Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00141)

Hi. Mauri, you got this stuff from Jerry, right? You don't even know of any
examples. I do not know what you are talking about and I believe you don't
even know what you are talking about either and are just faking this
response to Daniel. It is dishonest and immoral. This same thing happened
with the terms, esoteric-exoteric. Jerry started babbling about it and then
you picked it up and started babbling, too (and never have stopped yet, and
I do not believe you ever will, because you CAN'T. The mechanical tendency
is too strong). It is meaningless and obsessive activity.

This talk of "blinds" is highly problematic. I cannot figure out what it
means and I believe it is a misunderstanding. No one uses blinds, unless he
is a weak liar and it is to sloppily cover a glitch, but this does not seem
to be the context in which Jerry used the word "blinds" in his recent
pontification. The only thing I can figure out is that he is referring to
the use of metaphor in allegory as a "blind," and simply doesn't understand
how allegory works, which would not be uncommon, as a lot of people don't.
Using allegory is not the same as using a blind. He makes the term "blind"
sound significant and important, which is what certain people do to keep
themselves busy.. It is yet another way of pouring from the empty into the
void. He has mentioned that he studied the work of Crowley (and I have
recently posted my response to that message on this list). Maybe this is
where he got this concept.

Though Jerry has some good ideas, some good understanding, and seems to have
a good heart and be genuinely well intentioned, none the less, he seems to
be DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD. He has, by his own admittance, never taken
formal Buddhist teachings or initiations, and even if he had, he would be
STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from talking about certain subjects, specifically that
of dependent origination, as he DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO SO in such a way
that it does not build up resistance to the understanding of this important
concept, which people will come to realize when they are ready and not
before. What he is doing would be considered to be TURNING PEOPLE AWAY from
the Mahayana path rather than toward it, no matter how good his intentions,
and it would be considered a downfall. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Theos-World re "blinds," Daniel, Whoever ...


> Daniel wrote: <<Mauri, May I offer a suggestion?
> It would really help us understand your point of view on
> "blinds" if you would illustrate some of your points with
> specific examples. Can you cite a few examples in HPB's
> writings of what you think are blinds? Then give us your
> reasons why you think an example is a blind and what you
> think is the deeper meaning behind the blind, etc.
> Otherwise, your comments are so vague and generalized
> that I have no clear idea or understanding of many of your
> points.Daniel>>
>
> For a start, how about a Dallas style response here about
> "blinds"... My search word "blinds" in SD at Blavatsky
> Net came up with the following:
> http://www.theosociety.org/cgi-bin/hpbsd.cgi
>
> I feel that I already speculated about "blinds" in my recent
> posts on Theos-1 and Theos Talk; and since,
> (apparently?), discussions about blinds often seem to have
> a way of getting into somewhat controversial areas like
> "esoteric/exoteric," well ... ^:-) ... My recent posts
> with/about Leon have been partly about "blinds" and
> "esoteric/exoteric," and, at the moment, I seem to be kind
> of at my wit's end about what else I might speculate about
> blinds that might ... Hmmm ....
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>