Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00012)

Those who have a strongish preference for "studied" or 
"unstudied verbosity" (the latter as per whoever that was who 
used that description recently on Theos Talk) might be better off
not trying to decipher my "intended meaning," in general. 
This post being, I suspect, a case in point.

Dallas wrote: <<We have to confine our study to observation 
and common sense, not speculate on anything which we are not 
directly cognizant of. There has to be honesty and sincerity, and 
rigorous logic.>> 

But if we tend to over confine "our study to observation and 
common sense" in terms of "rigorous logic," as if that kind of 
approach toward defining reality/truth had a p/Primary 
importance in our lives, (ie, as if "p/Primary importance" could 
be fully dualicized, conventionalized, exoterized, scientized in 
keeping with [nothing but?] various or "certain" "logical initial 
assumptions"?), then where could one be going with that kind of 
general approach if it's extended even to one's "Theosophic 
studies"? Of course if that kind of wording is interpreted just 
with simple logic, (or just with the likes of "studied" or 
"unstudied verbosity"?) well ...

That is, while "rigorous logic" may have many 
mainstream/exoteric, very apparently, or real enough useful roles 
in our lives, (ie, "proving" and "disproving" this and that as per 
whatever initial assumptions one might adopt, or tend to adopt, 
from time to time), I suspect that part of "the study of 
Theosophy" might include the cultivation of, say, "a broader 
perspective," whereby one at least tries not to completely attach 
one's allegiance, motivation, scientizing, modeling, thinking, 
speculation, etc, to dualistic initial assumptions or too 
one-sidedly dualistic worldviews too exclusively, but that one 
might also at least try to keep in mind one's sense of (at whatever 
interpretive level ...?) what might be decribed, in Theosophic 
terms (?), as the "voice of the silence" (as per HPB's book by 
that title?), by which "voice" I'm referring to that "higher sense" 
that isn't limited ("ideally," in a sense?) to any speculations, 
thoughts, or "belief structures" that are seen as based on any 
mainstream, dualistic, exoteric, apparent particulars or 
worldviews or essentially dualistic initial assumptions. 

In other words, as I see it, karma can (and does?) place so many 
apparent inconsistencies in one's p/Path, often enough, so that an 
over emphasis on "rigorous logic," as I see it, makes for a fools 
path, in a sense, in that, (as we all know?), "logic" in this 
dualistic world is limited to (as HPB might've pointed out?) the 
kind of reality making that, as a dog chasing its own tail might 
find out, has no "end" or intrinsic reality aside from it's dualistic, 
mayavic, karmic, temporary appearance.

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Sorry about the long sentences. I started off thinking about 
responding to BAG's response to me with something like 
"Really?" and that's all. And maybe that might've been just as 
relevant, in this and most cases, as more of my "unstudied 
verbosity" (as per whoever that was). But, seeing as this is 
(apparently?) a Theosophy list ...