Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00014)

Mauri,

I hope you understand that my opening comments in my last post was not meant 
as a criticism, but, speaking for myself, as a way of indicating why I find 
it difficult to answer any if your your posts properly unless I can pin them 
down to direct questions with respect to theosophical principles or to 
methods of study. Your "talking to yourself" and "cleansing" as you put it, 
by what appears to be making off the wall tentative guesses and apparently 
rambling speculations -- makes it very difficult to follow your lines of 
thought and formulate them into direct questions that can be answered 
concisely and clearly for the benefit of all theosophical students 
participating in these forums. Also, you always seem, in your roundabout 
tentative manner of writing, to appear to answer all your own questions 
(whether correctly or not -- who knows?) -- which then creates other 
questions that are very difficult to pin down exactly what it is you actually 
know and understand, or are trying to clarify or find out. 

I suppose it's okay to handle your personal mind clearing, or "cleansing" as 
you call it, in the manner you do, but I don't think it helps anyone else for 
you to use an open forum (that is devoted to studying theosophy as it was 
originally taught) to "wash your laundry" so to speak... Since, all that does 
(considering that your complex wordy and speculative jargon appears on the 
surface to be more profound than it actually is) is make theosophy more 
difficult to understand, and possibly, quite misleading and confusing to 
other new students who are looking for cogent and useful answers to their own 
unspoken questions -- not speculative guesses that can only add to their 
confusion. 

I suppose that's why whoever does respond to your missiles, Dallas for 
instance, can only do so by quoting teachings directly from the SD... Which, 
apparently, you rarely seem to respond to directly... And, if so, by adding 
more tentative speculations and "guessings" that don't seem to have any 
direct relationships to the answers given. This is what gives one the 
impression that you may be fishing for someone to do your in-depth studying 
for you, and have the "inner teachings" (meaning, "intuitive insights," which 
can only result from such a deep study combined with *private* meditation) 
"handed to you on a silver platter" so to speak. 

I'm sorry, but that's the impression that your rambling, tentative and 
speculative style of writing gives me... And, I suspect, others who also may 
find it difficult to engage in any sort of meaningful or direct dialogue with 
you. 

In any group study (which is what these bn online forums essentially are), it 
is far better for a beginning student to listen to the teacher's answers to 
the questions of others (in this case, after first studying and considering 
the basic texts such as the SD, the Key and the Ocean, as well as the letters 
offered in the online study forums by more advanced students) and meditate on 
these teachings and answers thoroughly... And then (and only then) ask 
pertinent questions whenever there is something in particular not understood 
or that needs further clarification. Or, if one does find a new truth or 
insight, offer it in answer to another student's question, or directly ask 
the group or a specific advanced student-teacher if it's a correct 
interpretation. 

On the other hand, continually rambling on in long tentative speculations, 
using intricately woven theosophical jargon as almost incoherent streams of 
consciousness that may or may not be theosophically correct -- serves no 
purpose in helping and teaching others (which is the goal of theosophical 
study and knowledge gained by such study)... And, besides such confusing 
mental ramblings being difficult to read, hard to follow, and to figure out 
what are actual statements of theosophical truth and what are not -- can 
become a waste of much time -- especially for those who follow and 
participate in a number of different online forums.

In your recent post (that also includes repeats of two previous posts which 
are too long for me to quote here), the only other questions I find is; How 
does "coadunate" and "consubstantial" -- (referring to the statement of HPB, 
that all fields of consciousness, related to the seven fold nature of both 
the Universe and of Mankind, are "coadunate but not consubstantial") -- 
relate to the use of the word "coenergetic" in the theory of ABC? 

The answer is that the Astro Biological Coenergetics (ABC) theory of 
transcendental (spiritual, mental) and physical field interactions, and their 
ability to transform electro- (and astro-) magnetic energy and their 
holographically encoded sensory information from one field to another (i.e., 
coenergetically) -- is based on that statement of HPB, as well as on 
innumerable Secret Doctrine references that inspired the theories of 
relativity, quantum physics and the newest theories of Superstrings/M-branes 
-- which synthesizes all the previous classical and modern scientific 
theories and is closest to the metaphysical *zero-(laya-) point* field 
concepts of theosophy (as further explained by ABC theory in relation to 
visual perception). 
See some of these SD scientific references at:
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
Also, see the symbolic chakrafield diagram that may be helpful in 
understanding the analogy and correspondence relationships between the 
theosophical principles and the ABC field theory:
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

I hope this answers some of your implied questions that I was able to 
understand.

LHM
ABC theory is outlined at:
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/

In a message dated 01/29/01 9:38:45 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>subject: the "silver platter" connection?
>
>RE:
>subject: Re: complexity of theosophic "basics"
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:06:54 EST
>From: leonmaurer@aol.com
>
>who wrote, in part:
>
>You take such an awful lot of words to express
>your thoughts, which are not only "diffuse" but
>sometimes so contradictory that one finds it
>difficult figuring out how to respond. (Although
>lately, I notice it's improved somewhat.:-) But
>you certainly can ask the right question -- which,
>in this case I boil down to; Why can't theosophy
>be expressed in other terms or other symbols that
>can make it's inner complexity more evident to
>those that do not wish to search for the answers
>within themselves by their own "self defined and
>self determined efforts"?
>
>Of course, aside from the indictment that you
>would like to have the inner teaching handed to
>you on a silver platter -- actually, in one respect,
>you have already answered your question.
>==============snip 
>
>Dear Leon,
>
>Which, what kind of "indictment", Leon, re "silver 
>platter" by who, where, in what sense, in what context, 
>referring to what specifically? 
>
>Except for that beginning part of your post, (which I'm 
>still trying to figure out), the rest of your post came 
>across agreeably . . . though I'll have to read it again.
>
>If we were to THOROUGHLY CONSIDER the 
>validity of everything we say, then I would tend to think 
>that the time-factor alone would make much of BN 
>discussions rather difficult: In my case , at any rate, I 
>can theoretically see myself CONSIDERING many 
>theosophic subjects so long that, by the time I'd feel 
>"sure enough" (whatever that means), after many 
>life-times, possibly, of what to say or write, these BN 
>Forums might not be around any more. 

(Snip)

>Leon, I wonder if you could kindly let me know what 
>kind of SPECIFIC reasoning of yours, based on which 
>SPECIFIC statements of mine, led you to write: " . . . 
>indictment that you would like to have the inner teaching 
>handed to you on a silver platter --?"