Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00498)

Hi Leon and all of you,

Its quite allright Leon <:-)
What I meant was:
When you during the past half year or so - so many times mentiones your (so
very) own book when emailing - and
your own ABC theory, where you could have chosen a different path - of text
or emailing - then I see a tendency.
And that tendency is, that it seems to me, that you stick to much with your
book and your ABC -theory - more
than it is profitable for you and others.
And there it is i get the "Salesman" view into my mind. Not that I think you
support egoism or anything like that,
but just this view i mentioned in the above.

One could suggest, that you made a theory (i.e. maybe a book) on poetry or
art or the like, so that you get another view than the so very very
scientific one. Maybe a poetic version of your ABC theory ?
Sometimes the author sticks to his creation - the book - like glue. And he
is always out to defend it, whenever he is talking or emailing with
others, - or at least he is alert on the issue. Well, if you get my drift.
<:-)
Of course one - maybe - will have to defend the book from time to time.

It is just that I see a tendency, nothing else.
Maybe I am the only one.
I know I am a little personal here, but I really honestly mean well.
And I think that, you Leon, have the stomach for it.

I will also admit, that I am a little low on the scientific versions myself.
But, that is probably because I think the world has had to much of this, and
needs reason - i.e. PEACE and not more dangerous weapons created by science
minds, who gets facinated more than they use their common sense.
Especially HPB was very good at throwing "common sense" in her articles,
where she had to explain the stupid scholars what Theosophy really was and
is.

Have I missed the point?



from
M. Sufilight with...the best whises...and peace...





----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World re to Leon/Gerald . . .


> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>