Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00673)

Leon wrote: << Theosophy has no degrees, certificates, 
grades or ratings to recognize anyone's level of knowledge or 
wisdom. >>

That seems relevant enough, in a way. But having learned 
about the likes of "shoreline Theosophy," some people may 
wonder about other kinds of Theosophic understanding, I 
suspect ...

<<You either have it or you don't. What level it's at is 
irrelevant. (Sometimes truth comes out of the mouths of 
babies.) One's knowledge can only be known to oneself -- or 
to others on its own merits, or by its fruits -- either, in the way 
one lives one's life, or the level at which one can help and 
teach others. There are no other criteria.<<

Okay ...

<<The study of theosophy is entirely self devised and 
depends solely on one's individual self determined effort.>>

"Self-devised," Leon? It may be "self devised," in a sense, 
for all of us. But I tend to wonder what KIND of "self" 
devised study is it for those who (apparently?) seem, (from 
my tentative/speculative perspective, at any rate), to be 
leaning on various rather literal interpretations.

<<There's no trick to it. >>

I tend to agree, but then why is it that so few people seem to 
be enlightened these days, I wonder ... Could it be that 
there's a kind of t/Theosophy that's so close to us that we tend 
not to see it ... Of course there's "no trick to it," but/"but"... I 
suspect that that, in itself, might be "the trick," (in a sense?), 
for some of us: that "it's" so close to us that, like the tip of our 
nose, we have trouble seeing "it" ...?

<<You either do it and get it, or you don't -- depending on 
how far you are individually capable of penetrating into its
depths. Some people, are still "children" who cannot get past 
its shallows (no matter how old they are). If they begin to 
drown, maybe they should go back to its shoreline and start 
wading out again until they learn to swim. But, then, if they 
aren't willing to do that, maybe they can sit by and wait to 
grow up during their next lifetime.>>>>

>From one's shoreline, one wades deeper and deeper, and then, 
one either turns back, sinks, or swims, eh? Something like 
that? So obviously all shoreline Theosophists ought to pay 
close attention to those "blinds," (if they're seen as kind of 
like warning signs, eh?), in order to keep from drowning? But 
if people like Gerald go around taking those signs, or"blinds," 
down ... well, I don't know. Scary thoughts come to mind. 
And as if all that weren't scary enough, already, then we have 
Leon apparently doing his best trying to set off something 
that (might amount to?) some kind of newfangled ABC bomb, 
maybe!? So no wonder more and more people (like BAG, for 
example?) seem to be getting more and more frustrated (or 
something?) and turning to the likes of Bhakti Yoga, and 
whatever?! ... ^:-) ...>> 

<<The only judgments you can make is about your own level 
of understanding of theosophy.>>

Yeah, but/"but" ...

<<What others think about their own understandings are 
strictly up to them. >>

I suspect that, in a sense, if "it" were stricktly enough "up to 
them," they might be enlinghtened. That is, I tend to think 
that humans inter-react karmically to the extent that all 
thoughts, and even "up to them" matters, often tend to get 
affected by karma and "outside" influences; and so that might 
be one way of looking at karma and maya ...

<<Speculating about it is a meaningless exercise that gets you 
nowhere (and maybe even can drown you in the ocean of 
theosophy). >>

Seems as if we all tend to have our own definitions for 
"meaningless exercises," among other things ...

<<So, if it's too deep for you, wade back to the shore and 
start listening, questioning and learning instead of speculating 
in circles. >>>>

My "speculating" happens to be, for me, a form of 
"experiential activity" by which I, in effect, listen, question, 
and learn. Sorry about that. I suppose we all tend to have 
our "own ways and means"...

<<As for others, and whether or not they are "shoreline 
theosophists" only they can know. >>

Really? Personally, I think I'm trying to be neither 
"shoreline" nor anything else that seems "too confining,"
in a sense ...

<<And, whatever they say or teach about theosophy can only 
be judged by its intrinsic value in helping others learn what 
they need to know -- which they have to decide for 
themselves. >>

Yes, I seem to want to decide for myself what I want to ...
uh, speculate about. I seem to prefer leaving the "knowing" 
to a later and "more relevant" stage in my evolution ... 
although ... That is, in the meanwhile, I might even go so far 
to sort of pretend that I "know" a few things ... ^:-) ...

<<I think I answered it above. In any event, why would a 
real theosophist have any "frustrations" (whatever that 
means)?>>

I think I answered it above ...

<<What difference does it make about what anyone thinks 
about anyone else's understanding of theosophy? >>

Well, I thought this was a discussion group about 
t/Theosophy, so seems to me that some "apparent 
differences" might be discussed, on this list, occasionally, 
maybe, preferably in some kind of friendly and constructive 
manner, maybe ... (as I'm trying to do right now, believe or 
not, if in my way ... ).

<<make about what anyone thinks about anyone else's 
understanding of theosophy? I can't imagine anyone who 
talks about theosophy being frustrated because no one 
listens to what he has to say -- unless, whatever he does say is 
completely uninteresting or incomprehensible to someone 
desirous of learning about theosophy, or completely off the 
wall to those who are knowledgeable of it. In that case, the 
one so frustrated, might start learning theosophy by asking 
the right questions (to oneself, to books, gurus, or other 
theosophists) that are pertinent to acquiring such knowledge. 
>>

I think I already responded to that kind of commentary ...

<<Speculatively, >Mauri>PS I suppose one might say (and I 
might tend to agree) that that "Speculatively" might be meant 
as an indication of my frustration, in a sense, (among other 
things?), with my feeling that I seem to be at some shoreline 
of ... something, maybe ... ^:-) ... >>>>

<<<So, you were talking about yourself, after all.>>

I think I had in mind something like a projected, generalized 
or "general" impression that might, theoretically, exist 
(somewhere?) re my apparent ... whatever ... In other words, I 
was speculating about the "impression" I might be creating, 
"in general." On the other hand, of course, whatever 
impression I might be creating, out there (I tend to suspect) 
might be way off the mark, in terms of ... whatever ... hee hee 
... Sorry about that. (I'm tending to assume that one can be 
reasonably enough seen to go "hee hee" and be "sorry," at the 
same time, more or less ... But/"but" ...?)

<<< Well, one way to get off that shoreline and learn to swim 
in deeper water, without the buoyancy offered by someone 
else's words (GS, to be specific) is to read what I had to say 
before I found that out.>>

I tend to suspect that that "buoyancy" thing works both ways, 
basically, in a sense ...

<<<(Although I did speculate that you were projecting :-) 
>>>

Generalizing, in a way, believe it or not ...

<<<Anyway, one way to stop being frustrated is to take the 
bull by the horns, stop speculating, and feeling sorry for 
yourself, and start learning what you need to know about 
theosophy>>>

Which kind of thing, when run through my mill, comes out as 
something like: maybe I ought to speculate some more, and 
... Leon, you don't seem to have given much indication that 
you have any kind of realistic handle about the potentials 
inherent in certain kinds of "speculations," so ...

<< -- without incoherent ramblings, wild speculations, vague 
allusions, incomplete sentences, undefined words, or else ... 
something ... maybe -- which makes no sense. Hopefully, 
LHM >>>>>>

Yes, we all have our "own" interpretive/karmic tendencies, 
apparently?

Speculatively,
Mauri