Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00027)

Leon wrote: <<I'd rather take the view that the relative 
is absolute and the absolute is relative.>>

In other words (?), you might be saying (by "relative is 
absolute") that you tend to find some kind of 
"preferred/worthwhile absoluteness" when dealing with 
or learning from certain kinds of established, basic 
models, such as offered by the "esoteric tradition of 
Theosophy," say . . . 

even though, at the same time (?), you might ("do"?) 
prefer the view that "the relative aspects or versions of 
the initial assumptions" ("initial assumptions" in this case 
in terms of the exoteric/established "esoteric tradition"?) 
that such models and Theosophies are based on, are, as 
per any dualistic/exoteric "version" (of that kind of 
"initial assumptiveness") not just 
relative/dualistic/exoteric, (basically, unavoidably?), but, 
also, at the same time, might be seen (optionally, as by 
you, Leon, and by many Theosophists?) as being 
"preferentially absolute" (in order to, say, "more 
realistically" deal with such as "Buddhistic paradoxes 
that have multiple meanings... "?) . . . 

"preferentially absolute" (?) in the sense of, and as a 
result of, a "preferred perception" (?) that uch 
models/Theosophies have "established" whatever 
"necessary worthwhileness" that has been 
adopted/valued (by manas, karma, tradition) as being 
"absolute". . . or would one be somewhat closer to a 
relative truth when positing that such models are 
seen/judged by many Theosophists as having a 
"preferred" quality of "absoluteness" associated with 
them . . . ?

<<The real truth is that fullness and emptiness, one or 
many, absolute and relative, all exist simultaneously, 
although, depending upon your point of view, when one 
is evident, the other is hidden. This is the "middle" view 
that includes both the "extreme" views. >>

That kind of wording seems rather sensible to me, in a 
sense. But/"but" . . . 

I'm beginning to suspect (or have suspected for some 
time but haven't quite admitted to myself in so many 
words, maybe . . . ^:-) that Theosophists, in general, 
might tend to gravitate toward two (if not more) 
somewhat distinctly different types of views/values.
In broad terms:

1. There would seem to be those (IMHSO) who have 
cultivated forms of "preferred absoluteness" and 
"preferred probabilities" from a certain perspective and 
mindset that might often seem "more relevant" and 
"more preferred" than the "underlying" 
esoteric/experiential Reality, "Itself," that has made such 
"preferred, exoteric versions" possible, or "real," "from 
the beginning" . . . 

2. There would seem to be those (IMHSO) who have 
cultivated an awareness or sense by which they might 
cope with various worldviews, appearances, and 
apparent preferences, but without getting too caught up 
in the "theoretical reality" (in the various "preferred 
aspects," models, versions, permutations, exoterics) of 
such an environment, intuitively preferring to, in effect, 
"see beyond appearances" or at least preferring to not 
close too many doors along the way, in whatever sense . . 
. 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Leon, I wonder if your probabilizing, absolutizing 
and relativizing (not that those are your words, exactly, 
needles to say) might have the effect of hemming you in, 
might tend to block you from transcending toward 
experiential esoterics . . . On the other hand, your 
values are, of course, your values, and might be ("are"?) 
as relevant as you can make them, currently. But, by 
speculating about this and that, seems to me that one 
might transcend some apparent limits, in some way, 
maybe, occasionally, . . . 

PPS my symbol for a stumped guy scratching his head: 
^:-)