Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00136)

Steve wrote: <<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.>>

Steve, I'm trying not to get in too many disagreements, 
etc, with too many people on these lists, so I tend to 
hesitate letting you know that I seem to like to think 
that I might have some kind of handle on what you 
might've been trying to say, or imply, there, Steve. On 
the other hand, seems to me as if I might have already 
cooked my goose (and whatever) often enough, around here, 
so, well ...

Speculatively,
Mauri