Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00478)

re: Steve, Wry, Mahayanics, relative Paths per initial 
assumptions, dualistics, and . . .

Wry wrote: <<but it is more likely that a person would study 
theosophy first as a doorway to Mahayana Buddhism than the 
opposite. >>

Whatever. I'm trying to figure out how people can expect to 
get any kind of "realistic handle" on Mahayana versions of 
either Buddhism or Theosophy (well, in some sense, or in 
whatever "comparative sense," in that "realistic handles," in 
mainstream terms, would seem to be (?) what Mahayanists 
would transcend?) without first sorting out at least 
"something" (if one can't quite sort out the classic "nothing" of 
an "advanced student" . . . ?) about the meaning of duality, 
non-duality, reifying, and maya, for a start . . .Not that those 
kinds of "sortings" (or whatever they might be . . .) don't have 
their "advanced versions," in some sense (?), so that that kind 
of "for a start" might seem presumptuous, (to some?), or, 
might seem . . . Or could it be that that kind of "start" might 
be seen (somewhat "generally," and . . . as per Dallas, maybe . 
. . ?) as an attempt to get to the heart of Mahayanics somewhat 
too soon, maybe, before even as much as having poked, 
questioned, speculated (or---sorry---"studied"!---how could I 
forget!?) "long enough" or "well enough" "around its 
perimeter" . . . Not that some "not that's" (and whatever?) 
might not be seen as somewhat relevant here, and/or . . . 

Steve wrote: <<There is a statement in THE KEY TO 
THEOSOPHY that northern Buddhism contains all that is 
Thesosophy. There are also allusions in the SD to THE 
LANKAVATARA SUTRA which no one who has not read 
that book would catch, since it is not mentinned by name. So 
an interesting question arises whether the synthetic
presentation given to the world in the SD is the same
as the way the matter is taught to insiders.>>

I'm speculating that a key of sorts might be in how one defines 
"insiders," in that I suspect that we all might have the potential 
(asking for "too much". . . ?) to become "insiders" (at least 
comparatively speaking, as "on the Path"?) at any time, 
anywhere, (though the Mahayanists might have a preference 
to be neither "insiders" or "outsiders," "per se," nor "per 
anything," particularly . . . ?) and so I suspect that any 
presentation "re matters taught to insiders" by whichever 
"inside" or "outside" way might always ("forever") remain 
hidden for those who can't see, any which way, regardless . . . 

But, as this and other lists have so well demonstrated (?), that 
kind of comparative "hidden" doesn't seem to have led to too 
many pauses . . . (generally speaking?) . . . So . . . I wonder if 
I'm thinking, speculating in terms of some kind of "another 
step" or "means" (re "getting some kind of handle on those 
hiddens") that might, somehow, trickle in some . . . Hmm . . . 
Of course, if there were any kind of "another step" that would 
"help much," seems as if (?) it would've been discovered ages 
ago, already, so . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS . . . But/"but" . . . 

PPS Yes, Dallas, I have heard of "karma is karma," and "there 
are no short cuts," etc, etc . . . 

PPPS Not that I'm recommending anything stupid!

PPPPS Not that anybody wants to do anything stupid!

PPPPPS . . . ^:-) . . . 

PPPPPPS . . . 

PPPPPPPS Drats! Seems as if I'm back to where I started 
from . . . How did THAT happen . . .

PPPPPPPPPS . . . ^:-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .