Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00027)

Mauri, 
The only thing I can say in answer to your comments per my discourse on the 
necessity for constant thinking, is that you seem to think intuiting is 
separate from other forms of thought, such as reasoning, speculating, 
meditating, or contemplating. In my view they are all aspects of thinking in 
general. The only difference is that intuition is a direct thought or idea 
that comes in full blown in mind without any prior rational or logical 
consideration. (Although one may give up thinking about finding a reasonable 
answer to a question, and later find the answer popping up in mind as an 
intuition.) In any case, rational thought to find an answer to a question is 
one form of thinking. Contemplation or meditation on a thought or idea is 
another. And irrational intuition is still another. Even speculating is a 
form of thinking, as an aspect of reasoning in order to test out or compare 
several alternative answers to a particular question or consideration. 

So, whether we engage in one form of such thought processes or another -- we 
are still thinking. That is, using our mind consciously and continuously. 
What is the purpose of intuition, but to give us an idea or concept, true or 
false, that we then have to think about, whether by reasoning or 
contemplation, in order to verify and make use of it? To not be thinking 
about an intuition is unthinkable. :-) 

Therefore, to intuit is to think. WQJ also implied that intuition should not 
be trusted and must be tempered by reason. What we think is an intuition 
could just as well be a false projection in our mind by an elemental, a post 
hypnotic suggestion, or a willed projection by an inimical Adept or Medium. 

I can't see how the words exoteric or esoteric has any relevance here -- 
since thinking is not something that we can ascribe to anyone other than 
ourselves. It's what we think about that may be esoteric or exoteric since 
some thoughts only refer to what others have taught about the nature of 
reality. For example, the teachings of theosophy or occult wisdom, were 
originally esoteric -- while the teachings of contrived theologies by the 
different organized religions are generally exoteric.

I don't think that our mutual thinking about all this is very far apart. So 
speculating is okay as a means to clarify our thoughts. It's also okay to 
talk about such speculations so long as we qualify to our listeners that such 
thoughts are tentative and not a statement of actual fact. 

Hope this clarifies what I meant by "constant thinking." Even the "Tenth 
Bull" enlightened one, has to think about what he is doing or saying about 
himself or about his state of enlightenment.

Best regards,

LHM

In a message dated 04/24/03 8:11:05 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

<<Watch out, Leon! If you keep that up, if you keep on 
offering stuff that "I tend to agree with" 
Watch out, Leon! If you keep that up, if you keep on 
offering stuff that "I tend to agree with" (if in my 
speculative way), we're liable to get like Gerald and I 
... Or am I imagining that Gerald and I have managed 
to get in so much "general agreement" that we have 
nothing much left to say to each other ... Or something 
like that? Whatever. ^:-) Okay, well, maybe I'm 
kidding, to some extent, but/"but"...

Of course, on the other hand, for all I "really know," 
maybe Gerald's been in so much disagreement with 
me, lately, that he doesn't know (or doesn't want to 
know...) where to begin (not to mention other possible 
explanations). Not that you, Leon, (as we all know, 
apparently?), care for my speculative approach, in 
general, or particular, but ... Or at least it seems to me 
that I might have (to say the least?) somewhat 
mismanaged my "speculative approach" where you're 
concerned, Leon (etc, etc), apparently. Not to 
mention ... whatever.

L<<How can Zen be "more direct" than "thinking" (of 
something or nothing)? >>

Seems to me that we all tend to have ways of thinking, 
speculating, intuiting in somewhat unique ways, so 
that our communications about what we "mean" tend 
to, or might get somewhat complicated, occasionally. 
As I tend to see it, the various trappings and "teaching 
aids of Zen" (as they might be called?) might be 
getting too much attention, in a sense, and from a 
somewhat misleading angle, all too often, especially on 
the part of those who might have trouble 
"understanding" about the "exoteric/esoteric" ways 
and means re the "directness" (as I see it) of Zen. For 
example, some suspicions, questions come to mind 
when I read the likes of:

<<Constant thinking means being "actively" (willfully 
and contemplatively) aware, at every moment, of what 
one is doing -- as well as the reason (or reasons) and 
purposes for such action... No matter what state of 
consciousness one is in -- including sleeping and 
dreaming. That is, essentially, the practice of Zen yoga 
-- which, in its full extension, is equivalent to Brahma 
Yoga (that includes all other yoga's, from Karma, 
through Jnana, to Rajah, etc.). Thus, there is a Zen 
science, a Zen philosophy, and a Zen yoga of several 
different levels of practice -- from studying, to cooking, 
to housekeeping, to business, to personal relations, to 
martial arts, etc. >>

Your words "constant thinking" makes me wonder 
about the "thinking," itself, in that I don't see how I, 
personally, could particularly manage with any kind 
of "thinking" so much as with intuiting, instead, re 
Zen, for example, though intuiting might be seen as 
leading to thinking: so that in Zen, for example, I 
suspect that the "teaching aids" might be better off 
(from the perspective of achieving enlightenment) if 
they're not thought about much at all since, as I see it, 
the objective of achieving enlightenment transcends 
all "teaching aids" and "thinking," except in some 
introductory senses, maybe, in some cases.

Anyway, introductorily speaking, (if one can speak 
that way?), "I tend to agree" with you, Leon, even 
though ... (Don't we all have lots of "even thoughs," 
after all?)

<<Thinking of that "nothing" -- while thoughtfully 
doing "something" (acting in accord with one's true 
nature) -- would be simply the contemplation of the 
zero-point "emptiness" (no-thing, or source of 
consciousness) from which the illusory nature of Maya 
(being) and karma (the causes and effects of beings, 
or "things" modified by willful action) stem from and 
are influenced by. >>

My "even though" "more-preferred" wording about 
that kind of commentary (as I tend to interpret it) 
might go something like: 

Some people might be better off by intuiting more 
often (ie, "more-directly/creatively," in a sense, to 
whatever extent), as opposed to following 
collective/individual "somewhat-more pre-arranged" 
thought packages, especially if one's motivation tends 
toward, or is in keeping with whatever notions about, 
enlightenment.

<<Such constant, fully aware and controlled thinking 
would then become an integral part of our living and 
doing. And eventually lead to full enlightenment and 
wisdom. >>

I tend to think in terms of something like: Some people 
might find that there are what might be called forms of 
intuiting that might "lead toward" (in a sense!) 
enlightenment.

<<Such constant, fully aware and controlled thinking 
would then become an integral part of our living and 
doing. And eventually lead to full enlightenment and 
wisdom. From a Zen Buddhist standpoint, this would 
be the condition of the tenth "Bull" -- when the 
enlightened one who has reached Nirvana becomes an 
Adept Bodhisattva, whose very expression of his 
being, in full control of his mind, reflects on everyone 
he comes in contact with. See the "Ten Bulls" Zen 
koan:http://www.cs.sfu.ca/people/ResearchStaff/jamie/personal/10_Bulls
/Title_Page.html>>

Excerpt from Ten Bulls: <<Comment: Mediocrity is 
gone. Mind is clear of limitation. I seek no state of 
enlightenment. Neither do I remain where no 
enlightenment exists. Since I linger in neither 
condition, eyes cannot see me. If hundreds of birds 
strew my path with flowers, such praise would be 
meaningless. >>

That's it: <<I seek no state of enlightenment. Neither 
do I remain where no enlightenment exists. >> In 
other words, as I tend to see it: "directly/indirectly," 
but/"but"...

<<Thus, whatever we learn about the nature of reality 
(between its emptiness and its fullness) and, whatever 
consistent models of such reality we contemplate 
(concentratively think about) -- whether from a 
scientific, philosophical or religious point of view -- 
can only aid us in the "correct performance of action" 
(which is the aim of all yoga's)... Such continual 
dual level thinking and self guided practice will 
eventually enable us to reach a true state of Dhyana, 
Dzyan, Chan, Zen, or Theosophical Wisdom.>>

"Dual level thinking"? I'm tending to suppose that 
that might be your version of ... whatever ... 
But/"but"... I seem to prefer a kind of "intuiting" that I 
tend to see as not particularly "dual level" in thought 
form, even though ...

<<That is why such wisdom (encompassing "self 
realization" and the attaining of the enlightenment of 
an Adept) -- which includes all yoga's -- can only be 
achieved by a merger of rational learning (and thereby, 
understanding) with its application in practical 
action. And, thus, there is no way to separate a 
complete understanding of the "synthesis of science, 
philosophy, and religion" from such learning or 
practice. When one has reached such a stage of both 
enlightenment and wisdom, one can truly "be" what 
Mankind (thinking beings) are destined to be... "Fully 
awakened" and an effective teacher -- as the Buddha 
was and is.>>

In a sense ... And, true enough (?), exoterizing can be 
popular and useful and whatever, but/"but"...

<<We've never said that the understanding of the 
exact science of theosophy, by itself, can lead to such 
enlightenment and wisdom.>>

Yes, at least we haven't said that, eh? But/"but"...

<<But for those on the path to self realization, such 
knowledge -- aided by the graphically symbolic 
models presented by HPB, and expanded by ABC (so 
as to be consistent with modern science at its cutting 
edges) -- are the necessary "tools" leading to one's 
learning the true nature of reality in all its aspects, 
wisely applying such knowledge in our everyday lives, 
and becoming a useful and effective "Nucleus of 
Universal Brotherhood"... >>

I guess we all have our somewhat individualistic ways 
and means and karma/maya.

<<And, one who is capable of following, 
as a teacher, in the footsteps of the Masters... No 
matter in what circumstance of life our karma places 
us in. Hope this clarifies our speculations, somewhat. 
</:-)> LHM>>

Thanks, Leon. Nice to haggle over these points with 
you. Just remember not to agree with me too much, 
eh? Hee hee. I wonder how Gerald's doing.

Speculatively,
Mauri