[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World re to Gerald, Leon, and . . .

Nov 10, 2002 02:35 AM
by leonmaurer

Since my name (linked with Gerald) was mentioned in this cross post for no 
reason I can think of -- especially since I am not a contributor to Theos-1 
(nor is Gerald to this one) -- I thought I might answer it with the comment 
that, maybe, besides cross posting gratuitous opinions (although, at least, 
somewhat coherent) from someone else, you should think about what you know 
before you write down in incomprehensible vagaries what you don't know. 

As for your comment that my interest in the scientific/theosophical 
metaphysics and Cosmogenesis, and their correlation with current science 
(that is the root of ALL of HPB's teachings in the SD, including karma and 
reincarnation, consciousness and matter, mind and body, etc.) is "not more 
realistically about" theosophy... Why don't you tell us what you think 
theosophy really is "more "realistically about"? 

Have you any idea why the SD was subtitled, "A Synthesis of Science, Religion 
and Philosophy?" And, why HPB said that without a *thorough* understanding 
of the three fundamental principles (with the scientific laws being the 
essence of the second "linking" principle) the entire teachings of theosophy 
would make no sense whatsoever? And, why she also said that theosophy, taken 
on faith alone, without scientific and philosophical understanding and 
conviction would be nothing more than another religious dogma destined to die 
on the vine? 

Maybe you should go back to a serious study of those principles and the laws 
of nature that links them, rather than speculating (fantasizing) about 
"realities" -- whether physical, moral or ethical -- that have their roots in 
fundamental truths... All of them dependent upon a logically consistent and 
immutable, scientific metaphysics that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt 
(when "experienced" in proper meditation) that the Universe, as "Father, 
Mother and Son," is neither infinite nor finite, eternal nor non eternal, 
existent or non existent, self nor not self, empty nor full, one nor many, 
abstract nor concrete, etc. -- but, in each (and every) case -- both.


In a message dated 11/09/02 8:39:09 PM, writes:

>Gerald wrote: << Duality is relatively easy to understand 
>with polar opposites like up and down, and beauty and 
>ugliness. Also, we all understand left and right, and male 
>and female. We pretty much take these dualities for 
>granted. But manas has a much harder time with some 
>other dualities like existence and nonexistence for 
>example, or self and not-self. The basic polar opposites 
>of Space and Motion are also not clearly understood by 
>manas, and usually require experiential knowledge.>>
>And, while we're on that subject, what about those 
>people and Theosophists who . . . (how should one put 
>it?) occasionally tend to give the impression (to some of 
>us?) that they can't see the forest for the trees . . . That is, 
>as I see it, (or tend to see it), the study of Theosophy, in 
>particular, might be somewhat better accomplished or 
>entered into with a kind of two-tiered approach:
>1. as per one's realization of the dualistic, literalistic (or 
>"exoteric") aspects of one's study, and, 2. while keeping 
>in mind that the dualistic aspects of one's studies can only 
>be, at best, the dualistic or exoteric "aspects or versions" 
>that were created as per one's notions about "relevance 
>re the underlying esoteric/experiential reality" (not that 
>that "relevance" can ever have a "direct enough" 
>relationship with what is categorically at least far less 
>dualistic, apparently?)
>For example, why is it that when I read many of Leon's 
>posts, I tend to feel that his scientizing comes across to 
>me as if he doesn't realize that, while modeling might be a 
>nice hobby, that's not, after all, what Theosophy is more 
>realistically about. I see Theosophy as a medium by 
>which one might in some way transcend dualistic notions 
>not by creating more of dualistic/exoteric modeling, but 
>by reading between the lines of one's world, as opposed 
>to getting trapped by them . . .
>Or do some of us (Leon, Gerald?) create more lines and 
>models with the objective of then having more of them to 
>read between . . . ^:-) Well, whatever turns one on, I 
>suppose . . . Not that I see anything wrong with being 
>creative. And I tend to think one can, optionally, read 
>between the lines of a vast array of creative efforts, some 
>of which may appear ("on the surface") to have no 
>particularly "direct" relationship with Theosophy (but 
>may be, in some sense, even more intimately related?).
>But I suspect that as long as Theosophists confine their 
>studies and attitudes within certain literalistic guidelines 
>(which approach may, of course, be perfectly 
>appropritate for some Theosophists, in consideration of 
>where they're at, "on their Path" . . .), then such literalism 
>will confine their studies, might even tend to keep them 
>from as much speculating about whatever transcendent 
>aspects/relevance they might be inclined to at least 
>speculate about if they were less hampered, 
>brainwashed, hypnotized by their current worldview.
><<Some folks might consider the opposite of sin to be 
>purification. I think that your definition of sin as "doing 
>wrong as judged by ones conscience" is good. Sin is also 
>closely connected to ignorance. We usually do wrong out 
>of ignorance of the consequences. In Christianity, we 
>alleviate sin through atonement. On a Path, we alleviate 
>sin through purification. Tantric Buddhism, for example, 
>is considered a "fast track" Path, and if you look closely 
>most of its rituals involve purifications. The thrust of 
>purification rituals or yogic exercises is to raise our 
>self-image from a human "sinner" to a "spark of the 
>divine flame;" to raise our sense of identity from human 
>to divine, from mortal to immortal. >>
>"Sin?" Something to do with "wrongdoing"? If 
>Theosophy is seen in terms of reasoning that unifies 
>"self" and "other people," then (obviously?) one can only 
>do wrong to oneself . . . So here's a little experiment:
>1. get a friend to place their thumb on a sturdy stake.
>2. hit frinds thumb with hammer.
>3. ouch (says friend, not you).
>4. wait for the karmic repercussions of said ouch
>from friend.
>5. keep waiting.
>6. don't forget what you're waiting for even after many 
>7. If you forget what you're waiting for (as in many 
>cases, apparently?) don't assume that you're not waiting 
>for anything.
>8. Eventually, when you finally get around to, say, 
>karmically hitting yourself, or being hit (eg, on your "own 
>thumb," with a hammer, say), don't assume . . .
>9. don't assume what . . . ? (not for me to say)
>10. in any case, this experiment, when carried out as 
>described, ought to demonstrate something about the 
>difference between karma and self . . . (maybe?):
>11. this experiment demonstrated (didn't it?) that by 
>studying Theosophy and karmaself (and "related 
>subjects" as per "esoteric/exoteric" and "Theosophy" . . 
>.), one ought to come to the realization that, though there 
>is an apparent, or creative, connection between "karma" 
>and "self," (the quotes as per allowance toward that 
>creative/interpretive component) they are, nevertheless, 
>two different things in terms of dualistic and 
>non-dualistic, in the sense that, of the two, only the "self" 
>is generally seen (I think?) as associated with the 
>potential to transcend "itself" on a Path toward Beness. 
>12. that kind of realization might help in setting one on a 
>path that might be less bound by dualistic principles. 
>13. finished with hitting one's thumb, etc, and after 
>realizing that karmaself is mayavic, one becomes 
>14. That's it. And . . . 
><<Yes, as seekers after truth we are like Jesus when he 
>was tempted by the Devil. He had enough experiential 
>knowledge so that if he wanted to use it for personal 
>gain, he could. This is a temptation that we must all face. 
>In order to be a bodhisattva, we each have to deny the 
>Devil's temptation for personal rewards. Becoming a 
>bodhisvattva is not easy, and it requires a commitment of
>time and effort. But it is the right thing to do, and 
>speaking in an evolutionary sense it is the ultimate goal 
>that we are all striving toward, and have been for 
>countless lifetimes. >>
>Or, optionally (?), we might try on the view that 
>"advancement," (as per whatever shape, form, 
>terminology), is closely enough allied with a certain 
>innate wisdom to not hit oneself in the thumb, or any 
>other place . . . That way, how can one not fail to make 
>some kind of meaningful progress . . . well, at least in 
>"exoteric terms," for a start . . . Of course (?), on the 
>other hand (or same hand?), one might discover that 
>there are so many different ways that one can, in effect, 
>hammer one's thumb or whatever . . .
><<Yes, a Path requires a great deal of effort at the 
>outset, but you gain back in proportion to what you 
>expend. And after treading a Path for awhile, you
>will find that the effort required becomes less and less, 
>and that eventually it becomes effortless.>>
>Right, sems it's been a while since I last hammered my 
>thumb . . . Hmm. ^:-) Actually, seeing as there might be 
>so many different ways that one can hammer oneself, 
>well . . . ^:-) . . . That's my symbol for a stumped guy 
>scratching his head (not that I regard myself as "TOO 
>stumped," "really," but/"but" . . . "well")
>I suppose those bodhisattvas know about the various 
>ways that one can hammer oneself, so . . . easy for them 
>to say, apparently . . .
><<Chandrakirti says of the first stage (in Introduction to 
>the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with 
>Commentary by Jamgon Mipham, trans
>Padmakara Trans Group, Shambala, 2002):
>"For they are born the offspring of the Tathagatas.
>Three fetters they have utterly forsworn.
>Fulfilled in supreme joy, these Bodhisattvas have
>The power to shake a hundred worlds." (p 60)
>To which Mipham, a Ningma Dzogchen Master, 
>"(1) The first bodhisattva ground transcends the levels of 
>ordinary beings, Shravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas. The 
>Bodhisattvas who enter this ground become members of 
>the family of Tathagatas; they will never more stray to 
>other paths, for their lineage is now irreversible. (2) The 
>Bodhisattvas on this ground have a direct realization of 
>the nonexistence of the self. This enables them to 
>abandon the three fetters: the view of the transitory 
>composite, the belief in the superiority of their ethical 
>discipline, and doubt--together with all the obscurtaions 
>eliminated on the path of seeing. (3) Because they
>have attained the sublime qualities of realization and 
>have eliminated all defects, the Bodhisattvas experience 
>an extraordinary happiness, which is why this ground is 
>called Perfect Joy. (4) At the same time, the Bodhisattvas
>acquire one hundred and twelve powers, such as the 
>miraculous ability to cause a hundred different worlds to 
>tremble. These are the qualities of their extraordinary, 
>indeed sublime, attainment." (p 149)>>>>>
>And all it took was the wisdom to keep oneself from 
>hammering oneself . . . ? 
><<OK, good luck, and we will be thinking of you.>>
>I was going to say "whoever you are," but, then . . . well, 
>if we're all aspects of One, that "whoever" might seem 
>kind of offish, so . . . ^:-) . . . Anyway, don't forget: My 
>thumb's been hit often enough already, eh! 
>PS Not that I'm speculating so much about the 
>hammerings I have had, as . . . Well, not being 
>enlightened, I feel "speculating" might be somewhat 
>more sensible, or safer, than "stating facts." Although . . 
>. Hmm. I wonder if my "althoughs" (or "some of them" . 
>. . ) might be so much self hammering, in some way . . . 
>Tricky stuff. 
>PPS Gerald here was uncrossedly responding (with the
> use of "<<>>") on Theos-1 to a private post, apparently.
>But I his persmission to quote him . . . or had, not too
>long ago.
>PPPS Since Leon is mentioned in this post, and since
>don't know if Leon subscribes to Theos-1, I thought it 
>might be somewhat relevant to send this post to this list,
>maybe . . .

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application