Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00130)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> Having a bite of Reality is what some Theosophists 
> might prefer, I tend to suspect, but, for whatever 
> reason, some of them can't quite seem to open their 
> mouths (transcendentally speaking) far enough

There is nothing wrong with reading theories, but it seems bizarre to 
some of us (from out camera angle) to do that to the exclusion of 
anything else. Most Theosophists do not know that the seven 
principle system contains almost everything you need to know to 
reconstruct the meditation done in Blavatsky's Tibetan school. You 
could actually practice the meditations done by the masters if you 
wanted to (minus the Tantric deity visualizations, which as far as I 
can see are unnecessary anyway.) But most theosophists see the whole 
thing as a pure theory, which seems really strange to some of us. 
Especially all this discussing of the "monad" without regard to the 
fact that it is part of the meditation system seems really odd. 
Arguing over whether the monad is one, or two, or three, of wharecer 
it is misses the main point, but you only see that if you recognize 
that the monad is a stage in a series of experiences. The point of 
the theory is to make sense of what the experience means. It is 
clear, though, that whereas the Zen school eschews all 
intellectualizing on the theory that it is not theoretical (which is 
true), Blavatsky's school did not go that far, and incorporated a 
complex model as a framework for teaching the practice. Zen is 
rooted in the Yogacara system, though as is Blavatsky's school, and 
Kapleau roshi is not above lecturing on the Yogacara model.