Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00000)

Mauri, 
Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating 
about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with 
duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words with 
different meanings linked with brackets, etc. 

Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain to 
write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear 
terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, from 
three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people do). 
Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with trinities, 
then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather than 
as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, etc., 
without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or light 
without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. 
Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every degree 
of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia or 
inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't 
imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering 
unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. 

So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between one 
thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess 
you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort of 
fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking 
depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as inherently 
connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions get down 
to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on a 
particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different shadings) as 
the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). For 
example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric form, 
had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. 
And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real as 
things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple form 
(either triangle or spherical) appears all at once.

Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, 
has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" had 
to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, 
every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent with the 
three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, ands or 
buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. 
(Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are not 
-- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you.

Non speculatively (for the moment),

either Leon, Lenny, or Len (or </:-)>)
(Depending on our level of association, friendship or familiarity :)

In a message dated 07/31/03 8:51:57 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<Mauri, Since you mentioned (one of :-) my 
>names, I feel I should try to respond. But, even if I understood 
>what your questions or speculations referred to, I couldn't 
>comment on them coherently since I am not familiar with the 
>new language you are using to state them. Please explain your 
>last sentence in plain English, and quote the letter you are 
>responding to (no need to attribute the author). >>
>
>Okay. My last sentence was:
>
> <<I wonder if "lower" and "higher" might, alternately, (or
>"Alternately," from a "Higher" perspective) be seen as somewhat
>equally mayavic, (ie, as essentially mayavic as the
>dualistic/multiplistic "free will" of "ordinary reality"), along with
>a conditioned or worldview-related "contrast"
>("interpretive"/karmic variant) that might be theoretically known
>as "unfree will" (?)... so that a "r/Realer " question about "higher
>free will" (if such a question might evolve from whatever
>essentially speculative/"intuitive," modelistic, or Theosophic
>sources?) might concern the transcendence of such essentially
>dualistic/karmic dream-reality, (if "dualistic" with
>interpretive/multiplistic variables, as per Leon), as by was of, eg,
>whatever apparent bridging effects, models, interpretive/karmic
>tendencies such as Theosophy ... ?>>
>
>In other words, (and this issue, that might be seen as sort of 
>"esoteric/exoteric," seems to come up often enough on these 
>lists?), while "essentially dualistic/multiplistic reality" (where the
>
>quotes refer to the essentially interpretive, or karmic/mayavic 
>nature of that kind of "reality," if in whatever "established" 
>format; and where the quotes on "essentially" are meant to alert 
>the reader to the "interpretive nature" of such "reality," in the 
>sense that "essentially interpretive" is meant as 
>"karmic/mayavic") ... so: from the beginning: In other words, 
>while "esentially dualistic reality" would appear to support and 
>supply much material for the primary means by which humans, 
>in general, cope on this plane, wouldn't it be in the interests of 
>those who would transcend karma, or those who would even 
>think about transcending karma, to at least "allow for," say, (in 
>whatever inerpretive/individualistic manner that might seem 
>relevant), alternate, or "Alternate," thoughts and worldviews: (in 
>the sense that) such as might be seen to be offered when literal 
>(or dualistic/multiplistic, exoteric, karmic/mayavic, mainstream) 
>interpretations (of Theosophy, say) are considered "primarily" 
>(say?) as clues (in need of reading between the lines) about what 
>is really (or "Really") going on ... ?
>
>For example, "free will" might be seen (possibly?) from a 
>fundamentally different pespective if one were to realize 
>something about the mayavic nature of a "free" that can only 
>exist ("essentially," "in exoterics") in contrast to its opposite ...
>so, 
>(when writing that reply to a post that appeared July 29 on BN 
>Study, for example), I was hoping to convey something, 
>somehow, about transcending such a 
>dualistic/multiplistic/mayavic reality---not that exoterics, in any 
>shape or form, can directly enough even as much as point to the 
>kind of experiential/Occult "esoterics" that would appear to be 
>"hinted at" by that kind "transcending" (so, in other words, I 
>suspect that I might be kind of between a rock and hard place 
>when even as much as trying to "hint at" such transcending ... ^:-/ 
>... )
>
> <<Also quote the "per Leon" statements you are referring to. >>
>
>I wrote: << (if "dualistic" with interpretive/multiplistic variables,
>
>as per Leon) >> That was in reference to what seem to me to be 
>your "interpretive variables" (apparent thought patterns, ABC's, 
>etc) about "the nature of reality/truth." Somewhere along the 
>line I seem to have picked up the impression that you might tend 
>to see your "interpetive variables" as being "multiplistic" rather 
>than (as per my "apparent interpretive tendency," or choice of 
>words) "essentially dualistic," within certain kinds of "relevant 
>contexts" such as might be evoked by such as "transcending 
>karma." To me, that apparent preference on your part, Leon, 
>(which "apparent" is, of course, so much speculation on my part, 
>after all!), seems, in a sense, interesting: I keep wondering if 
>your involvements (thought patterns, ABC's) with "apparent 
>multiplicity" (in a sense!) might have in some way "complicated" 
>your approach to life, in general, to the extent that you might 
>have trouble, in a sense, stopping or slowing down your "sense of 
>priorities," so that you might often tend to find yourself (maybe?) 
>having a somewhat "more primary preference," (as in "the study 
>of Theosophy") for various "apparent multiplistics," or "scientific 
>multiplistic," in favor of what might be seen (?) as somewhat 
>"more reduced" and basic (or "b/Basic") apparent dualistics;" 
>not that the multiplistics of "scientific approaches" (with or 
>without quotes) don't have current-worldview relevance, but ... I 
>keep wondering if your basic (apparent to me) interpretive 
>preference might tend to manifest in terms of (an assigning of), 1, 
>a "basic duality" (in a sense?) to "apparent multiplicity," (in 
>senses that might be seen as "relevant enough"?), or, 2, do you 
>have a "basic tendency" to get so involved in the apparent 
>(interpetive/karmic) multiplicity of life, in general, that the 
>"duality" of "ordinary reality" (ie, in interpretive/basic, 
>life-evaluative terms) might be put on some kind of back burner, 
>maybe, (if not substantially overlooked, maybe?), possibly in the 
>form of an apparent (ie, interpretive/karmic) multiplicity (ie, not 
>that a preference for "dualistic essentials" in "basic 
>life-evaluative or theoretical terms" isn't interpretive/karmic, 
>"anyway," but/"but"...).
>
><<It would also be helpful if you could furnish definitions or (in 
>context) references for all words placed in quotes or separated by 
>slashes. Thanks. Leon>>
>
>Among other things, I often tend to use quotes on these lists to 
>alert the reader that the standard definition (of "interpretive", 
>"essentially," etc) is offered, (if somewhat speculatively, by me), 
>with an intended/interpretive or alternate "contextual variant" 
>that, in my intended to-be-read-between-the-lines context 
>(whether or not I manage to convey my "intended meaning," just 
>then), the standard meaning is "contextually offered" from a 
>supplemental, or "possibly alternate," (if speculative), 
>perspective. But I often skip the quotes, anyway, leaving the 
>reader to see, or not see, that I used invisible quotes, thinking 
>that the reader might, or might not, read between the lines (ie, not 
>that quotes are all that crucial or necessary, after all, in a sense, 
>but ... or "but" ...).
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri