Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00005)

Yep Mauri. I think we are seeing things the same way, more or less, -- but. 
we don't seem to talk about it the same way. :-) 

Actually, there is both a heart doctrine and a head doctrine. While they 
must go together to make us knowledgeable, wise and effective theosophists, we 
certainly can talk about them separately, as the occasion calls for... Much like 
the scientific metaphysics in the SD is talked about separately from the yoga 
or spiritual practices in the Voice of the Silence. And, even in the SD, 
there is a separation, sometimes, from the pure science or metaphysics of 
Cosmogenesis and the thoughtless or willful, heartfelt or intellectual actions of the 
hierarchy of Dhyan Chohans, etc. 

Be assured that when I "intellectualize" or "scientize" (as you call it), or 
logically present the scientific basis of universal involution and evolution 
(that is consistent with what we can learn about the cutting edges of 
contemporary science) or talk about consciousness, compassion, and responsibility, as 
the circumstances may be -- I always consider them in context with each other 
and test their consistency with each other. As it is, I find that there is a 
serious lack of understanding, among most students of theosophy, about the aims 
and purposes of the "Theosophical Movement," the "Three Fundamental 
Principles," and particularly, the second principle that considers basic scientific and 
metaphysical laws that empower and link the first and last principle, 
explains the logical mechanisms of karma and reincarnation -- as well as justifies 
the cyclic Movement itself. So, when I talk about such laws and their causes 
and effects, I tend to concentrate on making them understood from both an 
intellectual as well as an intuitive point of view -- without bringing in the more 
or less goody goody emotional romanticism that the Heart Doctrine generates in 
some people. On the other hand, when I talk about the Heart Doctrine, I like 
to be sure that the fundamental metaphysics that underlies and governs it, is 
also understood. That's why theosophy is so difficult to teach orally or in 
writing, but easy to learn solely through serious self devised and self 
determined intellectual and intuitive study of the Metaphysics of the Secret Doctrine 
(plus consistent interpretations such as ABC, esoteric writings of HPB, WQJ, 
all the great Sages, etc.) along with the full time practice of the 
theosophical Yoga of compassion and altruism as taught in the Voice of the Silence (with 
the help of Patanjali's Yoga sutras, Tao Te Ching, I-Ching, Bhagavad Gita, 
etc.). Along with all this, one must ask serious questions and not be satisfied 
with the answers until every angle is covered, and then personally confirmed. 
It's also good to remember that when one explains theosophy, one must never 
talk down to the inquirer, but remain on the same high, impersonal 
intellectual level of HPB and the Masters (especially when you have to publicly counter 
some wrong interpretations of exoteric Buddhists who think they know theosophy 
in its deepest aspects :-). In this light, other than the answering of 
specific questions of serious students on whatever level they ask them, or 
correcting errors of interpretation, or countering or correcting false or incomplete 
teachings, all the gratuitous preaching of theosophy or offering specific 
personalized yoga practices on forums such as this is like blowing in the wind... 
Although I really think that Dallas' compilations of quotes, along with his 
comments, under specific subject areas of the original teachings, is a great 
service to us all. All the rest, is mostly babble that goes in one ear and out the 
other... (Except, maybe, for you, me and a few others who like to dig deeper 
-- without tearing anybody down personally -- than most people can stomach. 
:-) 

Best regards, 

Lenny

P.S. Speculatively, it appears to me that the difference between us, 
apparently, is that you like to speculate in your writing about things you are not too 
sure you know in their entirety, and I can only write about things that I 
already know or ask direct questions about what I don't know. Of course, if I 
can't prove for myself that the answer is absolutely true, it remains in the 
area of speculation -- until I do... Then, I can write about it with a clear 
conscience. (Even though it may be paradoxical, there is such a thing as 
"absolute truth" -- although one can hardly speak about it -- but only infer it.) The 
idea is to test the knowledge by seeing if I can describe it in such a clear 
manner that no one can refute it through science, mathematics, or logic. 
(Although, some have tried, and usually end up calling me names -- or scratching 
their head. :-) Another thing I like to do (actually in a spirit of fun, 
sometimes) is exposing the wrong views of people who think they have all the 
answers. In that sense, I am "dangerous" as someone recently pointed out. But, 
that is only to those who try to pull the wool over other's eyes, use gossip, 
false accusations, and personal innuendoes to make their points, or unjustifiably 
attack, disparage, or discredit my friends, associates, or teachers. (Note 
the trinities, which confirms what I said in my last letter about duality's 
being incomplete considerations. ;) 
<'/:o)>

In a message dated 08/01/03 9:29:46 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<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. >>
>
>What I was trying to find words for in that last post of mine had 
>to do with (as far as I can figure) not so much a matter of black 
>and white or grayscales, per se, as much as whatever might be 
>one's ... (how can I describe it ... ^:-/...) like a fundamental or 
>primary life interest (or how about "heart felt," or "heart-related," 
>or "heartific," basic motivational thing, or heart-root/basic nature 
>(as might be exhibited, in various ways, even during one's much 
>younger days), say ... nice Theosophical word that "heartific," eh, 
>tee hee he?) in relation to such as transcending karma or 
>Theosophics, so that, along those kinds of criteria, the impression 
>(rightly or wrongly), that you seem to have created in my mind 
>(apparently, as per your ABC's, scientifics and such ...) is that 
>there would appear to be much emphasis on your part on ... or, to 
>put it another way: it's as if (as per the impression that I seem to 
>have developed) you seem to be fascinated by the multiplicity, 
>variety, complexity of your apparent (interpretive/karmic) 
>environment to the extent that your intellectuall involvements 
>seem to be largely rooted in that kind of multiplicity instead of, 
>as a result of a kind of going back to basics (a "basics" in keeping 
>with those who would kind of "heartifically" transcend karma, to 
>my way of thinking, speculating) ... so instead of, in a sense, 
>winding down (as might be expected of those who might have 
>some kind of "realistic interest" in such as transcending karma?), 
>you seem to be winding up, instead, as per the impession you 
>seem to be creating, Leon, with (what might be called?) your 
>scientizing and intellectualizing (which, after all, are just so 
>many karmic/mayavic residues in need of venting in order to 
>ferret out the "basics" beyond such phenomenal, karmic, mayavic 
>appearances---or do you see it that way?), so ... ^:-) ... Hmm ... 
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS Yesterday went to a talk given by Radha Bernier. I very 
>much enjoyed her talk. Found out that her father's father was 
>involved in Theosophy in India during HPB's time. The topic of 
>the talk was "Spiritual Regeneration." That is, apparently the 
>materialistic, selfish ways of mankind are in need of fixing, which 
>made much sense to me. At the end of the talk we in the 
>audience got to ask questions. My question was "how would 
>you define free will in relation to the Esoteric Tradition?" 
>Apparently, as per my interpetation, she responded to the effect 
>that "free will" has to do with some form of deep reflection and 
>spiritual regeneration (if I have it right). My recall of her answer,
>
>in more specific terms, seems vague, though. 
>
>PPS Afterward, talking to somebody about that talk, I said if I were
>to 
>give some kind of Theosophical talk, people would probably all 
>fall asleep in about five minutes, if not leave, or die laughing,
>or whatever.
>
>PPPS In other words, it's not that I don't sympathize with you, Leon,
>
>but/"but"... ^:-) ...
>