Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00613)

Dear Paul, Mauri et al,

You are absolutely correct about my message. The phrasing I used, was way to 
harsh to possibly have any positive effect. Mauri, I apologize to you and 
anyone else who took offense at the tone of my e-mail. 

That said, I would like to revise my comment.

Mauri, 

In regards to your response to Leons e-mail which follows below, it is my 
OPINION, that you should take a year or so off from all of you wondering, 
speculating, parenthesizing and just concentrate and focus on the intent and 
meaning of those three objects. If you do that, there is a chance that you 
will come to see the uselessness of unstudied verbosity. The answers to all 
your speculative commentary, lie in the full understanding of those three 
objects just as they are. Quiet contemplation is the method, unfolding 
intuition is the payload.

Best regards,

Louis

In a message dated 12/19/2002 9:19:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
mhart@idirect.ca writes:


> Leon wrote: <<three objects of the Theosophical Movement...
> Namely, To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of 
> Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or 
> color; The study of ancient and modern religions, philosophies 
> and sciences, and the demonstration of the importance of such 
> study, and; The investigation of the unexplained laws of
> nature and the psychical powers latent in man. >>
> 
> Mauri: Reading that, it occurred to me that, while those objects seem 
> commendable enough, isn't there another, relevant enough 
> aspect of, or reason for, Theosophy that might be worth 
> mentioning, as per such as the cultivation of "spirituality" 
> (sorry, I can't seem to help sticking those quotes on that word, 
> weeing as it's been banged around so much, in my opinion) 
> along with an understanding about maya, esoteric/exoteric, etc, 
> in order to transcend karma, reincarnation, duality ... By 
> "spirituality" I'm referring to something like "a sense of 
> transcendence" by way of "the sensing of dualistic limits," say, 
> that one might acquire as a result of one's intuitive sense about 
> the mayavic/dualistic nature of ordinary/mainstream reality ... 
> Although there would seem to be various "follow-up aspects" of 
> "spirituality" in relation to manas in relation to buddhi in 
> relation to atma, etc ... and whatever ...
> 



In a message dated 12/19/2002 12:49:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kpauljohnson@yahoo.com writes:


> Hi Louis,
> 
> This suggestion was originally inspired by a couple of posts from 
> Wry, in which he told Terrie and me "you need to..." Not thinking 
> there was much hope for getting him/her to change his/her spots, I 
> didn't bother commenting. But since the same construction now 
> reappears from you:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, teos9@a... wrote:
> > Mauri,
> > 
> > You need to take a year or so off from all of you wondering, 
> speculating, parenthesizing and just concentrate and focus on the 
> intent and meaning of those three objects. 
> 
> I will comment that this "you need to..." contruction is IMO rude and 
> invasive. "I advise you to..." or "I think you ought to..." or "You 
> might well consider..." conveys the same substance without also 
> conveying the obnoxious implications. Which are "I know better than 
> you what you need to do" and "you need to be told what to do." Even 
> if that's what the speaker/writer *believes* about himself in 
> relation to the person he's trying to influence, it's not very 
> productive to convey it so blatantly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]