Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00151)

Shakespeare (Hamlet or was it Macbeth?) actually said "To be or not to be." 
There's no question about that.:-) Being and thinking are different 
categories of reality. Some "beings" cannot think. But, human's can... 
Since they can read Shakespeare and speculate (think) about what he means. 
Trying to conflate different categories with each other, such as 
esoteric/experiential, dualistic/multiplistic, etc., leads to much confusion.

As for pathworking tools such as the models suggested by me and Gerald... 
They are meant solely for those whose karma prepares them to accept such 
metaphoric models as useful visualization tools toward attaining knowledge 
and wisdom necessary to achieve enlightenment. For the Pratyeka Buddha who 
is looking for permanent Nirvana, no such exoteric model is needed -- since 
knowledge of conditioned reality is not necessary to achieve such an "escape" 
for the rest of the Manvantara (although they will need some little knowledge 
of the laws of nature if they want to survive long enough to attain Nirvana). 
But for the Bodhisattva, who intends to remain around until all sentient 
beings have attained Nirvana (and, particularly, for such a one who is to 
become a teacher of those ready for occult metaphysical and scientific 
knowledge) -- it is an essentiality... Since, without such knowledge of the 
true nature of reality (both unconditioned and conditioned), how can such a 
Bodhisattva help those whose karma has narrowed their minds into accepting 
the mayavic universe as the only reality? If you stop thinking about all of 
that (and speculating is a form of thinking) -- you'll never know. 

As for "intuition" (as you use it) referring to "another type of thinking"... 
No matter what you call it, one way or another, it's still thinking. Thus, 
one person's intuition is another person's direct knowledge. But, even that, 
to be applied effectively, requires thought of one kind or another. In any 
event, it's good to remember that wisdom is correct knowledge applied 
correctly. (And, that, too, requires thoughtfulness (of one kind or 
another)... Interpretively, that is.

Non speculatively, <|' :]> (salute) 
LHM


In a message dated 05/04/03 10:41:20 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Yes, there is thinking in a variety of ways. But, as 
>Shakespeare might've said: To think, or not to think, 
>that is the question. Or, well, he might've thought 
>about that if he'd had some interest in transcending 
>"ordinary reality" and "ordinary thoughts"? In other 
>words, how can anybody expect to transcend 
>"ordinary reality" by ordinary (or dualistic/multiplistic) 
>means, alone? Not that certain kinds of models (as per 
>yours and Geralds, for example) might not offer (in 
>some cases, situations?) clues, or serve as pathworking 
>tools, but seems to me that they are comparatively or 
>somewhat useless for those whose karma hasn't 
>prepared them for any kind of directives toward the 
>"transcending of ordinary reality," and so, in THAT 
>sense, "thinking" seems to me to have rather limited 
>"more-direct/applicatory" value (in many cases, 
>apparently ...) in such as "transcending karma" and 
>"achieving enlightenment," as long as that "thinking," 
>itself, is karma, itself, although there might be many 
>introductory uses for thinking, modeling, scietizing, 
>etc, that might be seen as "leading toward" (by 
>whatever roundabout route?) some kind of 
>"understanding of esoteric topics." Seems that I might 
>be referring to an "esoteric/experiential" that's beyond 
>karma and "normal" thought processes, whether you 
>call such thought processes intuitive or not? So ... 
>
>Anyway, in my attempt to refer to something that 
>seems kind of undescribable, apparently, (re 
>"esoteric/experiential"), within "ordinary reality," at 
>any rate, apparantly, I've been putting quotes on 
>"intuitive," hoping to somehow magically convey, I 
>suppose, something about another way of "thinking," 
>in a sense, but ... Nothing doing, eh? 
>
>Hmm. How about "awareness," in a "broader sense" 
>(complete with quotes!)? No? ^:-)
>
>Seems as if some of your posts (at least SOME of your 
>posts, surely?), Leon, might suggest that you might 
>have some kind of handle on what I've been trying to 
>"get across" (hee hee), so it isn't as if I'm too worried, 
>exactly. And seeing as this is, apparently, a discussion 
>list, so we're "discussing," eh, after all (or else?)? 
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri