Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00036)

In a message dated 12/28/02 2:41:13 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>
>
> 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 ...


You can say that again... And, I still wouldn't understand what you are 
driving at. Dallas was talking about the teachings of theosophy, and about 
testing them with rigorous logic. I wonder what you are talking about -- 
"seeing as this is ((obviously)) a theosophy list." There is no such thing 
as "speculative theosophy." It either is or it isn't. If it isn't, prove it 
with rigorous logic -- or get off the potty. 

LHM