Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00472)

Hi Sufilight and all of you

With an equally friendly response, my answer to your questions are:

No, I am not a "Capitalist." I do not believe in "labels, and do not 
subscribe to any other *specific* form of ism (including Sufism, Buddhism, 
Hinduism, Taoism, Christianism, Hebrewism, Communism, Fascism, Theosophism, 
Scientism, Monism or Dualism, among others :-). And, since I have nothing to 
sell, I am not a "salesman" (nor have I ever been). At the moment, my book is 
free... Since, all you need to do to read it (at least in part) and find out 
who I think I am -- since my "credentials" (which I'm sure B/BM didn't read 
:-) speak for themselves -- is go to my web sites. You can also ask 
questions about it and/or read my letters to the various scientific and 
theosophical forums -- as I'm still writing my not so "secret doctrine," and 
plan to use the theoretical discussions and answers I give in these forums as 
parts of the manuscript. (As for my "theories" -- it's only historians and 
proselytizers who think that what they say or believe are cut in stone 
"facts." :-)

I'm glad to see that you believe in spiritual uplifting. 

from 
Leon Maurer 
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/LHM.index.html

------------------
In a message dated 11/14/02 11:51:51 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:

>Hi Leon and all of you,
>
>A friendly email...
>I understand Leon, that you are a Salesman or a capitalist too, right ?
>So how much does your book really cost ?
>
>These questions are meant as a spiritual uplift!
>No answers are needed !
>
>from
>M. Sufilgiht with a friendly smile...

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World re to Leon/Gerald . . .
>
> In a message dated 11/11/02 11:16:16 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:
>
> >Quoting from Dallas's post:
> >
> ><<"It is time Theosophy should enter the arena,." wrote
> >the Great Master in a letter in 1881 "For our doctrines to
> >practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas
> >of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc., we have
> >to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy." [T
> >A & N. p. 189.]>>
> >
> >"Popularize" in that context brought to mind Leon's
> >models, among other things. That is, I tend to agree with
> >Leon that, by scientizing certain aspects of Theosophy,
> >(by using a popular language of the age), one might reach
> >those for whom other kinds of introductions to
> >Theosophic issues might be far less applealing.
>
> That's right.
>
> >On Theos-1, Gerald wrote:
> >
> >((((Mauri, I shouldn't say anything in response to Leon,
> >who is not even here to defend himself. But I feel the
> >need to at least say the following:
> >
> ><<<Leon wrote: <<Have you any idea why the SD was
> >subtitled, "A Synthesis of Science, Religion and
> >Philosophy?" >>>
> >
> >My response to this question is:
> >
> >Science stands for intellectual knowledge
> >Religion stands for faith Philosophy stands for
> >experiential knowledge
> >
> >All three are necessary lest Theosophy "be nothing more
> >than another religious dogma destined to die on the
> >vine?" Emphasizing intellectual knowledge alone will kill
> >Theosophy in only a few generations. It is already doing
> >so, and Theosophy is today in its last gasp because of its
> >over-emphasis on intellectualism. The "head doctrine" is
> >intellectual knowledge, the "heart doctrine" is
> >experiential knowledge and the one will get us nowhere
> >without the other. >>>)))))))
>
> All I can say in response to this is; "All that goes without saying."
>
> But, if being a well rounded theosophist requires a balance of all three
> aspects -- I haven't found one single teacher (in more than 50 years of
> searching) who could show me (starting from my own position on the path
> and my own propensities for learning) the perfect way to understand and 
> practice each direction in this modern age. So I was forced to learn the 
> "head doctrine" from one teacher, the "heart doctrine" from another, and 
> then had to find out for myself the rest of the "intellectual" and 
"experiential"
> knowledge I needed to gain the "faith" that when I arrived at "self
> realization" or oneness with the Supreme Spirit, I would have the ability
> to carry out the Bodhisattva work without having to ask anyone else what
> there was to do or say to any person in accordance with his/her degree of
> understanding, his/her current state of consciousness, and his/her
> immediate psychological, emotional, physical and/or spiritual needs. 
> But this wasn't all that difficult.
>
> Amazingly, I was lucky enough to find out about 30 years ago that all those
> separate teachers were speaking to me directly through HPB. All I had to
> do was hear them, study, concentrate, and follow their suggested paths of
> meditation (they offered me Patanjali and the Voice of the Silence to
> practice) -- while learning to supplement their teachings with the new
> knowledge of modern sciences and technologies (which governs our present
> lives) that HPB didn't have access to... And, as she advised me directly --
> to "Write [my] own Secret Doctrine in the language of [my] age." So, after
> a few years of such study and meditation -- we were able to write, in one
> afternoom, the entire ABC theory and discourse (which, several years later
> was posted on my web site) -- and correlate it with all the head and heart
> doctrines of theosophy that are thoroughly explained in the original SD
> (with all its ancient scriptural references) and other writings of HPB and 
the
> Masters. So, what more (at least for me) was there to know or continue to
> practice?
>
> Think about this! Isn't it amazing how HPB managed to teach the heart
> doctrine while expounding the head doctrine, and managed to teach the 
> head doctrine while expounding the heart doctrine? It's also amazing to me
> that, outside of a few theosophical teachers I've come across at the United 
> Lodge of Theosophists over the past 50 odd years, I haven't found another 
> who could match HPB's ability to do that. And, even then, none of them had 
> enough scientific knowledge to fulfill my need to get into dialogues with 
> trained scientists in many disciplines, and make my case for theosophy in 
> their own jargon.
>
> Thus, as it is now, we (whenever I need the right words to explain a subtle
> point, I ask HPB ;-) do not teach any one method -- since we can only
> answer questions in the same framework that they are asked. So, for the
> scientifically minded, we can lead them to the theosophical synthesis
> through their interest in scientific and technical understandings. For the
> philosophically minded, we lead them there through their interest in 
thinking
> about the nature of things and their ontology's. For the religious minded,
> we can show them the proper path of meditative practices to awaken their
> inner understanding of the true nature of reality and their position in it.
> And for all of them, while we give them exactly what they ask for, we
> manage to show them the questions to ask themselves and, thereby, 
> turn them toward whatever they are missing in the other directions of 
> theosophical understanding and practice.
>
> >Leon wrote: <<Why don't you tell us what you think
> >theosophy really is "more "realistically about"? >>
> >
> >As I see it, there would seem not to be any solution, or
> >"more realistic approach to Theosophy," that by-passes
> >anything that's relevant to a broader and lasting
> >understanding of Theosophy. In other words (?),
> >regardless of whichever doctrine or approach one might
> >be inclined to follow, if that approach is not wisely
> >enough balanced with aspects of intellect, faith, and
> >experience, the result might not be particularly
> >representative of "Theosophic progress" . . . I'm making
> >a "general comment," here, and not accusing anybody of
> >not being wise enough. We all seem to be "wise enough"
> >in our various "own ways," basically, often times,
> >but/"but" . . .
>
> Yes. But . . . What? Studying theosophy has nothing to do with results.
> One either needs to know, or not -- depending on where one stands on the 
> road to enlightenment, and what the confusion is in one's mind. Wisdom is 
> knowing what one needs to know or do. And that has to be left for 
> individual choice.
> Each of us is on a different level of understanding and openness to new
> ideas. So, theosophy is as theosophy does. That's all there is to it. If
> you need the head doctrine to do better as a theosophist, then that is what
> you direct your questions and your studies toward. If you need to devote
> yourself to a higher power or principle, then that is the direction of your
> search. That's why it says in the Declaration of the United Lodge of
> Theosophists; "It regards as Theosophists all those in the true service of
> Humanity" ... And, "Welcomes . . . all those . . . who desire to fit 
> themselves,by study and otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach
> others" It's that "doing" (based on one's "knowing") that makes one a
> successful theosophist. And what we can learn intellectually 
(scientifically
> and philosophically) and religiously practice -- is what we need in order to
> make that action the best we possibly can do at the level we are presently
> at. Progress comes from just that -- without having to think about
> attaining anything for oneself.
>
> Practically, positively and hopefully,
> LHM
>
> >Speculatively,
> >Mauri