Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00214)

What is the BASIS from which you start ?

What are the Processes you know are useful to use ?

What kind of answers are you looking for?

How will they integrate with what you already know?

How sure are you of what you know? This goes back to your
established BASIS of known or acceptable facts.

Presumably you will have to have a triangle to establish such a
Basis. What i it ?

Dallas

=======================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 3:32 AM
To: Dallas
Subject: Re Bruce, Gerald, Dallas . . .

Seems like Theos-1 might've gone out of business or something.
So sending this directly to Bruce, Gerald, Dallas
Gerald wrote:
<<<But the reason why duality has such a hold on people is that
most
people try to grasp onto one polar side and to eliminate or throw
away the
other polar side. Materialists cling to matter and don't accept
spirit.
Moralists cling to good and try to eliminate evil. Men try not to
be
feminine. Doctors grasp onto health and try to eliminate disease.
And so
on. This is all a play of maya. Acccepting both sides of all
dualities as
being like two sides of the same coin gives us a whole new
perspective on
life.>>>
In terms of the the NATURE of the "spiritual understanding" or
"esoteric perspective" that's involved in a certain kind of
"accepting" (or would something like "overviewing" tend to sound
somewhat less biased, for some, than "accepting,"
maybe . . .), I wonder what kinds of notions the word
"accepting," when used in that sense, might tend to bring out for
readers of these lists.
In terms of my present speculative point of view: while the
word "accepting," on the other hand, might be "perfectly
correct," in some sense, (for all I really know), from some
"more-esoteric" perspective, maybe, I can't help
thinking/speculating that those who are not capable of that KIND
of "accepting" (by way of a certain kind of "direct
experience/knowledge/being," or whatever,) might (just possibly .
. .) somewhat misconstrue the NATURE of the "accepting" part,
itself, of that kind of "esoteric accepting" . . . (not that I'm
at all sure that that kind of "accepting" is, necessarily,
thought of as even "esoteric" from the point of view of such
"direct or
more-direct acceptees" . . . except, possibly, when they're
more-fully immersed back in what might pass for their equivalent
of a "more-dualistic" worldview, maybe).
And didn't Bruce at one point say something about a certain kind
of less-dualistic worldview tending to make for a certain
"difficulty in accepting" (or words to that effect . . .) the
comparatively more-dualistic worldview, sometimes, or something
like that . . .
Which kind of word usage, without anything much in the way of
explanation about the more-specific sense of "accepting" or
"difficulty to accept" (I'm wondering) MIGHT somewhat TEND to
sound to some of us as if, maybe, the "more-regular
evaluations" of comparatively "esoteric" forms of "accepting" (as
in various evaluations by the run-of-the-mill, regular people,
like myself) MIGHT be somewhat short-sighted, or maybe even
downright erroneous, about the NATURE of that kind of (at least
comparatively "far more esoteric") "accepting" . . .
And I seem to recall reading something in the papers, not so long
ago, that there seem to be certain kinds of "fundamentalists" out
there, who (if my interpretation is relevant, here) might have a
certain tendency of somewhat too liberally/literally or
"too fundamentally" interpreting certain kinds of "accepting" and
"not accepting," maybe, occasionally---maybe even from the point
of view of some of the more-regular, run-of-the-mill people . . .
maybe even SO "fundamentally," sometimes, (as per what I read, I
think), that they might even wind up crashing
(ouch!) into buildings, occasionally . . . or something like
that . . .
In other words, when somebody uses words like "accepting" and
"not accepting" in phrases such as "Acccepting both sides of all
dualities as being like two sides of the same coin gives us a
whole new perspective on life," well, some of those words, in
that kind of context, tend to make me wonder about a few things.
Not that the general content/context of Gerald's post didn't at
all imply anything about the sense in which that kind of
"accepting" was meant.
And of course one of the challenges of reading about things that
have, in a sense, a somewhat more-implied esoteric aspect to them
is that our plain words, sometimes---or often, even---are meant
to refer to meanings that are . . . well, "way out," in a sense,
"comparatively speaking," or at least "dualistically
speaking"---as if one could really speak about some "things" that
might even be "far less dualistic" and so "unspeakable,"
"basically" (not that those esoteric meanings are,
necessarily/essentially, really any more "way out" than our
noses, in another sense, I suspect).
But (my point here being, I think) "perspectives" in general have
a way of "getting into things." And there seem to be (I think)
some comparatively somewhat "less-qualified/explained"
perspectives that seem to get into some things maybe a
little too . . . uh, abruptly, maybe, occasionally, for some
tastes---not that such hazards are not generally "well known,"
exactly, and not that they're not more or less constantly and
more or less "consciously" faced by many readers of HPB, for
example (as the interpretive "animosity"on these lists---as per
Bruce---might tend to occasionally "attest to," to some extent,
in a way, maybe, for some of us).
Speculatively,
Mauri










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]