Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00152)

Leon wrote: >>Trying to conflate different categories 
with each other, such as esoteric/experiential, 
dualistic/multiplistic, etc., leads to much confusion.>>

Yes, conventional, or conventionalistic tendencies tend 
to, or seem to (?), occasionally lead to much, or some, 
confusion, apparently, about things like that? But I 
thought this was a discussion list about Theosophy, 
which, to my way of thinking/speculating, isn't 
particularly conventional, to start with, so ... I've had a 
nagging feeling that there might be people on this list 
who might not connect duality with multiplicity too 
well. So what're you saying, Leon, that you're one 
those people? Or what? I think I'm saying that 
duality/karmicity, in general, tends to generate 
"multiplicity" in terms of various "interpretive 
appearances" that, as I tend to see it, are karmic 
products that we humans tend to generally refer to as 
"reality."

"Esoteric/experiential" ought to be easier to get a handle 
on even for dyed in wool conventionalists, in that 
(apparently?) it's a reference to that which can only be 
experienced, but cannot be described "justifiably 
enough" in the "exoteric terms" of "ordinary reality."

<<"To be or not to be." >>

Yes, but I had my tongue in my cheek, eh, sort of. Sorry 
if I didn't make that clear enough.

<<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. >>

Yes, seems as if many of us humans could, occasionally, 
make use of some kind of walking stick, or whatever, so 
you and Gerald seem to have a "good point," there, I 
tend to suspect ... (a point that even some Zenists 
might want to keep in mind, just in case, eh?).

>>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.>>

You might have a point, there, Leon ... sort of, in a 
sense, maybe ... But/"but"...

<<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.>>

Forms of "direct knowledge" (as per various ongoing 
models and interpretive tendencies about R/reality, for 
example) arising from karmic variations might be seen 
to have, as I tend to speculatively "see it" 
("apparently"...) a couple aspects (that seem to have 
come to mind, at the moment, for whatever "reason"...): 
karmic variations "manifesting as" having some kind of 
"direct usefulness," and karmic variations "manifesting 
as" ... whatever else. The quotes on "manifesting as" 
are meant as indicative of the "basically interpretive" 
(ie, "karmic") e/Essence of all "evaluative," 
dualistic/multiplistic mayavicity. Not that those are the 
only "useful quotes" that came to mind, but/"but"...

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

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Leon, just becuase I use the word "speculatively" 
so much, doesn't mean, necessarily, (in "karmic terms," 
as it were ...) that I'm going out of my way to avoid 
various "popular enough" (per whatever perspective) 
models and things. My use of "speculatively" is meant 
(among other things ...) as an indication of what might 
be called (by me, at any rate ...) my "somewhat Zenic 
bias" ... maybe ... (I've been re-reading parts of D.T. 
Suzuki's "Studies in Zen," lately, so ...).

PPS Best wishes.