Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00260)

While "definitely" often tends to be (and 
often "is," in its way, I suppose) used in reference to 
such as "solid" and "reliable," in comparative terms, 
and while Theosophy, for example, might be seen to 
define (as by implications or statements) various 
"definites" (at least in exoteric terms) as having, say, 
validity, truth, verities as per the Esoteric Tradition, 
adepts, etc ... still, on the other hand, would we be 
defining much of anything if it weren't for 
various karma-based, interpretive/comparative variables 
by way of which our defining (as well as definitizing) 
contrasts are realized ... which defining might be 
somewhat conventionally seen (on the other hand) as a 
"normal" process of sorting/evaluating aspects of 
various kinds of "definites," "speculates" and 
whatever---which "normal" might be often seen as 
though ...

In other words, as I tend to see it, "defining" on this 
plane might also be seen from a somewhat alternate or 
broader perspective as a karmic variant that might be 
seen to have its roots in some form of essential/intuitive 
(per whatever stage) or "speculative" source in the sense 
that (as per the Esoteric Tradition, Zen, etc) how can 
humans expect to liberate themselves from a mayavic 
reality unless something of an essential nature (as 
compared to an apparent or "ordinary" nature) of that 
reality is alternately (or "Occultly," to be "more 
specific") at least "seen" or somehow interpreted in 
terms of an alternate possibility as essentially 
speculative (ie, unless the "essential nature" "behind" 
"ordinary reality" is at least exoterically regarded as 
"transcendentally beyond" the various "real-enough" 
intermediating/exoteric values).

While the "definite" variants of our "ordinary reality" 
might often tend to be "all we have" on this plane, 
generally speaking, apparently, with which to work 
with, but is that all? I've been under the 
tentative/speculative impression that a certain kind of 
intuitive/speculative approach (in Theosophic terms, 
say) might lead toward some form of transcending of 
karmic/mayavic defining and definitizing.

In other words, I seem to have a preference in terms of 
leaning towards, as I tend to see it: a karmic variable of 
speculating about my "definites" (in case you missed it, 
Leon :-). I seem to have adopted a speculative stance 
(in principle, to some extent, apparently) toward all 
forms of defining on the grounds that all forms of 
defining on this plane tend to be (from my speculative 
perspective) as if they were too temporary, too karmic, 
too mayavic in Essence, and so tend to be, in a sense, 
"somewhat unreal," Basically; not that ...

Or, in the words of Krishnamurti (apparently):

<<Beliefs and ideals both dissipate energy which is 
needed to follow the unfolding of the fact, of "what is". 
Beliefs like ideals are escapes from the fact and in 
escape there is no end to sorrow. The ending of sorrow 
is the understanding of the fact from moment to 
moment. There is no system or method which will give 
understanding; only choiceless awareness of a fact will 
do that. Meditation is not the avoidance of the fact of 
what you are; it is not to find god or have visions, 
sensations and other forms of entertainment. It is rather 
the understanding of yourself, the constant changing of 
the facts about yourself.
"RELIGION IS NOT AN ORGANIZED BELIEF, IT 
IS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH".
J. KRISHNMMURTI>>
========end of quote

Speculatively,
Mauri