Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00011)

Mauri, referring to your comments below, I don't think I can respond to your 
statements or questions in any reasonable way, since I still don't know what 
you mean by "exoterics" and how you distinguish it from "esoterics." Things, 
ideas, or concepts are either true or not, real or not and should be considered 
in those lights regardless of the levels of reality we assign them to, or the 
framework of reality they occur in. As I said before, I don't find it easy 
to understand the mixing of categories that you engage in by separating with 
slashes, loaded (but undefined) words having different subtleties of meaning. In 
other words, your remarks and comments are not specific enough for me to 
relate any definite thoughts or ideas with them. 

As for Dhyan Chohans, they are the builders of the Cosmos and the guides of 
its evolution, yet still conditioned beings, and are of different degrees of 
involution as well as wisdom, themselves. Thus, they can be thoughtless or 
thoughtful, and either act correctly (with or without thought) or incorrectly make 
mistakes through wrong thought -- as per the "fallen angels" spoken of by 
Blavatsky. (It's also obvious, according to fundamental laws of karma, that 
there cannot be any "being" or "entity" in the universe that doesn't have both a 
lower and a higher nature linked by a form of mind, or instinct if you like, 
that governs its outward actions.) However, since this goes into the realm of a 
much deeper study of occultism than we can easily discuss in this forum, I 
don't think I can say much more about it... And, particularly, since it's 
irrelevant in light of the context of my original comments about separation of the 
head and heart doctrines or of metaphysics and yoga (while considering their 
interdependence) for purposes of study or practice. 

Regarding the question about my nose. That :o) makeup only appears when I've 
just finished doing a bit of clowning. 

Best regards,

Leo
Actually, that's not another relation, but just another nickname or 
abbreviation that other people have given me -- like Leon is an abbreviation of 
Leonard[o] that my Mother's obstetrician hung on my birth certificate -- like he gave 
my brother, Normandy, "Norm." And my other brother, Robert[o], "Rob." (Did 
you ever wonder where the name Bob came from?) (Actually, my father was also 
a joker when it came to naming us. :-) I also figure if you can abbreviate a 
name, you can also extend it. Guess that's why I use different variations of 
my first name depending on the different life styles and occupations I've had 
over the past 80 years or so. (And why I sometimes switch my first and middle 
names.) In the army, and in college afterward, my nickname was Flash. I 
suspect that was because, like the tortoise, I seemed to start doing any job or 
test very slowly, but always seemed to finish it more or less perfectly before 
anyone else got halfway through. I suppose, also (not to brag but to tell it 
like it is) that's why, in four years of college, while working at several 
different jobs, and art directing and editing three campus publications, I managed 
to accumulate enough credits in different science and engineering disciplines 
to have my choice of four different undergraduate degrees. Nobody ever could 
figure out how I did all that, but my motto has always been, "the more things 
you have to do, the more time you have to do something else." (And, being 
fundamentally lazy -- still have time to loaf a lot. :-) The trick is focus and 
concentration and seeing the reality of things from a multiplicity of different 
angles and viewpoints. But, enough rambling for now. </:o)> 

In a message dated 08/02/03 3:27:40 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Lenny (one of Leons relations?) wrote: <<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. >>
>
>I thought the "Dhyan Chohans" were like "Higher Selves," or 
>something like that, so if you're saying that they can be 
>"thoughtless," one might wonder in what sense/perspective that 
>kind of "thoughtless" might apply, or seem to apply from an 
>exoteric perspective ...
>
><<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. >>
>
>OK ...
>
><<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. >>
>
>Here's where we might tend to go off on different tangents. I'm 
>referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of 
>fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or 
>karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") 
>are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied 
>with any answer, in principle, in a sense, regardless of how many 
>exoteric angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do 
>not, "personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing 
>"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." Not 
>that ...
>
><< 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. >>
>
>I repeat: Here's where we might tend to go off on different 
>tangents. I'm referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of 
>fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or 
>karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") 
>are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied 
>with any answer, in principle, regardless of how many exoteric 
>angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do not, 
>"personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing 
>"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality."
>
>On the other hand, if I were to acquire more of some kind of 
>experiential/Occult/esoteric k/Knowledge (ie, by way of direct 
>enough means) my speculative ways might be somewhat 
>modified, possibly, for all I 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.>>
>
>I suspect that, in exoterics, such as "absolutely true" may have 
>have whatever kind of "true enough" relevance, from whatever 
>perspective, or established perspective, but/"but"... The quoted 
>"but" refers to my sense that "answers" in exoterics are limited, 
>mayavic, conditional, etc, and so might lead, in some cases, for 
>some people (?), towards considerations, or theoretical/intuitive 
>"buts" that might be brought about by thoughts about, or 
>intuitive allowances made for, transcending such realities, 
>answers, proofs, "absolute truths," "clear consciencenesses," 
>limits, karma, maya---in cases where the topic of such 
>transcending (if not the transcending itself, in experiential terms) 
>might be considered (by some?) somewhat relevant.
>
> <<(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.>>
>
>I tend to agree that there are relative "absolute truths"
>in various karmic settings. Some examples: brick walls, Mack 
>trucks, fundamentalists, mosquitos, etc, etc. 
>
><<(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. >>
>
>Me too, in my way, I guess.
>
><<In that sense, I am "dangerous" as someone recently pointed 
>out. >>
>
>In my case, though, seeing as most people seem to have long ago 
>given up trying to decipher what I'm saying, in the first place ... 
>and I have a hard time seeing how the rest could regard my posts 
>to be anything like dangerous.
>
><<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. ;)>>
>
>"Trinities," I suspect, is part of exoterics (no matter how 
>relevantly, realistically, etc), so ... That is, not that ...
>
><< <'/:o)> >>
>
>^:-) One might wonder what happened to your nose, there ... ?