Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00262)

It appears we are talking about two different things. You're coming from a 
religious and subjective point of view and seem to be switching back and forth 
between absolute spiritual (unconditioned) reality and relative physical 
(conditioned) reality. Thus you see everything as being mayavic and tentative, and 
dependent on personal choice as to whether one lives fully in one side or the 
other (or both). On the other hand, we are mayavic beings living in and 
considering (sometimes) a mayavic reality that has a predictable changeability and 
must obey specific laws of nature that cannot be speculated upon -- but merely 
studied to understand the rules of such existence and how it comes about, 
starting from zero, expanding into infinity, and following specific and logical 
laws of involution and evolution. Since the entire system is based on those 
laws, the only speculating we can do is to consider several possible alternative 
theories, and then test them logically and experimentally (both subjectively 
and objectively) until we find one that satisfies all conditions of reality. 
When that is done, we can then be definite in explaining this reality on all 
levels of its understanding with respect to our consciousness of it. Didn't 
HPB do just that for us? 
As long as we continue to believe that Maya is an illusion, without 
understanding what that illusion really is and how it comes about -- we can keep on 
speculating until the cows come home -- and never reach the definite answer that 
will enable us to consciously step across the barrier between spirit and 
matter at will, as well as be in total control of both our inner and outer selves. 
However, nobody ever said enlightenment can come about by a definitive 
understanding of the metaphysical laws of nature, by themselves. In reality, will 
and awareness are on one side of that barrier, and the multi-fold conditioned 
reality on the other. And, as Charles Dickens said, ". . . Never the twain 
shall meet." So, keep on speculating until you arrive at that specific underst
anding, with respect to your own personal salvation until you can make the "great 
leap" that Krishnamurti spoke about (along with the Buddha, H.P. Blavatsky, 
Chogyam Trungpa, and Tsongkapa, among others). Referring to the quote of 
Krishnamurti below, doesn't it definitively explain the motto of the Theosophical 
Movement, "There's no Religion Higher Than Truth"? And, isn't "truth" a 
definitive reality? If not, then the entire Secret Doctrine as the "synthesis of 
Science, Religion and Philosophy" would make no sense at all, and would have been 
a total waste of time to write down (or Krishnamurti to base his teachings 
on).

Possibly and probably,
LHM

In a message dated 05/30/03 8:53:56 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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