Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00483)

Hi. Mauri.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:56 AM
Subject: Theos-World re: Steve, Wry, Mahayanics, relative Paths per initial
assumptions, dualistics, and . . .


> 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. >>

Wry: Actually the order is important. One does not go from an understanding
of interdpendence to a belief in a primal cause. Try to think about this.

> 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 .

Wry: The starting point is always oneself in the present moment, with
whatever baggage one is carrying. This is highly specific, as the body is an
object whether it is realized to be such or not, and all practice relates to
that body in present time. Re. Buddhism: the main thrust of the teaching is
to promote right view and right action, which is esentially the living by
right view and the teaching of right view to others so they will be less
ignorant and human suffering will be alleviated. It is all very easy and
simple to understand. When one part of me, such as the mind, sees that I
will have to do this, but the emotions do not understand, this leads to a
practice, that eventually will fuse together two opposites, Or maybe I feel
great compassion (from the lamas) but my mind does not understanding these
ideas. In this case the feeling motivates me to struggle to understand
intellectually. But the interesting thing is that there is not that much to
understand, only a few simple principles. Also, it is taught that the more
baggage you are carrying, the better, as this allows the practice of the
teachings and the generation of what is called the unconventional
boddhichitta (the bliss of the great loving kindness), which cannot be
generated without the great contrast of human suffering. This point about
the necessity of great human suffering in order to generate the great
boddhichitta is emphasized in teachings, again and again.

> . . ?) 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 . . .

Wry: You are probably ready now (and I hear singing coming from somewhere).

> 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 . . .

Wry: It is important to try to set up conditions so that others can have an
opportunity. To help do this, even by asking a simple and sincere question,
to to accumulate great merit.

> 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 . . .

Wry: People are always designing more efficient models. Great religious
teachings are always time -appropriate. For example, since Madame Blavatsky,
post industrialism has radically changed human communications, and it has
happened very fast. This teaching was time -appropriate. It now needs to be
redesigned. This is not bad or good or even sad, though it may be sad for
certain individuals when they realize they have to let go, but this will be
the beginning of joy. It is a simple fact that no single teaching continues
to be time-appropriate, as everything is always changing. But to have
sometime from outside simply see me as I walk down the street or sweep the
floor, this is common sense. When two people do this together, there is real
brotherhood, as what is seeing from outside is impartial, so it can
encompass each of them. This kind of Work can help put humanity back on
track, literally, as it is pure charting. Need I say more or do you hear the
music? Wry
>
> 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 . . . ^:-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>