Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00260)

Surely we all have experienced, in whatever form, 
studies/cultivations of what might be seen as "our own 
basic sense of values," as by way of such as intuitive 
sense of relevance, by which we "cope,' 
generally/particularly, (and in addition to those 
modelized about by Theosophists in terms of 
"right/wrong"), and by which people in general, as well 
as "students of Theosophy," might benefit from, 
especially in areas (such as Theosophy) where there 
might be various tendencies/temptations to, (in effect?), 
get ahead of oneself, in some way, to some extent . . . (as 
in my case, eg, as Leon, Dallas, etc., might be eager to 
point out?) . . .

That is, while such studies/cultivations might often (or 
occasionally?) be recognized (or paid some lip service 
to?) in theory, (as per, say, in terms of "Theosophic 
relevance"), I wonder how often and how "more 
specifically" the results of such concerns might be, or 
are, applied in practice.

I ask because, from my perspective, here (on these lists) 
we have at least two (if not more?) rather mature 
Theosophists (in a sense?) who, (apparently?), can't even 
find in themselves the basics of a "higher sense of 
trust/relevance" BY WHICH they might 
span/communicate their way over and above their 
apparent differences, thereby showing to the rest of us 
(poor schnooks, in a sense) that they can, in effect, see 
"the forest" beyond the "trees of their apparent 
differences." Well, not that many "nice words" (no 
doubt?) have not passed between them, but/"but" . . . 

Thinking about the recent G/L/M cross-list discussions: I 
wonder if we're all focussing on the "same issue" (or 
"similar issue"?) in terms of (what might be seen as?) a 
fairly mutually understandable "ground-up" perspective, 
say, or if we might have been so busy pursuing our own 
various tangents that, (in effect?), we might have missed 
the forest for the trees . . .

Or could it be that SOME trees (particulars apparent to 
individuals in "their own terms") are rather 
"instinctively" (or, as per one's seemingly unavoidable 
karmalogistics?) regarded as, or modelized as so exotic 
and esoteric that they "just couldn't" be visible enough 
"to most others," at all, regardless, or at least not until the 
occurance, (on the part of those others), of some kind of 
major enough karmic and spiritual breakthrough that 
closely enough allies with one's own . . .

Or does manas (we?) prefer to subscribe to the belief or 
"sense" that there is a certain kind of general disposition 
on the part of manas (resulting in forms of 
unfriendliness?) that will not even as much as allow one 
to consider or speculate about "other possibilities" re 
"higher relevance" (as if such considerations were all too 
apparently---and rather automatically?---somehow 
subversive, eg?) . . .

While, on the one hand, I tend to be rather astounded by 
the "apparent differences" of some participants on these 
lists, at the same time (of course?) we're all just being, (in 
a sense?), true to our times, karma, karmalogistics, aren't 
we? That is, not that manas "should've expected 
anything different"? But/"but" . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS I'm still interpreting, thinking about, speculating over 
Leon's Nov 12 post "re to Leon" on Theos-Talk, which 
seems "possibly relevant enough" from my tentative 
perspective to paste on the Theos-1 list, as well (if rather 
crossedly?), so that maybe Gerald (too?) might . . . 
whatever . . . maybe . . . Or am I over-speculating again?

Anyway here's Leon's post (I hope I'm not getting myself 
in TOO much trouble for crossedly posting it):

Subject: Re: Theos-World re to Leon
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 05:14:47 EST
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

<<In a message dated 11/11/02 10:29:51 AM, 
mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>The models of reality that were passed on to us by HPB 
>and the Mahatmas are, (IMHSO), something that, even
>without much in the way of innate/direct understanding
>about them, I tend to find interesting. Apparently
>Gerald, on the other hand, having had more
>direct/experiential/"esoteric" knowledge of such 
>models, finds them more meaningful than I can. Not 
>having had such direct experiences, myself, I feel that I 
>ought to not "state facts based on what I have read," 
>but should, instead, try to read between the lines, as 
>suggested by HPB. And so, not having had direct 
>enough experiences of such models, I feel that my 
>options, realistically speaking, in terms of comment 
>making, are limited to speculation, for better or worse.

The first step (for want of a stronger motivation) is to 
find the teachings "interesting." However, if you did 
manage to correctly read between the lines -- which 
means using your intuition (which is a "direct 
experience") you would have no need to speculate. All 
speculations can do is confuse both the speculator and 
the ones he tells them to. And if such speculation leads 
to an answer such as, yes, it is correct, or no it isn't 
correct, since this is what the real meaning of what you 
are talking about is, etc. . . . All you would get is 
someone "telling it to you" -- which you still couldn't
experience -- and would thus remain perpetually 
ignorant, while drowning in unresolved speculations and 
wrong views. (And, even, if by chance you had a
right view, you would never know it.^:-(

The "facts" stated with reference to my scientific theory 
of ABC, that is consistent with theosophical metaphysics 
(as studied carefully "between the lines and in the words" 
of the commentaries in the SD) -- is based on a direct 
meditative and intuitive experience of "being" the zero 
(laya) point and "feeling" the flow of the cyclic energies, 
along with their contained "images" that emanate and 
reflect from and to this center of my consciousness
and will -- which is also in direct coadunation with the 
consciousness and will of the universal source, or 
"Beness" existing eternally in and as the Absolute 
"Abstract" Space, Time, Form, and Motion hidden in the
zero-point-instant "singularity. (In spite of what Gerald or 
anyone else "tells you" -- this is the only way to truly 
understand the nature of your higher monadic Self -- 
which is forever at-one-ment with the triple natured
Universal SELF.) One must be OM TAT SAT before one 
can "realize" or "experience" that one is what one is (or, 
as Popeye said it clearly, "I yam wot I yam cuz I yam 
wot I yam..." </;-)>. (symbol of a bearded man who 
knows it all, and keeps it under his hat.)

Remember, we have all been there before... So, there 
must be a deep seated memory in the subtlest akashic 
level of our mind of the path we took going
out that we can retrace... That is, if we can get all the 
contradictory words and their associated images and 
conceptions out of our head, and think about
it with an entirely clear and placid mind. That's what 
"real" meditation is all about. Patanjali has pointed out 
that way pretty thoroughly -- which leads one directly to 
a conscious awareness of the ultimate division of time,
and the "knowing" that Infinite duration = the 
infinitesimal moment of 
creation-growth-decline-destruction. Incidentally, since 
all this occurs in the ever existent and present NOW, 
there is no difference between past present and future, 
and ten years of meditation can be compressed into an
instant. Thus, "enlightenment," or pure Zen, Dyana, 
Chan, Dzyan, or whatever you call it, can come 
whenever you can stop speculating about it and just
"grab it by the horns," so to speak. That certainly beats 
meditating on mantras, mudras, mandalas, and mental 
images of anthropomorphized demigods posing as natural 
forces, or constant speculating on vague, conflicting and
contradictory ideas that leads to more and more 
confusion, and further away from the culture of 
consciousness, or attainment of self realization and
divine wisdom.

For me, this experience came about often (with every 
insight) during almost fifteen years of concentrated study 
and meditation "between the lines and in the words" of 
the SD (and every other book on occultism I could get 
my hands on) -- without asking anybody "what does it 
mean" or "speculating" or second guessing about it... 
Although, I discussed it with others, and listened to
what they said for about five years (and then gave that 
up). (As Einstein said, "Genius is concentrating, alone, 
on a single point of inquiry for a long period of time.) I 
also filled the margins of two copies of the SD
with hundreds, if not thousands of comments, 
restatements, questions, geometric pictures and 
numerological charts. Too, bad I didn't remember (in
this lifetime:-) hearing the Buddha when he said, 
"enlightenment can come in seven lifetimes, seven years, 
seven days, or seven moments." (But, then, during those 
15 years, I was working full time on dozens of projects 
and could only read about one paragraph a day. :-)

What I found is that whenever one reads anything 
profound, or outside our own experience (even if only 
one sentence), we need only to focus on it, visualize its 
images, and meditate on, in, around, and between the 
words until an insight comes -- out of the blue, so to 
speak. (Sometimes, it takes a whole day and night.) 
Then, one has to question that insight using reason
and logic. If the shoe fits, wear it... And, then walk on to 
the next profound idea. (It sometimes helps to read out 
loud what anyone has to say about any idea or truth. Tell 
it to yourself, so to speak. This method can sometimes 
lead to an instant clarification as to the truth or falsehood 
of what one is studying.) Theosophical study is a series of 
plateaus, each of which you might think is the final 
answer -- until you reach the next plateau. But, one must 
do it alone. No one can come with you on your personal 
search for truth and enlightenment. And it does no one 
any service to hear about another's insights -- since we 
are all on different plateaus, each on our own individual 
path.

But, then, it wasn't enlightenment I was after this time 
around. It was practical occult knowledge that would 
help me to be better able to help and teach others. 
However, it took another ten years to also study the 
modern science and geometry I needed to come up with 
the final correlation's of ABC with the theosophical 
metaphysics. All told, between my education in
science, fine art, architecture, engineering, occultism, 
alchemy, etc., and both technical and cutting edge 
creative experience in the fine, textile, graphic and 
entertainment arts, a total of almost 70 years of 
concentrated study and efforts lies behind my 
"scientizing" (I call it "generalizing" or "simplifying," in 
"the language of THIS age) the theosophical truths -- so
that, hopefully, anyone with a reasonable IQ, and any 
level of experience or knowledge, can understand it... 
And, thus, accept the possibility of reincarnation and 
karma along with universal brotherhood, as fundamental 
laws of nature... And, with that out of the way, go about 
changing their minds about their own personal lives and 
their responsibilities for the lives and well being of 
everyone else on this mad planet.

Thus, through this meditating "in the words and between 
the lines" (of everything I studied) I found out for myself 
what it feels like to be both the creator and the receptor, 
the observer and the doer. The whole trick is
to put that "experience" into words that other people 
without such insight, can understand and, perhaps, by 
meditating on (any true occult teaching, or the zero-point 
itself) -- gain the intuitive insights, and experience the
"reality" of pure existence and non existence for 
themselves. But then, as WQJ said in his instructions to 
one of his students, "Make sure to temper your intuition 
with your reason." (All the parts of the puzzle have to fit
together as one, unbounded whole.) When that has been 
accomplished successfully, one is capable of stating such 
an intuition as a "fact." That's why any enlightened 
student/teacher can speak so confidently about the
"facts of theosophy." Since, in essence, both the 
teachings and the teachers speak for themselves. It's also 
a fact that the teacher usually learns more about what he 
is teaching than his students do.

This method is much more sound and conducive to 
finding truth within oneself, than listening to and 
accepting on "faith" or "authority" the "interpretations" 
given out by rote, based on written and verbal teachings 
of so called "Gurus" (that I hear from most of the 
"interpreters" of the Buddha's, and even of the 
theosophical Master's or HPB's teachings). Remember, 
what's written and said can only be exoteric. The 
esotericism is what is implied, practiced, and intuitively 
experienced in the quietness of "your own secret place." 
The ultimate goal of all meditation is finding, and
listening to the Master within who can answer all your 
unspoken questions. Thus, one can end all speculation 
and loose talk about what is and what is
not.

After that, all that any one of us who know can do, is 
offer a few guideposts along the winding ways. As a 
matter of necessity, my guideposts are scientific and 
technological -- for those of such a bent of mind who 
believe fervently in the "scientific Method," their own 
intellects, and in the scientists who are their trusted 
gurus. These people, who are the majority today, laugh 
at the Buddhists, Vedantists and Theosophists, and the 
weird and ndecipherable languages they use... But, they 
don't laugh at me or my theories, given to them in straight 
English without reference to theosophy or any other 
religious concept. And, all real theosophists, whether 
they are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Hebrews, 
Christians, Taoists, or Atheists, all, also, know exactly 
what I mean when I say that the universe, which includes
both its matter and our consciousness in eternity, must 
obey fundamental and immutable scientific laws of 
causality based on cycles and periodicity, starting from 
zero and extending to infinity in both space and time.

Best wishes,

LHM >>>>>

PPS And Leon did, at one time, give me permission to 
quote and reprint his posts for the Toronto TS, as long as 
I attributed them to his authorship, and, since Gerald 
gave me similar persmission, well . . . ? Or is it that those 
permissions might not be relevant enough on these lists, 
for some readon?