Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00031)

In a message dated 2/3/2001 1:13:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
leonmaurer@aol.com writes:

> 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. 
> 
Not to put too fine a point on Leon's well stated comments and without any 
intent to make this a further contribution in Mauri-bashing. I would just 
like to add that the above observation also includes the reason why some of 
us (even older "seasoned") students don't bother to answer any of Mauri's 
posts at all. Some of us have figured out that no matter what kind of a reply 
we give, it will eventually be dismissed and followed by another convoluted 
self serving intellectual exercise. Exactly what a true Theosophical 
discussion list SHOULD NOT BE! Intellectual meandering, simply for the sake 
of lower self titillation, is a long way from the aims of true theosophical 
discourse. The value of theosophical communication, to me, is it's capacity 
to reveal what is not said, by the inspired energy of the words which it does 
use. Inspired language has kept humankind on it's spiritual journey from its 
beginning. Intellectual rhetoric, does no such thing.

Louis