Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00070)

Aug 6 2002

Re Talk and Thinking Who does what ?

How does Maya discuss things with MAYA ?

Dear Friends:


Lets get behind words to ideas. Ideas are not hampered by
words, language and definitions.

Theosophy deals with great ideas. Can we not try to
understand the principles offered?

Certainly there is Maya and Illusion. But those are not
serious obstacles, since if they are recognized, then
logically there is THAT which is NOT maya and is not subject
to illusion.

Theosophy starts with that, and recognizes that everything
else is a variable expression of THAT ONE PRIMAL SOURCE.
yet in the infinite inter-actions of temporary objects and
modes of thought or feeling, there is constantly arising an
increasing certainty of individual stability and permanence.
The sense of "I" or Ego, the Inner Self that we know we are,
does not vanish because of words or illogic.

If that is true, then why is it so. Can we recognize it?
Where does it lead ? What is being developed by the process
of reincarnation ?

Words lead nowhere if they do not lead to meaning. As said
in an earlier post: No choice -- NO EGO. But we observe we
are always choosing. So, is there not an "ego," a sense of
self, that chooses, that asks questions and seeks answers?
Does that (by whatever name) disappear and if so where to?

I don't see where experience acquired is wiped out with no
gain or purpose.

In all our experience with the secret workings of Nature,
there is not to be seen anything that is purposeless or
lawless. If Law and Laws prevail, then why ? How do we get
to prove anything?

Review the sayings, ideas and injunctions offered by great
Minds -- by Prophets and Seers, by those who founded
philosophical schools or great Religions: Do any on them
hold that life is without purpose? On the contrary they
unanimously declare there is PURPOSE nd MEANING to
everything that ay being high or low does. We have
significance. Can we determine what we Are, AND WHAT WE CAN
DO ?

Or, are we to be plunged back to wordy wranglings?

Best wishes,

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: M
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:24 AM
To:
Subject: to Dallas . . .


Dallas wrote: <<make it simple. If the 7 Principles of Man
is
correct, then, at the core of our being -- the MONAD --
ATMA/BUDDHI is all the possible esotericism any one
would want.>>

I thought that we sort of established that the "atma-buddhi
monad" was kind of "APPARENTLY esoteric," in a sense,
comparatively, exoterically speaking . . . but surely
there's "a
more relevant issue" about the meaning of "esoteric" that
might interest some Theosophists, as per, for example, on
Theos-1, Re to Mauri - Esoteric, Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:49:33
-. Here's an excerpts from that post by Gerald:

<<The (false) teaching that some kind of esoteric knowledge
exists in Shambabala or somewhere, carefully guarded over
by mysterious Adepts, is a pernicious one that
Theosophists,
magicians, New-Agers, and occultists alike are prone to.
Truth is found by looking within oneself, not by looking for
some book or ancient text.>>>>

I suspect that some texts might often appeal to those who
might have a problem with some "more relevant" way of
"looking within themself." Not that there's anything wrong
with exoteric studies, particularly . . . but/"but" . . . I
suspect
that people in general tend to have a certain sense of
"essential relevance" (say?), in various/interpretive ways,
that's basically "experientially based" (whether it's
perceived
so or not?) in the sense that only the reality of direct
experience "will do" re such as "spirituality" re such as
atma/buddhi, monadic, Monad, (precisely because such
concepts are "too esoteric" and too "far out" to "understand
about" other then by direct experience) . . .

So, in a sense, that kind of perceived "relevance" isn't (as
I
see it) "particularly related" to the kind of mindset that's
generally associated with (?) words such as <<all the
possible
esotericism any one would want.>> since (while the
"amount" of "esotericism" "re" such as atma-buddhi is not
likely generally in question?) the "esoteric," itself, in
the
sense of actual/experienctial as in "mystical," is not
possible
to even describe with words (as we seem to have been rather
repeatedly told!?)---though some words "ABOUT" ways and
means, models, Theosophies, etc. (re "exoteric aspects")
might be seen as "helpful" in some sense (which kind of
"help" is, really, as I see it, rather
intermediary/exoteric, and,
often (?), tends to get "somewhat far too intermediary," in
a
way, to the extent that some students might tend to get
turned
off by what they might see as contradictory fare?) . . .

After all, there wuld SEEM to be (?) some people (even
"students"?) out there who might have a "thing" about things
that don't "SEEM" to fit . . . So, in the interest of
"perceived
applicability," one might . . . whatever . . .

Speculatively,
M