
>
> Finally, I do believe that in making this email, you are attempting to
> elicit a response from me, as I have not been on this list for a few days,
> and in this you have succeeded. Whether you like it or not, I am more
> capable and qualified of representling Madame Blavatsky and her teachings
> than are you, but of course this is a matter of opinion. If you stick to
> simple ideas and do not get so emotional that you are foaming at the mouth
> without really saying anything, you will have a better chance of connecting
> to the simple earth, which is the basis for the great Work. This message
> is made in the spirit of love and is not intended to harm you. Sincerely, 
Wry

[LHM] I think I fully answered this hubristic self serving commentary in my 
previous letters. But, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you should 
open up your mind and let your ears hear what others have to say about your 
"fruits" in this forum before touting them so vaingloriously. As I said, 
referring to the impersonal warnings about false prophets to Mauri below that 
named no names -- apparently, judging by your qualifying responses and in 
spite of your disclaimers, the shoe might seem to fit. 

Show us differently, and I'll apologize for appearing to include you in my 
generalized comments to Mauri about false prophets. Be assured that I have 
nothing personal to say about your character, altruistic motives, or wish to 
cause you any angst, but I have no hesitations when it comes to exposure of 
witchcraft or other forms of priest craft or brainwashing when I see it... 
Especially, when it goes along with discrediting my truly theosophical 
associates and friends (dead or alive). However, please do not assume that I 
am accusing you of anything 

So, as I suggested below, I guess you agreed that now is the time to "talk 
about such things." In spite of my seemingly harsh digging into your 
motives, methods, and means for reforming this list, and discounting your 
snotty personality bashing, I am pleased that you decided to open the door to 
bringing both of our divergent ideas about theosophical teachings, aims and 
purposes, out in the open.

Best wishes,

LHM 

(Out of context quote from the tail end of my letter to Mauri) 
> > So, tell that to all the other bleeding heart dreamers and self centered
> > ego trippers who insist on bypassing and downgrading the teachings of
> > theosophy and its objects (that offers a solid foundation for such
> > practical application) to "feed" their own personal development, and/
> > or who attempt to form their own personally led, personality promoting 
> > "Sanghas" or"organized brotherhoods" centered around a charismatic 
> > leader -- by infiltrating and taking over theosophy mailing lists with 
>> "hidden agendas" that use secret words, ad hominem arguments, 
> > hypnotic mantras, and symbolic or spiritualistic ritual magic, or 
proselytizing
> > personal God and messiah oriented vicarious atonement, through
> > blind beliefs and ritualistic practices that deny all the fundamental
> > principles of theosophy, including the laws of karma and reincarnation. 
> > These are the "false prophets" with their slippery grippery,
> > mentally obfuscating babble that all the great Masters of Wisdom from
> > Krishna to the Mahatmas have continually warned us about listening to 
> > or following. Those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear
>> will know them by their fruits.
> >
> > So, maybe this is the place to "talk about such things"
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > LHM
> >