Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00006)

I wonder what makes you think Mauri wrote that? Funny how things get 
scrambled up when they are taken out of context. Maybe you should re read (as in 
reed) the entire correspondence, including the quotes. Thanks for the kudos, 
anyway. ;o) 

In a message dated 08/01/03 1:24:52 PM, Nisk98114@aol.com writes:

>I actually read(as in red) all that you wrote.Let's have some more of that
>
>Mauri. LOL :O)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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),
>